Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909 [1 ed.] 9788891309341, 9788891309310

Citation preview

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715–1909

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 1

i

18/11/15 17:22

ii

Libro MARSHALL.indb 2

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715–1909 David R. Marshall

«L’Erma» di Bretschneider Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 3

iii

18/11/15 17:22

Versions of some or parts of the chapters in this book have appeared in the following publications:

Published by «L’ERMA» DI BRETSCHNEIDER

‘Farò la villeggiatura sopra la tela’: Cardinal Patrizi and Adriaen Manglard’s vedute of the Villa Patrizi’, Burlington Magazine, vol. 144, 2002, pp. 497–501. ‘Reconstructing the Villa Patrizi. Part 1: the plan of the villa’, Journal of the History of Collections, 2003, pp. 31–58. ‘Reconstructing the Villa Patrizi. Part 2:‘Allegri, ma non osceni’: Cardinal Patrizi’s copies of ‘Dosso Dossi’s’ Bacchanals, Journal of the History of Collections, 2003, pp. 175–200. ‘Carnevale, Conversazione, and Villeggiatura: villa life in the eighteenth century’, Melbourne Art Journal, no. 6, 2003, pp. 35-64. ‘”You Wouldn’t Want to Swap it for Our Villa”: the Villa Patrizi and the villas of the Roman Campagna in the reign of Innocent XIII’, in Barbara Arciszewska (ed.), The Baroque Villa: suburban and country residences 1600–1800, Warsaw: Wilanów Palace Museum, 2009, pp. 245–60. ‘A Cardinal and His Family: the case of Cardinal Patrizi’, in M. Hollingsworth and C. Richardson (eds), The Possessions of a Cardinal: politics, piety and art, 1450-1700, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010, pp. 328–51, 358–72. ‘The Ideal and Theatrical Gallery: Giovanni Paolo Panini’s paintings of imaginary galleries’, in Christina Strunck and Elisabeth Kieven (eds), Europäisch Galeriebauten: galleries in a comparative European perspective. Römische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana 29, Munich: Hirmer, 2010, pp. 401–15.

VIA CASSIODORO 11 – 00193 Roma [email protected]

© 2015 David R. Marshall All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopy, recording, or any otherr information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome. Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715–1909 / David R. Marshall Roma : «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2015. -512 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. - (LermArte ; 15) ISBN 978-88-913-0931-0 (paper edition) ISBN 978-88-913-0934-1 (digital edition) CCD 930.1 1. Patrizi

Cover: Adrien Manglard, View of Villa Patrizi from the Strada di S. Agnese, 1722, detail. Oil on canvas, 48 x 74 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.) Title Page: Domenico Pronto (b. 1750), Casino della Villa Patrizi, 1830. Etching, 158 x 214 mm. Inscribed ‘da A.F. a Torsang.a’. From Raccolta di Num.o 320 vedute si antiche, che moderne della città di Roma e di alcuni luoghi suburbani incise a bulino in n° 80 rami in Roma nella Calcografia di Agapito Franzetti, Rome: da A. Franzetti a Torsanguigna, 1830. (David R. Marshall Collection.)

iv

Patrizi_0_Front_Matter_v4 copy.indd 4

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:36

Contents

Acknowledgements

xvi

Colour Plates 

xvii

Introduction  Roman Villas and the Villa Patrizi Notes

1

Patrizi Naro Montoro Family Tree

6

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

8

Chapter 1.1 Patrizio Patrizi the Elder Patrizio Patrizi the Elder (1629–1689) The Dispositions of Patrizio’s Will Patrizio’s Will and the Palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi Fedecommesso and Primogenitura Notes

8 8 8 9 11 12

Chapter 1.2 Architect and Patrons Cardinal Giovanni Battista Patrizi (1658–1727) A Villa in Albano Cardinal Patrizi as Patron The Brothers as Patrons Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744) Francesco Felice Patrizi (1665–1734) Costanzo Patrizi (1654–1739) Filippo Patrizi (1660–1733) Sebastiano Cipriani (1662–1738)

14

Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691–1765) Attitudes to other Roman Villas

29

Villa Catena at Poli Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano

Notes

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 5

4 5

14 17 17 19 20 23 25 26 27

29 30 31 31 v

18/11/15 17:22

Chapter 1.3 The Cardinal in Ferrara 1718–1727 Family, Friends and Visitors of Rank at the Villa The Stuarts Visitors to Ferrara The Cardinal’s Life in Ferrara  Conditions in Ferrara The Conclave of 1721 The Conclave of 1724 The Last Six Months of the Cardinal’s Life The Commission for the Silver Bust of S. Francesco di Paola Funeral The Catafalque  Burial Antiquarianism and Fashion Cardinal Patrizi as Collector Notes

36

Chapter 1.4. Ottavia Sacchetti and Patrizio Patrizi the Younger 1722–1739 Ottavia Sacchetti (c. 1701–?) and Patrizio Patrizi (1684–1747) Discord between Ottavia and Patrizio Ottavia’s Situation and Patrizio’s Ailments Felice Trulli’s Portrait of Ottavia Ottavia and Patrizio in Ferrara: Carnival and Villeggiatura Carnival 1726 Planning the Lombardy Trip Lombardy, Venice and Bologna Carnival 1727 Cardinal Patrizi’s Will Patrizio’s Will Ottavia in the Villa  The Antonio David Portrait of Ottavia Notes

55

Chapter 1.5 Maria Virginia and Giovanni, Porzia and Francesco Maria Virginia Patrizi (1718–1788) and Giovanni Chigi Montoro (1700–1772) The Married Life of Maria Virginia and Giovanni  Entertainments in the Villa The Villa during the Reign of Benedict XIV  Maria Virginia Patrizi and the Masked Ball in Palazzo Farnese in 1751 Maria Virginia Patrizi and the Villa Albani Vigna Silva Pope Clement XIV and the Stanza del Trucco Porzia Patrizi (1752–1835) and Francesco Naro (1743–1813) Notes

vi

Libro MARSHALL.indb 6

36 37 38 38 40 40 41 42 43 44 44 47 49 49 50

55 56 57 57 58 59 61 61 62 63 65 ;65 66 66 70 70 70 72 75 76 78 82 82 82 86

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

Part 2 Vigna and Villa

90

Chapter 2.1 Vigna Patrizi 1650–171590 The Site90 Villas near the Porta Pia95 Disposition 96 Gardens98 The Casino98 Boschetto99 Conclusion99 Notes99 Chapter 2.2 Constructing the Casino 103 Building Trades103 Supply of Materials104

Paving Bricks 105 Window Glass 106 Transport106 Plan107 Main Staircase (Scala Grande) 109 Service Staircase (Scaletta)114 Basement and Kitchens115 Chimneys116 Spiral Staircase, Guardarobba and Roof Terrace117 Plan Comparisons118 Elevation 118 Room Heights 121 Blind Windows122 Notes124

Part 3 Decoration and Function126 Chapter 3.1 Organisation of the Piano Nobile126 The Inventories of the Villa Patrizi 1739–1814126 The Paintings Collection128 The Nicoletti Drawings128 Room Functions and Door Curtains129 Window Curtains133 Ceiling Frescoes134 Decoration of Window Embrasures and Door Jambs134 Notes135 Chapter 3.2 Anterooms136 Introduction136 Boiseries and Fixed Installations136 The First Anteroom137 The Bacchanals in the Second Anteroom138 The Taste of the Pope144 Notes 145 Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 7

vii

18/11/15 17:22

Chapter 3.3 Gallery149 Introduction149 The Nature of the Baroque Galleria150 The Gallery of the Palazzo de Carolis151 The Villa Patrizi Gallery: Circulation and Sources152 Mirrors and the Paintings by Raffaello Vanni154 Choosing the Painter of the Vault Frescoes156 Giuseppe Chiari157 The Tardiness of Painters158 Giovanni Paolo Panini and Antonio Grecolini158 Executing the Gallery Vault Fresco160 The Vault Fresco by Panini and Grecolini161 Chandeliers162 Furnishing the Gallery163 The Decoration of the Gallery163 The Frescoed Overdoors164 Pietro Zerman and Filippo Sciugatrosci in the Galleriola Dipinta165 Notes166 Chapter 3.4 Stanza alla Cinese 168 Introduction168 China and the Early Eighteenth Century168 All’Indiana and alla Cinese171 Porcelain and Lacquer173 Lacquer, Porcelain and Mirror Cabinets174 The Villa Patrizi Stanza di Porcellana176 The Fireplace: Patron, Middleman, and Artisan176 The Lacquer Tavole and Panini as Coordinator of the Decoration178 The Pope’s Mezzanines181 The Hang of the Tavole183 The Remodelling of the Stanza alla Cinese and Chinoiserie at Montoro183 Notes 184 Chapter 3.5 Stanza delli Cristalli 188 Introduction188 Mirrors in Roman Palaces188 Bologna and the Mirror Pilaster 1720–1721191 The Mirror Cabinet 1722–1724193 The Patrizi Mirror Cabinet and its Roman Successors194 Mirrored Enfilades195 The Renewing of the Mirroring of the ‘Large Gilded Mirror’197 Sconces and Tables198 Notes198 Chapter 3.6 Bedrooms and Gabinetto201 Introduction201 The Baroque Bedroom203 Fabric in the Bedroom204 Paintings, Arazzi Finti, or Fabrics for the Bedrooms?205 viii

Libro MARSHALL.indb 8

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

The Decoration of the Bedrooms as Executed206 The Gabinetto (PN09)207 Cardinal Patrizi’s Instructions for his Gabinetto 207 The Stanza delle Storie della Creazione del Mondo (PN12)209 Notes210 Chapter 3.7 Organisation of the Mezzanine211 Introduction211 Doors and Door Curtains213 Window Curtains214 A Female Domain215 Occupancy of the Mezzanine215 Ottavia’s Villeggiatura at the Villa in 1723 and the Decoration of the Mezzanine215 Furnishing the Mezzanine Rooms216 Door Curtains for Castel Giuliano and the Villa217 Material for Window Curtains218 Wall-hangings218 Upholstery219 Prints and Paintings219 Decorative Painting 219 Tables and Chairs219 Mirrors220 Ottavia’s Bedroom and the Bed Coverlets220 Patrizio’s Contribution221 Maria Virginia’s Redecoration of the Mezzanine221 Notes222 Chapter 3.8 Organisation of the Ground Floor224 Introduction224 The Contributions of the Brothers227 Notes228 Chapter 3.9 The Ground Floor Frescoes230 Panini and the Ground Floor Gallery230 Pompeo Aldrovandini230 Francesco Galli Bibiena232 Panini and Aldrovandini at Work232 Panini in Favour235 Theme Rooms and the Palazzo Ruspoli 1715236 The Nature of the Ground Floor Frescoes238 Notes239 Chapter 3.10 Romitorio242 Introduction242 The Vigna Patrizi Romitorio242 Romitorii and the Baroque Palace242 The Villa Patrizi Romitorio247 Francesco Patrizi (1826–1905) and the Romitorio Tradition 252 Notes258 Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 9

ix

18/11/15 17:22

Part 4 Garden and Street262 Chapter 4.1 The Manglard Views 262 Other Views of the Villa266 Notes266 Chapter 4.2 Stanza del Trucco and the Servants’ Mezzanines267 Introduction267 Trucco267 Building the Stanza del Trucco268 Painting the Stanza del Trucco269 Rush Chairs270 Occupancy271 Clement XIV and the Stanza del Trucco/Bigliardo271 The Upper Terrace271 The Servants’ Mezzanines275 Fictive Windows275 Notes276 Chapter 4.3 Teatro278 Introduction278 Liminal Fears278 The Garden Portals of the Via Pia281 Cipriani’s Portone283 Cipriani’s Design284 The Portone as Teatro286 The Scalinata288 The Dolphin Fountain289 The Public Chapel292 The Chapel of the Villa Bolognetti294 Notes296 Chapter 4.4 Water 300 Water Supply in Eighteenth-Century Rome300 Obtaining Water from the Villa Alberoni304 Benefits of Buying the Vigna of Pier Benedetti305 The Mysterious Buyer of the Vigna of Pier Benedetti 307 Other Options for Accessing the Acqua Felice309 The Solution 1728310 The Vigna Silva310 The Plan for a Header Tank in the Portone312 The Prospetto and Pump314 The Cistern314 The Cisterns and Plumbing as Built315 Wells 315 Notes315

x

Libro MARSHALL.indb 10

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

Chapter 4.5 Garden and Vigna318 Introduction318 The Baroque Prospettiva320 The Herms325 The Prospettiva Terminations327 The House of the Vignarolo and the Granary329 The Capannone and the Fienile330 The Boschetto 1689–1823333 Damage to Trees in the Boschetto335 Contemporary Accounts of the Boschetto335 The New Boschetto335 The Formal Garden (Giardino)336 Using the Garden340 Notes341

Part 5 Reconstruction and Subdivision344 Chapter 5.1 Destruction and Reconstruction 1814–1870344 Introduction344 Filippo, Giovanni and Francesco347 The Siege of Rome347 Rebuilding the Villa 348 An ‘Earthly Paradise’: The Pratone and its Garden Beds354 The Acquisition of the Villa Bolognetti and the Garden 1863–1885357 Notes360 Chapter 5.2 The Kingdom of Italy 1870–1909: Subdivision and Obliteration362 The Breach at Porta Pia: 20 September 1870362 Urban Development and the Villa Patrizi363 The 1885–1886 Subdivision365 The Death of Francesco and the Sale of the Villa in 1908373 Notes

Part 6 Palazzo Patrizi and Castel Giuliano376 Chapter 6.1 Projects at the Palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi 1721–1726376 Introduction376 The Situation376 The Entrone379 The Carriage Houses in the Courtyard380 The Proposed Inscription381 The Cardinal’s Apartment 382 The Project to Redecorate the Rooms facing the Piazza 1720384 Projects for the Cardinal’s Apartment, 1726385 22 June 1726: Converting the Camerone to the Cardinal’s Bedroom 6 July 1726: Partitioning the Camerone

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 11

385 385

xi

18/11/15 17:22

20 July 1726: Occupying the Stanza Lunga as well  386 14 September 1726: The Stanza del Cantone as Bedroom 388 21 September 1726: Refinements 389 28 September 1726: The Bedroom Returns to the Camerone 389 February 1727: Borrowing Patrizio and Ottavia’s Apartment 390 The Famiglie of Cardinal Patrizi and the Casa Patrizi391 Accommodating the Famiglia 392 Casa de’ Spagnuoli and Casa Rondanini: February 1722 to January 1724392 The Casa de’ Spagnuoli Ascendant: February 1724394 Accommodating the Famiglia, Stables and Carriage Houses 1726–1727395 The Stables on a Site Owned by the Congregation of S. Luigi dei Francesi (June–August 1726) 395 The Search for Alternative Stabling 396 The Sapienza Project 397 Casa Rondanini 397 Palazzo Madama Again 397 Mariano’s Estimates 398 The Casa Rondanini  398 Connecting Palazzo Patrizi and Casa Rondanini 399 Indecision399 Giovanni Domenico Consalvi and the Cardinal’s Library400 Notes401

Chapter 6.2 Projects at Castel Giuliano 1722–1723405 Introduction405 Projects 1722–1723408 Notes412

Part 7 Appendices413 Appendix 1 Piano Nobile413 1.1 Piano Nobile Organisation413

1.1.1 Piano Nobile Door Curtains in the Inventories  413 1.1.2 Piano Nobile Windows and Window Curtains in the Inventories 414 1.2 First Anterooms (PN02)414 1.2.1 First Anteroom Description 414 1.3 Second Anteroom (PN03)415 1.3.1 Second Anteroom Description 415 1.4 Piano Nobile Gallery (PN04)415 1.4.1 Piano Nobile Gallery Description 415 1.4.2 The Paintings by Raffaello Vanni  416 Dimensions 416 Frames 417 1.5 Stanza alla Cinese (PN05)417 1.5.1 Stanza alla Cinese Description 417 1.5.2 The Lacquer Tavole 417 1.5.3 The Redecoration by Giovanni and Maria Virginia before 1772 418 1.6 Stanza delli Cristalli (PN06)418 1.6.1 Stanza delli Cristalli Description 418 1.6.2 Framing of Mirror Pilasters 418 1.6.3 Terminology for Mirrors and Glass 419

xii

Libro MARSHALL.indb 12

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

1.7 Galleriola Dipinta (PN07)419 1.7.1 Galleriola Dipinta Description

419

1.8 Primary Bedroom (PN08)419

1.8.1 Primary Bedroom Description 419 1.8.2 Wall-hangings 420 1.9 Gabinetto (PN09)421 1.9.1 Gabinetto Description 421 1.9.2 Paintings 1739 to 1772 421 1.10 Stanza della Creazione del Mondo (PN12)422 1.10.1 Stanza della Creazione del Mondo Description 422 1.10.2 Paintings 1739 to 1748 422 A Copy after Guido Reni’s Samson422 The Bozzetto for Passeri’s ceiling in the Camerone (Sala da Ballo) in the Palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi 422 1.10.3 The Chaperon Engravings after Raphael Coloured in Gouache by Giacomo van Lint 423 The Chaperon Engravings 423 Payments to Giacomo van Lint for 71 Gouaches 423 1.11 Secondary Bedroom (PN13)424 1.11.1 Secondary Bedroom Description 424 1.11.2 Wall-hangings 424

Appendix 2 Mezzanine425 2.1 Mezzanine Organisation  425

2.1.1 Ceiling Height 425 2.1.2 Mezzanine Doors in the Inventories  425 2.1.3 Door Curtains in the Inventories425 2.1.4 Windows Curtains in the Inventories 426 2.2 First Mezzanine Anteroom (MZ02)427 2.2.1 First Mezzanine Anteroom Description 427 2.3 Second Mezzanine Anteroom (MZ03)427 2.3.1 Second Mezzanine Anteroom Description  427 2.4 Stanza dell’Ovato (Stanza dell’Occhio) (MZ04)427 2.4.1 Stanza dell’Ovato (Stanza dell’Occhio) Description 427 2.5 Maria Virginia’s Music Room or Stanza Gialla (MZ05)427 2.5.1 Maria Virginia’s Music Room or Stanza Gialla Description 427 2.6 Corner Fireplace Room (MZ06) 428 2.6.1 Corner Fireplace Room Description  428 2.7 Mezzanine Galleriola (MZ07)428 2.7.1 Mezzanine Galleriola Description 428 2.8 Stanza del Zampanaro (MZ08)428 2.8.1 Stanza del Zampanaro Description 428 2.9 Mezzanine Gabinetto (MZ09)429 2.9.1 Mezzanine Gabinetto Description 429 2.10 Stanza delle Donne (MZ11) 429 2.10.1 Stanza delle Donne Description 429 2.11 Bedroom of the Attendant Women (MZ12)430 2.11.1 Bedroom of the Attendant Women Description 430 2.12 Second Mezzanine Bedroom (Patrizio’s Dressing Room) (MZ13)430 2.12.1 Second Mezzanine Bedroom Description430 2.12.2 Wall-hangings430

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 13

xiii

18/11/15 17:22

Appendix 3 Ground Floor431 3.1 Ground Floor Organisation431

3.1.1 Ceiling Height 431 3.1.2 Bussole 431 3.1.3 Door Descriptions in the 1739 Inventory  431 3.1.4 Pelmets 431 3.2 Scala Grande and Servants’ Hall (GF01)431 3.2.1 Scala Grande and Servants’ Hall Description 431 3.3 Guard Room (GF02) 432 3.3.1 Guard Room Description 432 3.4 Chimney Room (GF03)432 3.4.1 Chimney Room Description 432 3.5 Ground Floor Gallery (GF04)432 3.5.1 Ground Floor Gallery Description 432 3.6 Costanzo’s Room or Music Room (GF05)433 3.6.1 Costanzo’s Room or Music Room Description 433 3.6.2. The Mirror Carved by Antoine Ieunet 433 3.7 Filippo’s Room (GF06)433 3.7.1 Filippo’s Room Description 433 3.8 Ground Floor Galleriola (Room for the Credenza) (GF07) 434 3.8.1 Ground Floor Galleriola (Room for the Credenza) Description  434 3.9 Stanza dei Feudi (GF09)434 3.9.1 Stanza dei Feudi Description 434 3.10 Chapel (GF09)434 3.10.1 Chapel Description 434 3.10.2 Door 434 3.10.3 Stuccoes 435 3.10.4 Prie-dieus 435 3.10.5 Wardrobes 435 3.10.6. Wrought Iron 435 3.10.7 Altar 436 3.11 Stanza delle Battaglie (GF12) 436 3.11.1 Stanza delle Battaglie Description 436 3.12 Stanza del Romitorio (GF13)436 3.12.1 Stanza del Romitorio Description 436

Appendix 4 Stanza del Trucco 438 4.1 Stanza del Trucco (TR01) 438 4.1.1 Stanza del Trucco Description 438 4.1.2 Construction Payments 438 4.2 Room on the Right (TR03)439 4.2.1 Room on the Right Description 439 4.3 Room on the Left (TR03)435 4.3.1 Room on the Left Description

xiv

Libro MARSHALL.indb 14

440

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

Summary of the Principal Documents Consulted 1. The Letters of Cardinal Patrizi440 2. Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Documents440 3. Inventories440 4. Payments about the Construction and Decoration of the Villa441 5. Documents about the Patrizi Family443 6. Documents about the Vigna Patrizi, Vigna Silva, Villa Patrizi, and Palazzo Patrizi443 7. Documents about Water444 Bibliography445 Index 463

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 15

xv

18/11/15 17:22

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the assistance of many friends, colleague and institutions whom I gladly acknowledge here. My greatest debts are to the Patrizi Naro Montoro family, especially Marchese Don Corso and Donna Elisabetta. Without Don Corso’s extraordinary kindness and enthusiasm for this project, and without his willingness to share with me materials he has discovered in Palazzo Patrizi and in the family archives, much of this study would not have been possible. I am also enormously indebted to Marchese Don Innocenzo Patrizi Naro Montoro and Umberta da Passano at Castel Giuliano, as well as other members of the Patrizi family, including Marchesa Teresa Frescobaldi, Marchese Patrizio and Marchesa Flaminia Patrizi Naro Montoro, the late Donna Paola Patrizi Naro Montoro, Marchesa Donna Maddalena Patrizi Naro Montoro and Don Paolo Patrizi Naro Montoro. Particular thanks are owed to Jacopo and Florence Patrizi, for their interest in this project and their hospitality over many years. In Milan, Francesca Patrizi was generous in providing information and materials. Particular thanks are owed to Marchesa Alberta Serlupi Crescenzi for opening many doors into Rome’s cultural heritage, and to Clare Broadbent for her willingness to make connections and to explore the Campagna. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Karin Wolfe and Tommaso Manfredi for facilitating this project in so many ways. The late Federico Zeri was for many years generous in sharing his knowlege and supporting my reseach of architectural and view painters. Other friends and colleagues I would like to thank for their help and assistance include Barbara Arciszewska, Piers Baker-Bates, Robert Gaston, Katrina Grant, Christopher M. S. Johns, Alastair Laing, Joan Barclay Lloyd, Frances Muecke, Carol Richardson, Clare Robertson, Sandra Romito, Francis Russell, Marino Serlupi Crescenzi, Mark Shepheard, John Weretka and Arno Witte. Much of the research for this book was done in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano, and I would like to thank the Most Reverend Prefect, His Excellency Monsignor Sergio Pagano, B., the Vice-Prefect, Professor Paolo Cherubini and the Segretario, Dott. Marco Grilli, with particular thanks to Dott. Francesco Lippa for his work on the edition of Cardinal Patrizi’s Letters and the staff of the Sale di Studio, always helpful and efficient. During regular xvi

Libro MARSHALL.indb 16

visits to Rome over the years I have been privileged to stay at the British School at Rome, where Andrew and Jo Wallace-Hadrill made it feel like home. Valerie Scott and her team in the British School at Rome library were unfailing helpful and generous. I would also like to thank its assistant directors: Clare Hornsby, Andrew Hopkins, Helen Langdon and Susan Russell, as well as Maria Pia Malvezzi and the late Geraldine Wellington. Another fundamental resource for this project has been the Bibliotheca Hertziana in Rome, and colleagues associated with it, especially Elizabeh Kieven, Sebastian Schütze and Christina Strunck, have been especially supportive. Marga Sanchez assisted with photograph permissions. Much of the writing was done during the depth of successive Roman winters in the main reading room of the library of the American Academy in Rome, one of the finest spaces for writing and thinking that I know, and I would like to thank all the librarians there for their help. Also inspirational was my time as Paul Mellon Visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, in November–December 2002, which allowed me to write drafts of early chapters. I owe special thanks to Robin Appleton for her copy-editing, and to Roberto Marcucci and Maurizio Pinto at “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Financial support for this project has been provided by the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne, where I owe particular thanks for the supportive environment provided by my colleagues there over the years, especially Dagmar Eichberger, Ann Galbally, Charles Green, Alison Inglis, Susan Lowish, Margaret Manion, Angela Ndalianis and Anthony White. Finally, I would like to thank from the heart Lisa Beaven, who encouraged me to take research in Roman family archives seriously, and who has always been my strongest supporter.  

David R. Marshall Daylesford, Victoria, November 2015

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

Colour Plates

Plate 1. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Half-length Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Monsignor, 1710. Oil on canvas. Inscribed on the book M[onsignor]. Gio[vanni]. / Patritij / A[nn]o. 1710. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall / Owner.) Plate 2. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Portrait of Mariano Patrizi Dressed as a Painter, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 94 x 73.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Plate 3. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Abate Francesco Felice Patrizi Seated Holding an Architectural Plan, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 172 x 122 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Plate 10. Giovanni Battista Bassi (1784–1852), Villa Patrizi from the Garden before its Destruction in 1849, c. 1851. Oil on canvas, 49 x 74 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.) Plate 11. Giovanni Battista Bassi (1784–1852), View of the Villa Patrizi, Street Side, after its Destruction in 1849. 1851. Oil on canvas, 49 x 74 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall/Patrizi Collections.) Plate 12. Giovanni Battista Bassi (1784–1852), View of the Villa Patrizi, Garden Side, after its Destruction in 1849. 1851. Oil on canvas, 49 x 74 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 4. Jean-Étienne Liotard (1702–89), Portrait of Maria Virginia Patrizi, c. 1736. Pastel on paper, 61 x 45 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 13. Franz Caucig (1755–1828), Villa Patrizi, towards Villa Bolognetti, 1781–87. Pencil, pen, ink and brown wash, 219 x 330 mm. Inscribed on the verso, in brown ink: ‘Villa Patrizi’. Ljubljana, National Gallery of Slovenia, NG G71. (Janko Dermastja / © Narodna galerija, Ljubljana, 2015.)

Plate 5. Giuseppe Antonio Olivieri (?), Porzia Patrizi, 1765 (?). Oil on canvas, 74.5 x 58 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Plate 14. Franz Caucig (1755–1828), View of Villa Albani from the Lower Terrace of the Villa Patrizi, 1781–87. Pencil, pen, ink and brown wash, 219 x 333 mm. Vienna, Kupferstichkabinett der Akademie der bildenden Künste, HZ1218.

Plate 6. Tommaso Raffanelli, Drawing of the Catafalque Erected in the Cathedral of Ferrara for the Funeral of Cardinal Patrizi, 4 August 1727, 1727. Pen and ink and black chalk on paper. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B70, no. 4. (Archivio Segreto Vaticano.)

Plate 15. Luigi Garzi (1638–1721), copy after, Galatea and Polyphemus. Oil on canvas, 36 x 134 cm. Private collection. (David R. Marshall.)

Plate 7. Adrien Manglard, View of Villa Patrizi from the Strada di S. Agnese, 1722. Oil on canvas, 48 x 74 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.) Plate 8. Adrien Manglard, View of Villa Patrizi from the Garden, 1722. Oil on canvas, 48 x 74 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.) Plate 9. Giovanni Battista Bassi (1784–1852), Villa Patrizi from the Street before its Destruction in 1849, c. 1851. Oil on canvas, 49 x 74 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 16. Pietro Paolo Cennini (1661–1739) (here attributed), Vase of Flowers. Oil on canvas, c. 180 x 60 cm. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall.) Plate 17. Pietro Paolo Cennini (1661–1739) (here attributed), Various Fruits. Oil on canvas, c. 180 x 60 cm. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall.) Plate 18. Luigi Garzi (1638–1721), copy after, Bacchus and Ariadne. Oil on canvas, 36 x 134 cm. Private collection. (David R. Marshall.) Plate 19. Raffaello Vanni (1587–1673), Belshazzar’s Feast, c. 1638–49. Oil on canvas, c. 245 x 335 cm. Patrizi Col-

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Libro MARSHALL.indb 17

xvii

18/11/15 17:22

lections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Plate 20. Raffaello Vanni (1587–1673), The Death of Dido, c. 1638–49. Oil on canvas, c. 245 x 335 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Plate 21. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type B (3), 1722. Scene with Enthroned Ruler. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.) Plate 22. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type B (1), Scene with Rock and Garden Arches, 1722. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 26. Giuseppe Vasi (1710–82), Casino della Villa Patrizi fuori di Porta Pia, from Delle magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna, Book 10, Ville e giardini, 1760, pl. 191. (David R. Marshall.) Plate 27. The Coloured 1860 Plan: Printed Plan of the Villa Patrizi, 1860. Printed plan with added colour. The printed inscriptions read ‘Villa Patrizi 1860’, ‘III’ and ‘La Villa Patrizi fatta dal Card. Giovanni Patrizi nel 1725. Vene poi distrutta per la rivoluzione del 1848. La sorte stessa ebba la Villa Bolognetti. Il M.se Filippo Patrizi la restauro nel 1855. I figli vi aggiunsero la Villa Bolognetti e prese questa configurazione.’ Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 23. Anonymous, Sketch of a Wall of the Romitorio in the Villa Patrizi, 1849. Recto. Watercolour on paper, 240 x 320 mm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 28. Francesco Patrizi (1826–1905), Project for a Curved Wall on Piazza Pia, c. 1886. Watercolour on paper. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 24. Anonymous, Sketch of a Wall of the Stanza delle Battaglie in the Villa Patrizi, 1849. Pencil and black chalk on paper, 250 x 355 mm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 29. Francesco Patrizi (1826–1905), Bird’s-eye View of a Scheme for Boundary Buildings on a Reduced Vila Patrizi. Coloured chalks on paper. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 25. Sebastiano Cipriani (1662–1738), Project Elevation of the Casino of the Villa Patrizi, c. 1715. From the Patrizi Album. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Plate 30. Francesco Patrizi (1826–1905), Monk Ascending a Staircase, c. 1888. Drawing. Patrizi Collections. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

xviii

Libro MARSHALL.indb 18

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:22

Plate 1 Colour Plates

Libro MARSHALL.indb 1

1

18/11/15 17:22

Plate 2 2

Libro MARSHALL.indb 2

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 3 Colour Plates

Libro MARSHALL.indb 3

3

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 4 4

Libro MARSHALL.indb 4

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 5

Colour Plates

Libro MARSHALL.indb 5

5

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 6 6

Libro MARSHALL.indb 6

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 7 Plate 8

Colour Plates

Libro MARSHALL.indb 7

7

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 9

Plate 10 8

Libro MARSHALL.indb 8

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 11

Plate 12 Colour Plates

Libro MARSHALL.indb 9

9

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 13 Plate 14

10

Libro MARSHALL.indb 10

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 15

Plate 16

Colour Plates

Plate 17

11

Plate 18

Libro MARSHALL.indb 11

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 19

12

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Plate 20

Libro MARSHALL.indb 12

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 21

Colour Plates

13

Plate 22

Libro MARSHALL.indb 13

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 23

14

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

Plate 24

Libro MARSHALL.indb 14

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 25

Colour Plates

15

Plate 26

Libro MARSHALL.indb 15

18/11/15 17:23

Plate 27

Plate 28

16 Plate 29

Libro MARSHALL.indb 16

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909 Plate 30

18/11/15 17:23

Introduction

The Villa Patrizi, which stood on a slight rise just outside the Porta Pia in Rome, was built between 1715 to 1727 by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Patrizi. It consisted of a residential building, the Casino, a grand staircase, various subsidiary structures, gardens, and an extensive cultivated vigna. The staircase and associated terraces and buildings were destroyed in the early nineteenth century when the garden was remodelled in the English style and it was subsequently expanded by the acquisition of the neighbouring Villa Bolognetti. The Casino was destroyed in 1849 during the defence of the Roman Republic: the Republicans, who controlled the city, fearing a French attack on the north side of the city destroyed it as a defensive measure. (In the event, the attack came on the other side of the city, on the Janiculum.) This ‘act of vandalism’1 was made easy for the Republicans because the Patrizi were supporters of the papacy, which had invited the French invasion. The Casino was promptly rebuilt to much the same external appearance, but became a victim of the land speculation and development that followed the unification of Italy in 1870 with Rome as its capital. It was demolished at the beginning of the twentieth century, when buildings housing the Ministry of Public Works and the Ministry of Transport were built on the site. The Via Nomentana was broadened into a wide avenue, and housing developments were built on new suburban streets that were once the garden of the villa.2 Romans today know it only as the name of a street, or from the engraving in Giuseppe Vasi’s Delle magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna (1760) (Fig. 1.1).3 I first became aware of the Villa Patrizi when researching the work of the painter of Roman capricci and vedute, Giovanni Paolo Panini (1692–1769). The literature on Panini routinely refers to his work at the villa, and makes passing reference to the documentation in the Archivio Patrizi-Montoro in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano. This archive was explored by Maria Barbara Guerrieri Borsoi in Introduction

Libro MARSHALL.indb 1

an article that focused on the identity of the artists working there.4 On following up her references, I was struck by the extent of this material. There were receipts, lists of payments and accounts associated with the building of the villa, and these seemed to be relatively complete. In addition, there were the death inventories of the various heads of the Patrizi family, which gave comprehensive descriptions of the contents of the villa in 1739, 1747, 1772, and 1814. More unusually, there were two volumes of letters from Cardinal Patrizi, who was Cardinal Legate in Ferrara from 1718 to 1727, to his brothers Mariano and Francesco. These 404 letters, written in a tight hand (when not written by a scribe when the cardinal’s gout prevented him writing them himself ), had been occasionally accessed by scholars interested in Panini, such as Leandro Ozzola, but had never been fully explored. On closer inspection, they proved to be largely about the completion and decoration of the villa (the structure of the Casino was in place when they began), and constituted one half of a weekly discussion with Mariano about the progress of the villa. (A few letters are addressed to another brother, Francesco.) Because they dealt with day-to-day matters, and frequently discussed ideas that did not eventuate, they were, however, not easy to interpret, particularly in view of the total loss of the villa. My edition of the full text of the Letters is being published by the Archivio Segreto Vaticano.5 At the time I knew the villa only from the few views that survive—primarily the engraving by Vasi and sets of paintings by Adrien Manglard and Giovanni Battista Bassi in the Palazzo Patrizi in Rome, and various nineteenthcentury images—and knew of no published plans of the Casino. It seemed, however, that given the information contained within the inventories and the exterior views it ought to be possible to obtain a fairly good idea of the internal arrangement of the villa, and therefore to understand what the discussions in the Letters were all about. I managed to work out what the plan must have 1

18/11/15 17:23

been, which was subsequently confirmed by the discovery of the original project plan and elevation drawings by the architect, Sebastiano Cipriani, belonging to the Patrizi family but then unpublished. This encouraged me to go further and to relate the documentary material more closely to this graphic data in order to produce measured drawings of each floor of the Casino as built, including the staircases, taking into account such matters as chimneys, door openings, blind windows and other such factors and the evidence for the form of the pre-existing building on the site, which seems to have been completely demolished to make way for the new structure. It was but a step from here to the task of marrying the data of the four principal inventories to these reconstructed plan and elevations. This is an exercise that is rarely attempted, but can be fruitful, since, where the plans and elevations of rooms are known, there is often only one way the objects described and dimensioned in the inventories can have been situated. I have concentrated here on a few rooms where the evidence is most complete and interesting, such as the Piano Nobile Anterooms. With a greater understanding of what the villa was like, inside as well as outside, I was able to return to the Letters and begin to try to understand what Cardinal Patrizi was discussing with Mariano. It became apparent that Mariano was effectively the supervising architect of the villa, and dealt with the patron (the cardinal), with other interested parties (principally the cardinal’s other brothers Costanzo and Filippo, and his nephew Patrizio), with the professional architect (Sebastiano Cipriani) who, from the time that the Letters commence, did not have a big role to play, and with the various capo mastri, the chief tradesmen and contractors. Most interestingly, Mariano proved to be fully attuned to the latest trends in the decorative arts, as well as being closely associated with contemporary Roman painters. He was an Accademico d’onore of the Accademia di S. Luca, and an amateur painter of some accomplishment. Likewise an amateur artist was his brother Francesco, who took responsibility for the soft furnishings and may have played a role in the planning of the Casino, since in one of his portraits he presents himself as an aristocratic architect. It emerged that the Villa Patrizi was the most important domestic building at an interesting and not well understood moment in the history of Roman architecture and decoration, a moment when it was at its most international and ‘modern’ in outlook. The designers of the villa—the cardinal, Mariano, Franceco, Patrizio and Cipriani—were looking to northern Italy, especially Bologna and Venice, and indirectly in the general direction 2

Libro MARSHALL.indb 2

of Paris, the source of all things modern and fashionable in the second and third decades of the eighteenth century. Their outlook was broadly speaking Arcadian—that is, taking its cue from the reformist values of the poetical and social academy known as the Arcadian Academy, of which Cardinal Patrizi was a member, which sought to temper the excesses of Marinism, the poetical style derived from Giambattista Marino at the beginning of the seventeenth century, which we might call Mannerist or Baroque—by promoting a stylistically moderate pastoralism. The Arcadian mindset, and the mindset of the builders of the villa, was anything but antiquarian, as Roman artistic culture is generally assumed to be, and which it would increasingly become from the the moment that Pope Clement XII took the throne in 1730. It therefore seemed worthwhile to attempt, by a mixture of reconstruction and discussion of comparative examples, to use a study of the Villa Patrizi as a way of more closely approaching an understanding of the nature of this ‘modern’ style that may, for want of a better term, be called barocchetto.6 The core of this book (Part 3) is therefore an attempt to relate the reconstruction of the appearance of the principal interiors of the villa to the thinking behind the decision-making process that led to them, and to contextualise this thinking by relating these interiors to those that survive. With the help of members of the extended Patrizi family, it has been possible to identify some of the furnishings of the villa that, it emerged, had been hurriedly removed before the destruction of the Casino in 1849. What also emerged from the Letters is the concern of the parties involved to provide the whole estate, or vigna, with adequate water, and to develop it as an agricultural estate that complemented the Casino and its ornamental garden. Running in parallel with this was their concern to have the villa present itself as a teatro, or theatre; that is, for it to have a significant urban presence. In part this was a consequence of its builders taking the bold— and as we shall see, dangerous—step of siting the villa outside the Aurelian walls, and so initiate the extra-urban development of this side of Rome. For Cardinal Patrizi the main danger lay in stepping outside the security of the city walls into the disease-ridden Campagna, although in the end the real danger came from its militarily strategic position overlooking the Porta Pia. This would be the cause of its destruction in 1849, and the rebuilt villa’s narrow escape from destruction in 1870, when the army of the Italian state breached the walls in the garden of the Villa Paolina diagonally opposite. Its final destruction was also a consequence of its siting, as it was subsumed by the uncontrolled development of the city, the fate of so many

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

villas and gardens on the periphery of expanding cities. But before this second destruction took place, the villa lived a second life, one focused on the garden. The acquisition of the Villa Bolognetti next door, and the excitement of the new garden style, the so-called giardino all’inglese, allowed the Patrizi to create one of the grandest gardens of this type in Rome, even if it meant the destruction of the Baroque teatro. This story is the subject of Parts 4 and 5. It is in the nature of letters to bring the reader closer to the writer, and to make the reader feel acquainted with his or her personality, and to become aware of the social rules under which the writer operated. It the case of a noble Roman family in the eighteenth century, these social rules were extremely restrictive. Part 1 focuses on individual members of the Patrizi family, from Patrizio the Elder, who purchased the site in 1650, to Maria Virginia and Giovanni (died 1772), and examine the place that the villa played in the lives and ambitions of members of the family. In particular, Part 1 looks at what the Letters tells us about the relationship between the cardinal and those in his social circle insofar as it concerns the villa, and especially his relationship with his nephew Patrizio and his wife Ottavia who feature prominently in the Letters. Like any family history, it is a story of the interaction of social Introduction

Libro MARSHALL.indb 3

Fig. 1.1. Giuseppe Vasi (1710–82), Casino della Villa Patrizi fuori di Porta Pia, from Delle Magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna, Book 10, Ville e giardini, 1761, pl. 191. (David R. Marshall.)

structures with individual personalities and contingencies. The result of these personalities and contingencies was that for much of the eighteenth century the Villa Patrizi was the territory of the Patrizi women. Two concluding chapters (Part 6) deal with matters not directly connected with the villa but that are discussed at length in the Letters. These are the works undertaken by the cardinal in 1721 and 1722 to create a more dignified entrance to the family’s town palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi, as the old one was deemed unsuitable both for a cardinal (Patrizi expected to be taking up residence there when his first term as legate in Ferrara ended in 1721) and for a lady (Ottavia Sacchetti, who married Patrizio in 1722). At the same time (1722–1723) the cardinal was undertaking work at Castel Giuliano building a connecting passageway and new upper floors. Later, in anticipation of the cardinal’s return at the end of his second term in 1724 (which did not eventuate) and especially at the end of his third term in 1727, there were extended discussions about reorganising the Piano Nobile to accommodate the cardinal. 3

18/11/15 17:23

Roman Villas and the Villa Patrizi The Villa Patrizi formed part of a long succession of Roman villas. As Ackerman has observed, ‘the villa is typically the product of an architect’s imagination and asserts its modernity’.7 During the Renaissance, well aware of the precedent of Roman villas, especially Pliny’s descriptions of his villas at Laurentum and in Tuscany, various villas were built around Rome.8 These were ville suburbane, in other words, on the edge of town. Chief among these were the Villa Farnesina, built for the banker Agostino Chigi by Baldassare Peruzzi in 1505/8–11 on the banks of the Tiber between Trastevere and the Vatican, and the Villa Madama, built by Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici (later Pope Clement VII, reigned 1523–34 ) when he was a cardinal to designs by Raphael on Monte Mario in 1519–27.9 Other important villas for cardinals and popes followed, including the Villa d’Este on the Quirinal, occupied by Cardinal Ippolito d’Este from 1550, which would be developed into the papal palace, the Villa Giulia for Julius III (reigned 1550–55) from 1551, the Villa Medici for Cardinal Ferdinando de’ Medici from 1564, the Villa Montalto of Pope Sixtus V (reigned 1585–90) from 1585. Frascati in the Alban hills was also popular for grand villas because of its high, and hence healthy, situation although these were too far away for a daytrip. The most impressive of these were the Villa Aldodrandini and the Villa Mondragone of the Borghese. The grandest of the suburban villas near Rome would be built by Cardinal Scipione Borghese, nephew of Paul V (reigned 1605–21), from 1605, the vast estates of which form much of the modern park. The Villa Borghese continued the tradition of the Villa Farnesina, being lavishly decorated and not really designed to being lived in, being so close to the city. The Borghese established a model of property ownership that was aspired to but could not always be emulated by subsequent papal families: a town palace in the heart of Rome; a suburban villa and another at Frascati, as well as numerous other rural properties. During the short reign of Gregory XIV Ludovisi (1621–23) the Ludovisi rapidly created an extensive villa inside the walls, the Villa Ludovisi, the gardens and buildings of which were richly furnished with antiquities in quantities that would not be seen again. The family of Urban VIII Barberini (reigned 1623–44) built a town palace on a site near the Quirinal hitherto considered more appropriate to a suburban villa. They also had a villa at Castel Gandolfo in the Alban Hills, but although they had many other rural properties they poured their resources into a town palace. The Pamphilj (Pope Innocent X, reigned 1644–55) matched the Bor4

Libro MARSHALL.indb 4

ghese in ambition and developed a vast villa estate, the modern Villa Doria-Pamphilj, on the Janiculum on the other side of the city, with a main building by Algardi that was more artful and less traditional than the Villa Borghese, although smaller and less lavishly furnished. The family of Alexander VII Chigi (reigned 1655–67), which had strong connections with the Patrizi, were more interested in their estates near Siena, including the Villa Cetinale of Cardinal Flavio Chigi (from 1680), and their feudal palace at Ariccia in the Alban Hills. The family of Clement IX Altieri (reigned 1670–76) had focused their attention on their town palace near the Gesù, but also created a relatively modest suburban villa not far from where the Patrizi would build theirs. Subsequent villa building was less ambitious than it had been in the earlier part of the century, as papal nepotism was going out of fashion. Clement X Albani (reigned 1700–21), the pope who created Giovanni Battista Patrizi cardinal in 1715, was likewise reticent about such display, although he did build an important villa at Anzio. His short-lived successor Innocent XIII had a family villa at Poli, while Benedict XIII was uninterested in villa building. In fact, the Villa Patrizi was the only significant Roma villa suburbana of the first three decades of the eighteenth century. In subsequent decades there was more activity: the family of Clement XII Corsini (reigned 1730–40) combined town palace and villa in their palace on the Via della Lungara and its garden leading up to the Casino dei Quattro Venti on the Janiculum. Benedict XIV (reigned 1740–58) was content with a tiny pavilion in the grounds of the papal palace on the Quirinal, the Caffeaus, but his Secretary of State, Cardinal Valenti Gonzaga, built a modest but lavishly furnished villa just inside the walls near the Villa Patrizi (now known as Villa Paolina), while Clement XI’s nephew, Cardinal Alessandro Albani from 1758 built the Villa Albani nor far away on the Via Salaria outside the walls. The Villa Albani was a return to the grand vision of the Borghese and Ludovisi by another great collector, and buildings and garden were (and are) well stocked with art and antiquities. From then until the suburban development of Rome from the 1870s these three villas defined the area on either side of the walls between Porta Pia and Porta Salaria, with the Villa Patrizi and Villa Albani facing each other across the fields. The Villa Patrizi was unlike most Roman ville suburbane in that its purpose was always strongly residential. The Patrizi were not great collectors, and their villa reflected not the power, ambition, wealth and extravagance of a papal family, but the structure of a typical aristocratic family of the period. They had prospered under Cardinal

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Patrizi’s father, Patrizio Patrizi the Elder (1629–89), who had benefited from the reign of the Sienese pope, Alexander VII. They had feudal estates at Castel Giuliano and Sasso, the source of their titles, but their town palace was relatively small and in a densely settled part of town, and there was neither the opportunity nor the funds to expand. This situation was aggravated by the creation of Giovanni Battista as cardinal, since cardinals needed an extensive entourage. There was nowhere to put them, and many of the Letters of Cardinal Patrizi address this issue (his solution was to rent space next door in the Palazzo de’ Spagnuoli or in a property owned by the Borghese at the back). By developing the villa, Cardinal Patrizi could provide additional, albeit duplicated, accommodation for his family, at a site not very far away, with space for gardens, carriages, and productive agriculture, as well as rooms well suited for balls and social gatherings such as conversazioni. The Ground Floor rooms were essentially a series of apartments for the cardinal’s brothers to use in summer, with a large Gallery connecting them and providing a common space, accessible from terrace and garden. The cardinal had his bedroom on the Piano Nobile, but the Mezzanine was always intended to have a strong female presence, and as matters unfolded women would become the primary occupants of the villa. The representational rooms on the Piano Nobile were designed as social spaces around a central Gallery, which was less a place for displaying pictures than an impressive space for receptions and balls, an economical version of the Galleria Colonna. Opening off this were rooms with state-of-theart decoration, intended for the more intimate kind of social activity, such as playing cards. In this way the villa Patrizi did indeed ‘assert its modernity’, and the efforts of the cardinal and his brothers to create a modern villa is the subject of the chapters that follow.

Introduction

Libro MARSHALL.indb 5

Notes 1. Robello, 1854, vol. 2, p. 315. 2. Throughout the text I have capitalised terms that are employed as proper names of the whole or parts of the estate under discussion. Hence the components of the Villa Patrizi include the ‘Casino’, ‘Boschetto’, ‘Giardino’, ‘Piano Nobile’, ‘Stanza delli Cristalli’, ‘Piano Nobile Gallery’ and so forth. These names are based partly on descriptions used in the documents (for example, ‘Stanza delli Cristalli’) and partly as straightforward English descriptions (for example ‘Ground Floor Gallery’). 3. Giuseppe Vasi (1710–82), Casino della Villa Patrizi fuori di Porta Pia, from Delle Magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna, Book. 10, Ville e giardini, pl. 191. 4. Guerrieri Borsoi, 1988a. 5. David R. Marshall (ed.), ‘The Letters of Cardinal Patrizi to his Brothers Mariano and Francesco 1718–1727’, in Dall’Archivio Segreto Vaticano. Miscellanea di testi, saggi e inventari VIII, 2015, pp. 153–520. 6. The use of this term, like period-style terms generally, often meets with disapproval from art historians because of its elasticity and absence of an agreed definition, concurrent with the enthusiastic embrace of comparable terms, such as ‘Baroque’, by cultural critics for precisely the same reasons. In my opinion barocchetto is a useful stylistic category to distinguish the art and architecture of much of Italy, and especially Rome, in the period 1700 to 1730 from that of the half-centuries on either side. It is no longer ‘Baroque’, although derived from that movement, and does not yet embrace the antiquarianism of Neoclassicism. In architecture it is almost synonymous with borrominismo (that is, descent from, or rediscovery of, the style of Borromini as opposed to Bernini). Insofar as it is a light and playful style it has affinities with the French Rococo, but the vocabulary of forms derives from the Roman Baroque, rather than France. It would be unproductive to pursue the process of definition further since the usefulness of such a term lies in its inclusiveness, rather than the strictness of its definition. It is a term that can usefully be employed to help us to conceptualise a corpus of visual data issuing from a loosely defined period. 7. Ackerman, 1990, p. 9. 8. On the influence of Pliny’s villas, see Du Prey, 1994. 9. For Roman sixteenth-century villas, see Coffin, 1979.

5

18/11/15 17:23

Patrizi Naro Montoro Family Tree From Soldrerio (II) d. 1614 to Giovanni (IV) 1775–1818

6

Libro MARSHALL.indb 6

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Patrizi Naro Montoro Family Tree From Giovanni (IV) 1775–1818 to the present

Introduction

Libro MARSHALL.indb 7

7

18/11/15 17:23

Part 1

The Cardinal and his Family Chapter 1.1

Patrizio Patrizi the Elder

Patrizio Patrizi the Elder (1629–1689) The Patrizi family in the early eighteenth century was a paradigm of the noble Roman family. Originally from Siena, their fortunes had fluctuated, but they had recently been restored by Patrizio Patrizi the elder (1629–89), the father of Giovanni Battista, the builder of the villa.1 Patrizio had prospered under Pope Alexander VII, a fellow Sienese.2 He had accompanied the cardinal nephew, Cardinal Flavio Chigi on his embassy to Paris in 1664.3 Alexander had enabled him to acquire the titles of Marquis of Castel Giuliano and Sasso in 1655, following his repurchase of these estates located west of Lake Bracciano (they had been Marquises of Paganico in southern Tuscany since 1630).4 The Patrizi became one of the five marchesi del baldacchino, which entitled them, like princes, to display their baldacchino on state occasions and in their family palazzi. In addition, Patrizio married well: his wife was Virginia Corsini, a member of a powerful Florentine family that would produce a pope in the next century, Clement XII. By the end of the century the Patrizi, if not so rich as some of the papal families or the old baronial families, were doing very well. Although their assets were only half those of the Ruspoli, a family on the rise, they were double those of the Sacchetti, likewise marchesi from Tuscany and later to be linked by marriage to the Patrizi.5

The Dispositions of Patrizio’s Will Patrizio had ten children, nine of whom survived into adulthood: five sons, including the future cardinal, and four daughters. The dispositions of his will are highly revealing of the social structure of this most representative of artistocratic Roman families of the late Seicento, and of the way they viewed their physical and financial assets.6 The will was drawn up in 1688 when the youngest son, 8

Libro MARSHALL.indb 8

Francesco, was 23. The family income was to be divided into six parts, the oldest son Costanzo receiving two and each of the other four sons receiving one part each. Should not all of the sons be alive at Patrizio’s death, the proportions were to be adjusted, with the eldest still receiving a double portion. But if one of his sons were to die after inheriting, his share would not pass to his children, nor would it be redistributed among the surviving brothers, but would return to the main line.7 Since the whole income of the family was about 15,000 scudi per annum it would have meant 5000 scudi for Costanzo and 2500 scudi for the other brothers.8 But the evidence points to the second son, the-then Monsignor Giovanni Battista, having inherited most of the liquid component of the family’s wealth, while the bulk of the assets were tied up in property subject to entail, and held in common. Most of these liquid assets were in the form of venal offices that Patrizio had been industrious in acquiring.9 Such offices, especially those without any duties attached, were a form of investment. The Patrizi had an exceptionally high amount of capital tied up in such investments. In 1703, thirteen such offices were valued at 107,279 scudi, but a large part of this was taken up by Cardinal Patrizi’s office of chierico di camera (64,420.47 scudi).10 This post was a stepping stone to the cardinalate, and was an important position in the Curia, the administrative heart of the papacy.11 If the incumbent were made cardinal, the office had to be resigned to the Apostolic Camera (camera apostolica) without remuneration. The Apostolic Camera would then sell it to another. If the office were sold by the incumbent it might render him ineligible to be appointed cardinal. It was, in effect, one of the costs of becoming cardinal.12 It would seem that Patrizio in drawing up his will did not anticipate this eventuality, but instead anticipated that Giovanni Battista might voluntarily resign or sell the post in order to purchase a better one, such as tesoriere generale (the treasurer of the papacy) the post held in the

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

early seventeenth century by Costanzo Patrizi the Elder (1589–1623), or auditore della camera.13 Since Patrizio had purchased the post for Giovanni Battista from his own money, it formed part of his personal estate, and hence he could make dispositions about it in his will as he saw fit. He insisted that in no circumstances can Giovanni Battista be compelled to resign the post against his will. He went so far to state that if any of the other brothers attempted to do this, they would lose their portion, which would be reassigned to Giovanni Battista. This implies that the possibility that it might happen was real.14 If Giovanni Battista were to resign the office through appointment as tesoriere generale or auditore della camera, the other brothers then had to invest in the purchase of the new post that, presumably, would cost more than the chierico di camera he would be giving up. In the end Giovanni Battista did, in 1707, become tesoriere generale, just like the older Costanzo, as had evidently been intended all along.15 Patrizio specified that Giovanni Battista was to inherit, probably from his free effects, the sum of 100,000 scudi that would be raised from such readily available resources such as cash, luoghi di monte, and vacabili. More than anything this indicates the extent to which Giovanni Battista’s eccelestiastical career was planned by his father. Combined with the post of chierico di camera, he would have 16 per cent of the net assets of the family. Since much of the rest would have been tied up in property, Giovanni Battista had considerable freedom to manoeuvre in promoting his family (di suo decoroso profitto, e splendore della Casa, as Patrizio’s will puts it); more so than his older brother. This is borne out by the fact that the building activities in Giovanni Battista’s generation were directed, and largely paid for, by Giovanni Battista, not his older brother Costanzo, whereas in the previous generation such activities were centred on Patrizio, the head of the family. In short, in papal Rome, the cardinal, or potential cardinal, in the family, mattered more, and had more resources, than its head.

Patrizio’s Will and the Palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi The principal property of the Patrizi family in the city of Rome was the palazzo facing the church of S. Luigi dei Francesi that they had acquired from the Aldobrandini in 1642.16 The next most important property was Castel Giuliano, in Lazio near Lake Bracciano. We learn much about the domestic arrangements within the city palace Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 9

from the dispositions in Patrizio’s will on how it was to be occupied.17 The daughters do not figure, since they were provided with dowries and either married or were established in convents. Patrizio’s youngest daughter appears to have died young, and two others became nuns, but two were married with generous dowries. For the younger, Olimpia (mia dilettissima figlia), he provided 16,000 scudi as a dowry.18 To the older, Cunegonda (altra mia amatissima figlia), he left 15,000 scudi that, however, was not as dowry (evidently she was already married to Benedetto d’Aste; she was 33 in 1688), but simply a legacy.19 Since these daughters lived elsewhere they did not affect the family’s domestic arrangements. More problematic were the entitlements of a widow. A husband naturally wanted to ensure that his widow was looked after following his death, but from that point onwards she was surplus to dynastic requirements, having played her part by producing children (and even more redundant if she had not done so), and her husband’s apartment, and the one that she had occupied during her married life, would normally pass to the next generation. Patrizio’s will made elaborate arrangements for his widow, Virginia Corsini, mia dilettissima consorte, designed to maintain her as far as possible in the style to which she was accustomed. She was left a property measuring about 9.5 rubbie (about 15 hectares) at Castel Giuliano, sopra il luogo detto volgarmento le Prataccie in faccia alla Croce, which she had developed by planting crops and trees. She was also left any other property, and its fruits, that she might have subsequently have acquired. That such ownership was in danger of going unrecognised, given that Castel Giuliano was subject to the primogeniture, was implied by the stipulation that none of the other heirs were to try to challenge this. In addition, Patrizio left her an annual income of 1500 scudi during her lifetime to be paid by his heirs in three payments every four months, in advance. In order to receive this she was not to claim restitution of her dowry or the income from it. That income contributed to the sum of 1500 scudi, but this sum was probably considerably more than the dowry alone would have generated, since it was equivalent to 4 per cent of a capital sum of 60,000 scudi, whereas her dowry was presumably more of the order of 15,000 scudi. If she did claim her dowry—that is, by remarrying—she would have lost all of this, apart from the 9.5 rubbie of land at Castel Giuliano. Her domestic arrangements as specified in the will were such as to minimise disruptions to her lifestyle, even though these would have presented difficulties for Patrizio and Virginia’s eldest son or grandson. Effectively, she 9

18/11/15 17:23

would retain the apartment that she currently occupied, spelt out in precise detail. All of the rooms on the third floor from below the library on the fourth floor, from the Gallery to a room opening off the spiral staircase (lumaca) that has one window on the courtyard and two on the street, the passage and rooms opposite, four rooms on the Mezzanine occupied by her attendant women, and the colombaia (loft) above. Should she not be living at Patrizio’s death, or should she die subsequently, her eldest son Costanzo could, as he saw fit, leave the rooms on the third floor assigned to him in the will, and take those that Virginia had occupied, the rooms that he had given up being made available to the next oldest son. In addition she was to have three horses of her choosing, stabling for them, a carriage house with the black carriage she currently used as well as a widow’s carriage to be provided for her by her brothers, and a room above the stables for her huntsman (bracciere). She would also have linen, the jewels she currently possessed, and any furniture in these rooms not belonging to the primogeniture. The extent to which Patrizio could dictate the last point was clearly a grey area since he stipulated that if his heirs did not allow her to use this furniture, they had to provide something appropriate to her status, as decided by his executors, of whom Virginia was to be the padrona, and hence would have had a voice. Should she choose to live elsewhere, she was to have in addition to the 1500 scudi an additional 200 scudi per annum, as well as suitable furniture. The rest of the arrangements in the elder Patrizio’s will for the occupancy of the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi reveal the delicate balance that needed to be established between Costanzo and Giovanni Battista. Patrizio acknowledged that it was not possible to make it equally comfortable for all, or to divide it equally. The ground floor, basements, stables, kitchens and cellars were to be held in common. Giovanni Battista, although not yet a cardinal, was to occupy all the rooms on the Piano Nobile from the salone grande (that is, the Camerone, room PN01 in Fig. 6.24; see Chapter 6.1) to the Chapel (PN09). The other rooms in this apartment were for the use of Costanzo. Shared space was the sala (that is, the Sala dei Palafrenieri, room PN11), the room next to the sala, and the room next to the Chapel, because these rooms divided the two apartments. On the second floor, what was not occupied by Virginia was for Costanzo’s use, and the next oldest son—Filippo, if still alive—could take Costanzo’s own rooms. On the third floor a large room facing the courtyard, previously occupied by Costanzo’s children and evidently a nursery (the younger Patrizio was four when the will was drawn up, his eldest sister seven 10

Libro MARSHALL.indb 10

and his youngest two), together with those on the Palazzo Giustiniani side, are for Giovanni Battista’s use, as are the library and associated rooms, and those rooms that were ‘formerly the old guardarobba’ that were then occupied by Giovanni Battista’s famiglia. Possibly these last are the rooms at the back. The remaining rooms on the third floor were for the use of one of the other sons, with the older of them having the right to choose. Various arrangements were indicated for the other brothers. Hence Patrizio’s expectation in 1688 was that, at his death, the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi would be occupied by his widow, Virginia, and her attendants; Costanzo and his wife (who did not have, nor was expected to have, an apartment separate from her husband’s); Giovanni Battista and his famiglia; and the younger sons Filippo, Mariano, and Francesco. Given the numbers, it is hardly surprising that Patrizio was building upwards, adding a fourth floor at some time after his marriage to Virginia Corsini in 1649 since its cornice includes the Corsini arms.20 (Cardinal Patrizi in 1722 refers to extensive work by his father on the palazzo.) It seems not to be shown in Falda’s map of 1676 but is present in Specchi’s engraving of 1699.21 Immediately after inheriting in 1689 Costanzo set about developing the attic, or fifth, storey to the palazzo, which was underway in 1690–91. Part at least of this attic storey must have been built by Patrizio, since his will, in the passage summarised above, refers to a guardarobba and a loggia, which must have been on this level since the building works in 1690–91 involved creating rooms for Mariano and Francesco, including a painting studio for both brothers, and redoing the stuccoes in an open loggia.22 It was at this time that carriage houses and rooms backing onto the Palazzo Patrizi were rented from the Borghese (see Chapter 6.1).23 Significantly, the rental agreement was signed jointly by Costanzo and Giovanni Battista. That the balance of power between oldest son and son in the Church implied by these arrangements was weighted in the churchman’s favour is evident from the fact that the commission for the ceiling of the Camerone (now Salone da Ballo, room PN02 in Fig. 6.24) in the Palazzo Patrizi came from Giovanni Battista rather than Costanzo, and involved his favourite brothers, Mariano and Francesco.24 It seems that Giovanni Battista was actively engaged in refurbishing the Camerone and associated rooms in 1712 until August 1715, just before being appointed cardinal.25 At least some of this work may have been done in order to ready the palazzo for the wife of the grandson of Patrizio, Angela Carpegna, and so anticipates the work on the palazzo made in preparation for the arrival of the younger Patrizio’s second wife,

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Ottavia Sacchetti, discussed below. The marriage contract with Angela Carpegna had been drawn up in July 1715, with a codicil in January 1716: this, too, was signed by Giovanni Battista, rather than Costanzo.26

Fedecommesso and Primogenitura Patrizio, like other heads of noble Roman families, was preoccupied with maintaining the family wealth through entails (fedecommessi) and primogeniture (primogenitura). Primogeniture was a more specialised type of entail than the fedecommesso, and was highly restrictive.27 The bulk of the family’s assets were assigned to the oldest son, or to a nominated heir who was to continue the family line. Younger sons were left only relatively small portions, normally income, rather than assets, so that they had neither the income to marry and to create a household appropriate to their station, nor any assets to pass on to their heirs.28 The Patrizi fedecommessi and primogeniture dated from early in the seventeenth century. In proposing an inscription commemorating his renovations to the Palazzo Patrizi in 1722, discussed below, Cardinal Patrizi refers to the fedecommesso established by Francesco Patrizi, and to the primogenitura established by Costanzo Patrizi.29 Other documents refer to the primogenitura of Mariano Patrizi, and the fedecommesso of Giovanni.30 The emphasis on primogeniture went hand in hand with the restriction of marriage to the oldest son, even though the family might be large. Patrizio’s father Giovanni had had seven children, all but one sons, but only two married.31 Patrizio the Elder had ten children by his wife, Virginia Corsini. These were born every two years or so (Cardinal Patrizi would later associate this fecundity with Virgini’a hearty appetite),32 but only the oldest son, Costanzo, would marry.33 In the next generation fecundity diminished: Costanzo had three daughters and one son, the younger Patrizio. This restriction of the family wealth to a single line was designed to consolidate the family assets. It reflects the static, long-term mindset of the Roman nobility, for whom it was more important to preserve than to increase. With the Patrizi, the disadvantages of such an emphasis on primogeniture would soon become apparent. When neither of the marriages of the younger Patrizio produced a male heir there was no secondary line to fall back on. The family line was continued by the device of arrogation, by means of which Giovanni Chigi Montoro took the Patrizi name and titles as Marchese Giovanni Patrizi Chigi Montoro and married Patrizio’s daughter, Maria Virginia, Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 11

(see Chapter 1.5).34 The same thing occurred in the next generation, when Maria Virginia’s sons died young, leaving only a daughter, Porzia. She married Francesco Naro, who likewise took the Patrizi name as Marchese Francesco Patrizi Naro. There was family precedent for this, as Cardinal Patrizi observed in 1726, confronted with the childlessness of the younger Patrizio and Ottavia Sacchetti, referring to Soldrerio, who had been adopted.35 Patrizio, like others of his generation, intensified the practice of tying more and more assets to the primogeniture, as is revealed by his will. The territory of Castel Giuliano had been sold by Soldrerio Patrizi (d. 1614) before the establishment of the fedecommesso for 87,000 scudi, and Patrizio the elder had reacquired it in 1660. The money from Soldrerio’s sale came to Patrizio, he stated, from the fedecommesso of his father, Giovanni, but this must have been considered to have been alienated, since Patrizio specifies precisely how that 87,000 scudi would be returned to the ties of the primogeniture. This amounted to 1206 scudi in luoghi di monti, 30,000 scudi spent on the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi, including renovations done and yet to be done, 8000 scudi for 93 rubbie (about 148 hectares) of land bought from the Duke of Bracciano, and the balance of 47,794 scudi considered to be the third part of the value of Castel Giuliano.36 The full extent of the entail arrangements established by Patrizio the elder was spelt out in his death inventory in 1689.37 Those items that were placed under the fedecommesso of his father, Giovanni, were the property at Sasso, the palazzo opposite S. Luigi dei Francesi, and the third part of Castel Giuliano just discussed (given as 47,353 scudi 32 baiocchi), the tenute of Panzanata and Otriano, and various luoghi di monte. Patrizio states explicitly his reason for doing this: so that his heirs could not fight over the estate. Entailed under the primogeniture of Costanzo and Mariano were the paintings and works of art. Patrizio’s free effects to be placed under primogeniture were the palazzo at S. Caterina dei Funari (Palazzo PatriziClementi), the castello of Paganico, the villa of Personata, and a house at Grosseto, the last three of which were bought by Patrizio. Patrizio’s free effects that were to be placed under the fedecommesso included the rest of Castel Giuliano, 30,000 scudi worth of improvements that he had made at Sasso, and palazzi in Siena. This left as free effects not to be placed under primogeniture various rural properties, a house in Rome on the way to S. Maria Maggiore, numerous items of livestock and crops, and, most importantly for Cardinal Patrizi, the vigna at Porta Pia.38 Since the cardinal’s new villa was to be built on a property that had not been incorporated 11

18/11/15 17:23

into the primogeniture, it gave him freedom of action, which extended to the demolition of an older building on the site. By contrast, the property at Castel Giuliano, from which derived one of the family titles and was now subject to the primogenitura, formed an integral part of the dignity and status of the family.39 The cardinal’s new villa, nevertheless, still served a family function. The will of Patrizio Patrizi makes as universal heir (sole residuary legatee) all five of his brothers, Costanzo, Giovanni Battista, Filippo, Mariano and Francesco. Since the vigna at Porta Pia did not form part of the fedecommesso, it would have been owned in common by the five brothers, each of whom had an ‘apartment’ there, discussed below. Giovanni Battista’s later construction of a new villa was therefore by definition a joint affair, even if it were the cardinal’s initiative. This is confirmed by the fact that the papal brief that gave the right to celebrate mass in the chapel of the villa was addressed to Costanzo.

Notes 1. There are no portraits of Patrizio the elder in Pedrocchi, 2000. 2. Patrizio the elder was among those who welcomed the arrival in Rome of Queen Christina of Sweden in 1655. See Minozzi, 2000, p. 31. According to Moroni Alexander VII appointed Patrizio to the post of generale delle poste of the Papal States: Moroni, 1852, s.v. ‘poste pontificie’, pp. 297–315, see p. 306 col. b. On the Patrizi and Chigi see Benocci, 2005, pp. 21–23 (essay by Irene Fosi). Patrizio participated in the civil government of Rome as a conservator in 1682; his oldest son Costanzo would likewise be one a decade later in 1692. Pietramellara, 1893–97, p. 218. 3. There are several representations of the event, including: French School (seventeenth century), The Reception of Cardinal Flavio Chigi (1631–93) by Louis XIV (1638-1715) on 29 July 1664. Pen and ink on paper. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale. For the Gobelins tapestry of the event by Le Brun from the Historire du Roi series, see Meyer, 1980, pp. 69 ff. 4. According to Silvestrelli, 1970, vol. 2, pp. 598–601, Sasso had been owned by the Ospedale di S. Spirito in Sassia and was sold to Giovanni Patrizi, son of Francesco di Costanzo Patrizi (died 1552), in 1552. Giovanni also bought much of Castel Giuliano in purchases of 15 December 1546 (from the heir of Agostino Chigi, the Sienese banker of Julius II and ancestor of Alexander, together with the adjacent tenuta of Sambuco) and on 17 July 1547, with a further eighth part by his sons before 1568. Castel Giuliano and Sambuco were sold by Soldrerio Patrizi (died 1614) on 17 March 1609 to the Abbey of S. Paolo for 87,000 scudi. They were reacquired by Patrizio the elder on 27 October 1660, and thereafter remained the single estate of Castel Giuliano. Sasso was not sold. The title of marchese di Castel Giuliano and Sasso was created for Giovanni Patrizi and his successors in 1655. Given this chronology, Giovanni must have already intended in 1655 to reacquire Castel Giuliano, presumably with the backing of Alexander. The Chigi were invested with the Marchesate di Paganico on 5 May 1630 (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montori, B83 fols 5-26). 5. In 1685 the Patrizi annual income was 14,645.46 scudi; their assets in 1699 were valued at 939,030.86 scudi, and in 1703 at 931,519.04 scudi (Ferraro, 1994, vol. 1, table on 263.) (See also ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B13, fols 209r–212v, Stato della Casa Patritij a tutto li 31 Decembre 1703 (Doc. 5.2.)) Using the figure of 4 per cent return on investments cited by Ferraro results in a figure of 40,000 scudi per annum, much higher that the figure for 1685. This may mean either a growth in wealth in the intervening decade, a larger than

12

Libro MARSHALL.indb 12

normal proportion locked up in non-interest earning assets such as property, or simply incomplete figures, so that the annual income may have been closer to 40,000 scudi, rather than 15,000. Where Ferraro gives both income and capital figures the 4 per cent figure works well enough. From Patrizio’s will (Doc. 5.3, see below note 6) we can deduce that in 1688 the palazzo at S. Luigi was valued at 30,000 scudi, and a third part of Castel Giuliano at 47,794 scudi, making it worth 143,382 scudi in total. (See below.) These figures compare more than favourably with other families of like rank, although generally less than past and present papal families, who had assets ranging from 800,000 to 3 million scudi, implying an income of 32,000 to 120,000 scudi. 6. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, fols 276–89, dated 19 January 1688, opened 26 October 1689. (Doc. 5.3.) 7. There were other clauses in Patrizio’s will designed to prevent these portions being alienated, for example, if one of his heirs should commit a crime (fol. 286r), or become a religious (fol. 286r). In the latter case the stipulation that monasteries or other institutions should not benefit was ‘not out of hatred of monasteries, churches, convents, or of religion and the religious … but solely in order to preserve the heredity’ (non in odio de i monasterij, chiese, conventi, e religione, religiosi, et altre, ma solo per la conservatione dell’heredità). 8. Patrizio the elder may originally have hoped that more of his sons would enter the Church. In an early version of his will, dated 26 June 1678, when several of his sons were still children, he specified an annual income of 1000 scudi per annum to those of his younger sons who entered the Church, but only 500 scudi to those who did not. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B41, fols 356–65. 9. See Ferraro, 1994, vol. 2, 995, table and p. 1040, note 14. Some were held by his wife, Virginia Corsini, and quite a few by his third son Filippo. Many of these offices were owned continuously within the family from 1691 to the 1730s, although Cardinal Patrizi held several cavalierati di S. Pietro that were disposed of between 1691 and 1703, and Filippo in 1733 owned several cavalieri del giglio that did not appear earlier. According to this source Filippo held the post of chierico di camera in 1733, valued the same as Cardinal Patrizi’s had been in 1703. 10. Ferraro, 1994, vol. 2, table on pp. 994–95, and pp. 1040–41, note 14. In 1626 the post of chierico di camera cost 36,000 scudi, so the price had increased over the years (Nussdorfer, 46). See also Ago, 1990. 11. See Nussdorfer, 1992, 46-47; Moroni, 1840–79, vol. 43, p. 239. 12. Ferraro, 1994, vol. 2, p. 991, pp. 1034–35 note 12. 13. Both positions, like the chierici di camera and governor of Rome, answered to the cardinal Chamberlain. Nussdorfer, 1992, pp. 46–47. 14. At the time when the will was drawn up the sons were adult (Costanzo was 34, Giovanni Battista 30, Filippo 28, Mariano 25, and Francesco 23), and there may have been personal tensions. 15. Nussdorfer, 1992, p. 46, gives the figure of 60,000–70,000 scudi for the cost of this post; presumably the price was higher by the end of the century, as it was for the post of chierico di camera. 16. Minozzi, 2000, pp. 24, 27. The family had owned other palazzi in Rome, most notably the palazzo near S. Caterina di Funari, known today as the Palazzo Patrizi-Clementi, sold in 1747. 17. See above, note 6. (Doc. 5.3.) 18. Some details of the will seem to have been out-of-date, since, according to the Sestiginiani genealogy, Olimpia had married Giovanni Battista Orlandini in 1679, with a dowry of only 28,000 fiorini (7000 scudi) (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B430, no. 31) (Doc. 5.1). The same source does not give the date of Cunegonda’s marriage, and gives the same figure for her dowry. Assuming Cunegonda was married when she was about 20, that is around 1675, the dispositions in the will may in fact have dated from between this date and 1679 when Olimpia married. Patrizio may have decided to give the same dowry to Olimpia as to her older sister and had failed to update his will in 1688. 19. These figures may be compared with the value of other dowries taken

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

from the Sestigniani genealogy. Patrizio the elders generation: 45,500 fiorini (11,375 scudi) brought by Patrizio’s wife, Virginia Corsini, in 1649. Costanzo’s generation: 33,333 fiorini (8333 scudi) brought by Costanzo’s wife, Porzia Gabrielli, in 1679. The younger Patrizio’s generation: 35,000 fiorini (8,750 scudi) provided for his sisters, Maddalena, Caterina, and Laura; 43750 fiorini (10,938 scudi for the daughter of Costanzo’s cousin, Vittoria Bernadini Spada Veralli; and the 22,000 scudi brought by Angela Carpegna when she married the younger Patrizio in 1716 (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, Patrizi, B4, fols 370–74). Angela was to have been paid 16 scudi per month in pin money, so that her dowry was profitable for the family: at 4 per cent it would have yielded 73 scudi per month.

who, according to the family tree in ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B31, fol. 1, was Marchese Orlandini de’ Corsini. The distinction between titled families and those without was not, however, so very great; the fluid nature of Roman society, which before the reign of Benedict XIV lacked a ‘golden book’ defining which families were noble and which were not, meant that new families steadily acquired titles, as the Patrizi had done. As Nussdorfer (1992, pp. 98–99) points out, the essential difference was between gentlemen (gentiluomini) and titled lords (signori titolati), the latter being the old titled feudal families like the Colonna, rather than newer marchesi. Within the former, the main distinction was between old families, like the Patrizi (with Roman roots of more than about a century) and new.

20. Wasserman, 1968, p. 110.

34. See Chapter 1.5.

21. A. Specchi, Il quarto libro del nuovo teatro delli palazzi in prospettiva di Roma moderna (Rome, 1699), plate 41.

35. Letter, 13 April 1726 [5].

22. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B430, no 36. (Doc. 6.4.2.) 23. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, fols 294–97. The archivist’s cover sheet refers to an ‘Istromento del 19 Maggio 1692 fra Borghese e i Fratelli Giovanni e Marchese Costanzo Patrizi. Affitto per le rimesse e camere al Pozzo delle Cornacchie della parte di dietro attacato al Palazzo di detti Signori Patrizi’. Inside there is a note that the deed was removed by the archivist Augusto Cataldi on 25 June 1859. See also the document dated September 1692 about the stables at the back of the Palazzo Patrizi adjoining the Rondanini and Borghese palazzi (ASR, Collegio 30 Notai Capitolini, not. Jacobus Simonettus uff. 29, vol. 265, at fols 288–93 (Doc. 6.4.1); Minozzi, 2000, p. 33, note 69). 24. An account dated 1710 of the chiavaro (blacksmith) Giovanni Battista Torri (who would be engaged on the villa) is headed ‘Conto de’ lavori fatti per servitii dell’Illustrissimo Monsignore Patrizzi Tesoriere generale nel salone del suo palazzo a S. Luigi di Francesi ordinati dal Signore Mariano e Abate suoii fratelli’. Guerrieri Borsoi, 1988b, pp. 381–403.

36. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, fol. 281v. Castel Giuliano was evidently therefore worth almost double what Soldrerio had sold it for. 37. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, Inventory dated 26 October 1689 at the death of Patrizio (Doc. 3.1). 38. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 2r. Other documents with similar indications include ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fols 220r–22r. 39. Patrizio had devoted many of his energies to developing it, and Costanzo would continue to regard it as his principal rural property, to which he would retire for the summer villeggiatura, and Cardinal Patrizi would make guilty references to the way he and his brothers had neglected it. See the Letter, 9 May 1722 [5], where, in the context of finishing work at Palazzo Patrizi, he expresses his guilt at not spending money on Castel Giuliano on which his father had lavished attention, which he needed to leave in a suitable condition to his father’s namesake, the younger Patrizio.

25. The works undertaken in 1712-15 are discussed in Guerrieri Borsoi, 1988b, pp. 385–86; Wasserman, 1968, 110, note 66; Pedrocchi, 2000, p. 248 cat. 119; and Graf, 1995, cats 225–26. 26. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, fols 370–74. 27. The distinctions between fedecommesso and primogenitura are not, however, always made clear in the documents. As Ferraro (1994, vol. 1, p. 141) observes: ‘By the later 17th century, the principle of primogeniture has become so accepted that when persons used the term fidecommesso, they took it for granted that special control would be given to the eldest natural and legitimate heir.’ Hence in the elder Patrizio’s will he refers to the fedecommesso, rather than primogenitura, of Costanzo: ‘al fidecommesso del già Signor Giovanni Patritij nel suo testamento rogato per gl’atti del Ceccarelli sotto il di 27 febraro 1652’ (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, 283v). See also Piccialuti, 1999. 28. Ferraro, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 139–45; Hanlon, 2000, pp. 165–76. 29. Letter, 29 August 1722. 30. The fidecommesso of Giovanni is mentioned frequently in Patrizio’s will (Doc. 5.3, see note 6 above). Giovanni (1590–1631) was the father of Patrizio and the son of Soldrerio (died 1614) by his second marriage; Mariano (1599–1654) was Giovanni’s brother. Francesco (1598–1634) and Costanzo (1589–1624) were the sons of Soldrerio by his first marriage. 31. Based on the family tree in Minozzi, 2000, pp. 14–15. 32. Letter, 16 January 1723 [3]. 33. Noble marriages in this period were highly stratified, as Ferraro (1994, vol. 1, pp. 65–66) has shown, in the period 1600–99, on average 45 per cent of marriages of marchesi were with women from families of the same rank; in the case of the Patrizi it was 55 per cent. Patrizio’s wife Virginia Corsini came from a Florentine family of marchesi, and was the aunt of Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini, the future Pope Clement XII. Of Patrizio’s children, both Costanzo and one of the two sisters who did not go into convents married into the untitled families of gentlemen: Gabrielli and D’Aste. The other sister married an Orlandini

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 13

13

18/11/15 17:23

Chapter 1.2

Architect and Patrons

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Patrizi (1658–1727) Cardinal Patrizi’s portraits derive from a commission to Giuseppe Passeri for a full-length seated portrait facing left (Figs 1.2, 1.7),1 for which there is a preparatory study in Düsseldorf.2 What was probably a complementary commission from Passeri shows the cardinal facing right holding a letter with the date 1710 and wearing the violet appropriate to his position in the higher prelature at that time (Fig. 1.3).3 The full-length portrait, however, shows him wearing the scarlet of a cardinal, yet Passeri died in 1714, the year before Giovanni Battista was created cardinal. As Pedrocchi has suggested, it is likely that the painting was retouched later, perhaps by Mariano, to bring it up to date. A somewhat laboured bust-length version facing right might even be wholly by Mariano or Francesco (Fig. 1.4).4 What appears to be a copy or version of the three-quarter length variant has the draperies changed to the red of a cardinal’s mozzetta, although the lacework is unchanged (Fig. 1.5).5 Another three-quarter length derivation is signed by Gian Domenico Porta (who also made a signed copy of the Ceccarini portrait of Maria Virginia Patrizi) more comprehensively reworks the garments into those appropriate to a cardinal, including changes to the lacework (Fig. 1.6).6 In these portraits, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Patrizi is presented as a typical eighteenth-century prelate: one who was affable and enjoyed the pleasures of life, but who was also industrious, as is demonstrated by the way he is usually shown writing a letter.7 Giovanni Battista had a career that was in many ways typical. As the second son of a noble family he was destined for the Church, with the hope and expectation that he would obtain high office.8 After receiving doctorates of philosophy, law and theology from the University of Siena, his first step was purchased for him by his father as a family investment, the post of chierico della camera, discussed in Chapter 14

Libro MARSHALL.indb 14

Fig. 1.2. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714) and Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744) (?), Full-length Seated Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Oil on canvas, 136 x 105 cm. Inscribed ‘1715’on the book. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Reworked 1715, possibly by Mariano Patrizi.

1.1.9 After that he began to rise in the hierarchy of the Church, being appointed to various official positions, including Referendary of the Tribunals of the Apostolic

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.3. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Half-length Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Monsignor, 1710. Oil on canvas. Inscribed on the book ‘M[onsignor]. Gio[vanni]. / Patritij / A[nn]o. 1710’. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall / Owner.)

Fig. 1.4. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714) and Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744) (?), Half-length Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Oil on canvas, 74 x 63 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-PlanckInstitut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Either painted by Passeri c. 1710 when the cardinal was a monsignor and retouched when he was created cardinal in 1715, perhaps by Mariano Patrizi, or possibly wholly by Mariano.

Signatures of Justice and Grace, a post that placed him at the centre of power in Rome. Innocent XII appointed him Governor of Perugia and Umbria in 1699, which Moroni considered to be a bad career move, followed by an appointment as vice-legate in Urbino. His career path as a practical administrator was now set. In 1702 Patrizi was ordained, and was given the titular archbishopric of Seleucia (6 February 1702). This was one of the bishoprics of sees that no longer existed that were routinely given to those pursuing a career in the Curia or as nuncios.10 His real job was to be nuncio (papal ambassador) in Naples from 17 February 1702 until 3 April 1708, to which was added by the post of administrator of the archdiocese of Naples.11 In Naples Monsignor Patrizi was caught up in the events associated with the War of Spanish Succession of 1708. The accession of Philip V, the Bourbon grandson of Louis XIV, to the Spanish throne in 1700 had raised the spectre of a Bourbon superpower uniting Spain and France. Pope Clement XI Albani attempted, unsuccessfully, to remain

neutral while also attempting to maintain the privileges of the Church in the face of its increasing political irrelevance. Naples had long been a Spanish viceroyalty, but was now claimed by the Austrian Hapsburgs; and Naples had traditionally offered a feudal tribute to the papacy through the ceremony of the Chinea. This ceremony, held on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul on 29 June, involved the representative of the king of Naples, the Contestabile Colonna, making the ceremonial offering of a tribute of 7000 scudi and a richly decorated white horse (or mule) to the pope.12 In 1701 the pope refused to accept the tribute since acceptance might have been construed as supporting the claim of the Spanish Bourbons. This offended Philip V, and when Patrizi arrived in Naples in the following year, without bringing with him credentials recognising Philip V (who was then resident there) as king of Naples, he was refused audience as papal nuncio. In due course he would be received, but only as the administrator of the Church’s interests in Naples, not as a diplomat representing the pope.13

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 15

15

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.5. Gian Domenico Porta (1722–80)(?), Bust-length Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Based on Fig. 1.3, but with the dress updated from that of monsignor to cardinal.

Fig. 1.6. Gian Domenico Porta (1722–80), Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Oil on canvas, 107 x 88 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Probably based on Fig. 1.3, with the dress updated from that of monsignor to cardinal.

Subsequently, the situation for the papacy worsened, and in 1707 an Austrian Hapsburg army passed through the papal states and took Naples unopposed on 7 July 1707. (It would become an Austrian viceroyalty from 1713, until the Spanish Bourbons took over again in 1735.) Patrizi was deeply involved in the diplomacy associated with these events, echoes of which are heard in Valesio’s diary.14 Then, in August 1707, it was announced that he would be promoted to the important post of Papal Treasurer (tesoriero generale),15 the same position held by his illustrious ancestor Costanzo in the seventeenth century.16 Valesio reported on Saturday 4 February 1708 that he had had an accident, but had recovered.17 He was formally appointed on 2 April 1708, and arrived in Rome on Saturday, 7 April 1708.18 On Monday, 9 April 1708 Valesio reported that he had taken up the post, the pope having separated from this office the care and governance of the Castel S. Angelo, fortresses and galleys, which were given to Monsignor Marini, auditore della camera.19 On Tuesday, 24 April, Valesio reported that Patrizi took part

in a ceremony in which the papal famiglia assembled in S. Maria in Vallicella and proceeded to mass at Saint Peter’s. 20 Unlike his ancestor Costanzo, Patrizi made it to the next, and most important, step in the Church hierarchy when, on 16 December 1715, he was created cardinal in the eleventh creation of Clement XI.21 His titular church, on which he seems to have left no mark, was SS. Quattro Coronati. Almost immediately he set to work on his new villa, which rose rapidly. Then, on 10 January 1718 he was appointed cardinal legate in Ferrara, that is, the civil governor of the province of Ferrara, the northernmost component of the Papal States. This was a recognition of his administrative abilities, which were evidently considerable: Moroni refers to his ‘moderazione, gentilezza di tratto, equità, and amore del publico bene’.22 He was reappointed twice, by successive popes (on 28 May 1721 and 12 June 1724), and so was in a less useful position to advance his career further. There is no hint in the Letters that he aspired to be pope, but for all cardinals it was a possibility, a call to be answered, if not a post to be sought,

16

Libro MARSHALL.indb 16

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.7. View of the Gallery at Castel Giuliano, showing portraits of Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini (top left) and Cardinal Patrizi (top right, Fig. 1.2) with portraits of Mariano as poet (bottom left, Fig. 1.11) and painter (bottom right, Fig. 1.10). (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

and certainly in 1721 he was considered to be papabile (a possible pope) at the conclave of 1721 that elected Innocent XIII Conti, although according to Pastor ‘there were objections of a personal character’ to him.23 He was proposed by cardinals Alessandro and Annibale Albani as the replacement in 1726 for the dying Cardinal Paolucci as Cardinal Secretary of State for Benedict XIII Orsini,24 but was relieved to have been passed over, considering it to be a bad career move, given the unpopularity of Benedict XIII’s reign.25 He died just as he was about to leave Ferrara at the end of his third term as legate, on 31 July 1727.

A Villa in Albano Construction of the new villa seems to have got underway early in 1716, immediately following Patrizi’s elevation to the purple, and plans must have already been in hand, either in anticipation of his appointment, or because he was going to build it anyway. Rebuilding the vigna at Porta Pia was not, however, his first idea for a villa, as we know from a letter of 30 March 1726 in which the cardinal refers to drawings that Cipriani made ‘when I was thinking of building in Albano’.26 The Alban hills was the traditional site of villas for wealthy cardinals, and was well situated for the purpose, being not far from Rome and sufficiently high to escape the heat and malaria of the lowlands. The area favoured for villas ran from Frascati on the north, through Marino, Castel Gandolfo, and Albano, around the north and west sides of the Lake Albano, to Ariccia and Genzano beside Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 17

Lake Nemi. The Via Appia Antica ran directly from Rome through Albano and Genzano, before continuing on to Velletri and across the Pontine marshes. The great sixteenth-century villas were located around Frascati; the pope’s villa, developed by Urban VIII, was at Castel Gandolfo; the Chigi had a villa in Ariccia and the Altieri had one in Albano, as did the Odescalchi and Lercari.27 The cardinal would certainly have been aware of the construction by Cardinal Benedetto Pamphilj (who also had a vigna near Porta Pia)28 of the Palazzo Pamphilj (later Palazzo del Nazareno) at Albano, underway between 1708 and 1720.29 The Pamphilij would also acquire the villa of Cardinal Paolucci, Cardinal Secretary of State under Clement XI and Innocent XIII and Bishop of Albano from 1719, built in the 1720s.30 Even Cipriani had a vigna there. Why was the Albano project dropped? Given the cardinal’s subsequent preoccupations, cost was probably a factor: the Patrizi did not own any property at Albano, and the site would have had to have been purchased, whereas the Porta Pia vigna was already family property and was not constrained by fedecommesso or rules of primogeniture. Distance may also have been a factor. Referring in 1726 to the Pamphilj villa in Albano, and by extension his own project for a villa there before 1715, the cardinal states that he was glad that he did not proceed with it as its distance from Rome was such that in his old age he would not have been able to enjoy it as much as the villa at Porta Pia.31 Another factor was probably the wishes of his brothers, especially Mariano and Francesco: certainly Mariano seems to have had much invested in the garden of the vigna, and may not have wanted to start afresh.

Cardinal Patrizi as Patron In any case, attention shifted to rebuilding the vigna outside Porta Pia that had been purchased by the elder Mariano Patrizi in 1650. The nature of the earlier Casino and its relation to the new one is discussed in Chapter 2.1. Work seems to proceded quickly, so that, by the middle of 1718 when the Letters begin, the structure of the Casino was largely complete. Work was then underway on the Servants’ Mezzanines, Scalinata, and Stanza del Trucco, and the decoration of the interior of the Casino was about to begin. The nature of these works and what we can learn about them from the Letters is considered at length in later chapters; here it is useful to review what the Letters can tell us about the way the Patrizi functioned as patrons. The cardinal has final say in the decision-making process, but being situated in Ferrara he was heavily 17

18/11/15 17:23

dependent on information being provided to him by his brother Mariano, who was overseeing the works in Rome. In the Letters the cardinal displayed a certain diffidence: he knew he was not a professional in the field; but he also knew what he wanted. Hence he defers to Mariano and the experts that Mariano was dealing with, while at the same time spelling out in great detail how he wanted things done. There was often a rider to his instructions to the effect that he was aware that he may be talking about things he knew nothing about, so that Mariano should act as he saw fit. For example, when work was beginning at Castel Giuliano early in 1723, after expressing his views on how things should be done in a number of letters, he ruefully confessed that he was again ‘making architecture’ from a distance, and may therefore be proposing follies.32 Impinging on every decision by the cardinal were three interrelated factors: the cost of the villa, his own mortality, and the extent to which unfinished business and debts would be left to ‘those who come after him’, meaning his nephew Patrizio and his descendants. A constant theme of the Letters is the cost of the villa and the difficulty in raising the necessary sums. The total cost would in the end amount to about 27,000 scudi.33 This was about the same as the valuation of the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi in 1688 (30,000 scudi), and about one-fifth of Castel Giuliano (143,000 scudi).34 By the standards of seventeenth-century cardinals, this was not a huge sum, but it clearly stretched the cardinal’s income to the limit. We do not know his income during the period of construction, but his income in 1702–8 as monsignor from his post as papal nuncio in Naples was only about 3700 ducats (roughly 3000 scudi) per annum.35 This would have increased with his elevation to the cardinalate, and further again when he was created legate of Ferrara in 1718: at one point he refers to an increase in his income during the first triennium of his legation of 3000 scudi.36 There was also his share of the family income, as is discussed above (Chapter 1.1). He had investments in venal offices (uffitii vacabili) amounting to 18,000 scudi in 1718, with a return of about 720 scudi per annum,37 as well as investments in galeoni dall’Indie, probably Spanish ships bringing gold and silver from the Americas.38 But much of the cost came from capital, and in the period 1716–18 he cashed in about 9000 scudi of vacabili. As in all such projects, there was never enough money and always more needed. In the end, he largely achieved his goals, the main piece of unfinished business being the roadside chapel. When he began the villa he was 57, young enough to hope to be able to enjoy it, but as both the construction of the villa and his posting as legate in 18

Libro MARSHALL.indb 18

Ferrara dragged on and his health declined he began to despair of ever finishing it or enjoying it himself. Early in the Letters the cardinal requested an estimate of what it would take to finish everything, and by 6 August 1718 had received the unpleasant news that it would take another 6000 scudi. Wryly he remarked that it was the sums that one spends after one had already spent a lot that cause the most inconvenience: ‘it is a mine that, once excavated, does not replenish itself ’.39 Nevertheless, he set about raising the money, requesting his agent in Rome, Ercole Consalvi, to sell a certain office (uffitio); in the meantime promising to send Mariano what he had at hand in his current account in Bologna.40 By 17 September 1718 the cardinal had received a tube of drawings of the villa with costings, and remained surprised by the size of the total cost, as it did not include the Stanza del Trucco, the carriage houses and the associated Servants’ Mezzanines.41 The muratore had largely finished, as had the carpenter in the Casino (though not in the service buildings), and the cardinal considered cutting costs by omitting the Stanza del Trucco and just making the terrace (the Upper Terrace), which ultimately he decided against.42 On 25 November 1718 he apologised to Mariano for not having sent the money, amounting to 775 scudi, but promised that it would arrive soon.43 He referred to his creditors siphoning off his income as legate (chief among which was an abbadia in Bologna), more reliable than his other sources of income.44 This was a reference to the legal process known as the Capitolo Odoardo. This was a form of bankruptcy by means of which poor clergy could have their benefices assigned to their creditors who could then no longer pursue them, and so avoid being sent to debtor’s prison.45 There seems to have been a financial crisis at the end of 1720, and another in late 1723, when the cardinal refers explicitly to the Capitolo Odoardo.46 We do not know whether he invoked the Capitolo; if he did it means that he was effectively bankrupted by the villa. The cardinal then considered what parts of the project he could omit to save money.47 One was the loggia (the Roof Terrace), the cost of which, he stated, would have terrified him if he had not built the Casino (this, it seems, made him realise just how expensive such building works could be).48 Or they could have omitted the Stanza del Trucco, or some of the walls in the vigna. Mariano, apparently trying to reassure the cardinal, had written that it did not matter if the 775 scudi from Bologna did not arrive; but the cardinal pointed out that this would have left them ‘without a drop of blood in their veins’, while the arrival of this sum would ‘put a little oil in the lamp’ to keep the building works going.49

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.8. Giuseppe Vasi (1710–82), Tavola cento novantauno, della Villa Patrizi fuori di Porta Pia, from Delle Magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna, Book 10, Ville e giardini, 1760, p. 29. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 1.9. Tablet on the façade of the Villa Patrizi as depicted by Vasi (detail of Fig. 1.1).

But his motivation to complete the villa was powerful, if only because of the disgrace that leaving the villa unfinished would entail. In November 1718 the cardinal jokingly asked Mariano, if he should die, to place on the Casino a tablet (lapida) that stated that he built the structure, but could not finish it.50 A few years later, in March 1721, with the Scalinata just completed, he considered it necessary to complete the Portone, since given what he had spent on the Scalinata, the result would be discordant if this were not done.51 It would, he says, make it clear that the builder of this villa ‘had begun to build, but could not finish’,52 a reference to Luke 14:28–30: ‘For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, this man began to build, and was not able to finish.’53 From this point onwards the cardinal seemed to have been borrowing to pay for the completion of the villa, without a clear idea of how he was to repay his debt. In late 1723 he was afraid that he would have insufficient funds to pay the cost of his return from Ferrara and to maintain himself in Rome, and he was evidently serious when he remarked that he might end up in a debtor’s prison.54

of the Villa Patrizi, however, the situation was somewhat different. While the cardinal performed the traditional role of patron, and Cipriani that of the building professional, Mariano and Francesco played unusually hands-on roles in its design. This is reflected in the inscription on a tablet mounted on the street façade, transcribed by Vasi (Figs 1.8, 1.9):56

The Brothers as Patrons In building a private palazzo, as Waddy has shown for the Palazzo Barberini, the principal patron would often consult widely among family and friends on matters of planning, while design details and such matters as the orders were the province of the architect.55 In the case Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 19

JOANNES S. R. E. CARD. PATRITIUS SUBURBANUM LOCI NATURA, ET CÆLI ASPECTU SALUBERRIMUM A MARIANO ET FRANCESCO EJUS FRATRIBUS VIRIDARIO AUCTUM, A FUNDAMENTIS EXCITATA DOMO STRUCTURÆ MAGNITUDINE ET ELEGANTIA MAGNIFICENTIUS ORNAVIT ANNO MDCCXVII. H i s E m i n e n c e C a r d i n a l G i o v a n n i Pa t r i z i , the suburban villa, most health-giving by the nature of the place and the outlook of the sky, enlarged by a pleasure garden by Mariano and Francesco his brothers, he [Giovanni] adorned more magnificently by the construction of a house from the foundations with greatness and elegance of structure. The year 1717.57

Vasi read this as saying that there was a pre-existing casino erected by Mariano and Francesco Patrizi, but this is surely a misunderstanding; as we have seen, the vigna was developed by their father, although they were allocated apartments there.58 The inscription states that the new 19

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.10. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Portrait of Mariano Patrizi Dressed as a Painter, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 94 x 73.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Fig. 1.11. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714) and workshop, Portrait of Mariano Patrizi Dressed as a Poet, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 94 x 73.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

building was erected ‘from [its] foundations’ and that it was Giovanni Battista’s project. The date, 1717, evidently refers to the year in which the bulk of the Casino was erected. Vasi also stated explicitly that the new villa was designed by Mariano and Francesco, although the inscription refers only to the garden.59 Nevertheless, Vasi was undoubtedly right, as the letters demonstrate, in stating that the roles of Mariano and Francesco were important. Both were amateur architects, capable of designing details like window frames, doorcases, capitals and so forth, normally the responsibility of the professional architect.

Mariano (1663–1744) was accademico d’onore (honorary academician) at the Accademia di San Luca, a title given to aristocratic dilettantes whose status precluded them from being an academician proper. His best-known work is a drawing of the Sabine Women Making Peace between the Romans and Sabines (Fig. 1.12), produced in response to the soggetto (theme) of the concorso at the Accademia di San Luca in 1706, but fuori concorso (not part of the competition), because of Mariano’s honorary status.61 Graf points out that his style is based on that of Giuseppe Passeri evident, for example, in the weeping woman on the left, or the group of figures in right foreground of the mother showing her child.62 Passeri’s style is also evident in the drawing Mariano holds in the portrait. Mariano also painted an Allegory of Astronomy, signed and dated Marianus Patritiis pinxit a.1707 and paired with a work by Francesco (Fig. 1.13).63 Mariano was also a member of the Congregazione dei Virtuosi del Pantheon, a less official artists’ organisation, to which he was admitted in 1707.64 As a poet he composed a ‘compliment’ on the occasion of

Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744) In two portraits by Giuseppe Passeri of Mariano, the cardinal’s second-youngest brother, we find a very different persona from that of the cardinal. One shows a young aristocratic artist, proudly holding up one of his drawings (Fig. 1.10), while the other shows him as a poet (Fig. 1.11).60 20

Libro MARSHALL.indb 20

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.12. Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744), Sabine Women Making Peace between the Romans and Sabines, 1706. Red chalk, 595 x 820 mm. Rome, Accademia di S. Luca. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Fig. 1.13. Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744), Allegory of Astronomy, 1707. Oil on canvas, 144 x 175 cm. Signed and dated ‘MARIANUS PATRITIUS PINXIT 1707’. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

the wedding of his nephew Patrizio to Ottavia Sacchetti. Mariano would play an important role in the decoration and design of the villa, and his contacts with painters would prove important in the decision-making process. When he died in 1744, because he had few posessions of his own he left instead of a notarised will two small documents detailing various legacies that were left with his confessor, the Jesuit Padre Gentile, to be drawn from some luoghi di monte that he owned.65 There were amounts for those who rendered him personal service: 25 scudi to his servant, 10 scudi to his washerwoman, and 6 scudi to his stableboy. His main interest was in providing dowries, each of 25 scudi, for the daughters of various dependants: the two daughters of the housekeeper of the villa, Orsola Bussetti,66 the daughter of his cocchiere (coachman) Salvatore Leoni, and the daughter of his servant, Antonio, who was also in his service.67 These dowries were valid for entering a convent as well, but lapsed if they were unmarried at the age of 30. If the dowries were not taken up Mariano’s heirs were to give them to suitable poor girls. At his funeral, to be paid for from the same luoghi di monte, his body was to be accompanied by two brothers of a confraternity called the Compagnia dell’Anima and exhibited ‘without pomp’ (senza pompa) in the family chapel at S. Maria Maggiore.68 His executor was to be Patrizio, who, from his ‘goodness of heart and delicacy of conscience’ would carry out his instructions faithfully.69 Blank sheets of the cardinal’s Letters have drawings of doorcases and so forth, presumably made by Mariano, although most seem not to be projects for the villa (Figs

1.14, 1.15). The Letters frequently refer to drawings provided by Mariano, apparently made either by him or by Francesco, rather than by Cipriani. And it is Mariano who pursues many estimates and directs various capomaestri, and whose name appears on most receipts. Mariano clearly had his own views on how things should be done, and often has to rein in the cardinal’s enthusiasms. From the Letters it emerges that Mariano was the driving force for the modern and innovative features of the decoration. The cardinal tended to be conservative and is sometimes confused about what Mariano was suggesting. Mariano was the one presenting new ideas, ideas

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 21

Fig. 1.14. Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744), Sketch of a Doorcase, c. 1718. Black chalk. Annotation to a letter from Cardinal Patrizi. ASV, Archivio PatriziMontoro, B107, letter, 9 September 1718. (Archivio Segreto Vaticano.) Fig. 1.15. Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744), Sketch of a Doorcase, c. 1718. Black chalk. Annotation to a letter from Cardinal Patrizi, Archivio PatriziMontoro, B107, letter, 27 September 1718. (Archivio Segreto Vaticano.)

21

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.16. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 72.5 x 56.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Fig. 1.17. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi Seated Holding an Architectural Plan, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 172 x 122 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

that at this point were novel in Roman interior decoration, although within a few years they would be the norm. For example, we find Mariano pushing for bedrooms hung with fabrics rather than paintings, when the cardinal wanted to use paintings and fictive tapestries (arazzi finti); in the end, fabrics would prevail, as had been common in Rome during the later seventeenth century and would become the norm in eighteenth-century bedrooms (see Chapter 3.6). Where painters were concerned, it was often Mariano who proposed particular artists. As accademico d’onore of the Accademia di San Luca he would have had good connections with the Roman art scene. By contrast, the cardinal often professed his ignorance of matters artistic, and was more concerned with economy than artistic quality, deferring to Mariano on the details of implementation. He promoted Bolognese painters that he had heard about in Ferrara, rather than grand and temperamental Roman painters because they were cheaper, and while he employed

the leading sculptor Camillo Rusconi to design the sculpture for the Scalinata fountain, it would be executed by a lesser sculptor, Francesco Moderato, consistent with the cardinal’s concern to ensure that economy prevailed over artistic ambition (see Chapter 4.3). Mariano also played a particularly important role in the garden. As we have seen, the inscription on the façade assigned it to Mariano and Francesco. In September 1719, in the context of his usual lament about lack of funds, the cardinal revealed the motivation to build the villa was Mariano’s creation of the garden:

22

Libro MARSHALL.indb 22

If I find myself in these troubles it is your fault, because if you had not made the garden, I would not have made the building, and if I had not made the building, I would not have needed to take up the Legation to satisfy my debts, because I would have paid them with the money that I have spent on the building. But since there is no more remedy now, it is necessary to get out of it as best as one may.70

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.19. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714) and/or workshop, Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas 11 x 6.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Fig. 1.18. Architectural plan held by Francesco Patrizi (detail of Fig. 1.17).

From this it is apparent that Mariano had taken a particular interest in the vigna, and that this stimulated the cardinal to rebuild the Casino.

Francesco Felice Patrizi (1665–1734) Also a dilettante painter and poet was the youngest brother, Francesco Felice (1665–1734). He, like Mariano, was evidently a good friend of Giuseppe Passeri, who painted him several times, and like his brother, he was accademico d’onore of the Accademia di San Luca and a member of the Congregazione dei Virtuosi del Pantheon. A bust-length preparatory study (Fig. 1.16)71 for a full-length seated portrait like that of the cardinal (Fig. 1.17) reveals his somewhat heavier features.72 He is dressed as an abbate, a clerical post that did not signal the kind of ecclesiastical ambition that distinguished Giovanni Battista’s career: in the eighteenth century abbati were class of prelate that did not necessarPart 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 23

ily take holy orders, and often had an occupation, such as lawyer. In this case his occupation was nobleman. In his hands he holds an architectural plan (Fig. 1.18). It does not represent the villa, but a rather confused church-like building; essentially it is a sign of his architectural interests, and, taken in conjunction with Mariano’s portrait as a painter, implies that he played a bigger role in the planning of the villa than did Mariano.73 Certainly he seems to have been the most enthusiastic member of the family in taking villeggiatura at the villa.74 Pedrocchi has published another, very fine, portrait, as the young Francesco, but this is not convincing on physiognomic grounds, although there is a family resemblance, especially with Mariano. It is possible that this is actually Filippo, the third son, of whom there are no known portraits.75 The seated portrait of Francesco implies that he had architectural pretensions, and like Mariano he was a painter in the style of Passeri, producing in 1707 an Allegory of Fame (Fig. 1.20)76 that is the pendant to Mariano’s Allegory of Astronomy (Fig. 1.13). Because the Letters postdate the main construction phase of the Casino, they give no hint of what Francesco’s role might have played in the architecture of the villa, but they do reveal that he was given the task (peso) of furnishing the villa with fabrics and furniture. This was because of his sartorial style and what the cardinal saw as his good taste (buon gusto).77 He is frequently deferred to in matters of taste in the Letters, and several are addressed directly to him, mostly dealing with the soft furnishings. These indicate that he was often at the villa receiving and distributing items of furniture as they arrived,78 but often proved dilatory in completing the tasks assigned to him. For example, in his letter of 13 July 1720 the cardinal made clear that he had written Francesco a detailed letter about the disposition 23

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.20. Francesco Felice Patrizi (1665–1734), Allegory of Fame, 1707. Oil on canvas, 144 x 175 cm. Signed and dated ‘FRANC. PATRITIUS PINXIT A.1707’. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Fig. 1.21. Philipp Jacob Wörndle (1652–1722) and Jacob Cristof Wörndle (1659–after 1714), Subject from the History of Astronomy, 1700–01. Tempera on canvas. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

of two pieces of furniture, but Francesco was in no hurry to reply.79 A week later the matter was still unresolved; apparently Francesco wanted funds to be diverted from construction to furnishing, and the cardinal was anxious to prevent this and assured Francesco that he would find the funds for furnishing elsewhere.80 He asked Mariano to tell Francesco to not be so phlegmatic in deciding how to furnish the Casino since if he did not make a decision they could not start.81 In other letters the cardinal complained bitterly about the time it took to weave the damasks for the door curtains, which was evidently a task assigned to Francesco: it had taken ‘longer than it would take to weave damasks for Saint Peter’s, and longer than the Congress of Cambrai’, and not for lack of money on the cardinal’s part.82 After four-and-a-half years the colour of the lining had still not been decided.83 Both brothers shared an apartment on the fifth (attic) floor of the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi, added by their father in 1689–91, where they had a painting studio specially built by the capo mastro muratore Giuseppe Fontana.84 They were men of scientific culture as well, and decorated their apartments with paintings on canvas showing fictive tapestries (arazzi finti) devoted to the history of astronomy (Figs 1.21, 1.22).85 These were probably painted by Philipp Jakob and Jacob Christof Wörndle, for whom there are payments in 1700–1, but,

as Olivier Michel suggests, they were probably conceived by Mariano (and no doubt Francesco as well).86 They are not easy to interpret and are in need of further study, but they reveal a sophisticated knowledge of the history of astronomy. For example, Fig. 1.22 has an inscribed cartouche, which permits the identification of the scenes. In the right background the pagan philosopher Hypatia is dragged through the streets of Alexandria to her death by a Christian mob. As the inscription puts it: ‘Hypatia astronoma trucidata in Alesandria per l’invidia della sua scienza’ (Hypatia the astronomer violently killed in Alexandria because of envy of her great culture). In the centre background Pope Hilarius (461–68 CE) gives instructions to Victorius of Aquitaine to reform the calendar. In the foreground Boethius (c. 480–524 CE) (who was supposed to have written a treatise on astronomy) brings to Italy Greek astronomical texts (Fig. 1.23). In the portico in the left foreground antique astronomers observe Jupiter and the latitude of Mars, while beyond lunar observations are being made. Further evidence of their interests is Mariano’s Allegory of Astronomy referred to above (Fig. 1.13). In 1747, three years after Mariano’s death and thirteen after Francesco’s, their apartments still contained numerous copies—after Guido Reni, Carlo Maratta, Raphael, Pieter van Bloemen and Pietro da Cortona’s gallery in the Palazzo Pamphilj in Piazza Navona—several of

24

Libro MARSHALL.indb 24

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.22. Philipp Jacob Wörndle (1652–1722) and Jacob Cristof Wörndle (1659–after 1714), Subjects from the History of Astronomy. Left: Observations of the Moon, Mars and Jupiter. Foreground: Boethius Brings Greek Astronomical Texts to Italy. Centre Background: Pope Hilarius Gives Instructions to Victorius of Aquitaine to Reform the Calendar. Right

background: Hypatia is Dragged to her Death through the Streets of Alexandria, 1700–01. Tempera on canvas. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana– Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

which were by Passeri, but some of which must have been painted by the brothers.87 There was also an painting by ‘Enrico Spagnolo’, probably the little known Enrico de Las Marinas.88 In the painting studio were two easels and various sketches, plasters, prints and drawings (abozzi, gessi, stampe e disegni).89 There were also a few original paintings by contemporary artists like Luigi Garzi and Giuseppe Passeri.90

He was also a conservator in the Campidoglio in 1692 and 1706.94 In 1679 Costanzo married Porzia Gabrielli.95 In her portrait, she wears a substantial jewelled brooch with pendant pearls, of the kind that was carefully itemised and valued in death inventories (Fig. 1.24).96 Costanzo’s portrait, presumably the one for which he paid Giuseppe Passeri the modest sum of 8 scudi in 1693, shows him as a man conscious of his position, and wearing a high Louis XIV-type wig (Fig. 1.25).97 Costanzo appears in the Letters only in the background, and one can infer from them that he was a less than wholehearted supporter of the villa project. His relations with Cardinal Patrizi appear to have been somewhat strained.98 In part this was for structural reasons arising from their respective positions: if the head of a noble family had a brother who was a cardinal, a prince of the Church, he was of necessity in competition with him where considerations of status were concerned. This competition extended to the family palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi. This had to serve as the site both of his display as head of the Patrizi and of his brother, as a cardinal.99 It was Costanzo’s father, the elder Patrizio, who had reestablished the status of the family. Costanzo’s task was to maintain this, but he has little opportunity, or perhaps inclination, to do more than this. The cardinal, by con-

Costanzo Patrizi (1654–1739) The other brothers, Costanzo and Filippo, had very little to do with the villa, although both had apartments on the Ground Floor. Costanzo was the oldest son and head of the family. He appears to have led a reckless youth. Before his marriage to Porzia Gabrielli, he had gone to London where he became involved with, and married, a Scottish woman called Marian Robison or Robinson in 1675. Patrizio had had to obtain the dissolution of this marriage from the pope, who wrote a brief directed to the archbishop of Paris to that effect.91 This prodigal son was not devoid of cultural interests, and was an associate of the Accademia di Torino.92 Like Filippo he played a role in the administration of the Grand-Duchy of Tuscany, and sat on the high court (magistrato supremo) in 1678.93 Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 25

Fig. 1.23. Pope Hilarius, Boethius and Hypatia, detail of Fig. 1.22.

25

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.24. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Portrait of Porzia Gabrielli Patrizi, 1680s. Oil on canvas, 73 x 60 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Fig. 1.25. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Portrait of Costanzo Patrizi, 1680s. Oil on canvas, 74 x 61 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

trast, was politically more important, and in greater need of asserting his status through display, and such display was, in the first instance, focused on the town palace shared with his older brother. The cardinal could have a free hand in the villa, where Costanzo’s involvement was of a token nature. Conversely, Castel Giuliano (and neighbouring Sasso), as the source of the family titles, was Costanzo’s territory above all, and he preferred to take villeggiatura there rather than at the villa. Even though the cardinal had an apartment at Castel Giuliano and might contribute to building works, it was not a place for the cardinal’s personal display. Insofar as Costanzo concerned himself with the property outside Porta Pia, it was with the vigna, a term now confined to the agricultural part of the property, rather than the villa proper, that is, the Casino and associated structures, the Garden and the Boschetto. In March 1721 he was considering making a wall between the villa and the vigna (probably the wall to the east of the Casino), a project of which the cardinal approved, as it would mean that the vigna would not be damaged and the two components would remain distinct.100 This suggests that

Costanzo, as head of the family, was the person responsible for the property as a whole, but had effectively ceded the Casino and its dependencies to the cardinal.

26

Libro MARSHALL.indb 26

Filippo Patrizi (1660–1733) While the two younger sons were dilettante artists and architects because they had no office and had little income, the third son Filippo was a gentleman attendant in other aristocratic families and was involved in the civic government of Rome. He also developed the family’s connections with Tuscany.101 He was active in the affairs of the Grand-Duchy of Tuscany, from an early age being a member of the magistracy called the otto di guardia e balia, and chief magistrate in 1686 and 1694.102 In 1688 he was gentilhuomo della camera to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and was sent to Munich to organise the marriage contract between Grand Prince Ferdinand of Tuscany and Violante Beatrice, the youngest child of Ferdinand Maria, Prince-Elector of Bavaria, (1673–1731).103 The contract was signed on 24 May 1688, and the marriage took place

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:23

in 1689.104 This would have been a useful contact for him in later life: after the death of her husband in 1713 Violante was made Governor of Siena, and following the death of Grand Duke Cosimo III in 1723 she held court in Florence, where she encouraged French fashions, and she came to Rome in 1725.105 From 1707 Filippo was a member of the Accademia degli Intronati in Siena, the venerable literary academy of Siena today housed in the Palazzo Patrizi-Piccolomini. Filippo also cultivated his family’s connections with the Corsini family of Florence, and was maestro di camera to Marchese Filippo Corsini.106 In 1709 Valesio reported that he was elected maestro di camera to Monsignor Annibale Albani, along with Conte Bussi as major-domo and Marchese Theodoli as cavallerizzo, but that they were reluctant to serve him as Albani had not yet been created cardinal (this would take place on 23 December 1711).107 Filippo was active as a conservator in the Capitoline administration, a traditional activity for a younger son of his social station,108 and was engaged as one of the four ‘consoli della nobil’Arte dell’Agricoltura’ who published summaries in Italian of the various papal regulations about agriculture.109 Eventually, on 1 September 1730, he was given the lucrative appointment of generale delle poste by Clement XII in place of Marchese de Carolis.110 Filippo does not figure much in the correspondence of the cardinal with whom he seems not to have been close. Indeed, although he was supposed to contribute to his apartments at the villa, he was reluctant to do so (see Chapter 3.8). He died on 3 April 1733.111

Sebastiano Cipriani (1662–1738) The architect employed to build the Villa Patrizi was Sebastiano Cipriani (Fig. 1.26). Cipriani was an architect much employed by the Patrizi, working at the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi and at Castel Giuliano from at least 1693.112 Born in the Umbrian town of Norcia, he was established in Rome by 1683.113 A pupil of Giovanni Battista Contini, his works include the Altieri Chapel in S. Maria in Campitelli (1705), the library at S. Croce in Gerusalemme (1703–24) (where Panini would paint the ceiling in 1724), and the rebuilding (1703–7/8) and decoration (until 1714) of the Palazzo Marucelli, on Via dei Condotti, Via dei Sediari and Via Borgognona in Rome.114 Concurrently with the planning and construction of the Villa Patrizi he was supervising the restoration of the fortress at Nettuno and the watchtowers at Anzio, Nettuno and Astura (1715–17) and building the PalaPart 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 27

Fig. 1.26. Anonymous, Portrait of Sebastiano Cipriani. Oil on canvas prepared with a red ground, 50 x 66 cm. Rome, Accademia di San Luca, inv. 0578. (Accademia di San Luca.)

zzo Pica-Alfieri at L’Aquila (1713–17). In 1717 he was working on a design for an Imperial villa at Strjelna, near Saint Petersburg. In 1718 he built the Cappella dell’Immacolata in SS. Apostoli (1718), where he was appointed architetto in 1721, and where he designed the Cappella del Crocefisso (1721–24), did stucco work in the tribune (1727), and designed the pulpit (1736) (Fig. 1.27). In 1725–26 he was responsible for the design and execution of the altar for Bernini’s statue of S. Barbara in the cathedral at Rieti. He designed the high altar of S. Marcello al Corso (1725) (removed in the nineteenth century), was architect to the fathers of the Divina Pietà (1727–28), and began the construction of S. Gregorio ai Quattro Capi before being replaced by Filippo Barigioni, who was responsible for the façade. He was architetto of SS. Andrea e Claudio dei Borgognoni at the beginning of the remodelling of the church (1728), completed by Antoine Dérizet in 1731, and architetto of the Monte di Pietà (1729 until his death), where he worked on enlarging the palazzo towards S. Trinità dei Pellegrini, completed in 1735–40. For Cardinal Imperiali he produced reports 27

18/11/15 17:23

Fig. 1.27. Rome, SS. Apostoli, pulpit, 1736. Architect: Sebastiano Cipriani (1662–1738). (David R. Marshall.)

on the restoration of the vault and façade of the cathedral at Ronciglione (1727) and as architetto del Buon Governo produced designs (1728–30) for the campanile of the sacristy, completed in 1735. On 21 August 1728 Valesio reported that, following the collapse of a building at Civitavecchia of which he was architect, he was asked by the Camera Apostolica to repay the costs.115 He was also active in the Tribunale delle Strade from 1713 to 1734, and was involved with various roadworks outside the city. In the range of his activities Cipriani was a typical architect of his period. He had little opportunity to build new buildings and instead was in involved in many reports, 28

Libro MARSHALL.indb 28

renovations, and jobs involving supervision of routine building work, as well as administrative work on the roads. Consequently his works do not bear the strong stamp of a personal style. From Contini he acquired the normative Berniniesque classicism of the day, but where he had some freedom to manoeuvre, such as at the pulpit of SS. Apostoli, he showed an ability to design in an inventive barocchetto manner. The Villa Patrizi would have been his signature building, but how much of the appearance and style of the building is due to him is obscured by the fact that two of his patrons on this project (Franceco and Mariano) were unusually architecturally literate. Cipriani figures only intermittently in the cardinal’s letters, beginning with the first written on 22 June 1718 on the cardinal’s arrival in Ferrara to take up his legation. His route ran by way of Spoleto, Foligno, Fossombrone and Pesaro, and he had met Cipriani at Foligno, but had not had time to discuss the villa with him at much length.116 Cipriani had a number of projects in Umbria and the Marches underway at this time, and he was probably there to work on one or more of them.117 Mostly the Letters have passing references to Cipriani making misure, that is, assessments of the amount of work done or intended to be done by the various tradesmen, although there are some references to him making drawings, discussed in the appropriate places following. Nor does Cipriani figure much in the accounts, although in some he authorised payments, or assessed the value of completed work.118 The relationship between Cipriani and his patrons was not without disagreements. In 1718 there was a difference of opinion between Cipriani and Mariano over the Roof Terrace.119 Mariano had wanted to enlarge it, and Cipriani had objected. The cardinal dismisses Cipriani’s objections as ‘panic fear’ (un timor panico), resulting from some small movement (scrostamento) between old and new work.120 Cipriani apparently resented Mariano’s involvement, and indicated that he did not want his assistance. The cardinal was offended that he should take such a line with him, ‘as if he [Cipriani] owed him so few obligations’. 121 He told Mariano to ignore his protests about the Roof Terrace and to advise him if he continued to be neglectful (trascurare), in which case the cardinal would write to him, and presumably put him in his place. By 1726 the cardinal was evidently somewhat disillusioned by the accuracy of the estimates Cipriani had been providing. In discussing the roofing of the stables in the courtyard of the Palazzo at S. Luigi, the cardinal asked Mariano to make estimates, but ‘not the way an architect does, always estimating half of what one ends up spending’.122

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Cipriani was not well paid. At one point in 1723 the cardinal considered recognising his services (and those of the capo mastro muratore, Carlo Cerone) with a gift,123 but when it came to settling accounts at the completion of the villa in 1726, it emerged that Cipriani had not been paid for any work on the villa, the Palazzo at S. Luigi, or at Castel Giuliano since at least 1717.124 This in itself suggests that the architect’s involvement in the later stages of the building and in its decoration was slight. The Cardinal insisted that Cipriani has done little more than provide drawings and, as we have seen, he did not consider a special payment was owed for preliminary sketches for the project for a villa at Albano.125 The cardinal settled on the amount of 200 scudi, which Cipriani was paid on 29 April 1726.126 This amount was not large, given that the painters received 70 scudi for each of the Ground Floor rooms. We may conclude, therefore, that Cipriani produced designs as required (such as the surviving plan and elevation), but was not much involved with supervising the works, at least in the later stages concurrent with the Letters. That would have been a matter between Mariano and the capo mastro muratore (Carlo Cerone) and the capo mastro scarpellino.

Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691–1765) Where the decoration was concerned, the painter Giovanni Paolo Panini played a much greater role than the architect (Fig. 1.28). Early in the eighteenth century the need emerged for what we would call an interior decorator, and Panini quickly filled this role. In 1719 he was just one of several painters that the cardinal was employing, and who was out of favour for his tardiness in completing projects, not because he was a slow worker, but because he was so much in demand that he left his Patrizi commissions unfinished (see Chapter 3.9). However, he was evidently a friend of both Mariano and Francesco and as part of a developing relationship with the family he became increasingly favoured, so that from 1722 onwards most matters about the interior decoration were being referrred to him. Hence if anyone can be called the designer of the interiors it was Panini. Francesco, in particular, is instructed by the cardinal to consult with Panini, and to be advised by his buon gusto (good taste).127 In his exchanges with Francesco the cardinal frequently refers to Panini, giving Francesco explicit instructions to confer with him on the conception of the decoration of the rooms.128 Probably the cardinal ended up having more faith in Panini’s soughtafter professionalism than Francesco’s dithering. In the end Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 29

Fig. 1.28. Louis Gabriel Blanchet (1705–72), Portrait of Giovanni Paolo Panini, 1736. Oil on canvas, 96.5 x 76 cm. Indistinctly signed and dated on the book lower left: ‘L G Blanchet It / 1736’. Formerly London, Art Market (Colnaghi).

Panini and Francesco became friends, and both would stay overnight at the villa in order to converse about questions of interior decoration.129 As far as the cardinal was concerned, Panini’s contribution to the villa added greatly to his own dignity. On 20 June 1722 he employs a striking metaphor when asking Mariano to thank Panini for the ideas that he had provided for the decoration of the Casino: ‘it is certain that a beautiful woman does not appear so unless properly clothed’.130 Having spent so much money in building, he did not want to be shamed by the decoration, and Panini could ensure that he was not.

Attitudes to other Roman Villas The cardinal kept a competitive eye on villas comparable to the Villa Patrizi, acutely aware of what he perceived as his own relative poverty. When Cardinal Alberoni acquired the Vigna di Pier Benedetto and paid a social visit to the 29

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.29. Poli, Villa Catena, view of west facade (2000). (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 1.30. Castelfusano, Villa Sacchetti, now Chigi, view of garden facade. Architect: Pietro da Cortona. (David R. Marshall.)

Villa Patrizi, the cardinal was jealous of Alberoni’s wealth, which enabled Alberoni to do do something much more magnificent than Patrizi could manage, but he consoled himself with the knowledge that he (Patrizi) had the better site.131 (In fact Alberoni did very little with his property.) When his cousin, Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini, paid a visit Patrizi likewise consoled himelf with the knowledge that the ‘air, and situation’ (l’aria, e situatione) of the Patrizi villa was better than that of the Corsini villa—that is, the Casino dei Quattro Venti on the Janiculum.132

concerned while implying that the pope was something of a cheapskate, since he could take villeggiatura there without any expense on his own part, the expense having been borne by his brother, the Duke of Poli. Yet the Conti villa did not impress, and by 20 June 1722 the cardinal had learnt that Mariano was rather disappointed with it.134 Evidently Mariano had found the interior furnishings and decorations shabby, and had said that those at the Villa Patrizi were much better, and that Cardinal Patrizi had decorated it more generously. This created a problem of decorum for the cardinal, worried that his own villa may have upstaged that of the pope. His way out was to recognise that the Villa Patrizi was a city building, not a country one, and seen in this light his expenditure on it seemed more judicious. Clearly, country villas, particularly those associated with feudal territories, could afford to be a little shabby. A new city villa, however, had to be in better style. The cardinal then asked eagerly of Mariano what was most distinctive about the villa: the site, the building, or an abundance of water. This pointed question was directed towards discovering where the tens of thousands of scudi that the Conti were supposed to have spent on the villa had gone. In the letter to which the cardinal’s letter of 4 July 1722 is a reply, Mariano had evidently returned to the subject of his visit to the Villa Catena, stating that he would not want to swap it for their villa.135 Clearly the inferiority of the Villa Catena to the Villa Patrizi had continued to be a subject of some importance for the brothers. This time, however, the cardinal’s reaction was not so much discomfort at the better decoration of his

Villa Catena at Poli The cardinal and his brother were particularly alert to the comparison with the Villa Catena, outside Poli, a town in Lazio not far from Palestrina (Fig. 1.29). This formed part of a feudal estate of the dukes of Poli, comparable to Castel Giuliano. The Villa Catena was of interest to the Patrizi because Pope Innocent XIII (Michelangelo dei Conti) was the brother of Giuseppe Lotario, Duke of Poli, and would pay a visit to the villa with his full papal entourage for a week in April–May 1723. Some of the Patrizi brothers may have been in the entourage, and had certainly visited the villa in 1722, as a letter from the cardinal of 13 June 1722 made clear.133 The cardinal was naturally very interested in the nature of the villa belonging to the pope’s family, which was directly comparable in social function to his own. The cardinal praises his brothers for going to see it, observing that he had heard that it was sumptuous and that he would like to hear all about it. He was envious of the greater resources available to a pope as far as villas were 30

Libro MARSHALL.indb 30

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

own villa, as the comforting expectation that the pope would, in fact, much improve the Villa Catena. This train of thought leads to the observation that if the Villa Patrizi were owned by a pope, then it could likewise be much improved by bringing water to it from the Acqua Paola. Implicit in this comment was his awareness that the Villa Catena, high in the hills, was amply supplied with water. The Villa Patrizi, by contrast, had the problem of a lack of an adequate water supply, and the cardinal was devoting much of his energy at this time to trying to resolve the problem, discussed in Chapter 4.4. Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano A month earlier, the cardinal referred to the Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano (Fig. 1.30). This villa belonged to Matteo Sacchetti, father of Patrizio’s wife, Ottavia, and so warranted competitive comparisons with the cardinal’s villa. It had been built between 1624 and 1629 by Cardinal Giulio Sacchetti, a protégé of the Barberini, papal aspirant and a former legate in Ferrara, to the designs of Pietro da Cortona.136 It was (and is) situated in woodlands close to the sea, and had fortifications in the form of corner bastions and gun ports that were not simply representational, since the area was subject to attacks by pirates.137 Indeed, even at Porta Pia the cardinal was afraid of Turkish attacks on the Villa Patrizi.138 The cardinal’s remarks were perhaps prompted by Mariano having recently visited it. What he had learnt was that, being placed in the middle of the coastal woods (machia) and near the sea, it was not a delightful site, although the building, he supposed, was comfortable (comodo), although not very large.139

Notes 1. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714) and Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744)(?), Fulllength Seated Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Oil on canvas, 136 x 105 cm. Patrizi Collections. Inscribed ‘1715’on the book. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 107, who suggests that it was retouched by Mariano. In the 1749 inventory it was in Palazzo Patrizi (Un ritratto di tela d’Imperatore [that is, about 135 x 85 cm or 6 x 3.75 palmi] per alto con cornice a due intagli dorata, rappresentante il Cardinale Patrizi, originale del Passeri — scudi 20). In 1772 and 1814 it was in the Primary Bedroom of the villa (PN08), valued in 1772 at 3 scudi and in 1814 at 73 francs with other items. 2. Giuseppe Passeri, Studies for a Seated Portrait of Monsignor Patrizi, Düsseldorf, Museum Kunstpalast, nos 1137, 1139, 1141–42, Graf, 1995, cats 761–64. 3. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Half-length Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Monsignor, 1710. Private Collection. Oil on canvas. Inscribed on the book ‘M[onsignor]. Gio[vanni]. / Patritij / A[nn]o. 1710’. 4. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714) and Mariano Patrizi (1663–1744) (?), Halflength Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Oil on canvas, 74 x 63 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 106. According to Pedrocchi painted c. 1710 as monsignor, retouched after 1715 as cardinal). That it is wholly by Mariano is worth considering. 5. Gian Domenico Porta (1722–80) (?), Bust-length Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Patrizi Collections. Not in Pedrocchi, 2000. Apparently a copy of the 1710 half-length portrait (see note 3 above) but with the dress updated from that of monsignor to cardinal. Perhaps by Gian Domenico Porta. 6. Gian Domenico Porta (1722–80), Portrait of Giovanni Battista Patrizi as Cardinal. Oil on canvas, 107 x 88 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 130. Similar to the 1710 half-length portrait (see note 3 above) but with the dress updated from that of monsignor to cardinal. 7. On the trope of letter-writing in portraits of cardinals, see Hill, 2004. This was particularly appropriate for Cardinal Patrizi, as his letters to Mariano and Francesco demonstrate. 8. See Chapter 1.1. For Patrizi’s ecclesiastical career, see Guarnacci, 1752, vol. 2, col. 280; Cardella, 1792, vol. 8, pp. 164–65; Moroni, 1840–79, vol. 52, pp. 8-9; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 30, 45 and 352; Weber and Becker, 1999–2002, vol. 2, p. 736; Weber, 1994, pp. 237, 254, 333, 418 and 830; Miranda, Cardinals. 9. According to Miranda (Cardinals) his degrees were: University of Siena, Siena (doctorates in philosophy, 19 June 1680; law, 22 June 1680; and theology, 24 June 1680). 10. Seleucia was Seleucia di Isauria, corresponding to the modern Turkish city of Silifke, and formed part of the ancient Patriarchate of Antioch. 11. These dates derive from documents that record an investigation and judgement by the tesoriere generale and the chierici di camera dated 26 September 1726 under Benedict XIII (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fols 273r–76v). 12. This was a hack, or haquenée, hence ‘Chinea’. 13. Galasso, 1967–78, vol. 7, pp. 254–62. 14. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 3, p. 816, Saturday 28 May 1707: ‘Arrivò per le poste il decano di monsignor Patrizio, nunzio di Napoli, con l’attestazione dell’assoluzione presa dal viceré.’ Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 3, p. 845, Friday 8 July 1707: ‘Venne a S. Beautidine feluca spedita da monsignor Patrizio, nunzio di Napoli.’ 15. This was noted in Valesio’s diary on 4 August 1707. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 3, p. 851, Thursday 4 August 1707: ‘… la lista della mutazione delle cariche prelatizie … monsignor Patrizii, nunzio di Napoli, tesoriere e, finché non venga, l’essercitarà in sua vece monsignor auditore della Camera; monsignor Aldobrandini nunzio a Napoli …’. 16. See Pedrocchi, 2000. 17. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, Saturday, 4 February 1708, ‘Monsignor Patrizii,

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 31

31

18/11/15 17:24

nunzio di Napoli e dichiarato tesoriere, è stato assalito da accidente, del quale hora è migliorato …’. 18. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, p. 56, Saturday, 7 April 1708: ‘E’ giunto hoggi in Roma dalla nunziatura di Napoli monsignor Patrizii, di già eletto tesoriere.’ 19. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, Monday, 9 April 1708: ‘Ha preso possesso della carica di tesoriere hoggi monsignor Patrizio, havendo S. Santità separato dal detto officio la cura et il governo di questo Castello S. Angelo, delle fortezze e delle galere, quale ha data a monsignor Marini auditore della Camera.’

38. Letter, 22 September 1722 [5]. 39. Letter, 6 August 1718 [1]: ‘essendo questa una miniera, la quale doppo che si è cavata non rinasce.’ 40. Letter, 20 August 1718 [1]. 41. Letter, 17 September 1718 [1]. See also 5 November 1718 [1] for a description of what was outstanding at that point. 42. Letter, 5 November 1718 [1].

20. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, p. 66, Tuesday, 24 April 1708.

43. Letter, 25 November 1718 [1].

21. Guarnacci, 1751, vol. 2, col. 280.

44. Letter, 25 November 1718 [1].

22. Moroni, 1840–79, vol. 52, pp. 8–9.

45. Pratica, 1815, p. 93: ‘I sacerdoti poi, e Clerici, i quali vanno in abito, e tonsura, godono un’altro privilegio, che è quello detto nel Capitolo Odoardo, perché dedotto dal Testo del Capitolo: Odoardus de solutionibus. Questo privilegio porta, che i Sacerdoti, e Chierici gravati da’ debiti possono implorare l’autorità del Giudice, acciò rilasci loro una parte de’ frutti de’ beni, o patrimoniali, o Ecclesiastici, la quale parte si chiama Congrua [benefice], ed assignando il rimanente ai Creditori, li garantisca dallle molestie de’ medesimi.’

23. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, pp. 12–14. 24. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 129. 25. Letter, 19 June 1726 [2] (Paolucci died on 12 June). 26. In this letter the cardinal discusses making a final settlement of his accounts with the architect, Sebastiano Cipriani, insisting that the drawings for the villa at Albano were of little account, as they were only first ideas (puri schizzi di pensieri). Letter, 30 March 1726 [1]. 27. Rybko, 1990, p. 263. 28. Later the core of the Villa Torlonia. 29. For the Palazzo Pamphilj at Albano see Silvestri and D’Ambrosio, 1988 and Rybko, 1990. It has been restored; see Mercantini, 2010. 30. Later Villa Doria Pamphilj, demolished in 1951 to create Piazza Mazzini. Mercantini, 1910, p. 138 published a plan and elevation of a Doria Pamphilj palace in Albano of 1764 as the Palazzo del Nazareno building, but it does not correspond. 31. Letter, 27 April 1726 [3]. 32. Letter, 20 February 1723 [2]. For the work at Castel Giuliano, see Chapter 6.2. 33. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, p. 451ff. gives lists of expenditures. The crucial figure of 27,007.70 scudi appears early in the document, comprising 12,459.58 scudi listed in another account book, and 14,548.12 scudi in expenditure listed in this document. Given that there are some sheets of corrections, this corresponds well enough with the sum of individual allocations of money to Mariano from the cardinal of 27,694 scudi, and expenditure of 14,560 scudi. This means that almost half of the expenditure is not recorded in item 451 that must have been the expenditure for materials and construction of the main fabric of the Casino. 34. See Chapter 1.1. 35. Cardinal Patrizi had apparently been underpaid during his term as nuncio in Naples, receiving 19,421 ducati 2 tarì, but was owed a further 3,787 ducats, 4 tarì and 13 grana, which Benedict had paid him in 1725. His total income was thus 23,208 ducati, 4 tarì and 15 grana, or about 3,762 ducats per annum. This income was calculated at the rate of eight per cent on various capital sums. See the documents that record an investigation and judgement by the tesoriere generale and the chierici di camera dated 26 September 1726 under Benedict XIII (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fols 273r–276v.) 36. Letter, 14 February 1722 [2]. 37. See ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fols 205r–7r, for lists of vacabili. These amount to 32,151.20 scudi in 1691–96, with alienations of 3200 scudi in 1698, 6735 scudi in 1716 (corresponding to the construction of the Casino) and 2545 scudi in 1718. On 15 May 1718 his vacabili amounted to 18,182.20 scudi. From these figures it appears that the cardinal cashed in a little more than 9000 scudi from vacabili to pay for the villa up to the point when the Letters commence in mid-1718. At a rate of 4 per cent vacabili with a capital value of 18,000 scudi would have returned about 720 scudi per annum. See Doc 5.10.

32

Libro MARSHALL.indb 32

46. In this instance the cardinal accuses Mariano of exaggerating the amount owed on the villa, in order to frighten him into believing that he might have to sell it. He asks him to get Cipriani to check the figures so that he could see whether he would need to invoke the Capitolo Odoardo. Letter, 4 December 1723 [1]. 47. Letter, 25 November 1718 [2]. 48. In this context the loggia seems to be distinct from the Casino, but given the discussion considered below (note 119) it is difficult to know what else it could be other than the Roof Terrace. 49. Letter, 3 December 1718 [1]: ‘dice d’essere restato senza punto di sangue nelle vene; ho messo per tanto un poco d’olio nella lampada affinché possa continuare li lavori’. 50. Letter, 25 November 1718 [2]. 51. Letter, 1 March 1721 [3]. 52. Letter, 1 March 1721 [3]: ‘e farà conoscere che il Padrone, cepit edificare, et non potuit consumare’. 53. Luke, 14: 28-30: Vulgate: ‘quis enim ex vobis volens turrem aedificare non prius sedens conputat sumptus qui necessarii sunt si habet ad perficiendum ne posteaquam posuerit fundamentum et non potuerit perficere omnes qui vident incipiant inludere ei dicentes quia hic homo coepit aedificare et non potuit consummare’. King James version: ‘For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ New International Version: ‘Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ 54. Letter, 13 November 1723 [3]. 55. Waddy, 1976. 56. The tablet was carved by the scarpellino Francesco Maria Perini on a slab of marble provided by the Patrizi measuring 10½ x 6½ x ½ palmi (235 x 145 x 11 cm). Twenty-three of the letters measured 6½ oncie (12.3 cm) high, and 180 measured 4 oncie (7.4 cm) high. The tall letters were for the cardinal’s name, the smaller for the rest (the letter count is exact, allowing for the digraph Æ as a single letter). See ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B34D, no. 50, and B34, not numbered, my 40. No. 50 is Perini’s account for work from 3 August 1718 to 30 December 1723, while no. 40 is dated 1725. 57. I am grateful to Frances Muecke for the translation. 58. Vasi, 1760, p. 37: ‘Per quello che insegna la suddetta iscrizione fu quivi già

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

un casino eretto da Mariano e Francesco Patrizj’. 59. Vasi, 1761, p. 36: ‘con disegno dei medesimi due fratelli’. 60. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Portrait of Mariano Patrizi Dressed as a Painter, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 94 x 73.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 108. This shows him dressed as a painter holding a drawing of a male figure with a staff seated on a cloud. Pedrocchi dates this to the 1680s (‘nono decennio’), when Mariano would have been aged between 17 and 27. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714) and workshop, Portrait of Mariano Patrizi Dressed as a Poet, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 94 x 73.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, cat. 109. This shows him dressed as a poet holding a lyre. Pedrocchi identifies these paintings with items in the Palazzo Patrizi in the 1749 inventory as ‘Due ritratti da quattro palmi per alto con cornice liscia dorata rappresentanti Ritratti della Casa di Giuseppe Passeri — scudi 15’ and in the 1814 inventory as ‘Due ritratti raffiguranti un Pittore ed un Poeta; il Poeta scudi tre d il Pittore scudi dieci in tutto — fr[anchi] 13’. The 1814 inventory values the Poet lower than the Painter, and Pedrocchi suggests the cloak and lyre might be by Mariano or Francesco. Pedrocchi identifies two of a set of four seated portraits as portraits of Mariano (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 115, Portrait of Mariano Patrizi Dressed as an Abbate. Oil on canvas, 136 x 105 cm. Patrizi Collections) and Francesco (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 114, Portrait of Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi. Oil on canvas, 136 x 105 cm. Patrizi Collections) but this is open to question. The other two are the cardinal (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 107) and Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 113, Portrait of Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini, oil on canvas, 136 x 105 cm) (Fig. 1.7.). As discussed above, the portrait of the cardinal probably originally showed him as a monsignor, which gives a terminus post quem of 1702. The two cardinals were cousins and the senior ecclesiastics in their related families. The portraits thought to be of Mariano and Francesco both wear late seventeenth-century Louis XIV-style wigs, and on physiognomic grounds the supposed portrait of Francesco corresponds closely to the portrait of Costanzo Patrizi (see below). The astrological diagram may indicate interests Costanzo shared with his brother. The other portrait does not look like Mariano who, in the Poet and Painter portraits, has distinctive fleshy lips. The nose is sharp and the rendering looks even a little archaic. Given the pairing with the two cardinals, it is possible that this is a portrait of Patrizio the Elder, paired with one of Costanzo, who together form the secular heads of the family corresponding to the two cardinals. Alternatively, it might be a Corsini, corresponding to Cardinal Lorenzo. Pedrocchi gives all four portraits to Passeri, but the perspective of this pair is awkward and the names of Mariano, Francesco and Trulli might also be be considered. 61. Mariano Patrizi, Sabine Women Making Peace between the Romans and Sabines, drawing. Rome, Accademia di San Luca. Published in Cipriani, 1989, cat. 29, p. 70, entry by Dieter Graf. See also Cipriani and Valeriani, 1988, vol. 2, p. 245, and pp. 70–87. In the caption of Vasi’s plate of the villa the engraver observed that Mariano was a dilettante artist. 62. Graf also notes the leggiadria and mobility of the figures, and adds that we do not have enough data to know if Passeri provided the composition—for example, by providing a sketch—or whether it is all Mariano’s work. There is a Passeri drawing in Düsseldorf (inv. no. FP 2538) of the same subject (see Graf, 1995, cat. 1264, ill. p. 558) that, according to Graf, is an indication in favour of the idea that Mariano received help from Passeri. See also Cipriani and Valeriani, 1988, vol. 2, p. 245, and pp. 71 ff, especially pp. 70–87. 63. Mariano Patrizi, Allegory of Astronomy. Oil on canvas, 144 x 175 cm. Patrizi Collections. Signed and dated ‘MARIANUS PATRITIUS PINXIT 1707’. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 123, p. 252. 64. Bonaccorso and Manfredi, 1998, p. 68. At the meeting on 13 April 1707, Mariano and Francesco Patrizi were admitted as ‘confratelli onorari’, for ‘le qualità nobil’ and for ‘la virtù dell’arte del disegno’ and were elected ‘senz’alcuna discrepanza’. 65. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B5, nos 53–54. (Doc. 5.6.) 66. The stati d’anime in the Archivio Storico del Vicariato di Roma (ASVR) reveal that Orsola Bussetti (b. 1691) lived in one of the outbuildings at the villa

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 33

from 1725 to at least 1739 (years 1724–32 and 1739 checked). She seems to have been married twice, as her first two daughters, Giovanna (b. 1712) and Anna (b. 1713) have the surname Galvani, a surname Orsola herself reverts to in 1739. Her two younger daughters, Margerita (b. 1719) and Laura (b. 1724) have the Bussetti surname. Margherita probably died young, as she is last recorded aged seven in 1727, while Giovanna may have married or left home, as she is last recorded aged 20 in 1731. In 1739, however, both Anna (then 27) and Laura (then 16) were still living at home, and it must therefore be these to which Mariano’s will refers. The addition of the clause about the dowry only being available until the age of 30, which appears in the 1742 document, must have been added with Anna in mind, as she would have turned 30 in the following year. ASVR, S. Susanna, Stati d’anime, vol. 1, 1724–39. 67. These may have been Antonio Zappi, servitore, present at the Palazzo at S. Luigi in 1739 (aged 75) and 1740 (aged 76), and Anna Zappi, donna di facende, present in 1739 (aged 17) and 1740, although Antonio was rather old to have been Anna’a father. (ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, Stati d’anime, vol. 39, 1732–42.) 68. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, nos 51r-v. 69. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, nos 51v, 56r: ‘Spero, che il mio erede ab intestato sarà il Signor Marchese Patrizio Patrizi mio nipote, quale per la sua bontà di vita e delicatezza di coscienza sono certo, che adempirà fedelmente a tutto quelle che ho imposto in questo foglio per quiete del anime mia’. 70. Letter, 23 September 1719 [3]: ‘Io mi trovo in questi gravi per causa sua perché se lei non faceva il giardino, io non averei fatta la fabrica, e se non facevo la fabrica non averei avuto di bisogno di venire in Legatione per sodisfare li miei debiti, perché l’averei pagati con li denari che ho spesi nella fabrica, ma al fatto non vi è più rimedio adesso bisogna procurare d’escirne meglio che si puole.’ 71. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi, c. 1680– 1700. Oil on canvas, 72.5 x 56.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 111. This shows him with a double chin and holding a letter. It is probably a study for the seated portrait. 72. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi Seated Holding an Architectural Plan, c. 1680–1700. Oil on canvas, 172 x 122 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 112, 172 x 122 cm, as Passeri (Fig. 117). This shows him seated in a chair facing right holding an architectural drawing. There is a preparatory study in Düsseldorf (Graf, 1995, cat. 699). A derivative of this, by Passeri and workshop, forms a set of three small oval paintings with portraits of Ottavia Sacchetti, and another woman, perhaps one of his sister Cunegonda d’Aste or Olimpia Orlandini (attributed by Pedrocchi to Mariano) (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 98, oil on canvas 11 x 6.5 cm, Patrizi Collections). A Portrait of Poppea (the wife of Emperor Nero) on copper was added later to make a set of four. Possibly this replaced a portrait matching the other three that could have been of Patrizio, Ottavia’s husband, of whom no portraits survive. The identification of the sitter in Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 114, is questionable: see note 60 above. 73. It consists of a roughly square plan with a longitudinal extension at one side. The extension has a long nave-like space with subsidiary side spaces, while the square part has an oval form in the middle. The various confusingly rendered subsidiary spaces, and the thin walls, preclude this being a church, or indeed any other common building type. 74. For example Letter 27 June 1722 Letter 2 [2]; Letter, 31 May 1727 [3]; Letter, 28 June 1727 [5]. 75. Pedrocchi, cat. 110, as Giuseppe Passeri, Portrait of Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi, c. 1685. Oil on canvas 72.5 x 60 cm. Patrizi Collections. 76. Francesco Felice Patrizi, Allegory of Fame, 1707. Oil on canvas, 144 x 175 cm. Signed and dated ‘FRANC. PATRITIUS PINXIT A.1707’. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 122, p. 251. 77. Letter, 27 August 1718 [3]: ‘Il peso di accomodare l’appartamento con proprietà voglio appoggiarlo al Signor Abbate, il quale è punctuale, e di buon gusto.’ 78. See, for example, Francesco’s letter informing the cardinal of the broken

33

18/11/15 17:24

pane of mirror glass, and his subsequent letter to Mariano discussing the situation. See Letter. 9 September 1722 [1] and Letter, 12 September 1721 [1]. 79. Letter, 13 July 1720 [5]. 80. Letter, 20 July 1720 [1]. 81. Letter, 31 August 1720 [4]. 82. Letter, 16 September 1722 [1]; Letter, 12 December 1722 Letter 1 [2] (to Francesco Felice). The Congress of Cambrai was requested by the Holy Roman Emperor in response to the Treaty of Madrid in 1721, and was an attempt to settle differences between Spain and the emperor through the joint mediation of England and France, and it was much concerned the succession of Don Carlos to the duchies of Parma and Tuscany. Its lack of progress was evidently already notorious at the end of 1722, and it would drag on for another three years. See Walker, 1935. Also Letter, 19 September 1722 [5] and Letter, 10 October 1722 [2]. 83. Letter, 28 November 1722 [2]. 84. Wasserman, 1968, p. 110 and note 62. 85. Several have been detached and reinstalled on the second floor. Michel, 1984, p. 412, and Pedrocchi, 2000, p. 32; reproduced in L’Eventail, March 1992, pp. 59-65, colour plates on p. 61, 62, and 64; one is used to illlustrate Joseph Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man, p. 215. Michel cites payments to Philipp Jacob Wörndle from June 1700 to January 1701, and a payment of 23 December 1701 to Jacob Cristof Wörndle in money (75 scudi 50 baiocchi) and in kind, in ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B68, nos 29 and 38.

has been questioned by Bernardina Sani (Sani, 2009, pp. 110–12 and note 54 on p. 113), who points out that Passeri is not known to have done pastels and that on stylistic grounds it could be by Giovanna Fratellini (1666–1731), who was lady-in-waiting to Vittoria della Rovere, Grand Duchess of Tuscany. Sani suggests that, since Pedrocchi does not trace the work in the Patrizi inventories, it may have been a later acquisition with a Frescobaldi provenance. See also Röthlisberger, 2014, pp. 187–200. 97. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Portrait of Costanzo Patrizi. Oil on canvas, 74 x 61 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 102, p. 225. See ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B37, 23 December 1693. This folder contains a Giornale di spese dal 1692 al 1687 that appears to be a list of Costanzo’s private expenses, not in chronological order. For 23 December 1693 he noted ‘dato al Signor Passari pittore per la fattura del’mio ritratto 18 [scudi?]’. Other items of interest include canvas for Mariano and Francesco on 24 December 1693 (tela di Mariano e l’Abate giuli undici 1.10) and on 29 June 1695 2 scudi 80 baiocchi for 240 pieces of buffalo mozzarella to be sent to his sister, the nun Maria Agnese (per ova di bufala numero 240 per mandare a Suor Maria Agnesa scudi 2.80). 98. For example, Letter, 12 December 1722 (Letter 2) [6]: ‘Averei sodisfatione di sentire qual sistema pratichi con il Marchese Costanzo, adesso che il medesimo pranza da se, mentre temo molto delle sue particolari idee.’ 99. See also Marshall, 2009 for a discussion on the analogous relationship between Pope Innocent XIII Conti and his older brother, the Duke of Poli. 100. Letter, 15 March 1721 [3]. 101. There are no portraits of Filippo in Pedrocchi, 2000.

86. Michel, 1984, and Michel, 1996, pp. 382–83. Bartoni, 2012, pp. 376–77, 536–27.

102. Doc. 5.1.

87. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B15A, fols 1–23. For the Passeri copies, see Graf, 1996, p. 530.

104. Acton, 1980, pp. 170–74.

88. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B15A, fol. 6: ‘Un Ovato per traverso cornice quadra, ed intagliata, dorata, rapresentante Marina di Enrico Spagnolo — scudi 6.’ See Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 51, p. 151: Enrico de Las Marinas, Naval Battle. Oil on copper, 22.5 x 32 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi states that Mariano left it in his will to Maria Virginia, as ‘un quadro dentro ornato e fuori tondo anzi quadro che rappresenta una Battaglia di Mare con figurine assai piccole dipinte in rame’, citing ‘ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, testamento di Mariano Patrizi, 1733’. I have not located this item. 89. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B15A, fol. 80: ‘Nell’ultimo appartamentino di sopra detto del Signor Marchese Mariano’. 90. Their apartment had an ‘alco[v]a’ (bed alcove), which may have been designed by Panini, if this is what is referred to in a receipt from Mariano to Panini of 1729 for 1 scudo 50 baiocchi for an ‘alcoa, che si doveva fare nella sua Casa in Roma’. (Doc. 4.2.20.) 91. Minozzi, 2000, note 68 on p. 33, citing BAV Archivio Chigi, carteggio, vol. 48, f. 244, undated. See also Ago, 1990, p. 70, and note 112, citing ASR, Spada Veralli, b. 634, 15 March 1675, referring to the role of the nuncio Fabrizio Spada in making Costanzo rethink the matter and write to his grandmother, Virginia Corsini’s mother, and to Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini. 92. Doc. 5.1. This is perhaps the Accademia dei Pittori, Scultori e Architetti, subsequently Accademia Albertina, formed from the Compagnia di San Luca in 1678. 93. Doc. 5.1.

103. Doc. 5.1.

105. Acton, 1980, p. 288. 106. Doc. 5.1. Marchese Filippo Corsini (1647–1707) was the brother of Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini, the future Pope Clement XII (1652–1740), and father of the future Cardinal Neri Maria Corsini (1685–1770). (Passerini, 1858, tav. 15.) 107. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. IV, p. 319, Monday, 19 August 1709: ‘Si sente che venga eletto maggiordhomo di monsignor Albani il conte Bussi, per maestro di camera il marchese Filippo Patrizi e per cavallerizzo il marchese Teodoli; ma questi cavalieri hanno repugnanza d’andarvi a servirlo finché non sia dichiarato cardinale, benché pare si intorbidi la partenza, non volendosi dalla corte di Vienna ricevere il detto prelato col titolo di nunzio straordinario per le paci.’ 108. Nussdorfer, 1992, p. 100: ‘The families who predominated on the Capitol were those with Roman roots for a hundred years or more who were not descended from the great feudal houses.’ Filippo was a conservator in 1711, 1716, 1720 and 1722. (Pietramellara, 1893–97, pp. 223–24.) 109. Statuti dell’agricoltura, 1718. 110. Giuggioli, 1980, p. 160, and Moroni, 1840–79, vol. 53, s.v. ‘Poste Pontificie’. See also the Sestigniani genealogy, Doc. 5.1. 111. ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, Morti, VI, 16, 1722–59, 1733, fol. 49v, 5 April 1733. 112. The fullest accounts of Cipriani’s career are in Manfredi, 1991 and Hellmut Hager, ‘Cipriani, Sebastiano’ in DBI, vol. 25, 1981, pp. 763–67.

94. Pietramellara, 1893–97, p. 219.

113. He is traditionally supposed to have been Sienese, but according to the stati d’anime of 1727 he was born in Norcia (Manfredi, 2010, p. 86, note 70).

95. Doc. 5.1.

114. Bentivoglio, 1989.

96. Giuseppe Passeri (1654–1714), Portrait of Porzia Gabrielli Patrizi. Oil on canvas, 73 x 60 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 101, p. 224. Pedrocchi also identifies Porzia as the subject of a pastel portrait, which she attributes to Passeri (Portrait of Porzia Gabrielli Patrizi. Pastel on paper, 61 x 45 cm. Patrizi Collections. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 100, p. 223). However, this

115. Valesio, IV, p. 985, 21 August 1728: ‘Essendosi fatta dalla Camera qui in Civitavecchia una agginta di fabrica, questa è caduta, onde de viene incolpato Cipriano achitetto, quale vogliono che rifaccia la spesa.’

34

Libro MARSHALL.indb 34

116. Letter, 22 June 1718 [1].

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

117.These included a project for the choir in the Duomo at Foligno and the Palazzo Collicolla in Spoleto (1717–30), begun to his design, but that remained incomplete. Between 1717 and 1723 he was building a bridge over the Potenza River at Macerata in the Marche (Manfredi, 1991, p. 339). Another reference to Cipriani’s travels occurs on 1 February 1721, when the cardinal had learned that Cipriani was about to return from Capua, and because of this he wanted a summary of work still to be done on the villa. Letter, 1 February 1721 [2]. 118. For example, the authorisation of a receipt for pozzolana dated 17 February 1728 (ASV, Archivio Parizi-Montoro, B34B, no. 508 (Doc. 4.2.6)); approval of the accounts of Francesco Maria Perini, scarpellino, dated 21 February 1726 (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B34D no. 50 (Doc. 4.2.21)); and assessing value of completed work on 23 August 1721 in the company of Carlo Cerone, capo mastro muratore (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B34C, no. 1357 (Doc. 4.2.5)). 119. The passage referring to the loggia is preceded by a reference to estimates for the ‘covering of the rooms (copertura delle stanze) and carriage house (rimesse) of the new building’ (the service buildings around the Scalinata), so that the loggia might refer to the terrace above the roadside chapel, but this chapel was never built and the structure under discussion was clearly an existing building. It is therefore probably the Roof Terrace of the Casino. 120. Letter, 24 June 1718 [2]. 121. Letter, 23 July 1718 [1]. 122. Letter, 5 June 1726 [2]: ‘ma non ad usanza di Architetto, li quali sempre dicono la metà mento di quello che riesce di spendere’. 123. Letter, 4 September 1723 [2]. 124. Letter, 2 March 1726 [1]; Letter, 16 March 1726 [1]. 125. Letter, 30 March 1726 [1] 126. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, no. 481v: ‘Signor Sebastiano Cipriani, Architetto, per saldo, 200.00 scudi’ (Doc. 4.2.6). On 13 April 1726 the cardinal repeated that he (Mariano?) should pay Cipriani the 200 scudi, not including payment for doing the misura for works at Castel Giuliano. Letter, 13 April 1726 [1]. A payment of a further 68 scudi on 16 October 1726 may have been for this latter job: ‘Signor Sebastiano Cipriani, Architetto, a conto, 68.00 scudi’ (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, no. 482r (Doc. 4.2.6). 127. Letter, 2 May 1722; Letter 1 [2]; Letter, 30 May 1722 [3]; Letter, 18 July 1722 Letter 1 [2]; Letter, 21 November 1722 [5]. 128. Letter, 2 May 1722 Letter 1 [2]. Letter, 18 July 1722 Letter 1 [2]. Letter, 12 December 1722 Letter 1 [1]. 129. Letter, 28 November 1722 [6]; Letter, 13 June 1722 [2]. Sometimes the cardinal sent his greetings (by way of Mariano) to Francesco and Panini at the same time. Letter, 21 November 1722 [9]. 130. Letter, 20 June 1722 [2 ]: ‘’. 131. Letter, 14 November 1722 [2]. For Alberoni, see Chapter 4.4. 132. Letter, 24 July 1723 [1]. 133. Letter, 13 June 1722 [3]. For a fuller account of the Villa Catena and the responses of the Patrizi, see Marshall, 2009. 134. Letter, 20 June 1722 [1]. 135. Letter, 4 July 1722 [5]. 136. On the Villa Sacchetti, see Benocci, 2012; Zirpolo, 1994; Ragusa, 2000, pp. 266–70; Zirpolo, 2005, pp. 77–96. 137. On the practical nature of the fortifications, see Zirpolo, 1994, p. 50. 138. Letter, 25 July 1722 [7]. 139. Letter, 27 March 1723 [2].

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 35

35

18/11/15 17:24

Chapter 1.3

The Cardinal in Ferrara 1718–1727

Cardinal Patrizi’s life in his villa at Porta Pia was largely vicarious. Only on two occasions after 1718—the conclaves of 1721 and 1724—did he see it. He almost had the opportunity to enjoy it, but not quite: he was packing for the journey home when he died in July 1727. Seated in his office in the Palazzo Ducale at Ferrara (Fig. 1.31), he would wait impatiently to hear about progress from his family, perhaps gazing as he did so on two paintings of the project for the villa by Adrien Manglard that he had commissioned in 1722 (see Chapter 4.1). He was dependent on the postal service for news. Every Saturday he would write to Mariano, and occasionally to Francesco as well. The mail from Rome took about a week, and if something went wrong he could become upset.1 On 15 July 1719 he apologised for taking offence for the absence of letters from anyone in the family for two mails. He had felt that no one wanted to hear from him or to give him news of themselves. This ‘hypochondriac reflection’ was aggravated by his podagra (gout), causing inflammation of the joints and sometimes leaving him ‘nailed to his bed’ for ten days at a time, sometimes unable to write letters. He had to dictate instead.2 In this case the missing letters turned up together, from which he concluded that a servant had forgotten to send the first and remembered it when he had to take the second. 3 On another occasion letters from Mariano had not arrived, and in making his usual concluding remarks about hoping his family was well, he added that he was sure they were, since if it were not the case he would have heard about it through other channels, since ‘bad news always arrives’.4

Family, Friends and Visitors of Rank at the Villa Nothing pleased him more than to hear that members of his family were using and were enjoying the villa. On 29 October 1718 he wrote that ‘I am pleased that 36

Libro MARSHALL.indb 36

my nephews enjoy villeggiatura in the vigna and freely take their meals there, and that they are reminded also of me.’5 He was delighted that Patrizio’s bride, Ottavia, went there frequently from the middle of 1723, and the Letters frequently refer to members of the family staying there, especially Francesco. But the news that interested the cardinal the most was the effect the villa had on people of high rank. In December 1718 he wanted to know if Cardinal Annibale Albani approved of the villa.6 In February 1720, the Commander of the Papal troops, Count Louis Ferdinand Marsigli, who had led the papal armies against the Imperial army in 1708, paid a visit and admired the paintings.7 In May 1720 the cardinal looked forward to having the Casino visited by Monsignor Aldobrandini whose advice on aesthetic matters he respected.8 In October 1720 Principessa Borghese visited, and her praise was particularly valuable as she was the kind of person ‘accustomed to seeing grandiose things’.9 This prompted the cardinal to muse on the responses of others. He believes that those ‘who come after him’, in other words Patrizio and other members of the family, will enjoy it more than he: his own pleasure in the villa was compromised by its expense (the lament of many an ambitious monument builder). Still, his name, which deserves no memorial, will be perpetuated by the building. In November 1722 he has learnt of a visit by the Princess of Modena, that is, Carlotta Aglaé d’Orléans (1700–61) who, the year before, had married Francesco (the future Francesco III), the son of Rinaldo d’Este, Duke of Modena and Reggio.10 Patrizio had gone to Genoa to meet her and to attend her wedding, so there were good reasons for her to visit.11 The cardinal was pleased by the approval of Cardinal Alberoni12 and his cousin Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini,13 the future Pope Clement XII, when they visited in in November 1722 and July 1723. He was less happy to hear that Pope Benedict XIII was to visit the villa in Novem-

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.31. Ferrara, Castello Estense, view showing the area of the former papal legate’s apartments, with the terrace known as the loggia degli aranci. (David R. Marshall.)

ber 1724. The cardinal disliked Benedict and expected no advantage from the occasion. If the villa pleases the pope he will come often, and if he likes something it will displease the cardinal because the pope has so little taste. The cardinal tells Mariano to instruct the housekeeper not to show the pope the Stanza dei Baccanali (the Second Anteroom) because he will laugh at it. (Benedict was no aesthete and hostile to worldly display on the part of cardinals.) But probably there was no risk of further visits, since the pope had returned to the Vatican: evidently he had been staying at the Quirinal palace, and had dropped in at the villa because it was nearby.14 Such visits to the villa could be useful to its staff. By 4 May 1726 Orsola Bussetti, the housekeeper at the villa, had extracted a dowry for one of her daughters from Cardinal de Polignac, who had evidently paid a visit.15

The Stuarts The grandest of all these visitors were the ‘King and Queen of England’, the Stuart pretenders to the British throne, James III and his queen, Maria Clementina Sobieska, who played a conspicuous part of Roman social life.16 For the Roman nobility they were special, not because, like the ambassadors of France, Austria or Spain, they embodied the authority of a superpower, but simply because Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 37

they were royal. Like Queen Christina of Sweden in the seventeenth century, they outranked everyone in Rome, except the pope. The Stuarts, as royals even without royal authority, were a social catch. The opera revolved around them, and they featured prominently at the funerals of popes. Descriptions of events in Chracas’ Diario di Ungheria are always careful to name them at the head of the social hierarchy, after the pope. For example, Chracas lists in hierarchical order the palaces illuminated for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul in June 1722: That evening one saw Rome all illuminated, and specifically the great Cupola of the Vatican, the Palazzo of his Majesty the King of England, [the palazzi of ] the Cardinals, the Royal Ministers, and of all the Roman Nobility.17

But what we do not learn from Chracas is the way they would pay social calls to the houses of the Roman aristocracy who would, when they arrived, sweep the crumbs under the coffee table, so to speak, to avoid making brutta figura. In July 1722, when the program of decoration and furnishing of the villa was well advanced, James III and Maria Clementina Sobieska came to have a look. Cardinal Patrizi was delighted.18 That persons of such rank had come to see it was a further reason to finish it, and to furnish it ‘with tidiness and fashionably’ (con pulizia, et 37

18/11/15 17:24

alla moda). To this end, the cardinal announces in a letter to Mariano, that he has just dispatched from Ferrara some pieces of furniture that he had arranged to have made in Venice, including a rather precious writing table. While the Stuarts cannot be said to have formed in any way Patrizi’s taste, their high social status made it clear why good taste was important. For a fashionable Roman like Patrizi, who was politically and culturally pro-French, and who knew Bologna and liked to employ Bolognese artists, there were strong cultural affinities with the Stuarts. They had spent years in France, had acquired French tastes, served French food, and had strong connections with Bologna (James would eventually move his court there). That they deigned to visit Cardinal Patrizi’s new villa, not once but several times and, what is more, approved of it (as we shall see) really mattered. This was not a foregone conclusion, as the cardinal and his brothers could be very critical of the villas of others, such as the Villa Catena at Poli.19 However, if a visit of James III and Maria Clementina Sobieska to his villa was a social plus, having them turn up at the papal legation in Ferrara was a professional minus. The first mention of James III in the Letters is on 24 February 1719, when the cardinal refers to rumours that James III had passed near Bologna without entering the city.20 This was on the occasion that he came to Bologna to marry Maria Clementina Sobieska by proxy on 19 May 1719.21 Benedict XIII had little time for the Stuarts, and before he became pope he was one of the few cardinals not to have paid a formal visit to them.22 Patrizi, presumably aware of his superior’s views, had to deal with them in Ferrara, where they arrived in the evening of Thursday 8 October 1722, before departing on the morning of 10 October for Ravenna.23 The cardinal did not want to accommodate them in the Castello Estense, and preferred to prepare a palazzo for them elsewhere. They were such a distraction that he had to confess to Mariano that they were one reason for delays in furnishing the villa.24

Visitors to Ferrara The Stuarts were not the only visitors the cardinal had to entertain in Ferrara. Occasionally a visiting prelate might be expected to bring news of the villa, such as Monsignor Rasponi who, in December 1719, was expected in Ferrara to ‘bring the biretta’ to Cornelio Bentivoglio, who has just been created cardinal.25 Rutilio Paracciani, a member of a noble Roman family, a conservator in 1710, and a member of the Arcadian Academy with the name Acarinto Oressio, arrived with his wife on 8 May 1722.26 A nephew 38

Libro MARSHALL.indb 38

of Cardinal Giandomenico Paracciani, he brought news of discoveries of ‘precious things’ at Cardinal Ottoboni’s villa at S. Cosimato. Cardinal Patrizi was expected to put up other cardinals of the Church who were passing through, which could sometimes be a nuisance. Monsignor (later Cardinal) Alessandro Albani (1692–1779) arrived on 17 February 1720, perhaps on the way to Vienna to negotiate the restitution of Comacchio, found the cardinal in bed, and departed the next day for Venice.27 In 1723 the cardinal played host to his brother, Cardinal Annibale Albani (1719–47), papal camerlengo, who had been going back and forth from Padua. Albani did not want to delay, preferring to hasten his return to Rome.28 In May 1722 the cardinal received the Alsatian Cardinal Armand-Gaston-Maximilien de Rohan (1674–1749)29 and his nephew, and at the same time he was expecting to have to accommodate the Austrian Cardinal Wolfgang von Schrattenbach (1660–1738),30 threatening to interfere with a proposed trip to Bologna to attend the opera.31 In the end the cardinal went to the opera, hoping to meet von Schrattenbach there, and to settle the date of his arrival in Ferrara.32 There he would have met again Ortensia Gavotti who, a few weeks before, had passed through Ferrara on her way to Venice, followed by Bologna .33 The opera in question—Ormisada, music by Giuseppe Maria Orlandini to a libretto by Apostolo Zeno—was performed at the Teatro Albergati on 12 June, with a repeat performance on 16 May at the Teatro Malvezzi.34 The Duke of Modena may have been in the audience.35 The cardinal found it sumptuous and perfectly sung.36 The singers do not seem to be recorded, but they may have been the same as in May, when they included the mezzo soprano Faustina Bordoni (1697–1781) and the castrato Antonio Maria Bernacchi (1685–1756), both of whom went on to have illustrious careers.37 Other visitors included the papal treasurer (tesoriero generale), Carlo Collicola38 and a relative of the cardinal, the Marchesa Gabrielli,39 who both stopped in Ferrara on the way to Venice in May 1725.40

The Cardinal’s Life in Ferrara The cardinal’s day-to-day life in Ferrara was taken up with dealing with such administrative and poliºtical matters as were appropriate to his job as legate, that is, as civil governor of the province of Ferrara.41 He had to deal with his ecclesiastical counterpart, Cardinal Tommaso Ruffo (1663–1753), Archbishop of Ferrara, who had earlier been

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

legate and who succeeded Patrizi in the same post.42 In April 1722, in spite of having a cold and problems with the swelling of his joints, he still managed to assist Ruffo in the cathedral with the Holy Week services.43 His contemporaries in the adjoining legations were Cardinal Cornelio Bentivoglio, legate of Romagna from 20 March 1720 until January 1727,44 and the legate of Bologna, Cardinal Origo.45 Occasionally the cardinal would visit Bologna; in 1719 the trip lasted four days.46 The Papal States extended to the Po River not far from Ferrara, and to the territory of Comacchio near the coast, abutting Venice, the Duchy of Modena, and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. The cardinal was therefore in the front line whenever Imperial troops chose to move into Italy from Austria, as happened on a number of occasions. His earlier career had already given him experience of such matters. When he was appointed nuncio in Naples in 1702 he had became involved in a diplomatic dispute between the papacy and Spain, discussed in Chapter 3.47 In May 1708, at the beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession, and shortly after Patrizi had been appointed tesoriere generale, Imperial troops had occupied Comacchio.48 The legate of Ferrara was instructed to prepare Ferrara and other fortified sites for defence, and ‘in Rome, where consternation and anxiety reigned, troops were enrolled and military conferences held’.49 War broke out in September 1708,50 and Imperial troops passed through Ferrara and Bologna to occupy Forlì and Faenza, causing the papal troops, under the same General Marsigli who would visit the villa a decade later, to retreat to Pesaro and Ancona. On Wednesday, 7 November 1708, Valesio reported that Imperial troops were in Bologna and the gates of Rome were shut and guarded, and that Cardinal Patrizi was using the Palazzo Patrizi as a distribution point for five cartloads of red jackets (giustacori rossi) for the Dragoons.51 In January 1709 the pope accepted a peace settlement on terms unfavourable to the papacy.52 The Imperial troops however continued to make demands for contributions in Ferrara, and the status of Comacchio remained undecided.53 The position of the Church was further weakened at the peace congresses of Utrecht in 1712 and Rastatt in 1714, so that, ‘in sum, the Church Militant ceased to exist’.54 Ten years later, as legate, the cardinal had to deal directly with the Imperial armies. The political scene had changed somewhat. Pope Clement XI was enthusiastic in prosecuting a crusade against the Turks, prompted by Imperial successes against them. In 1716 Prince Eugene of Savoy, at the head of an Imperial army, had defeated the Turks at Peterwardein, which was followed by the Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 39

reconquest of Belgrade in August 1717. News of these events was enthusiastically received in Rome, and Chracas’ Diario di Ungheria was created to report on them.55 Giulio Alberoni, technically the agent of the Duke of Parma in Spain, was effectively Spain’s prime minister, and was closely linked with the papal nuncio Cardinal Aldrovandi, who, although officially the pope’s man, promoted Alberoni’s interests at the expense of the pope’s. On their advice in 1716 Philip V of Spain committed galleys ostensibly to support the Venetian fleet (subsidised by the papacy) against the Turks.56 On 28 September 1716 Cardinal Patrizi and various cardinals, including the future secretary-of-state Cardinal Paolucci and Cardinal Spinola, were present at a meeting with the pope devoted to the question of the prosecution of war against the Turks that was about, among other things, the disposition of the papal galleys and galleons.57 Meanwhile Aldrovandi was in Rome supporting Alberoni’s attempt to be raised to the cardinalate. Alberoni’s promotion went through at about the same time as he was diverting the Spanish fleet intended to attack the Turks to the conquest of Sardinia (July 1717), encouraged by Elisabetta Farnese, the Spanish queen, who was trying to increase Farnese power in Italy, hitherto confined to the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza.58 As a result, Emperor Charles VI accused Clement XI of being in league with Spain.59 Clement was caught between Spain and Empire, and Alberoni was perceived in Rome and Vienna as the villain. Meanwhile Count Gallas, the Imperial ambassador in Rome, took up the case of Lord Peterborough, who had been arrested in 1717 by the legate of Bologna, Cardinal Origo, on suspicion of attempting to assassinate the Young Pretender, James III.60 Gallas demanded that 8000 Imperial troops headed for Naples should be permitted to pass through the Papal States. The pope, meanwhile, had learnt (no doubt through the legates of Ferrara, Bologna and Romagna) that many of these troops had already passed in disguise through the legations. While Gallas was demanding that Alberoni be held to account in Rome for his conduct over the Sardinian invasion, Spain was putting pressure on Pope Clement through its ambassador, Cardinal Acquaviva, to appoint Alberoni to the archishopric of Seville, while demanding in March 1718 that if Imperial troops were being allowed to pass through the Papal States, the pope should allow the Spanish fleet to assemble at Civitavecchia and Ancona.61 In June 1718 Alberoni went too far. He invaded Sicily with the Spanish fleet, prompting the other great powers of England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and the Netherlands to form the Quadruple Alliance against Spain. The Spanish 39

18/11/15 17:24

fleet was destroyed by Admiral Byng at Cape Passero on 11 August 1718. Concurrently, James III made an unsuccessful attempt to land in Scotland. Madrid sued for peace and Alberoni was dismissed as prime minister on 5 December 1719.62 When Patrizi was appointed legate in Ferrara at the beginning of 1718 it was in the middle of these events, and he carried a considerable burden of responsibility for the successful management of the northern outpost of the papal territories, and of implementing Pope Clement’s policy of not taking sides. Although the Letters, being a private family correspondence, do not deal explicitly with politics, occasionally we get echoes of the events taking place around him. On 23 July 1718 he writes that he is disturbed and preoccupied by a ‘German’ (Imperial) cavalry regiment that was passing through, for which he had to obtain straw and fodder for the horses, and what was worse, money. They came in three waves.63 The day before he had provided lunch for a colonel and a captain who came to pay their respects to him. More than a year later Imperial armies were still passing through. On 23 September 1719, the cardinal complains of stress and gout, much of which derived from his anxiety about the two German regiments then passing through his legation.64 It seems that they took the wrong road, disobeying an order not to go through Bolognese territory, where there was no fodder, and the cardinal had to deal with that. He had to labour ‘like a beast to dispose things so that they do not give birth to disorder. It becomes in truth a horrible life, there not being for me one hour of rest.’65 On 30 September 1719, still suffering from gout, if not too badly, he tells Mariano that he has been carried (that is, in a sedan chair rather than on horseback) into the country to have a break from these trials caused by the passage of the Germans across his territory, ‘the petulance and insolence of whom cannot be endured any more’: a telling comment on the enfeebled state of the papacy at the end of Clement XI’s reign.66

Conditions in Ferrara Even apart from the stresses of being caught up in international politics, the cardinal was not always happy with being stuck in Ferrara, so far from home. On 29 October 1718, early in his tenure, he rails against the circumstances that obliged him to leave the repose of his own home in his old age.67 In November 1718 he advises Patrizio not to visit him in Ferrara in winter, ‘when we are for the most part buried in fogs and water, unable 40

Libro MARSHALL.indb 40

to leave the city because of the roads’.68 A year later the roads are again impassible, whether by carriage (carozza) or gig (calestio).69 All week from Sunday, 21 July 1720, there were storms extending 200 miles (322 km) across the territories of Venice, Mantua and Ferrara that ruined the countryside and destroyed houses. This caused him to worry about the garden and buildings at Porta Pia.70 There was also the drama of a fire in the vice-legate’s residence on Monday, 19 December 1718, which fortunately did not spread to the Castello Estense.71 In May 1722 a ferocious hailstorm caused the destruction of crops over an area 40 miles (64 km) wide, with hailstones so big that they killed the cattle in the fields.72 The cardinal also endured domestic dramas. On 20 July 1720 he tells Mariano about one of his servants called Carluccio who had also served Mariano. Carluccio went to the butcher to buy meat, but got into a dispute with the butcher and hit him in the face with a piece of meat. Returning to verbally abuse the butcher, Carluccio turned away from him, only to be stabbed, presumably with a butcher’s knife. It was feared that he would die, leaving a pregnant wife and three children.73 Carluccio lingered at death’s door for some weeks, the cardinal reporting weekly on his progress, but by the end of August had recovered.74 In summer, however, there was the possibility of villeggiatura in the countryside near Ferrara. This could extend from June to as late as the beginning of November, and in this way one could both escape the worst heat of summer and engage in hunting in the autumn.75 On one occasion the cardinal went hunting hares with greyhounds, which he found pleasurable.76 Much of the time he did not go far from Ferrara, leaving the Castello for only a few days at a time.77 In July 1723 he was staying in the country only three miles (5 km) from Ferrara, returning several times a week as required by work or pleasure. He sees this as the model for his lifestyle when he is back in Rome, where the villa at Porta Pia was a comparable distance from the centre of the city. In 1725 and 1726, however, when Patrizio and Ottavia were staying with him, they all went on an extended tour of villas in the Ferrara region, as we will see.

The Conclave of 1721 During his time as legate, the cardinal only returned to Rome twice, for the conclaves of 1721 and 1724, when Innocent XIII and Benedict XIII respectively were elected as pope. Particularly distressing for him was the death on 19 March 1721 of Clement XI, the pope who had created

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

him cardinal. He received the news ‘with great perturbation of spirit’.78 He had been unprepared for this event, and was still awaiting official notification before setting off for Rome, and expected his letter to reach Mariano shortly before his own arrival, but he took much longer to get there. For the conclave, the cardinals were kept locked in the Vatican palace, meeting in the Sistine Chapel regularly until they had elected the new pope. In the Vatican palace temporary cells were built to house the cardinals, allocated by lot. The drawing of these lots took place on Wednesday, 26 March; Patrizi’s was number 31.79 Clement’s funeral ended on 30 March, after the usual nine days of funeral masses and the erection of his catafalque in Saint Peter’s.80 The conclave opened on 31 March with 27 cardinals present, but Patrizi only arrived on Thursday, 3 April, entering the conclave the following day with the archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Giacomo Boncompagni, and the cardinal legate of Bologna, Cardinal Origo.81 Probably they had travelled together. By the end of the conclave there were 55 cardinals present. Patrizi was one of the 55 out of 68 living cardinals who had been appointed by Clement XI.82 According to Pastor, when the conclave opened, ‘the cardinals present were divided into four parties, the adherents of Clement XI and the [pro-Jesuit] “Zelanti” formed the curial group, the Imperial and Bourbon cardinals the political one’.83 The arrival of Patrizi strengthened the French (Bourbon) party.84 Patrizi’s colleague and successor in Ferrara, Cardinal Ruffo, supported the Hapsburgs.85 Patrizi was among the 30 papabili mentioned,86 but ‘there were objections of a personal character to Patrizi’.87 Cardinal Alberoni, the disgraced former prime minister of Spain and soon to be neighbour of Patrizi, arrived in Rome on 7 April and entered the conclave the following day. Cardinals Ottoboni (nephew of Pope Alexander VIII and papal Vice-Chancellor) and Lorenzo Corsini (the future Pope Clement XII and Patrizi’s cousin) tried to win Alberoni over to the French party, but he did not play an active role.88 On 2 May the cardinal wrote a letter from within the conclave to Mariano, discussing the furnishing of the villa.89 Eventually Michelangelo dei Conti (1655–1724) was elected as Pope Innocent XIII on 8 May. Most parties seemed happy: he was regarded by the Romans as a Roman, and his first appointments were almost universally applauded.90 On Saturday, 10 May, there were feste in the pope’s family palace, Palazzo Poli, and the following day, Sunday, 11 May, was the funeral of Cardinal Giandomenico Paracciani, Cardinal Vicar of Rome and uncle of the Rutilio Paracciani whom the cardinal would receive in Ferrara the folowing May, which Patrizi attended.91 He Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 41

also attended Innocent’s crowning as pope on 18 May, and participated in the bacia mano (the kiss on the hand).92 The pontifical throne was erected in the narthex of St Peter’s near the Porta Santa where the pope was brought in on the sede gestatoria, his portable ceremonial throne. Cardinal Annibale Albani, Archpriest of the Basilica, made an address. The pope was then taken in the sede gestatoria ‘without fans and baldacchino’93 to the Chapel of the Holy Trinity and then to the Capella di S. Gregorio, called La Clementina, where he descended and received the bacia mano from the cardinals, including Patrizi.94 Probably the cardinal spent June and July in Rome and at the villa, since by 2 August, when the Letters resume, the cardinal is back in Ferrara, where Innocent had reappointed him for a further three-year term as legate.

The Conclave of 1724 Pope Innocent XIII died on 7 March 1724, after a papacy of only three years that almost exactly coincided with the cardinal’s second term as legate.95 On 26 November 1722 he was expecting to return to Rome in sixteen months time, in March 1724. However, he was still in Ferrara on 4 March, and his last letter displayed no concerns about the health of the pope, although Innocent had been ill since February.96 Patrizi would have learnt of the pope’s death on the ninth or tenth of March, and seems to have set off promptly, arriving in Rome on Wednesday 15 March,97 the day of the fifth of the nine daily funeral masses, begun on 11 March. There was also, as was customary, an impressive catafalque (Fig.1.33).98 The drawing of lots for the cells used in the conclave had taken place the previous day, Tuesday, 14 March.99 Sunday, 19 March, was the last day of the funeral (novendio funebre), and Cardinal Giorgio Spinola sang the funeral mass in the Capella della Pietà, in the canon’s choir of Saint Peter’s, while Monsignor Giacomo Amadori read the funeral oration. The ‘King and Queen of England’, James III and Maria Clementina Sobieska, were present and stood in the choir. At the end of the oration, dressed, as was customary with cope and mitre, four cardinals—Giovanni Battista Tolomei, Giuseppe Pereyra, Giovanni Battista Salerno, and Patrizi—together with the celebrant, went to the catafalque and made the five absolutions, watched by James III and his queen.100 The next day, Monday, 20 March, the mass of the Holy Spirit for the election of the future pope was held in the Capella del Coro, marking the beginning of the conclave, with Patrizi present among the other cardinals throughout.101 41

18/11/15 17:24

During the conclave Cardinal Cienfuegos,102 the Austrian ambassador, promoted Cardinal Giulio Piazza (1663–1726) and gained the support of France, a play that seemed likely to succeed.103 However, Cardinal Annibale Albani, although he had earlier put forward Piazza as one of number of possible candidates, was offended at being thus sidelined in the process, and set out to destroy Piazza’s chances. He gained the support of, among others, Cardinals Corsini (Patrizi’s cousin), Boncompagni (Archbishop of Bologna), Alessandro Albani, Bernardino Scotti, and Patrizi. Two years later, on 23 April 1726, Piazza died, and Patrizi would comment, somewhat ruefully, that if Piazza had been elected he would have been obliged to return for the conclave a third time.104 In the midst of all this, and from within the conclave, on 3 April Patrizi found the opportunity to send a letter to Mariano dealing with accommodation at the villa once he had exited the conclave.105 The conclave dragged on until at the end of May when the politically neutral Cardinal Orsini emerged as the candidate with the most support. He was, at least ostensibly, unwilling to be put forward as a candidate, as he was both very pious and inexperienced as an administrator. He was elected on 29 May 1724 and took the name of Benedict XIII. Benedict, like his predecessor, reappointed Patrizi to the Ferrara legation. His reign as pope would be a troubled one, but he had one success: the restoration of Comacchio to the papacy by the emperor. As early as 24 June 1724, Cardinal Cienfuegos (representing the emperor), had an audience with the pope on the matter, and Cardinal Fabrizio Paolucci, the Secretary of State, was given plenipotentiary powers—that is, he was empowered to negotiate on behalf of the pope—on 1 September, and a deal was struck between Paolucci and Cienfuegos. According to Valesio’s diary, on the morning of Thursday, 2 January 1725, Cienfuegos (representing the emperor) went with a great cortege to take audience with the pope, to tell him that the Austrian Governor of Milan, Count Girolamo Colloredo, had been given plenipotentiary powers in the matter, and that the pope had responded by giving Patrizi corresponding powers.106 Presumably Patrizi, whose territory was the one that abutted Comacchio, needed to be involved as the person on the ground, corresponding in rank to Colloredo. An Imperial decree ratifying the transfer was issued on on 22 February 1725.107

42

Libro MARSHALL.indb 42

The Last Six Months of the Cardinal’s Life The cardinal’s third term as legate of Ferrara was due to end in the middle of 1727. On 27 April 1726 he was looking forward to retiring to his villa after his term was up, provided that ‘he does not go in haste to the other world like Cardinal Piazza’, who had died four days before.108 But the death of the Secretary of State, Cardinal Paolucci, on 12 June 1726, opened a new possibility to replace him.109 His name was put forward by the two Albani cardinals, Alessandro and Annibale, along with Cardinal Bernardino Scotti.110 Benedict XIII, however, appointed Niccolò Maria Lercari, who was dependent on Cardinal Coscia, the corrupt Beneventan who had the pious but unworldly Benedict’s ear and who was rapidly bringing his papacy into disrepute.111 By 19 June the cardinal has learnt of the new appointment, expressing his relief that he was not chosen, since ‘in the present times it would have prejudiced my reputation and shortened my life’.112 At the beginning of 1727 the cardinal was still uncertain about his future, fearing another appointment that he would be unable to refuse, and desiring only to be permitted to return to Rome. But rumours about his future were circulating in Rome. On 15 March 1727 he tells Mariano that he has not asked for the legation of Bologna, but that if the pope were to make the usual triennial appointment, he would have no difficulty in obeying.113 However, if he were to be appointed pro interim he would not accept it, it not being convenient for him, nor to his advantage. It was a territory that could not be governed by one who only went there for a few weeks or months. The following week he points out that the legations are not given to those who do not seek them, which implies that he had actively sought his initial appointment, and probably also his two reappointments.114 Even scarier was the rumour that the pope was to sell the Duchy of Ferrara to the Venetians. The cardinal tells Mariano that while he knows it is merely tittle-tattle, and impossible to implement, he wonders who is behind this this gran pazzia, which is causing the Ferrarese great anxiety, and is alienating them from the pope. Such was the mood in the middle of Benedict’s disastrous reign, dominated by the corrupt Cardinal Coscia. The pope was about to head off to Benevento, where he had been archbishop. This meant a delay in making the new appointments, which had to await his return after Easter.115 By 19 April the pope was still in Benevento and the cardinal’s term was coming to an end, but because of the uncertainty he felt that he could not begin packing for his return. Yet if his return were to be delayed too

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

much he would have to move his whole famiglia back to Rome in the height of the summer heat. While he could change horses at every posting-place, preserving him from the ‘dangers of the air’ (in other words, malaria and other diseases attributed to bad air), the people who will have to lead his famiglia would have to travel in small stages, and therefore will find it difficult to preserve themselves from the danger of changes of air (mutatione dell’aria).116 This uncertainty is also affecting his plans for renting property in Rome. A week later he still has no news, and is being tormented by gout.117 Another week passes with no news, and the cardinal is hoping the pope will give him discretion as to his departure date, allowing him to stay on in Ferrara until it is cooler.118 Finally, on 28 June, he has learnt of the pope’s return and expects that the concistory, where new legates would be announced, will take place the following Monday. He already knows that Cardinal Ruffo, Archbishop of Ferrara, is to be the new legate.119 He thinks the pope would not force him to leave in the heat, and that he might be permitted to continue as legate a little longer until it is convenient for him to pack and leave.120 But the pope clearly had other ideas, and by 19 July Patrizi had begun to clear out his apartment and pack up his goods. He hopes that it will be the last move he will have to make while he lives; apart, that is, from the journey his body will make to the family tomb at S. Maria Maggiore, assuming, that is, that he lives long enough to make it to Rome.121 This letter, with its recognition that his strength was failing, was prophetic, as he did not live long enough to make the journey, dying on 31 July in Ferrara. One of his last instructions concerned his writing desk in Rome, probably the one he wanted set up in his bedroom in the palazzo at S. Luigi.122 He wanted to have a cover made for it that would close and open, like the writing desks that come from England, in which there is no shelf above, and he wants Mariano to see the ebanista (cabinetmaker) to find out whether he can do it as he would like, since in its present state it is not useful because he cannot close it.123 It is a fitting testimony to a career spent writing letters and instructions that one of the last things he was thinking of was yet more writing.

The Commission for the Silver Bust of S. Francesco di Paola The cardinal’s letters reveal no particular concern with theology or religion as such; but then, that was not their purpose. But what does emerge is that he was fairly Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 43

strict on matters of decorum. He praised Panini for not including any naked women in his frescoes in the villa, and similarly praised the murals in his apartments in the Castello at Ferrara for being ‘lively but not obscene’ (allegri ma non osceni) (see Chapter 3.2), although he was not as straightlaced as Benedict XIII, whom he expected to disapprove of his copies of these same murals. His piety comes through in the Letters as being of a fairly conventional order, except in one instance. In the months leading up to his death, with thoughts of his own mortality uppermost in his mind, he decided to commission a reliquary of S. Francesco di Paola. The purpose was to give thanks to the saint, who had intervened in his recovery from an attack of gallstones (calcolo) in May. He had had trouble urinating for 46 hours, and had produced a gallstone. The episode made him more than usually aware of his mortality, and he told Mariano that he does not expect to see or enjoy the villa again.124 He had evidently prayed before a relic that was mounted in a reliquary (cassetta) within a gilded wooden statue of the saint that was used in processions.125 This statue was located in ‘his’ church, the church and monastery of S. Croce in Ferrara.126 The cardinal did not find the statue to be aesthetically pleasing, and he wanted to replace it with another in the form a silver reliquary bust of the saint. Because there was no-one capable of doing such work in Ferrara, he wants it to be made in Rome, and quickly. As far as the size of the bust was concerned, he refers Mariano to one in S. Andrea delle Fratte in Rome as a model.127 S. Andrea delle Fratte, with its well-known drum and campanile by Borromini, was the principal church in Rome of of the Minims, the order founded by S. Francesco di Paola. The chapel of the saint, in the right transept, was remodelled in 1726–36 by Filippo Barigioni, but the relic is now only displayed on feast days. For once Mariano is not to be constrained by cost, as the cardinal wants it done properly: this was, after all, a matter of great import for the cardinal’s faith, and not a pragmatic issue, like the cost of the villa. Mariano is to get the money from Abbate Cardoni, one of the cardinal’s gentleman attendants.128 Even so, the cardinal would like to know what it would cost. He sends Mariano a portrait of the saint so that the artist can get the likeness right, and he wants the saint to be shown with his hood (cappuccio) on his head. And he repeatedly asks when it will be ready.129 The main design issue was about the size and the location of the box-shaped reliquary. The cardinal believes that the relic should be installed in the base (piedistallo) of the statue, but if it turns out to be too big it could occupy part of the bust itself. He encloses a sheet of paper with the 43

18/11/15 17:24

measurements of the reliquary chest, on which the round opening for viewing the relic has been drawn in black; it does not matter whether it it is oval or square; it will be sufficient that the opening is not less than shown in the drawing. He tells Mariano that if the bust that he has seen does not please him, he should make a well-drawn model (modello) according to his own genio. A few days later the cardinal states that he has seen the second estimate for the bust, and defers to Mariano to choose which will be most satisfactory, and if it is the cheaper option that is well and good.130 He tells Mariano that in the last mail he has sent the drawing of the wooden processional statue in Ferrara with the relic, not because it pleases him, being badly designed, but so that he can see how it was then installed. The cardinal becomes increasingly anxious that Mariano should hurry up in commissioning the work, so that he receives it before his departure from Ferrara. He supposes that they will make a drawing (disegno) before making the model (modello), and if this can be sent to him without slowing up the commissioning of the work he would like to see it. A few days later he reminds Mariano he has permission to have it made, and to ensure that it is well made, and again stresses that he needs to have it before leaving Ferrara, because he wants to offer it to the saint with his own hands.131 By the following week Mariano had raised some further questions about the size of the core reliquary (cassetta), which was apparently too big. The cardinal replies that it cannot be made smaller, and may need to occupy the space (vano) of the bust itself, provided that there is an opening in the pedestal through which to view it. He cannot understand why the size of the reliquary is not self-evident from the drawing he had sent and he promises to send a model of the reliquary in the form of a wooden box (scatola).132 This confusion was the result of Mariano’s letter’s being delayed in the post: on 12 July he had only just received Mariano’s letters of the 2nd and 5th, from which he learned that Mariano had in fact received the drawing, and that ‘they’ (evidently Mariano, the designer of the reliquary, and others involved at the Roman end) had decided to place the relic in the chest of the saint.133 The cardinal is prepared to defer to their good taste (buon gusto), but still promises to send the wooden model of the reliquary. Mariano, however, proposes making the pedestal of gilded metal rather than silver, which the cardinal hopes is not just in order to save money, as he wants the job done properly. He still wants the design drawing sent to him as soon as work on the bust is sufficiently far advanced for the artist not to need it any more. As with the Manglard 44

Libro MARSHALL.indb 44

views of the villa (see Chapter 4.1), the cardinal was desperate to have an image of his commission before his eyes in Ferrara as it was being executed in Rome. The last mention of the bust is on 19 July, eight days before the cardinal’s death, when he reiterates that Mariano should decide whether to put the relic within the chest (petto) of the bust or elsewhere, and that he is confident that they will get it right because they have the correct measurements of the reliquary chest (cassetta).134 That is the last we hear of it. Presumably even if it were to have been completed it would not have gone to Ferrara, since it was to have been the cardinal’s personal votive offering.

Funeral On 27 July, Cardinal Patrizi died in Ferrara, with Patrizio and Ottavia at his bedside, discussed in Chapter 1.4. His funeral was held in the cathedral of Ferrara on 4 August, and he was buried there, in front of the altar of S. Maurelio.135 Only his heart made it to the family chapel in S. Maria Maggiore. News of Cardinal Patrizi’s death reached Rome on Monday, 4 August 1727.136 On 6 August Valesio reported on the redistribution of the cardinal’s benefices (entrate ecclesiastiche): a badia of Bologna (the cardinal’s Abbadia) to Monsignor Antonio Banchieri, Governor of Rome; a 1000 scudi pension to Monsignor Carlo Collicola, Papal Treasurer (tesoriero generale); another badia to Monsignor Ansidei; another benefice of 100 scudi to Monsignor Girolami; and a badia and a pension of 500 scudi to be distributed to the pontifical famiglia.137 (If a statement in the Letters is indicative, the income he expected from benefices in his first triennium totalled 3000 scudi, but this list suggests that it was rather more than this.)138

The Catafalque The centerpiece of the cardinal’s funeral was a catafalque, recorded in a presentation drawing, probably intended to be engraved, inscribed Disegno del Catafalco eretto nella Cattedrale di Ferrara per le Solenni Esequie celebrate all’Em:o, e Rev:emo Sig:r Cardinal Patrizio Legato della sudetta Città li 4 Agosto 1727. It is signed at the bottom ‘Tom: Raffanelli Pic: Delineo’ (Fig. 1.32).139 Tommaso Raffanelli was a Ferrarese scene painter and fresco painter. He worked at the theatre built by Conte Pinamonte Bonacossi, near Santo Stefano in Ferrara, which had opened in 1662, and at the theatre of Conte Giuseppe

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.32. Tommaso Raffanelli, Drawing of the Catafalque Erected in the Cathedral of Ferrara for the Funeral of Cardinal Patrizi, 4 August 1727, 1727. Pen and ink and black chalk on paper. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B70, no. 4. (Archivio Segreto Vaticano.)

Fig. 1.33. Papal catafalques: Top left: Innocent XII. Top right: Clement XI, Bottom left: Innocent XIII. Bottom right: Benedict XIII. (After Fagiolo, 1997b.)

Scossa on Via San Paolo, which had opened in 1692 and subsequently was enlarged and embellished by the architect Francesco Mazzarelli and his sons Francesco and Tremilio.140 Raffanelli also retouched frescoes in the courtyard of the Confraternity of S. Giovanni Battista in Ferrara in 1725, and was described by Brisigella as a ‘fine fresco painter’ (bravo freschista).141 Rome had a long tradition of such catafalques, especially for the funerals of popes and cardinals. The most recent were those of Innocent XII (1700),142 Clement XI (1721), and Innocent XIII (1724),143 the last of which was re-used in most essentials a few years later for Benedict XIII (1730) (Fig. 1.33).144 These all employed a cross-shaped plan centred on a structure alluding to a sarcophagus, pyramid or hybrid form, with a portrait of the pope in an oval frame. At the ends of the cross-axes were vertical forms functioning as candle-holders, either obelisks (Innocent XII), or candelabra (Clement XI); or, in the case of Innocent XIII and Benedict XIV, a structure on a square plan that is neither one nor the other.

Another important example was the catafalque designed by Sebastiano Cipriani for the funeral mass of James II of England in 1701 (Fig. 1.34)145 which took as its model Bernini’s baldacchino in Saint Peter’s. It consisted of a crown supported on volutes rising from spiral columns, forming a canopy over a sarcophagus raised on a high plinth with a portrait oval supported by figures above, and there were no candles. Patrizi’s catafalque seems to take its primary inspiration from this example, combining it with the motif of the catafalque as a giant candelabrum. The crown motif was obviously inappropriate for a cardinal, and instead there is an entablature of complex plan forming a baldacchino that supports an ornamental crowning feature orientated in the vertical plane, which in the drawing is somewhat uncertain in its placement relative to the entablature. Cloth swags are suspended from the entablature and are tied around the columns two-thirds of the way up, giving something of the effect of the volutes (designed by Borromini) on Bernini’s baldachhino and in the catafalque of James II;

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 45

45

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.34. Alessandro Specchi (1688–1729) (engraver), Sebastiano Cipriani (1662–1738) (architect) Catafalque for the Funeral Mass of James II of England in S. Lorenzo in Lucina in Rome, 28 January 1702, 1702. (After Fagiolo, 1997c.)

Fig. 1.35. Design for the cardinal’s tomb slab in Ferrara cathedral. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B70, no. 3. (Archivio Segreto Vaticano.)

the columns, however, are plain, not spiral. But whereas this—and the papal catafalques—has a flight of steps rising from ground level to the height of the pedestals of the cross-axes, and a plinth above this, the steps of Patrizi’s catafalque begin above a plinth, and reach to the pedestals of the columns; in other words, the position of steps and plinth are reversed. As a result, the tapering steps take on the role of the sarcophagus or pyramid-like structure in the other designs. At the top of the steps is a plain, cubical altar covered in drapery. There is no portrait, and the only features alluding to his identity are the attributes of a cardinal placed on the steps, as well as the cardinal’s arms shown suspended from the roof of the church on

either side. The whole is encrusted with candles: beginning with single candles on brackets on the extremities of the cross-arms, to full candelabra on pyramidal stands, with further candelabra bracketed off the entablature and above little pediments over the columns, and more candles and candelabra on the crowning feature. There is a predominance of C-scrolls, combined with volutes with straight sections: an ornamental taste similar to that found in the picture frames of the villa. Raffanelli is not given credit for the invention, only for the drawing, which raises the question of the identity of the designer. Given the relationship with the catafalque of James II, designed by Cipriani, the style generally,

46

Libro MARSHALL.indb 46

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.36. The cardinal’s tomb slab in Ferrara cathedral. (John Weretka.)

and the fact that Cipriani was the family architect, it is possible that it was designed by Cipriani. If so, it would have had to have been prepared in advance, as the four days between the cardinal’s death and funeral would not have been long enough to make the design and get it to Ferrara and have it constructed.

Burial The Cardinal’s body was interred in nave of the cathedral at Ferrara. There is a design for the tomb slab along the lines of the one executed, but only one word of the inscription survives (Figs 1.35, 1.36). The cardinal’s heart was removed and placed in the family chapel at S. Maria Maggiore. This chapel is not a separate space, but forms the termination of the inner right aisle of the church towards the entrance (Fig. 1.37). There had been an earlier Patrizi chapel, but this had been destroyed in the construction of the Sistine and Pauline chapels, and the family had been given this site in its place by Pope Paul V. Here, Costanzo in 1738 intended to commemorate his brother the cardinal with a marble altar, adorned with candlesticks and other furnishing, as well as two metal cornucopias, but this appears not to have been realised.146

The Arcadian Academy Cardinal Patrizi had a range of cultural interests, as befitted a man of his class and position. These centred on the dominant cultural institution of the day, the Arcadian Academy (accademia degli arcadi). Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 47

Fig. 1.37. Rome, S. Maria Maggiore, Patrizi chapel. (David R. Marshall.)

The Arcadian Academy was founded in 1690, and grew out of the Academy of Queen Christina of Sweden. It was dedicated to the reform of Italian poetry, especially the extreme concettismo of such early Seicento poets as Giambattisto Marino (Marinism). It promoted the pastoral idea, and to demonstrate this members of the Arcadian Academy adopted names supposedly appropriate to Arcadian shepherds, followed by a surname corresponding to a region in Arcadia.147 It soon became the norm for members of the aristocracy to join. Cardinal Patrizi had become a member in 1691, a year after it was founded, taking the name of Laureno Nomio.148 Later, Giovanni Chigi Patrizi Montoro, the husband of Maria Virginia 47

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.38. Alessandro Specchi (1688–1729) (architect), Triumphal Arch Erected on the Campidoglio for the Possesso of Innocent XIII, 16 November 1721, 1721. Engraving. (After Fagiolo, 1997b.)

Fig. 1.39. Pompeo Aldrovandini (1677–1735) (architect), Triumphal Arch Erected in the Forum for the Possesso of Innocent XIII, 16 November 1721, 1721. Engraving. (After Fagiolo, 1997b.)

was also a member, with the name Doricleo Triasio (or Driadio).149 Mariano and Francesco, however, in spite of their poetrical and artistic leanings, were not members. The cardinal was an arcade acclamato, the equivalent of Mariano’s status at accademico d’onore with the Accademia di San Luca, and it may have been that Mariano’s alliegances were to that institution rather than to the Arcadians. Recent scholarship has argued that the Arcadian Academy had a much greater influence on the visual culture of early eighteenth-century Rome than had previously been realised.150 Certainly the broad interest in pastoral subjectmatter in paintings at the time can be traced back to the intellectual interests of the Arcadians, but approaching the problem from this direction runs the danger of failing to understand the mechanisms by means of which an abstract critical or theoretical position relates to physical objects produced by artists and artisans. Yet it is true that Cardinal Patrizi seems to have shared a common culture with his contemporaries that may usefully be called ‘Arcadian’. For example, he often uses the term buon gusto, ‘good taste’,

a concept dear to the Arcadians, for whom it represented a ‘balance between nature and reason’.151 We can put to the test the possibly Arcadian nature of the cardinal’s taste in visual matters in his response to the two triumphal arches erected on the occasion of the possesso for Innocent XIII, engravings of which he had evidently been sent. As was by then traditional, there were two of these, one erected in the Campidoglio and designed by the conservator’s architect, Alessandro Specchi (Fig. 1.38), and the other near the Arch of Titus erected by the Duke of Parma and designed by Pompeo Aldrovandini, (Fig. 1.39). The cardinal observed that the arch on the Campidoglio was better than the arch erected by the Duke of Parma.152 In modern critical language, the former is the simpler and more classicising of the two; more rectilinear in the attic and avoiding the rampant brackets, curves, and flamboyant sculpture of the latter, which is a fine example of barocchetto. The cardinal’s views, however, may be coloured by family loyalty, since his reason for mentioning them was to praise his brother Filippo, who had supervised

48

Libro MARSHALL.indb 48

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

the execution of the Specchi arch. The cardinal may have been unaware (since the engraving does not indicate the designer) that the designer of the Duke of Parma’s arch was Pompeo Aldrovandini, whom he had employed to fresco the villa.153 Nevertheless, his preference for Specchi’s arch over Aldrovandini’s fits well with the Arcadian Academy’s concern to reform Baroque ‘extravagance’.

Antiquarianism and Fashion At the same time, Cardinal Patrizi’s membership of the Arcadian Academy did not mean that he was an enthusiastic antiquarian; indeed, he was surprisingly uninterested in antiquities. During the preparation of the site of the villa in 1722 two antique torsos were discovered.154 Almost any previous or subsequent villa builder would have immediately installed them in their villa, but when Cardinal Alessandro Albani suggested swapping them for two modern statues, Patrizi had no objection, and was anxious only that Mariano should get good advice about their true worth. (In the end, however, he did consider installing them in the villa at the foot of the Scalinata, but apparently did not do so.)155 That his main interest in antiquities lay in their market value is confirmed by a letter concerning Cardinal Alberoni who, having been acquitted of treason for his part in the events described above, had acquired a vigna nearby. The cardinal had read a report that Alberoni had discovered a large and very valuable agate vase in his vigna.156 Since Cardinal Patrizi had earlier contemplated buying the vigna for the water rights, which he desperately needed (discussed in Chapter 4.4), he was most annoyed to discover that had he done so he might thus have defrayed a significant part of the cost of acquisition. Some people have all the luck, he laments, since he had spent as much as the Patrizi vigna had cost to buy in turning it over in search of antiquities, and all they found was some building rubble (tavolozza). (This is evidently not the whole story, since as we have seen he did find two statues.) With relief he later learnt that the story was unfounded.157 It is hardly surprising then that in setting out to Mariano his guiding principles for the decoration of the villa, he states that, having built the villa from scratch, he did not want to furnish it all’antica, but according to the latest fashion. For Cardinal Patrizi the style all’antica was not the only true style, as it had been understood by Vasari and most other promoters of the classical. Cardinal Patrizi was a Modern, not an Ancient. Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 49

But if one ought not to turn to antiquity for guidance in furnishing a new villa where ought one to turn? The cardinal’s answer is to consult with people who have seen things abroad, and who have good taste (buon gusto). Although Cardinal Patrizi rarely mentions France, its role as the leader of fashion was necessarily a consideration. Politically, he was aligned with the French Bourbon faction at conclaves, but he never went to France. The epithet alla francese was often used by him, as by many his contemporaries, to describe types of chimneys, ornaments, chairs, and especially food. One should cook, he writes, according to the modern custom, ‘alla francese’ and he recommends seeking the advice of a good French cook in order to find out how best to equip the kitchens.158 Indeed, the phrase alla francese is sometimes used in conjunction with, or as a synonym for, di buon gusto. Where taste is concerned, the cardinal was assertively outward looking: in contrast to the antiquarians, who found all they needed in Rome, Cardinal Patrizi turned to Rome only as a last resort. But what Cardinal Patrizi had most immediately before his eyes was to be found in northern Italy: in Ferrara, Bologna, and Venice.

Cardinal Patrizi as Collector It cannot be claimed that Patrizi was an important collector of paintings. All his money went on building projects, or pictorial commissions associated with such projects (including the ceiling of the Cammerone of the Palazzo Patrizi).159 He acquired the occasional ‘old master’ painting, such as a Gaudenzio de’ Ferrari in Ferrara, but the villa was furnished largely with copies or paintings from the family’s collections. Earlier, however, the cardinal did make at least one attempt to acquire a collection of prized seventeenth-century ‘old masters’. In 1696 Patrizi, then a monsignor, attempted to buy paintings from the estate of Abbate Alessandro Sozzini.160 He offered 300 scudi for 26 paintings by seventeenth-century Roman artists—Baciccio, Borgognone, Domenichino, Salvator Rosa, Pier Francesco Mola, and ‘Carracci’. The offer was not accepted, and the collection, totalling 37 works, was eventually acquired by Monsignor Ludovico Sergardi on behalf of the Sienese collector Marcello Biringucci, a wealthy member of the Sienese nobility. Later, in 1726, when Sergardi was dying, Patrizi expressed his admiration for him on one of his letters.161

49

18/11/15 17:24

Notes

1722 (see Chapter 3.10).

1. This can be deduced from the letter of 15 July 1719 (Letter, 15 July 1719 [1]), which refers to two letters dated 1 July and 8 July arriving together, presumably on or just before 15 July.

19. Marshall, 2009.

2. Letter, 15 July 1719 [1]: ‘questa riflessione ipocondriaca’. Letter, 29 October 1718: ‘et adesso vi si aggiunge l’incommodo, che soffro della flussione della mia Podagra, la quale facendo il solito giro, sono diece giorni, che mi tiene inchiodato nel letto.’ 3. Letter, 15 July 1719 [1]. Other letters mentioning postal delays include 16 October 1723 [1], when he notifies Mariano that his letters have not arrived because of an error in the post. 4. Letter, 7 November 1722 [1]. 5. Letter, 29 October 1718 [2].

20. Letter, 24 February 1719 [3]. 21. They renewed their vows in person at the Episcopal Palace in Montefiascone on 3 September 1719. Maria Clementina was the daughter of James Sobieski (1667–1737) and his wife, Princess Hedwig of PfalzNeuburg (1702–35), and the granddaughter of the Polish king, John III Sobieski (1629–96). They had two sons, Charles Edward Louis Philip Casimir Stuart (1720–88), known as ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ and Henry Benedict Stuart (1725–1807) (Corp, 2011, p. 10). 22. He sided with Maria Clementina over the appointment of James Murray as governor of the Prince of Wales in 1725 and reduced James’ pension. See Corp, 2001, p. 64. 23. Letter, 10 October 1722 [2].

6. Letter, 31 December 1718 [3]. 7. Letter, 17 February 1720 [2]. Count Louis Ferdinand Marsigli (1658–1730) was a Bolognese patrician who had served the Hapsburgs as a military commander but was disgraced following the loss of the fortress of Breisach in 1703. He then served as commander of the papal troops against the Imperial army in 1708–9. He was a notable naturalist and presented his collection of specimens to the Senate of Bologna in 1712 where he founded an Institute of Sciences and Arts in 1715. (Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, p. 58; Stoye, 1994, pp. 271–76.) 8. Letter, 18 May 1720 [2]. 9. Letter, 12 October 1720 [4]. 10. Letter, 22 November 1721 [2]. 11. The marriage had taken place in June 1720 in Modena. On 4 May 1720 Patrizio was about to depart for Venice, before returning to Ferrara and continuing on to Modena for the festivities associated with her wedding (Letter, 4 May 1720 [8]). On 18 May the cardinal is unsure whether he will return to Ferrara by way of the Mantua road, or go to Genoa to see the disembarkation of the princess (18 May 1720 [4]). On 25 May 1720 the cardinal refers to Patrizio leaving Venice that day for Genoa (Letter, 25 May 1720 [3]). On 1 June he expects that Patrizio will be in Genoa for the arrival of the princess (Letter, 1 June 1720 [5]). On 8 June the cardinal mentions that the last news he had of Patrizio was from Vicenza, and if he had not been distracted by false news emanating from that city indicating that the princess had already arrived in Genoa, he ought to have been in Genoa when she arrived (Letter, 8 June 1720 [3]). By 15 June the cardinal has had a letter from Patrizio dated 1 June from Genoa, and expects that he would by now be in Parma or Piacenza, while the princess was due in Modena on the 18 th (Letter 15 June 1720 [3]). By 29 June the cardinal has had news from Patrizio in Modena, who writes that after Reggio he intends to go to the Certosa di Pavia and Milan (Letter, 29 June 1720 [6]). 12. Letter, 14 November 1722 [2]. For Alberoni, see Chapter 4.4. 13. Letter, 24 July 1723 [1]. 14. Letter, 18 November 1724 [4]. According to Pastor (Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 117) ‘Benedict XIII’s first drive was to the hospital of S. Spirito where he gave Extreme Unction to a dying man; after that he drove to a villa’, but he does not state which.

24. There are furter references to James III and Maria Clementina in the Letters in 1725 (8 December 1725 [4]) and 1727 (Letter, 26 April 1727 [1]. 25. Letter, 9 December 1719 [6]. This was probably Monsignor Orazio Rasponi, who was a papal envoy. He bore a papal gift to Prince Eugene of Savoy following the Battle of Peterwardein on 6 August 1716. Other sources say Monsignor Rasponi was private secretary to Pope Clement XI and pro-maestro di camera. The Rasponi were a leading family of the Comacchio area. (Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, pp. 126-27; Stoye, 1994, p. 274.) 26. Letter, 9 May 1722 [3]. Rutilio Paracciani was a member of a noble Roman family, married to Chiara Maddalena Vitelleschi. He was a nephew of Cardinal Giandomenico Paracciani (1646–1721) and father of Cardinal Urbano Paracciani (1715–77) (Miranda, Cardinals). 27. Letter, 17 February 1720 [3]. 28. Letter, 11 September 1723 [3]. 29. Armand-Gaston-Maximilien de Rohan (1674–1749), Bishop of Strasbourg, was created cardinal on 16 June 1721 with the titulus of SS. Trinità dei Monti. He remained in Rome from July to December 1721 and was in charge of French affairs. He was a significant patron of the arts and was employed Robert de Cotte to rebuild the bishop’s palace in Strasbourg from 1704 to 1723. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 135–36; Muller, 2006, pp. 11–202; Béchu and de Reynies, 2013; Miranda, Cardinals.) Cardinal de Rohan is also mentioned on 15 November 1721: Letter, 15 November 1721 [5]. 30. Cardinal Wolfgang Hannibal von Schrattenbach (1660–1738) was created cardinal by Clement XI on 18 May 1712 with the titulus of S. Marcello. He was appointed bishop of the Moravian city of Oloumuc (now in the Czech Republic). He held various appointments with the Austrian Empire, and from 1719–21 was Viceroy of Naples. He participated in the conclave of 1721 before returning to his bishopric in 1722, and would have been on his way home there when he passed through Ferrara. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 137–38; Gatz and Janker, 1990, pp. 450–51; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 28, 47 and 296.) 31. Letter, 23 May 1722 [3]. Letter, 30 May 1722 [5]. 32. Letter, 6 June 1722 [5]. Letter, 13 June 1722 [1].

15. Letter, 4 May 1726 [4].

33. Letter, 23 May 1722 [5].

16. Francis Edward Stuart (1688–1766), the Stuart Pretender to the British throne, known as James III (the ‘Old Pretender’), was acknowledged by the papacy as the rightful king of England. See Corp, 2011, passim.

34. The Teatro Albergati performance is not well documented, but is recorded by the chronicler Bellei, cited in Ricci, 1888, p. 242: ‘nel teatro del sig. march. Antonio Albergati si fece l’opera da signori cavalieri, già fatta il carnovale, e questo per trattenimento dei principi di Modena e Nobiltà’. Ricci was uncertain which of the three operas performed in Bologna earlier in 1722—one at Teatro Marsigli-Rossi, the other at Teatro Malvezzi—was the opera in question. Ormisada was presented by a ‘comitiva di cavalieri

17. Chracas, 775, 18 July 1722. 18. Letter 4 July 1722 [2]. It was presumably on this occasion that he saw the Romitorio, as the cardinal mentions in his letter of 31 October

50

Libro MARSHALL.indb 50

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

bolognesi’, and the Cronaca or Diario of Giacomo Maria Bellei (University of Bologna, no. 3818) similar refers to ‘signori cavalieri’, so it is likely that it was the Teatro Malvezzi performance that was repeated. 35. Bellei refers to the opera being performed for ‘dei principi di Modena e Nobiltà’. Rinaldo d’Este (1655–1737) was then Duke of Modena. In 1721 he had married his son Francesco to Charlotte Aglaé d’Orléans, the daughter of Philippe d’Orléans, the Regent of France. 36. Letter, 20 June 1722 [5]. 37. Ricci, 1888, Appendix 1, p. 423, under ‘1722’. The singers were Faustina Bartolini, Giovanna Albertini known as ‘la Reggiana’, the castrato Antonio Maria Bernacchi (1685–1756), Bartolomeo Bartolini, Andrea Paccini, Giovanni Battista Rapaccioli and the tenor G. B. Pinacci (1694/5–1750). Set designs were by the school of Ferdinando Bibiena, and costumes by Cesare Bonassoli. See Ricci, 1888, p. 144, citing the Cronaca of Barilli, Ms. Università di Bologna, vol. II, fols 155r, 164r, 168r 38. Monsignor Carlo Collicola (1682–1730), born in Spoleto from a noble family of Castello Montesanto, was vice-tesoriere generale from 1718 and tesoriere generale from 1721 until he was created cardinal in petto in the consistory of 9 December 1726; published in the consistory of 30 April 1728, with the titulus of S. Maria in Portico Campitelli. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 228–29; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 38 and 54; Weber, 2003–4, vol. 2, p. 552; Miranda, Cardinals.)

century. He was created cardinal on 18 May 1712 by Clement XI. He was close to the Albani family and was supported by Cardinal Annibale Albani. As papal legate in Bologna from 12 April 1717 until 23 July 1721 he faced a number of problems, including flooding, while the need for financial reform involved increasing the role of the Roman Curia, resisted by a restive Bolognese nobility. Cardinal Patrizi’s visit came a few months after an urban revolt that followed the killing of Count Gerolamo Grassi in a brawl in February. (Guarnacci, 1752, vol. 2, pp. 244 ff.; Cardella, 1794, vol. 8,, pp. 148–49; Weber, 1994, pp. 158, 808; Weber and Becker, 1999–2002, vol 2, p. 692; Miranda, Cardinals; Cucco, 2001, pp. 78, 307, 326–29; Stefano Tabacci, ‘Origo Curzio’, in DBI, vol. 79, Rome: Treccani, 2013. 46. On Saturday, 10 June 1719 the cardinal announces that he will go ‘tomorrow’ (that is, Sunday, 11 June 1719) to Bologna and return Wednesday (Wednesday, 14 June 1719). Letter, 10 June 1719 [4]. 47. See Chapter 3. 48. On 24 May 1708. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, pp. 48–49. 49. Pastor, 1938-67, vol. 33, p. 49.

39. Porzia Gabrielli was Costanzo Patrizi’s wife; this may be a relative, possibly Maria Teresa, Contessa di Valvasone, who had married Porzia’s brother Marchese Pietro Gabrielli (d. 1724) in 1717.

50. Pastor, 1938-67, vol. 33, pp. 55–57. Treasure of 500,000 scudi was removed from Pope Sixtus V’s treasury in Castel Sant’Angelo for armaments. In September 1708 Imperial troops had set out from Piedmont in the direction of Ferrara. At beginning of October papal troops were driven from Sant’Agostino, San Carlo and Mirabello, just west of Ferrara, and the garrison of Bondeno surrendered on October 28. One of Daun’s divisions blockaded Ferrara, while the main force marched through Cento to Bologna, reached on 8 November.

40. Letter. 5 May 1725 [2].

51. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, p. 184: Wednesday, 7 November 1708.

41. For an understanding of what the job of legate of Ferrara involved, see Fosi and Gardi, 2006.

52. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, pp. 63–4.

42. Cardinal Tommaso Ruffo (1663–1753), the son of Carlo Ruffo, third Duke of Bagnara, was created cardinal in 1706 by Clement XI. He was appointed legate in Romagna in 1709 and was legate in Ferrara from 1710 to 1714. From 1717–38 he was archbishop of Ferrara and began rebuilding the archbishop’s palace to designs by the Roman architect Tommaso Mattei. He was again appointed legate in Ferrara to succeed Patrizi on 25 June 1727, which was news that Patrizi had received by 28 June 1727 (Letter, 28 June 1727 [3]). Ruffo held the position for one term, concurrently with his archbishopric, until the end of 1730. He was again acting legate of Ferrara for a brief time at the death of Cardinal Alessandro Aldobrandini on 4 August 1734. He had a significant collection of works of art described in verse by Agnelli in 1734. (Miranda, Cardinals; Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 86-88; Agnelli, 1734; Moroni, 1840–79, vol. 59, pp. 215-16; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 24–25, 42, 47–48; Hierarchia Catholica, VI, pp. 39-40,44 and 54; Weber, 1994, pp. 159, 254, 369, 370 and 881; Haskell, 1980, pp. 221-23.)

53. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, p. 65. 54. Johns, 1993, p. 21. 55. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, pp. 124–25. 56. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, pp. 127–28. 57. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, pp. 131–32. 58. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, p. 142. 59. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, p. 146–47. 60. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, p. 157. 61. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, p. 160. 62. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 33, p. 167. 63. Letter, 23 July 1718 [3].

43. Letter, 4 April 1722 [4].

64. Letter, 23 September 1719 [2].

44. Cardinal Marco Cornelio Bentivoglio d’Aragona (1668–1732 Rome) had been nuncio in France from 20 May 1712 and much involved with promoting the bull Unigenitus Dei Filius (1713) that condemned Jansenism and which angered the Regent, the Duke d’Orléans, following the death of Louis XIV in 1715. After repeated requests from the Regent Bentivoglio was recalled in 1719, returning to Ferrara, although he made the trip to Rome to have audience with the pope on 4 September. He was created cardinal on 29 November 1719, ten days before Patrizi’s letter in which it is implied that Bentivoglio was then in Ferrara. He was legate in Romagna from 20 March 1720 until January 1727. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 180–81; Frizzi, 1848, p. 177; Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 354. Weber and Becker, 1999–2002, vol. 5, p. 91; Weber, 1994, pp. 370 and 490; Gaspare De Caro, ‘Bentivoglio d’Aragona Marco Cornelio’, in DBI, vol. 8, Rome: Treccani, 1966.)

65. Letter, 23 September 1719 [2].

45. Cardinal Curzio Origo (1661–1737) was a Roman nobleman from an Umbrian family established in Rome from the middle of the seventeenth

74. Letter, 27 July 1720 [5]; Letter, 3 August 1720 [4]; Letter, 10 August 1720 [6]; Letter, 17 August 1720 [3]; Letter, 24 August 1720 [5].

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 51

66. Letter, 30 September 1719 [3]. 67. Letter, 29 October 1718 [1]. 68. Letter, 19 November 1718 [3]. 69. Letter 28 October 1719 [8]. 70. Letter, 27 July 1720 [4]. 71. Letter, 24 December 1718 [4]. 72. Letter, 16 May 1722 [4]. 73. Letter, 20 July 1720 [3].

51

18/11/15 17:24

75. In 1719 the cardinal stated that he planned to return to the country after Corpus Domini (Thursday, 8 June) (Letter, 27 May 1719 [4]: ‘Io ancora penso doppo il Corpus Domini di ritornare in Campagna’). By 19 August 1719 he was in Lugo, where he was spending a few days (Letter, 19 August 1719 [1]). On 7 October 1719 the swelling of his joints has diminished, as a result of the country air (Letter, 7 October 1719 [3]: ‘Me la passo meglio della mia flussione, e l’aria della campagna mi ha fatto giovamento’). He was still taking villeggiatura on 14 October (Letter, 14 October 1719 [3]: ‘Continuo la villeggiatura con pessisimi tempi sto però meglio della mia flussione’). On 28 October 1719 he was thinking of finishing his villeggiatura on 28 October and he must have returned shortly afterwards (Letter, 28 October 1719 [8]: ‘Li tempi si sono accomodati quando conviene terminare la villeggiatura’). In 1720 he and Patrizio began their villeggiatura late (7 September) (Letter, 7 September 1720 [6]: ‘Il Signor Patritio et io abbiamo principiate la nostra villeggiatura alle Caselle dove continuarò per questo Autunno, se non mi sopragiungerà qualche imbarazzo’). On 11 October 1721 the cardinal was expecting to finish his villeggiatura because of bad weather (Letter, 11 October 1721 [2]: ‘Io sto ancora incommodato qualche poco dalla mia flussione, benche sto meglio, e se li tempi mi permettessero di poter prendere un poca d’aria di Campagna starei ancora meglio, ma la stagione è cosi stravagante, che temo sia finita la Villeggiatura’). On 18 October 1721 his swelling prevented him from going into the country (Letter, 18 October 1721 [2]: ‘Io mi trovo inchiodato per la terza volta dalla flussione, quale quando credevo finita, mi a nuovamente attaccato nel ginocchio manco, e mano destra in modo, che non mi vien permesso d’andare a prendere un poco d’aria della Campagna.)’ On 19 September 1722 he intended to continue a purge while on villeggiatura (Letter, 19 September 1722 [1]: ‘La mia flussione svani, e non mi impedi di principiare la mia purga, dubbitai che il medicamento me la dovesse porre novamente in moto, ma fin ora non è stato nero, e mi ha promesso di venire in Campagna alla Villeggiatura, dove prendo li brodi di Cicoria, e sto meglio ancora dell’amarezza della bocca’). On 10 October 1722 he was about to return to the country to continue his villeggiatura (Letter, 10 October 1722 [6]: ‘Ritorno in Campagna per continuare la mia Villeggiatura già che il tempo me lo permette’). By 7 November 1722 he had returned to the country to enjoy an Indian summer, but with the onset of bad weather he planned to return to the city that evening (Letter, 7 November 1722 [3]: ‘Alcune buone giornate che erano state con la speranza, che fusse l’Estate di S. Martino m’avevano fatto ritornare in Campagna, ma essendosi rotti li tempi, torno questa sera in Città per non pensare più fino alla nova stagione alla Campagna, e per essere in un luogo vicino alla Città, mi riescono facili queste mosse’). On 17 July 1723 he was planning to take villeggiatura alone until 8 September (the feast of the Birth of the Virgin) (Letter, 17 July 1723 [4]: ‘mentre da questo tempo sino alla Madonna di Settembre voglio farci la Villeggiatura solo’. On 21 July 1723 he was staying in the country three miles from Ferrara, and planned to return there several times a week (Letter, 21 July 1723 [6]: ‘Io per la Dio gratia sto bene, e fo la mia permanenza al Campagna in un luogo distante dalla Città tre miglia, e vado e torno in Città piu volte la settemana secondo che mi obliga il negotio, et il divertimento, e metto in pratica ciò che spero di fare con minor incommodo alla Villa di Porta Pia’). On 23 October 1723 he was still making villeggiatura (Letter, 23 October 1723 [4]: ‘Io credo continuando nelle mie Villeggiature’. In 1724 the first letter following his return from Rome for the conclave is on 1 November. For 1725 and 1726 see the following chapters. 76. Letter, 25 September 1723 [1]. 77. As on 10 October 1722 (see above), when he writes he that he was returning to the country to continue his villeggiatura for as long as time permits. 78. Letter, 22 March 1721 [1]. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 3. 79. Chracas, 579, pp. 14–16. 80. Pastor, 1938-67, vol. 34, pp. 4–5. 81. Chracas, 582, 5 April 1721, pp. 19–21: ‘Giovedì mattina entrò in conclave … La medesima mattina … L’istesso giorno arrivarono in Roma

52

Libro MARSHALL.indb 52

li Signori Cardinali Giacomo Buoncompagni del Titolo di S. Maria in Via, arcivescovo di Bologna, e l’Eminentissimo Giovanni Battista Patrizj Romano del Titolo del SS. Quattro Coronati, Legato di Ferrara, e Venerdi il giorno ambidue entrarono in Conclave con l’’Eminentissimo Signor Cardinale Curtio Orighi Diacono di S. Eustachio Romano, arrivato in Roma il medesimo giorno dalla sua Legazione di Bologna.’ Chracas, 600, 17 May 1721, pp. 3 ff. lists the offices but does not list the new legates. 82. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 5. 83. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 6. 84. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 9. 85. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 8. 86. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 12. 87. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 14. 88. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 18. 89. Letter, 2 May 1721 [1–5]. 90. Pastor, 1938-67, vol. 34, pp. 26–30. 91. Chracas, 598, 14 May 1721, pp. 4, 6–7. For Rutilio Paracciani, see above. 92. Chracas, 601, 21 May 1721, p. 7. 93. Chracas, 601, 21 May 1721, pp. 8–9: ‘senza ventagli, e senza baldacchino’. 94. Chracas, 601, 21 May 1721, pp. 11–12. 95. Chracas discusses the pope’s death and the early stages of his funeral on 11 March (Chracas, 1030, 11 March 1724), and on 17 March (Chracas, 1032, 17 March 1724). 96. Pastor, 1938-67, vol. 34, p. 94–95. 97. Chracas, 1033, 18 March 1724, pp. 9–10. 98. Chracas, 1035, 22 March 1724, pp. 1–12, describes the catafalque in detail. See Fagiolo, 1977b, pp. 47–50; Fagiolo, 1997c, vol. 2, p. 35, fig. 25. 99. Chracas, 1033, 18 March 1724, p. 5. Patrizi’s cell was number 15. 100. Chracas, 1037, 25 March 1724, 1-4. 101. Chracas, 1037, 25 March 1724, pp. 5–6, 17. 102. The Jesuit Cardinal Álvaro Cienfuegos Villazón (1657–1739) was created cardinal on 30 September 1720 with the titulus of S. Benedetto all’Isola. He was a noted theologian and professor of philosophy at the University of Salamanca. During the War of Spanish Succession he was engaged in a diplomatic mission on behalf of the Hapsburg Archduke Charles of Austria, which made it difficult to remain in Spain following the accession of the Bourbon Philip V, and after being called to Vienna in 1715 he was proposed as cardinal by the archduke. He was ambassador of Austria to the Holy See from 1722, and archbishop of Monreale from 1725. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 192–94; Moroni, 1840–79, vol. 13; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 32, 44, 150 and 276; Hierarchia Catholica, VI, p. 350; Miranda, Cardinals.) 103. Cardinal Giulio Piazza (1663–1726) was from a noble family of Forlì. He held various nunciatures, including Switzerland (1698) and Cologne (1702) and Poland (1706), Austria (1709). He was created cardinal by Clement XI on 18 May 1712 with the titulus of S. Lorenzo in Panisperna. He preceded Patrizi as legate in Ferrara from 28 May 1714 until January 1718, but had to remain in the post until the arrival of Patrizi in June. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 123-24; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 27, 47 and 199; Miranda, Cardinals.) 104. Letter, 27 April 1726.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

105. Letter, 3 April 1724. 106. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, p. 453, Tuesday, 2 January 1725: ‘Questa mattina il cardinale Sinfuego andò con gran corteggio alla udienza di S. Beatitudine, dandole parte che l’imperatore avea costituito il governatore di Milano con facoltà di sostituire altri per plenipotenziario a restituire alla S. Sede Comacchio, onde S. Beatudine costituì nello stesso grado il cardinale Patrizii legato di Ferrara.’ 107. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 154 and note 1. 108. Letter, 27 April 1726 [3]. 109. Cardinal Fabrizio Paolucci (1651–1726) was created cardinal by Innocent XII in July 1697 with the titulus of SS. Giovanni e Paolo. He was archbishop of Ferrara from 1698 to 1701 and Secretary of State from 3 December 1700 until 19 March 1721. He was a serious contender for the papacy at the conclave in May 1721, but was vetoed by the Austrians. He was appointed Cardinal-Vicar of Rome on 11 May 1721 following the death of Cardinal Paracciani on the day of the papal election, and it was probably in this role that he was being applied to by Patrizi. He was Secretary of State again under Benedict XIII from 6 June 1724 until his death in 1726. Like Patrizi he has plenipotentiary powers for the negotiations for the return of Comacchio in September 1724. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 55–8, Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 30; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 21, 40, 41, 46, 201 and 251; Weber and Becker, 1999–2002, vol. 2, p. 715; Miranda, Cardinals.) The cardinal was aware of what would be Paolucci’s final illness on 4 May (Letter, 4 May 1726 [6]). 110. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 129. 111. Cardinal Niccolò Coscia (1682–1755) came from a poor family of Benevento and was a protégé of Cardinal Vincenzo Maria Orsini, Archbishop of Benevento. After Orsini was elected as Pope Benedict XIII he created Coscia cardinal on 11 June 1725 with the titulus of S. Maria in Domnica, in the face of the opposition from many of the cardinals. He had effective control of Benedict’s policies and was the leader of a group known as the ‘Beneventans’ that included Niccolò Maria Lercari (1675–1757), whom Benedict XIII appointed as Secretary of State after the death of Cardinal Paolucci on 12 June 1726. Coscia was notoriously corrupt and Benedict’s successor, Clement XI, instituted proceedings against him. (Cardella, 1794, vol. 8, pp. 207–9; Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, p. 124–29; Hierarchia Catholica, V, pp. 36, 118 and 385; Weber and Becker, 1999–2002; Franca Petrucci, ‘Coscia, Niccolò’, in DBI, vol. 30, Rome: Treccani, 1984.) 112. Letter, 19 June 1726 [2]. 113. Letter, 15 March 1727 [1].

126. De Leo, 2010–11. Renée of France (1510–75), the wife of Ercole II, Duke of D’Esté and daughter of Louis XII of France and Anne of Brittany, had donated the relics to the church, but in the 1930 all of the extant relics of S. Francesco di Paola (which were few as his body had been burned by the Hugenots), were gathered together and sent to the sanctuary of S. Francesco di Paola. This reliquary will be the subject of a forthcoming article by Lisa Beaven and David R. Marshall. 127. Letter, 7 June 1727 [1]. 128. Abbate Don Girolamo Cardoni, was one of Patrizi’s two gentiluomini in Rome in 1718 and 1724 (the other was Leonardo Martino Sorba). Their duties as gentlemen attendants ‘were to show honour to the cardinal by their presence, to assist in the reception of guests, and to make conversation with guests who were obliged to wait a while in an anteroom’. (ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, stati d’anime, vol. 36, 1713–22, fols 109r-v; vol. 37, 1723–28, fols 25v-26r; Waddy, 1990, p. 8.) 129. Letter, 7 June 1727 [1]; Letter, 21 June 1727 [1]. 130. Letter 25 June 1727 [1]. 131. Letter, 28 June 1727 [1]. 132. Letter, 5 July 1727 [2]. 133. Letter, 12 July 1727 [1]. 134. Letter, 19 July 1727 [2]. 135. Moroni, 1840–79, vol. 52, pp. 8-9. 136. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, p. 838, Monday, 4 August 1727: ‘Giunse staffetta con l’avvisso che era passato a miglior vita il cardinale Patrizi, legato di Ferrara.’ 137. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, pp. 838–89, Monday, 4 August 1727; Valesio, 1977–79, vol. 4, pp. 839, Wednesday, 6 August 1727: ‘Di già sono state conferite quasi tutte le entrate ecclesiastiche che avea il cardinale Patrizi: una badia di Bologna a monsignor Banchieri governatore con scudi 1.000 di pensione a monsignor Collicola tesoriero, altra badia a momsignor Ansidei, altro benefizio di 100 scudi a monsignor Girolami; si è riserbata una badia e 500 scudi di pensione da distribuirsi alla famiglia pontificia.’ 138. Letter, 14 February 1722 [2]. Earlier, he had to pay 2000 scudi for repairs to his Bologna Abbadia (Letter, 27 July 1726 [2] which suggests that his income from this source was much more. 139. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B70, no. 4. 140. Cittadella, 1782–83, vol. 1, p. 124.

115. Letter, 12 April 1727 [2].

141. Brisighella, 1991, written c.1720: ‘Nel cortile contiguo a questa chiesa, sul muro, ch’è superiore alla ringhiera, sta dipinto a fresco, il Battesimo di Cristo fatto da S. Giovanni, ritoccato quasi del tutto l’anno 1725 da Tommaso Raffanelli bravo freschista.’

116. Letter, 19 April 1727 [3].

142. Fagiolo, 1997a and Fagiolo, 1997c, vol. 2, p. 38, fig. 32.

117. Letter, 27 April 1727 [2].

143. Fagiolo, 1997b, p. 36 and Fagiolo, 1997c, vol. 2, p. 215, fig. 17.

118. Letter, 3 May 1727 [2].

144. Fagiolo, 1997b, pp. 47–48 and Fagiolo, 1997c, vol. 2, p. 35, fig. 25.

119. For Ruffo, see above.

145. Fagiolo, 1997b, pp. 9-10; Fagiolo, 1997c, vol. 2, p. 218, fig. 29.

120. Letter, 28 June 1727 [3]. A similar situation had occurred when Patrizi was first appointed, when Cardinal Piazza, whose term ended in January 1718, had to remain in his post until Patrizi’s arrival in May.

146. This seems not to have been done. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, f. 443r: ‘Giovanni Cardinale Patritij, che mori nella Città di Ferrara dove fu legato mandato al N.S. Papa Clemente XI suo creatore fu seppellito alla catedrale in detta città, e volse nella sua dichiarazione che il tuo cuore furne mandato a Roma per seppellirlo nella sepoltura di questa cappella dove si conferma. / Costanzo Patrizij suo fratello primogenito avendo volsuto ornare questa Cappella sia volsuto ancora lasciarvi la memoria del questo degno sogetto [sic]; colla sudetta esecuzione, avendovi fatto l’altare di marmo, ornato con candelieri, et altri suppellettili; e con due cornucopij parimente di metallo; avendo anche volsuto qualificare magiormente [sic] la medema Cappella di già qualificata per tenere stata fabricata in questo sito per le concessioni fatte

114. Letter, 22 March 1727 [4]; Letter, 22 March 1727 [5]; Letter, 22 March 1727 [6].

121. Letter, 19 July 1727 [4]. 122. See Chapter 6.1. 123. Letter, 19 July 1727 [6]. 124. Letter, 17 May 1727 [1]; Letter, 21 May 1727 [1]. 125. Letter, 25 June 1727 [1].

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 53

53

18/11/15 17:24

alla Famiglia Patritij, dall’Illustrissimo Capitolo e dei Canonici di questa Basilica di dicesse Cappelle, in dicessi tempi per aver state le Cappelle suddette demolite per le fabriche fatte dai Pontefici, Sisto V e Paulo V, e dal Cardinale N N: che fu archiprete di questa Basilica.’ This document is undated, but another dealing with the same matter (fol. 446r) is dated 1738. 147. Giorgetti Vichi, 1977, p. v. 148. Patrizi appears in the chronological list by its first custodia, Crescimbeni, in volume I, no. 150 (Giorgetti Vichi, 1977, s.v. Laureno Nomio. Giovanni Patrizi da Roma, cardinale. Arcade acclamato. Crescimbeni, 1691; I, 150.). Crescimbeni’s list indicates that he was a cardinal, which means that this information was added after 1715 or written then. Crescimbeni also indicates that he was ‘Arcade acclamato’. See also ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B41, p. 339, a printed document admitting Patrizi to the Arcadian Academy, with the details filled in in pen. 149. Giorgetti Vichi, 1977, s.v. Doricleo Driadio (Triaside?), Giovanni Chigi Montorio Patrizi, marchese, furier maggiore di N.S. Morei list, 1743-66, IV, 684: Adunanza per l’esalatazione di Abondio Rezzonico (1766): Driadio. See also ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B41, no. 339 for his printed certificate of admission to the Arcadian Academy, as ‘Doricleo Triasio’. A Marchese Giovanni Patrizi appears in 1784 but the date seems too early for it to refer to his grandson, Giovanni Naro Patrizi Montoro (1775–1817), and may be from another branch of the family (Giorgetti Vichi, 1977, s.v. Elpimenide Creteo. Giovanni Patrizi, marchese. Godard list, 1791–1800; VIII, 1901). Other unrelated, or distant relations with the Patrizi surname also figure in the lists: Giorgetti Vichi, 1977, s.v. ‘Caricrate Megarense. Giovanni Battista Patrizi da Frosinone, avvocato. Morei, 1743-66; IV 640’; ‘Numante Tauridense. Leonardo Patrizi, aiutante di studio di mons. Litta. Pizzi, 1776; VIII, 1770’; Giorgetti Vichi, 1977, s.v. Viglieno Piseatico. Scipione Patrizi da Perugia, abbate. Colonia Augusta. Crescimbeni, 1726; III, 375. 150. For example, Barroero and Susinno, 2000. 151. Hyde Minor, 2006. 152. Letter, 22 November 1721 [6]. 153. According to Fagiolo, 1997b, pp. 39–42, the architect responsible for the arch on the Campidoglio, paid for by the Senato Romano, was Alessandro Specchi, as is clearly marked on the engraving (Fagiolo, 1997b, p. 40, fig. 2) while the architect of the arch of the Duke of Parma, the other patron of the possesso, was Pompeo Aldrovandini, although this is not indicated on the engraving (Fagiolo, 1997b, p. 40, fig. 3). See also the preparatory studies in Montreal (Kieven and Pinto, 2001). 154. Letter, 7 February 1722 [1]. 155. By 25 May 1720 the cardinal had received Mariano’s note of work to be done to finish the Casino. This included installing pedestals for statues of sphinxes at the foot of the Scalinata, the sphinxes to cost 200 scudi. He noted that they had earlier considered placing there the two statues that had been found (Letter, 25 May 1720 [1]). 156. Letter, 25 April 1722 [3]. 157. Letter, 9 May 1722 [3]. 158. Letter, 9 July 1718 [1]. 159. See Chapter 6.1. 160. See Bauer and Barbieri, 2011. 161. Letter, 9 November 1726 [3]. Monsignor Sergardi (27 March 1660–1726) was a Sienese writer known as Quinto Settano at the papal court. Ceppari Ridolfi and Turrini, 2005.

54

Libro MARSHALL.indb 54

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Chapter 1.4

Ottavia Sacchetti and Patrizio Patrizi the Younger 1722–1739

Although Cardinal Patrizi was building his villa for himself, he was on old man, and unwell. Throughout the project, he was preoccupied with ‘those who would come after him’, that is, his heir, his nephew Patrizio, and, hopefully, Patrizio’s descendants. But descendants were the problem, because although Patrizio married Ottavia Sacchetti in November 1722, the longed-for male child did not arrive. Patrizio and Ottavia’s marriage was not a happy one, and their story is intimately bound up with the cardinal’s villa.

Ottavia Sacchetti (c. 1701–?) and Patrizio Patrizi (1684–1747) Ottavia Sacchetti was the daughter of Marchese Matteo Sacchetti (1675–1743), 3rd Marchese di Castel Rigatti, and Clelia Orsini de’ Cavalieri (?–1745).1 They had married in 1700 and Ottavia was probably born in 1701. The Sacchetti and Patrizi were closely matched in class and origins. Both families were from Tuscany, the Sacchetti having come to prominence in Rome with Giulio Sacchetti, a protégé of the Barberini, papal aspirant, legate in Ferrara and the builder of the Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano.2 Matteo performed similar roles and had similar interests to the Patrizi brothers. He was a conservator on the Campidoglio in 1702 and 1709, a member of the Arcadian Academy, accademico d’onore of the Accademia di San Luca in 1720,3 and a member of the Accademia Quirini.4 Clelia was a de’ Cavalieri, and her mother was a Carpegna. Unlike the Patrizi, however, the Sacchetti were not prospering. Because of debts from 1715 Matteo was selling off family properties, and the properties from which their titles depended, Castel Rigatti and Castel Romano, were sold to Cardinal Alberoni in 1729 for 95,000 scudi.5 From the Sacchetti point of view, the marriage to the Patrizi would have been an advantageous one, but finding her dowry may have presented difficulties. Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 55

The cardinal did not attend Ottavia’s wedding on 25 November 1722, 6 as he was in Ferrara, but he gave a wedding present jointly with the younger sons, the cadets having insufficient financial resources to be able to give a present of suitable value individually.7 Mariano, an amateur poet, composed an ‘elegant compliment’ for the occasion.8 This may have involved a pun on the two senses of casa (the building) and Casa (the family), since in the next letter the cardinal praises Mariano for observing that ‘the most beautiful ornament of the Casa ought to be the new bride’.9 She was expected to respond suitably. As soon as her marriage to Patrizio has taken place in November 1722, the cardinal was keen to have Ottavia visit the villa for a rinfresco, and to show her the apartment she would occupy, for ‘she will be padrona of it all’.10 Ottavia first went to the villa as early as late October or early November 1722, and in the summer took up residence there for villeggiatura. She engaged enthusiastically with the decoration of the villa, and would have been aware, even then, that it was as much for her use and Patrizio’s as it was for the cardinal. But physical and psychological problems soon manifest themselves. The cardinal is nervous about how her husband, and the family will receive her.11 The cardinal supposes that she would go home regularly to be with her mother, who did not go out much.12 He hopes that his family will like her, and that she will like the villa.13 But already at her first lunch at the villa Mariano had commented on her lack of appetite, unlike their mother, Virginia Corsini, who had a hearty appetite and produced ten children.14 Ottavia’s poor appetite further manifests itself at Carnival, and the cardinal hopes that it is not the consequence of a weak constitution.15 Ottavia then becomes indisposed, as the cardinal has learnt from Patrizio. 16 He tells Mariano that this cannot be attributed solely to the disorders of Carnival and cold chocolate, but to a change in her state (stato) that puts her blood in motion (che mette in moto il sangue). 55

18/11/15 17:24

This perhaps is a reference to her married state, and by extension the hope that she would become pregnant. In any case she was forced to retire from the excitements of Carnival. With the perspective of old age, the cardinal observes that she was still young and would have plenty of time to enjoy other Carnivals. Ottavia is soon better, but there are hints of a marital spat, but the cardinal believes that things will settle down if Patrizio has patience. However, he is sufficiently alarmed to ask Mariano to keep an eye on them both, and to observe whether they are mutually content and affectionate towards each other.17

Discord between Ottavia and Patrizio In fact, Ottavia and Patrizio did not get on. We know this because more than a decade later Ottavia wrote an intensely personal letter to Patrizio requesting separation, to which Patrizio replied.18 The precise date of the letter is uncertain; there is no mention of Costanzo, and some hints that Patrizio had succeeded his father, which would place it after 1739, although other, perhaps stronger, indications point to a date near 1732.19 The letters are fair copies, and unsigned. Ottavia’s is written in the third person, and begins rather formally, as if she had help, but the content was clearly provided by her. The first two paragraphs are couched in general terms, though clear in their reference to Ottavia and Patrizio; the last two speak of them by name. Patrizio’s response is written in the first person and speaks directly to Ottavia, referring to the ‘sheet that Signora Marchese Ottavia Sacchetti has sent me’ (foglio che m’è stato mandata dalla Signora Marchesa Ottavia Sacchetti). Ottavia’s foglio begins by speaking in general terms about a woman who has such an aversion to her husband that she was forced to deny to her husband ‘that without just cause one cannot deny, unless with many scruples of conscience’. Such a denial is made in spite of the fact that those who chose to marry take pleasure in the propagation of the species and in having offspring, and in recognition that it was especially important for women, who needed to fully establish themselves in the family they have entered by having children. In the next paragraph, although still phrased in general terms, il marito can only be understood as referring to Patrizio, and la moglie to Ottavia. Ottavia states that it was unpleasant for her to have to deal with and eat with her husband, and that sometimes she suffered to sleep with him ‘although he was not fully of sound mind, or even mute, and then would not have dealings 56

Libro MARSHALL.indb 56

with her, or would not make any demonstration of affection’. It is possible that a contributory factor to Ottavia’s loathing may have been Patrizio’s appearance. It may be significant that no portraits of Patrizio are known to exist, and Maria Virginia had a reputation for ugliness. Perhaps Patrizio was considered to be ugly too. Given such a situation, the foglio continues, in such cases, in order that the woman have some peace of mind from insufferable torment she would suffer from being continuously obliged to deal with a person so hateful to her, a resolution is needed. This resolution needs to be that the wife be permanently separated from the bed and habitation of the husband, and live where she please, and be given an allowance as decided by a judge, leaving the husband in complete freedom to act as God inspires him. The foglio now gets down to specifics, speaking for both parties, as if Ottavia were stating both their positions as she saw them, for both to agree to. Ottavia married Patrizio ‘perhaps to please her parents’ (forse per compiacere a suoi Genitori) even though she knew she bore an aversion to him, an aversion that had increased with time, to the point that she would rather enter a convent, or be dead, that continue to live with her husband. For his part, Patrizio was not informed of her aversion for him, and protests that, if he had suspected it while she were still a virgin (Venere), even if she were to have brought with her a dowry of 100,000 scudi, he would not have entered into the marriage, having desired nothing more20 that reciprocated affection and quiet, which for his many sins God has not conceded him. Again speaking for Patrizio, the foglio goes on to state that, since Patrizio wants to diminish the suffering of both parties, and having pity on Ottavia for what had happened to her, which she did not deserve, since her aversion was difficult to overcome, it is necessary that they separate. It will be necessary to communicate this to her father, and to the pope, and to commence discussions about how to effect it. The foglio concludes with Ottavia begging for a reply. In Patrizio’s rather sad response he clearly felt it was necessary to give his side of the matter ‘so that no mistakes or equivocations’ are involved. He states that he, too, in the first days of marriage became aware of the aversion that Ottavia had for him, and also of her repugnance at having sex. But he did not then believe that this was, in fact, affecting her health and he, in effect, accuses her of bad faith: if she had such an aversion to living with a man, in good conscience she should not have married. But he now knows the truth about the anxiety of soul and body that Ottavia has suffered, to the extent of it

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

being prejudicial to her health, and willingly agrees to a permanent separation. He takes the blame on himself, wanting to retire from the world in order to remove from it so hateful a person as himself, and to live quietly, this being the only way for one so hateful to matrimony to be less repellent before God. Patrizio proposes either immediately, or when his daughter Maria Virginia marries, to establish an allowance for Ottavia. Although he wants to hurry things along, it seems that the arrangements for the allowance are tied up with the future marriage of Maria Virginia. Since Maria Virginia was born in 1717, she would have been about 15 in 1732, and so would have been approaching marriageable age. The best option, from his perspective, was apparently for Ottavia to enter Virginia’s household. One can see why this should be so. By entering Patrizio’s daughter’s household Ottavia would not be disrupting the social norms in the way that the other options—returning to her father’s household or living somewhere else—would have done. If she were to return to her own family her dowry would have had to have been returned, as this would have been needed to fund her allowance. There was also probably a bond between Maria Virginia and her stepmother. Hence from Patrizio’s point of view the separation could be most elegantly effected by having Ottavia move in with Maria Virginia; except that Maria Virginia was still some years away from being married. (She would marry Giovanni Chigi Montoro in 1736.) In view of this situation, the villa would have emerged as a significant factor. It provided the option of Ottavia living separately from Patrizio without being formally separated from the family. It seems likely that this is what happened, since Patrizio’s will, as we will see, gave her the run of the villa if the family should deny her apartments at S. Luigi dei Francesi and at Castel Giuliano.21 The whole villa, then, may have functioned for Ottavia as a place of retreat from rigid social rules, where she could attain the peace of mind that had hitherto eluded her.22 Patrizio proposes that Ottavia should speak with her family, and he should speak with his, and also with the pope ‘if he still lives at that time’ (se il Signor Iddio farà che sia vivo in quel tempo), that is, when Maria Virginia marries. That this matter was conditional on a particular pope being alive must be because of a family, rather than an institutional, relationship with the pope. The pope in question must have been Clement XII Corsini (reigned 1730–40) who, like the Patrizi, came from a family of Tuscan origin, and was Cardinal Patrizi’s cousin. (Patrizio’s grandmother was a Corsini, and, like his daughter, was called Virginia.) Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 57

Ottavia’s Situation and Patrizio’s Ailments In 1723, Ottavia’s situation would have been made worse by the knowledge that other women were succeeding in their duty to bear children when she was not. In September 1723 the cardinal learns that Vittoria Capranica, who earlier feared a miscarriage,23 had borne a male son, and he would like to hear the same of Patrizio’s sister Caterina Cenci, who had married Giovanni Cenci in 1713 at the age of 27,24 as well as Ottavia. ‘But in these matters one must resign onself to the will of God.’25 By October Caterina is known to be pregnant, and the cardinal hopes for a male child, as he hopes for one from Ottavia.26 Caterina seems to have miscarried (she was then 37, and had not yet borne any children), and the cardinal recommends a purge, and hopes that she will soon be pregnant again with a boy.27 In due course she does become pregnant again, the child being born in November 1725, discussed below. The cardinal suggests that Caterina visit the villa and stay in the Mezzanine.28 One can imagine the pressure that Ottavia was under, knowing that there was little chance of meeting the expectations of her new family, and having to share the Mezzanine of the villa with a sister-in-law who, in spite of her age, was still endeavouring to produce a male heir. Meanwhile, Patrizio was suffering from sciatica, which had afflicted him from July.29 The Cardinal suggests that he go to Cancelli for a cure. Cancelli, a village eight kilometres from Foligno, was legendary as a place for the cure of this condition.30 According to seventeenth-century sources, Saint Peter was supposed to have stayed in a house of a resident of the village, who directed many acts of charity towards him and who converted to Christianity. Saint Peter gave him and his descendants the grace to cure those ill with sciatica. However Marc’Antonio Bizoni, the Bishop of Foligno, considered this to be a superstition, but when the bishop was struck down with sciatica he asked a member of this family to cure him, which he did, causing the bishop to change his mind. The legitimacy of the tradition had also been challenged by the local Inquisition. Cardinal Patrizi, however, evidently had no doubts about its effectiveness. By late September Patrizio was still suffering, although the cardinal predicts that it would moderate.31

Felice Trulli’s Portrait of Ottavia Meanwhile, the cardinal was anxious to know what Ottavia looked like. Evidently his part in the marriage negotiations had been conducted remotely, since he had 57

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.40. Felice Trulli (active 1707–23), Portrait of Ottavia Patrizi, 1723. Oil on canvas, 70 x 60 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

not been in Rome since the conclave of 1721 and may therefore never have met her.32 In May 1723 he arranged to have her portrait painted by Felice Trulli, to be sent to him in Ferrara. Trulli (or Truglia) was the son of Giacomo Trulli, a doctor and Lettore of the Sapienza university, and an aristocratic amateur painter.33 His aunt was the first wife of the painter Carlo Maratta, and, like Mariano and Francesco, he was a pupil of Giuseppe Passeri. (Passeri had decorated a ceiling in Giacomo Trulli’s palazzo around 1700.) The cardinal was in a hurry to have it with him in Ferrara, and he has asked Ottavia to put up with the inconvenience of sitting for the portrait. It seems that the young Ottavia was expected to be too restless to sit without complaint.34 At the beginning of June the cardinal is impatiently awaiting the portrait, and supposes that Trulli will first paint the head.35 By 26 June he is satisfied that the portrait has been begun, and that it will not be bad.36 Apparently in response to Mariano’s concern that it would remain in Ferrara, he states that it will be brought back to Rome with the two paintings of the villa that can only mean the two views of the villa by Adrien Manglard (see Chapter 58

Libro MARSHALL.indb 58

4.1). It is not clear whether he is referring to the end of his legation (scheduled for the spring of 1724) or earlier; perhaps the latter, as otherwise it would not be worth mentioning. He also raises the question (as he had done with the Manglards) as to whether it was better to have it framed in Rome or Ferrara. In other words it was easier to ship a rolled-up canvas than a framed one. His impatience and concern with the frame continues through the first few weeks of July,37 but by 21 July he has received the case (cassetta) with Trulli’s portrait (ritratto) of Ottavia. He finds it to be a painstaking work (molto ben fatigato).38 The Cardinal refers to a second portrait,39 and a week later he states that he has not heard any discussion about the portrait of Ottavia that Trulli ought to have finished.40 Probably the ritratto received in Ferrara was either a drawing or an oil study of the head, and served both as the modello for the cardinal’s approval and as the means to satisfy his curiosity as to Ottavia’a appearance. There is only one portrait of Ottavia in the Patrizi Collections today (Fig. 1.40).41 It is bust-length and measures 70 x 60 cm. Most of the Patrizi portraits of this period are bust-length and similar in size to this, or seated fulllength portraits or nearly so measuring about 136 cm high or more, all of male members of the family. The existing portrait must be the second, finished portrait implied by the letters, rather than the one the cardinal had in Ferrara. In August the cardinal is concerned that he has not heard any more about this (second) portrait of Ottavia, and the cardinal attributes the delay to the infectious lethargy of his brothers,42 and to the fact that it was being shown around the relatives in Rome.43 The Cardinal jokes that if it is delayed any more he will see the ‘original’ (that is, Ottavia) before he sees the portrait, implying that he was expecting to have the finished portrait sent to him in Ferrara.

Ottavia and Patrizio in Ferrara: Carnival and Villeggiatura One way of seeing the original was to have Ottavia visit him in Ferrara. The cardinal first raises the possibility as early as February 1723, the idea being that she should join him before his legation ended, scheduled for spring 1724.44 He is diffident at first, asking Mariano to find out whether she has such plans, without letting on that the cardinal has asked about them. The cardinal clearly envisioned his niece playing an important role in his future life at the villa: he is pleased when Ottavia and Patrizio stay the night there,45 and in one letter he writes of both he

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

(the cardinal) and Ottavia taking villeggiatura in his new villa ‘in the few years’ that are left to him. 46 He offers her whichever apartment she wants after his death, and offers to provide her immediately with a mirror, if she gives him the measurements. By late 1723 Ottavia had been married for a year, and had still not become pregnant. The cardinal consoles himself with the knowledge that her mother, a de’ Cavalieri, had also been slow to start a family.47 Early in the new year he learns for the first time that Ottavia suffers from a stomach ailment,48 and he is again anxious about the effects of Carnival on her health.49 On 7 March 1724 Innocent XIII Conti died, and on 3 April the correspondence ceases, the cardinal having come to Rome for the conclave. In Rome the cardinal would have got to know Ottavia better, and during this period is seems that the villa was fully functioning, if not quite complete. The correspondence resumes on 1 November 1724 following the cardinal’s return to Ferrara. In June 1725 Patrizio is visiting the family estates in the Maremma and near Siena, while Ottavia in Rome is again suffering from her by now chronic stomach problem, the curing of which on this occasion the cardinal attributes to the good air of the villa outside Porta Pia, which implies that she went there regularly.50 This did not preclude a course of bloodletting, followed by a further stay at the villa, possibly in the cardinal’s apartment, which he had offered her.51 One gets the impression from the Letters that the cardinal’s interest in Ottavia, although conditioned by her role as the vessel of the family’s future, grew more personal with time. Had he been able to return to Rome, the villa would have been the base for a social life centred on the cardinal, Patrizio, and Ottavia. His reappointment as legate meant that this was not possible, and so Ottavia and Patrizio decided to join the cardinal in Ferrara at his apartments in the Castello Estense. Their visit lasted from late 1725 until the cardinal’s death in 1727. The cardinal’s letters provide a vivid account of their way of life in the legation, of which the highlights were Carnival, the opera, trips to Venice, Bologna and the cities of Emilia-Romagna, and extended periods of villeggiatura in the countrysde around Ferrara, the ultimate purpose of which was for Ottavia to become pregnant with a male heir. At the end of October 1725 the cardinal, in the country taking villeggiatura at Crespino on the banks of the Po near Rovigo (probably in the same villa where he would take Ottavia the following year), is already expecting Ottavia and Patrizio, but not before the end of summer, as there would be few diversions for her then in Ferrara.52 Their departure is delayed by the need to await the birth Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 59

of Caterina Cenci’s (hopefully male) child. The weather in Ferrara is bad, raining constantly, and the roads are in a bad state, the Po threatens to burst its banks, and the cardinal is stuck in Crespino.53 By 24 November he expects that, if Ottavia and Patrizio have departed on the day planned (Caterina having given birth to the hopedfor male child, allowing them to depart),54 they should be near Ravenna, having presumably come by the usual route through the Papal States by way of Pesaro and the Adriatic coast.55 The cardinal would have liked to have met them but was needed at his post in Ferrara. The Po was in flood, and its embankments, damaged by an earlier flood, had not yet been repaired. The cardinal hopes that they can repair any breaches in the embankments before further floods, repairs that are expensive (and his financial responsibility as legate).56

Carnival 1726 Arriving on 6 December, Ottavia quickly settles in, receives visits from the local noble ladies, and is much liked, although celebrations are subdued because of the floods.57 Plans are being prepared for the couple to travel from their base in Ferrara. They intend to travel to Venice towards the middle of January for a score of days before returning to Ferrara in order to finish Carnival at Bologna, coming back to Ferrara for Lent, and then going to the nearer cities of Lombardy in spring to attend the opera.58 As always, the cardinal is hoping that Ottavia will become pregnant. Ottavia’s small appetite is a matter of comment by the cardinal, who is endeavouring to keep the young socialite entertained.59 He is aware that by choosing to visit Ferrara, Ottavia will miss Carnival in Rome, and worries that there are few balls in Ferrara.60 The health of her mother is worrying her, but she nevertheless manages to keep herself entertained.61 The opera season has begun, although from the cardinal’s point of view the works are poor, and in Venice it appears that they will not be much better. The cardinal’s view is that people are tired of singing and believes there is a lack of other entertainments, with few impresarios putting on theatrical productions. But if Ottavia might not enjoy the opera in Venice, she will enjoy seeing a beautiful city, one like no other; in any case she is universally loved, even though it is very cold and has snowed again.62 In Ferrara, meanwhile on 15 January there was a fine accademia followed by a ball where the dancing went on to the ninth hour (after sunset; in other words, about 2 am).63 The compositions presented at the accademia 59

18/11/15 17:24

were all beautiful ones praising Ottavia and her family (presumably the Patrizi rather than the Sacchetti). The couple plan to set off the following Tuesday (22 January), if the icy weather permits: there had been a third snowfall that day. The cardinal is afraid the diversions in Venice will be less to her taste than those in Ferrara. But Ottavia’s stomach problem have receded, and she seems to have put on weight. The cardinal is pre-occupied with the weather, which for the trip to Venice was poor. The cold is keeping everyone indoors in Ferrara, and the ice had to be broken on the road for some miles for them to get through, but even so the journey only took 24 hours, and by 26 December they have arrived.64 But they will not have long to enjoy Carnival in Venice if they are to go on to Bologna, and unless the weather improves they might have difficulty in getting back to Ferrara. In Venice, Ottavia does not do much in the way of sightseeing because of her socialising. She goes to bed late and gets up late, and has to return the many visits she has been favoured with by the aristocratic women of Venice.65 The cardinal doubts whether they will ever make it to Bologna, and indeed the attractions of Venice prove to be so great that the couple decide to stay there. Bologna can be visited another time, and there is no pressure from the cardinal to change their plans.66 His reasoning was that while the masquerade (mascherata) in Venice was in his view ordinary, that in Bologna was superior, with masked concerts and balls.67 On the other hand, the advantage of Venice is that Ottavia could rise later. He also speculates that she could avail herself of the various preachers in Venice, if she is up at the hour when they preach.68 Hopefully, the abundance of diversions will not have adversely affected Ottavia’s health.69 The cardinal hopes that she will have the opportunity to experience Carnival in Bologna in the following year, and he makes plans to finish his legation a little early, immediately after Carnival 1727, and travel with Ottavia into Tuscany. From there they could leave when they liked to go directly to the villa at Porta Pia, which he would like to be completely finished by then.70 This would allow time for his belongings to arrive from Ferrara.71 Back in Ferrara, things are less lively without Ottavia, and the cardinal has another attack of gout, although this has passed by 16 February.72 Learning that Caterina Cenci and Maria Maddalena del Bufalo had persuaded their father, Costanzo, to see the opera at the Teatro d’Alibert in Rome, the cardinal comments that while it is a good theatre, there is a great shortage of musicians, and that the theatres where women can perform (recitare) are im60

Libro MARSHALL.indb 60

poverished.73 In Ferrara the theatrical company is poor, and few people go. On the other hand, the recitals (recite) held in the Castello are better attended; they are free and there are refreshments. By the beginning of March better weather in Ferrara has satisfied those who wanted to masquerade; and the cardinal, in a mellow and nostalgic mood, observes that the Carnival horse-race in the Corso and the festivities in Sant’Andrea della Valle and Palazzo Capranica would have been crowded. 74 A week later the cardinal is less positive about the weather, observing that it has been variable, sometimes cold and rainy, which has disturbed the masquerades (corso delle maschere). But everyone considers the festivities to have been sumptuous, and those Ottavia would have witnessed in Venice would have been not less so, especially as there the sumptuary laws have been relaxed for Carnival, and women can be seen adorned with the most sumptuous jewellery.75 Returning to Ferrara on Wednesday, 20 March, Ottavia, well pleased with her hectic social life in Venice,76 is taking some rest and is receiving visits from the ladies of Ferrara, to whom she loses at cards.77 She is eating well, and has been eating a little meat, and so may be in a condition to produce an heir.78 By April the Ottavia’s wellbeing had improved. She has not been troubled by her stomach problem, eats well enough, has a good colour, and has eaten a little meat. ‘God willing she may get pregnant to the consolation of all.’79 Every morning she goes to hear ‘a good preacher’ (un buon predicatore), Abbate Giovanelli, preach in the cathedral.80 Giovanelli was a well-known preacher: in 1712 he preached in Santa Felicita in Florence ‘to large crowds and great applause’ (con veramente infinito concorso, et applauso) and his preachings were considered to be ‘learned, fruitful, and judicious’ (dottissime, fruttuosissime, e giudiziosissime).81 In 1714 he gave a panegyric at festivities for the coronation of the statue of the Virgin of Loreto in S. Niccolò in Verona.82 But the cardinal is losing hope of Ottavia ever becoming pregnant. He suggests that if she is not pregnant by the summer of 1727 she could try taking the waters at Lucca, but he is clearly not optimistic about this, and now discusses openly the necessity of adopting the course of action to which the family had had recourse in the past: the ten-year-old Maria Virginia, Patrizio’s daughter by Angela Carpegna, who was being looked after by her grandfather, Costanzo, would, in due course, have to marry a Roman nobleman who would take the Patrizi name and inheritances.83 In these letters the cardinal’s avuncular attitude towards his neice is evident, indicating a bond developing

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

between them. From Ottavia’s perspective, he was one of her few friends in the family, even though she was hiding from him the reality of her marital circumstances.

Planning the Lombardy Trip Since the beginning of March Ottavia and Patrizio had been planning a trip to take place after Easter into ‘Lombardy’ (today the western part of Emilia-Romagna), in order to see the fairs and opera at Modena, Reggio and Parma. In Parma, it was rumoured, Elisabetta Farnese, the widow of Charles II of Spain, would be visiting, which would mean that the Duke of Parma would mount particularly spectacular festivities.84 However, the cardinal is sceptical of this, as he had not heard it from official sources in Rome.85 It would depend, he believes, on whether there is war in Europe.86 Ottavia plans to set off when the fair at Reggio opens, and to go by way of Bologna. They plan to leave on 6 May and to be away for about two months, returning to Ferrara on about 24 or 25 May in order to be in Venice in time for the Feast of the Ascension on 30 May, and again on 14 June on the way to Bologna for Corpus Domini on 20 June. In Bologna they will stay for some time, as Ottavia has relatives there, and August will be spent either in the city or in the surrounding countryside, culminating in the feast of the Porcellina on 22 August.87 After Bologna they will return to keep the cardinal company in Ferrara. Meanwhile in Ferrara, because of the changeable weather, many have died. 88 The Cardinal is happy that it is now summer, and as the weather begins to get hotter, he expects that it will be as hot a summer as the winter was cold.89 Ottavia is enjoying horse riding, which does her a great deal of good because in the evening she vomited a lot of ‘bad matter’ (materia assai cattive) that could have been the cause of her stomach illness.90

Lombardy, Venice and Bologna Having spent Holy Week (14–20 April) in religious devotions, Ottavia and Patrizio set off on 6 May, as planned, and are received with distinction by the ‘princes of Lombardy’.91 How many cities they visited is unclear; but they certainly went as far as Modena since the cardinal observes that the court ball and other festivities do not last long there.92 They were back as planned in late June, and off again to Venice on 27 June, arriving safely in time for the Feast of the Ascension.93 This was the most significant Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 61

event in the civic calendar of Venice, the Marriage of the Sea, in which Venice, in the person of the doge, married the Adriatic. The doge would leave from the Doge’s Palace in the recently rebuilt state barge, the Bucintoro,94 which would be rowed to the Lido, where the waters of the Adriatic entered the lagoon and where he would cast a ring into the sea. On his return, there would be further ceremonies and banquets. By the eighteenth century it was the centrepiece of what had become ‘a kind of summer Carnival’,95 attended not only by Venetians and grand tourists, but also by the nobility of northern Italy: the cardinal notes that there are many people passing through Ferrara on their way from the opera in Parma to the festivities in Venice.96 In Venice Ottavia receives ‘the usual politenesses’ (le solite finezze),97 but festivities and social life were not the only reason for being there. It was an also an opportunity to address her health. In Venice she takes ‘broths’ (probably including the ‘viper’s broth’ she would take the following year), according to the advice of Francesco Maria Nigrisoli (Ferrara, 1648–Ferrara, 1727).98 Nigrisoli held the chair of theoretical and practical medicine at the University of Ferrara.99 For his part back in Ferrara the cardinal is physically improved: he is no longer suffering leg pains, which he attributes to the ‘movement of the blood’ caused by spring, rather than to the inconveniences of travel, and he is taking a purge from which he hopes to benefit.100 Ottavia and Patrizo pass through Ferrara again on 14 June, both in good health, and leave early on 19 June for Bologna, arriving in time for lunch, in order to be there for Corpus Domini on 20 June.101 The trip is not expected to be easy, as there has been constant rain, flattening the crops, and the Po has risen, threatening to break the embankments and flood the fields and ruin the crops.102 The cardinal believes that Ottavia will want to move on from Bologna quickly, but that her family will not permit her to do so.103 Evidently the plan to spend August in the Bologna region has been abandoned, and although Ottavia has had a good and healthy time there,104 by 10 July they are back in Ferrara, and she is resting.105 She then takes the waters at a villa, and returns by 10 August.106 The season for villeggiatura has arrived, and on 16 August they set out with the cardinal for Lugo (about 60 km from Ferrara, near Faenza) where there is a fair.107 They plan to be away for eight to ten days, and are back by 26 August, in very hot weather.108 Almost immediately they set out again for Fusignano (about 8 km from Lugo) staying for a few days with Marchesa Calcagnini.109 The Calcagnini had possessed Fusignano since 1467 and had been marchesi since 1535. The villa in question was 61

18/11/15 17:24

probably Villa Calcagnini d’Este, destroyed in 1944–45, which was situated in the modern Piazza Calcagnini, Fusignano.110 Ottavia diverts herself with riding and but is still not pregnant.111 By 7 September the cardinal is complaining of the lack of rain, but does not wish for it, because it never rains but it pours, and does much damage.112 The weather is beautiful, and good for enjoying the country.113 On 28 September he writes of going with Patrizio to Massa Lombarda (about 15 km from Fusignano) to stay with Count Lolli, who has a fine dwelling (probably at Maiano Monti, a little north-west of Fusignano in the direction of Massa Lombarda).114 It is similar in design to the Casino of Porta Pia, but much bigger.115 By this the cardinal may be referring to the way the Villa Patrizi has transverse galleries, which were often found in north Italian villas. By 5 October they have finished here, Ottavia having been riding furiously as much as fifteen or twenty miles a day without tiring.116 On 10 October, in hot and dusty weather, they go to ‘Ronchi of Signor Conte Caprara’, known today as the Villa or Castello dei Ronchi, near Crevalcore, west of Ferrara and about 70 km from Massa Lombarda.117 On 18 October 1726 the cardinal writes (evidently still in Ronchi) that today they go to Crespino on the Po River (about 80 km from Ronchi and about 35 km from Ferrara) to finish their villeggiatura.118 There were a number of villas in Crespino where the cardinal might have stayed, but he gives no clue as to which. On 27 October they are still on villeggiatura, presumably in Crespino, and Ottavia is still riding tirelessly every day, in beautiful weather.119 The lack of rain, however, means that, although it is hot, they are catching few skylarks (lodole).120 On 9 November the cardinal states that their villeggiatura will end on Tuesday, 12 November and they will return to Ferrara.121 If the length of their villeggiatura may be put down to both the fine weather and the desire of the cardinal to entertain Ottavia, a factor in its ending must have been their deteriorating health. Patrizio had had an attack of terzana semplice (tertian ague), one of the milder forms of malaria. He was being treated with china china, 122 a powder derived from the bark of the chincona tree, the active ingredient of which is known today as quinine. Medications based on chincona bark had been introduced into Italy, mainly by the Jesuits, in the mid-seventeenth century, and by the early eighteenth century were in widespread use, at least in countries with a Jesuit presence.123 Giovanni Maria Lancisi, the personal physician of Clement XI Albani, recommended its use,124 as did Francisco Maria Nigrisoli, the Ferrarese professor of medicine who had advised on Ottavia’s ‘broths’, in a book published in 62

Libro MARSHALL.indb 62

Ferrara in 1700.125 The recurrent nature of malarial fever is indicated by the fact that on 10 November Patrizio was thought to be over the attack, but on 16 November, back in Ferrara, he fell ill again, ‘having had the fourth attack which was an hour early’,126 an indication of the regularity of malarial attacks: tertian fever attacked on alternate days; quartan fever attacked on two consecutive days followed by one of remission.127 (Without quinine, quartan fever was often fatal.) A week later Patrizio was free of it by the fifth hour (towards 10 pm), because of the china china.128

Carnival 1727 Ottavia’s social life continued as the cold weather closed in. The Caprara women from Ronchi return Ottavia’s visit and stay in the Castello from before 30 November until December 9.129 By January, with villeggiatura and malaria well behind them, the cardinal’s thoughts turn to the forthcoming Carnival. This would be a more subdued affair than that of the previous year, with Ottavia and Patrizio staying in Ferrara. They no longer have any plans to spend Carnival in Bologna, since, unlike the year before, there was not much happening there. The advantage of this arrangement was that they would not be travelling at a time when the cardinal might at any time be recalled to Rome at the end of his term. (As we have seen, because of the Benedict’s XIII’s trip to Benevento, the announcement of the new legates was long delayed.) Carnival in Rome was not so entertaining as the previous year, and the cardinal has heard from Mariano that the operas have not been well received, which he attributes to the fact that the best musicians are now found outside Italy, pointing out that the theatres of Venice had the same problem.130 Nor were things better in Ferrara, where there was no opera but only feeble comedies (una debola Commedia di Strioni) that nevertheless serve as a meeting place for the nobility, who still manage to enjoy them. But in the end the Patrizi in both Rome and Ferrara manage to enjoy Carnival, even if it was not so sumptuous as it might have been.131 From the cardinal’s perspective, as the person responsible for maintaining order, it was pleasing that in Ferrara Carnival did not involve too much noise and tumult (senza strepitosi divertimenti).132 Rome was a different story. In the confusion of the crowds a servant of Marchese Bentivoglio suffered an accident, and this divertimento proved to be of great advantage to the Mantica brothers as they gained 3000 scudi.133 (Earlier the cardinal referred to a disturbance at a dinner given by Baron Mantica in Rome.)134

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

The most exciting part of Carnival in Ferrara came at its end. The event of the moment was the marriage of Marchese Bentivoglio, head of one of the most important Ferrarese families, and his new bride, Marianna Gonzaga, was expected to arrive from Mantua in the evening of 22 February.135 On the last evening of Carnival she hosts a grand dinner in her palazzo, which is combined with a ball in the theatre ‘where the comedies are performed’, which brings Carnival to a close with a bang.136 Her forthcoming marriage provided a topic of interest during Lent, when the public Carnival festivities gave way to private card parties (conversationi di gioco) among friends and relatives.137 One of these card parties was hosted by Ottavia, on Sunday, 2 March, in order to repay the courtesies that she had received from her relatives (who presumably came over from Bologna) and continued until the middle of the following week.138 During all these festivities Ottavia remains apprehensive about the health of her mother, father and other members of the de’ Cavalieri family, but during the following months things there improve.139 However, Caterina Cenci, who had been pregnant again, miscarries with a stillborn male child.140 In the middle of April Ottavia begins her purge, and the doctors engage in a little bloodletting which reveals ‘blood of the best quality’ (sangue di l’ottima qualità). She is also administered ‘viper’s broth’ (brodo di vipera) from which she hopes to derive great profit.141 Various distillations made from vipers were recognised medications at the time. While its use had pre-scientific origins, by the later seventeenth century it was being investigated experimentally. Moyse Charas (1677) describes various viper elixirs and potions, though no ‘broth’ as such; one ‘elixir’ is described as being ‘very available, not only for the sicknesses of men, as well as in the Brain, in the stomack, and all the noble parts; but also very particularly, for most of the diseases of Women’.142 By 1787 its usefulness was being questioned.143 Redi gave a broth of viper’s meat to a dove in an experiment to see if it prevented it dying of the viper’s bite: the experiment failed.144 A recipe for viper’s broth from the British Dispensary (1747) is essentially a chicken broth with a viper added. It was said to cure skin disease and ‘barrenness in women’.145 None of this had any effect on Ottavia, as the cardinal recognises when he observes that whether or not her purge will ‘facilitate the succession’ depends on the will of God, and he hopes that Mariano is offering his prayers to this end. It is typical of the thinking of the period that practical solutions to problems were energetically sought, and the will of God is only invoked when they failed to be Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 63

effective.146 Meanwhile the cardinal begins the decline that will end in his death. What will be the cause of his death is never clear, probably because he and his doctors had little idea. Cancer, for example, has few visible symptoms. Hence the cardinal’s letters refer to clearly identifiable problems that he had, beginning with renewed attacks of gallstones.147 But he is clearly aware that he was suffering from more than this, and he tells Mariano that he is keeping quiet about his own illness so as not to worry everyone, and is praying to God and S. Francesco di Paola, whose relic was his principal solace in his last months, as we have seen.148 His other symptoms include trouble urinating and more gallstones.149 By now he is becoming a little desperate, and longs for chocolate. He asks Mariano and Abbate Cardoni to see whether Abbate Consalvi has some to sell; he would like 20 libre’s (6.8 kg) worth.150 He forgoes going to the opera in Bologna on 15 June with Patrizio, Ottavia, and other house guests (tutti li miei forastieri).151 On 25 June Ottavia and Patrizio return from Bologna, and Ottavia continues with her purge and doses of viper’s broth.152 It is hardly surprisingly, given this regime, that she is thinner and has lost her appetite, eating only bread and soup. Meat and fish make her nauseous.153 By 5 July all are ill, Ottavia and Patrizio with malaria and the cardinal with gout, although, as the cardinal muses, they are not dangerous illnesses, especially as the china china is effective with the terzana, but it means that they cannot help each other.154 Sure enough by 12 July Ottavia and Patrizio are free of malaria, but Ottavia is still suffering from nausea when eating, and the cardinal still suffers from gout and difficulty in urinating.155 By 19 July he is embarking on a course of senna (cassia)156 and mineral water from Nocera (Umbria).157 But by 26 July he is suddenly seriously ill, a fever (not previously mentioned) having suddenly returned, and he asks to receive the viaticum, ‘not so much for the illness itself, but for the danger of all that will follow’ since the doctors have given up hope in the face of a ‘great dissolution of the body’ (gran discioglimento di corpo).158 On 29 July he died, presumably with Ottavia and Patrizio at his bedside.

Cardinal Patrizi’s Will At his death, Cardinal Patrizi’s villa was essentially complete. It had been furnished with apartments for himself and for Ottavia and Patrizio but, as we have seen, they had never had the opportunity to occupy them together, and his death had implications for the occupancy of the villa. In his will, drawn up on 29 July 1724 when he was 63

18/11/15 17:24

in Rome for the conclave, at a time when he had not lost hope that Ottavia would produce a Patrizi heir, he makes Patrizio his universal heir, and in succession his first-born son.159 Evidence of hostility between the cardinal and his elder brother is found in the stipulation that Costanzo could make no claim to his estate, or to the income from it. He makes a specific injunction that neither the Casino, nor its furniture, nor anything else at the villa at Porta Pia was ever to be alienated, not even in case of extreme need or unforeseen circumstance; it was to remain in the Patrizi family ‘per ogni suo maggior decoro’. Interestingly, he states that he intends to purchase the site on which he was building, which had belonged to the estate of the elder Patrizio, for the price that the elder Mariano had paid for it (7000 scudi). He plans to do this by surrendering luogi di monte non vacabili to the Patrizi primogeniture. If he has not succeeded in doing so in his lifetime, he enjoins the younger Patrizio, his heir, to buy it for the primogeniture, to which, though his will, the cardinal will have added his own estate, which includes the Casino. In order to do this, he gives Patrizio full leave to sell furniture, cash, jewels, luoghi de monti, vacabili, and other effects of the cardinal as he sees fit. He states that he has full trust in Patrizio to do this, that his brothers should place no obstacle in the path of such sales, and that his motivation for this stipulation was that so remarkable a building should be preserved for their lineage. This rather complicated arrangement for redistributing assets within the family is revealing of the various forces at work. The Casino of the villa had been built at the cardinal’s own expense, and was therefore his to dispose of in his will. The land on which it was built, however, was not his but was held in common by all the brothers. At the same time, it did not form part of the primogeniture, and was therefore alienable. The Cardinal clearly did not trust Costanzo and wanted to prevent him profiting from the building by usufruct, for example, by letting it. The cardinal, however, wholeheartedly trusted Patrizio, for whom, as we have seen, the villa was really intended. There would clearly be no threat to the villa when Patrizio inherited from Costanzo, but if the cardinal should die before Patrizio inherited, it was potentially alienable, and there was no certainty that the cardinal’s brothers might not attempt to do so. Hence the cardinal hoped in due course to buy the land from his brothers by transferring to his family luoghi di monti non vacabili, that is, bonds that were not vacated at the death of the debtor,160 which were his free effects. At the time the will was drawn up, however, the cardinal was scraping together every scudo he could find to finish decorating 64

Libro MARSHALL.indb 64

the Casino. For this reason he could not find the sum needed immediately; but after his death Patrizio might have been able to do so. The funds could, in this case, have been raised from selling off the cardinal’s liquid assets, and the brothers were instructed not to interfere.161 Also, since the garden of the villa had been paid for by Mariano and Francesco, and in the curious way of the legal thinking of the time the amounts that they had expended were still theirs, the cardinal requested that they, too, submit their contributions to these arrangements. All these strategies were designed to achieve a particular result: to unite the land and the Casino under the primogeniture in the person of Patrizio, and thus preserve it as an asset of the primogeniture in perpetuity. In this way the cardinal planned to follow the example of his father and tie the newest family asset, the villa, to the primogeniture, but to do so without involving Costanzo, in whom the primogeniture was then embodied. In the end, though, the cardinal rethought the matter and, in a codicil drawn up on 10 May 1727, shortly before his death, he revoked this stipulation, giving complete freedom to Patrizio to dispose of his inheritance from the cardinal as he saw fit.162 One can only speculate on the reasons for this. Perhaps the threat of alienation of the villa had receded. Perhaps the question of Patrizio’s succession had changed the cardinal’s thinking. At the time the codicil was written Patrizio and Ottavia were staying with the cardinal in Ferrara, where he was expecting the decision about the termination of his legation would be made once Benedict XIII returned from Benevento, which took place on 28 May 1727. Ottavia had not produced a male heir, and the cardinal was resigned to the fact, which meant that the line would have to pass through Patrizio’s daughter by his first marriage to Angela Carpegna, as in fact occurred. Since this meant that villa would not pass to Patrizio’s son, but to his daughter’s husband, this might have been a reason to give Patrizio greater freedom to manoeuvre. But perhaps the cardinal was also thinking of Ottavia, who was likely to become a dowager who was not the mother of either the husband or wife of the head of the family of the next generation, and therefore vulnerable. In fact, the younger Patrizio, in his will, did tie the villa to the line of primogeniture, but with strict stipulations in favour of his widow, stipulations that he recognised could be enforced where the villa was concerned because it formed part of his free effects, but not where the Palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi was concerned, because that was entailed. If Cardinal Patrizi were to have submitted the villa to the primogeniture Ottavia might

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

not have been able, through her husband’s will, to assert her rights as dowager.

Patrizio’s Will Many of these considerations carried over into Patrizio’s will,163 opened on 11 December 1747.164 This employed many formulae similar to those of his grandfather, the elder Patrizio, but the younger man had less authority for making dispositions because, as we have seen (Chapter 1.1), his grandfather had placed most of the Patrizi properties under primogeniture. Patrizio wanted his widow, Ottavia, to have an apartment at Castel Giuliano as well as at the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi, but recognised that he could not constrain his heirs to provide them, given the fedecommesso. For the villa, however, which did not form part part of the primogeniture, he was free to make any arrangements he chose. He therefore used this freedom to provide an inducement to his heir (Giovanni Chigi Patrizi Montoro, who had married his daughter Maria Virginia in 1736 and taken the Patrizi name) to provide this accommodation for Ottavia. If his widow were given the specified accommodation at Castel Giuliano, at Porta Pia she was to have the whole of the Piano Nobile and its furnishings, the rooms above (the guardarobba) for her attendant women, a carriage house and stabling for four horses, a room for a cameriere (waiter), two rooms over the garden for her servants,165 use of the kitchen in the basement, two other basement rooms, free passage to these rooms, and the run of the garden and the whole villa grounds. However, should she be denied the use of Castel Giuliano, she could have the whole villa, except for its produce. Effectively this meant that the Mezzanine, with otherwise might have been occupied by Giovanni and Maria Virginia, and the Ground Floor, which had been initially organised as apartments for the cardinal’s brothers, would be denied to other members of the family. There was also a provision that was similar to one that applied to her grandmother, Virginia Corsini: should Ottavia elect not to continue living with the family she was to receive 300 scudi in addition to the 1400 scudi due to her, provided that she did not claim restitution of her dowry.

Ottavia in the Villa We have little other information about the use of the villa by Patrizio and Ottavia in the decade between the cardinal’s death and the succession of Patrizio in 1739. Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 65

Fig. 1.41. Antonio David (1698–1750), Portrait of Ottavia Sacchetti Patrizi. Drawing. Private Collection. (Christie’s, London.)

From the arrangements described in the inventory of 1739, we know that it was occupied by them. It was legally Patrizio’s property, as we have seen, and the door curtains bore his arms before his succession.166 Given Ottavia’s relations with Patrizio, and her desire for a separation, it may well have been quickly taken over by Ottavia as her own personal space, as Patrizio’s will would later recognise. Certainly Ottavia moved out of the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi shortly after Patrizio’s death.167 Present in 1748 but absent in 1749, and therefore part of her personal household, were her niece, the twelve-year-old Maddalena Sacchetti, four women, presumably her female attendants, her credenziere Giulio Carrara da Albano, her cameriere Isabella Ercole, and two other male servants. We have no reports of an active social life taking place there, although presumably it was regularly used by the whole family for villeggiatura, as it had been used during the cardinal’s lifetime. 65

18/11/15 17:24

During this period there is one mention of the villa in the diaries of Valesio. On Wednesday, 20 August 1732, he wrote: Celebrating today the feast of S. Bernardino, at 10 pm His Holiness [Pope Clement XII Corsini] went to visit the church of this saint at the Baths [of Diocletian] and from there unexpectedly wanted to go outside Porta Pia as far as the villa of the Patrizi, where he turned and returned to the Quirinal.168

S. Bernardino alle Terme is a church that was once part of the Baths of Diocletian and lies on the Via Pia in a direct line between the Quirinal palace where the Pope lived and the Villa Patrizi. Possibly the pope only wanted to take the air, and the villa of his late cousin was a convenient point at which to turn around and come back.

The Antonio David Portrait of Ottavia At Patrizio’s death, Ottavia was given permission by the executors of Patrizio’s will to move out of the palazzo at S. Luigi, to ‘live somewhere that pleased her more’ (di trasferirsi ad abitare dove più gli piacerà, e parerà) and Giovanni agreed to pay her 300 scudi per annum to which she was entitled by the will.169 She may have continued to occupy the villa, as the will also stipulated, and with the changing of the generations Ottavia’s position may have improved. The new marchese was Maria Virginia’s husband Giovanni Chigi Patrizi Montoro, and we have no evidence that Ottavia was other than well-disposed towards her step-daughter. We know little of Ottavia in later life, apart from a drawing by Antonio David (1698–1750), which seems to show her as an adult woman in the 1730s or 1740s (Fig. 1.41.)170 David was closely associated with the Stuart Court, which implies that Ottavia was as well. But with the accession of Giovanni and Maria Virginia, the villa took on a new life, to which we now turn.

Notes 1. Matteo was accademico d’onore at the Accademia di San Luca and a member of the Accademia Quirini and the Arcadian Academy (as Eugenio Alesio) and a conservator in 1702 and 1709. He was ambasciatore di ubbidienza of Duke Francesco Farnese to Innocent XIII and on 18 May 1723 made his public entry to Rome at Ponte Molle. (Chracas, Diario, no. 905 pp. 7–8; Pietramellara, 1893–97, pp. 221–22; De Marchi, 1987, p. 136; Zirpolo, 2005, pp. 139–41; Franchi and Sartori, 2002, p. 190; Rendina, 2004, pp. 541–44; De Dominicis, 2009, pp. 88-89.) Clelia was the daughter of Francesco Orsini de’ Cavalieri and Vittoria Ludovica Carpegna and was prominent in literary circles. (Franchi and Sartori, 2002 vol. 1; Giuli, 2009, pp. 304–30, see p. 313.) 2. For Giulio Sacchetti as legate in Ferrara, see Fosi and Gardi, 2006. For the Patrizi and the Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano, see Chapter 1.2 and Marshall, 2009. 3. De Marchi, 1987, p. 136, no. 8. 4. Zirpolo, 2005, pp. 139–41. 5. Zirpolo, 2005, p. 140. 6. The Letters record the circumstances surrounding the wedding. By 15 August a formal visit had been paid to Palazzo Sacchetti (Letter, 15 August 1722 [3]). This was followed by the presentation of gifts to the bride (Letter, 15 August 1722 [3]; Letter 29 August 1722; Letter 12 September 1722 [4]). Negotiations about the dowry were still not finished on 26 September (Letter, 26 September 1722 [5]). On 31 October 1722 the date of the marriage was not yet settled (Letter, 31 October 1722 [3]). On Saturday 14 November the cardinal expects the marriage capitoli to be signed on the following Monday or Tuesday (16 or 17 November) (Letter, 14 November 1722 [7]). By 21 November, repeated on 28 November, the cardinal expects Ottavia to have ‘joined the family’ (Letter, 21 November 1722 [7]; Letter, 28 November 1722 [5]). The marriage took place on 25 November in the Chapel of S. Filippo Neri in the Chiesa Nuova. 7. Letter, 15 August 1722 [3]. 8. Letter, 29 August 1722 [3]. 9. Letter, 5 September 1722 [2]: ‘il più bell’ornato della Casa doverà essere la nova Sposa’. 10. Letter, 5 September 1722 [2]: ‘e però farà bene di fargli il rinfresco, e dirgli quale sarà il suo appartamento che gli vien destinato, benché sarà poi Padrona di tutto’. 11. Letter, 21 November 1722 [7]; Letter, 28 November 1722 [5]. 12. Letter, 12 December 1722 (Letter 2) [5]. 13. Letter, 19 December 1722 [3]. 14. Letter, 16 January 1723 [3]. 15. Letter, 6 February 1723 [6]. 16. Letter, 13 February 1723 [1]. 17. Letter, 20 February 1723 [5]. 18. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B430, no. 5 (Doc. 5.7). 19. Ottavia’s letter (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B430, no. 5) (Doc. 5.7) refers to their disfunctional marriage having continued for more that ten years, which would date the letter to after 1732: ‘che anche prima di sposarsi aveva l’istessa avversione con il sudetto, la quale per il spazio di più di dieci anni non solo non si è diminuita, ma piùtosta accresciuta’. 20. I have omitted here ‘even before the succession’. If this refers to Patrizio succeeding his father, the document may date from after 1739. This might explain the reference to the Pope, who died in 1740, and who many have been ill. It may also explain the absence of reference to Costanzo. 21. See Chapter 6.2. 22. In this respect the villa may have functioned in the way the Romitorio

66

Libro MARSHALL.indb 66

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

functioned for Francesco, and in the way such romitorii in Roman palazzi were were used by aristocratic women (see Chapter 3.10). 23. Letter, 14 August 1723 [4]. 24. The cardinal’s niece Caterina (1686-?) married Giovanni Cenci in Rome in S. Luigi dei Francesi on 5 February 1712, with a dowry of 35,000 fiorini (8750 scudi). (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B430, no. 31, f. 16v; accessed 1 May 2005, site no longer available 2015.)

53. Letter 2 November 1725. 54. The Cardinal has learnt of the birth by 24 November. Letter, 24 November 1725 [2]. Also Letter, 8 December 1725 [5]. In April 1727 Caterina gave birth to another male child, this time stillborn. Letter, 19 April 1727 [4]). 55. Letter, 24 November 1725 [1]. 56. Letter, 22 December 1725 [1]. 57. Letter, 8 December 1725 [1. Letter, 15 December 1725 [2].

25. Letter, 25 September 1723 [3].

58. Letter, 15 December 1725 [3]; Letter, 22 December 1725 [4].

26. Letter, 2 October 1723 [5].

59. Letter, 22 December 1725 [4].

27. Letter, 9 October 1723 [3].

60. Letter, 29 December 1725 [4].

28. Letter, 13 November 1723 [1].

61. Letter, 5 January 1726 [3].

29. Letter, 4 September 1723 [3].

62. Letter, 5 January 1726 [4].

30. Sensi, 1984, p. 309. Sensi cites M. Faloci Pulignani, Le memorie, 7–8; and notes that F. Jacobilli furnished this notice to F. Ughelli, Italia Sacra, I, Rome, 1643, pp. 730–31, and it appears also in Jacobilli, 1646, p. 21.

63. Letter, 16 January 1726 [1].

31. Letter, 25 September 1723 [2]. 32. On receiving it, he observed that he could tell that is well made, but could not tell whether it was a good portrait, as he did not know the ‘original’ (non ho quella pratica del’ Originale). Letter, 21 July 1723. 33. Like Mariano and Francesco, Trulli, whose dates are uncertain, was a pupil of Giuseppe Passeri, who had decorated a ceiling in his father’s palazzo around 1700. (Amayden, 1967, pp. 216–17; Guerrieri Borsoi, 1988, p. 188; Pedrocchi, 2000, p. 311; Rendina, 204, p. 600.) For an Allegory of Painting, dated 1707, part of a set with works by Francesco and Mariano discussed in Chapter 1.2, see Pedrocchi, 2000, pp. 310–11. He is referred to in Cardinal Patrizi’s letters also on 30 August 1719, 2 December 1719, 22 June 1720, and, in regard to the portrait of Ottavia Sacchetti, on 22 May 1723, 5 June 1723, 26 June 1723, 3 July 1723, 21 July 1723, and 7 August 1723.

64. Letter, 26 January 1726 [2]. 65. Letter, 2 February 1726 [2]. 66. Letter, 9 February 1726 [2]; Letter, 16 February 1726 [3]. 67. Letter, 23 February 1726 [3]. 68. Letter, 2 March 1726 [4]. 69. Letter 9 February 1726 [2]. 70. Letter, 30 March 1726 [6]. 71. Letter, 13 April 1726 [4]. 72. Letter, 9 February 1726 [5]; Letter, 16 February 1726 [1]. 73. Letter, 16 February 1726 [4]. 74. Letter, 2 March 1726 [3].

34. Letter, 22 May 1723 [3].

75. Letter, 9 March 1726 [2].

35. Letter, 5 June 1723 [2].

76. Letter, 2 March 1726 [4]; Letter, 16 March 1726 [3].

36. Letter, 26 June 1723 [3].

77. Letter, 23 March 1726 [2].

37. Letter, 3 July 1723 [7]; Letter, 10 July 1723 [4].

78. Letter, 23 March 1726 [2]; Letter, 30 March 1726 [6].

38. Letter, 21 July 1723 [1]. 39. Letter, 21 July 1723 [2].

79. Letter, 6 April 1726 [4]: ‘Dio voglia che in appresso si ingrossi per comune consolatione’.

40. Letter, 30 July 1723 [5].

80. Letter, 6 April 1726 [4].

41. Felice Trulli, Portrait of Ottavia Patrizi, 1723. Oil on canvas, 70 x 60 cm. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 168, p. 311. 42. Letter, 7 August 1723 [4].

81. L’epistolario ossia scelta di lettere inedite famigliari, curiose, erudite, storiche, galanti ... di donne e d’uomini celebri morti o viventi nel secolo XVIII. o nel MDCC., Venice: Nella Stamperia Graziosi a Sant Apollinari, 1795, vol. 1, p. 19, letter ‘Al Co: Cammillo Silvestri’ from ‘Antonio Magliabechi’ (Florence, 2 March 1712).

44. Letter, 27 February 1723 [5].

82. Benoni and Scolari, 1714, pp. 181–88, ‘La Corona Insegna d’una Maggior Santità, e Possanza. Per il Panegirico del Sig. Abbate Don Gaetano Giovanelli nel Mercoledì’.

45. Letter, 9 October 1723.

83. Letter, 13 April 1726 [5].

46. Letter, 20 October 1723.

84. Letter, 9 March 1726 [2].

47. Letter, 9 October 1723 [3].

85. Letter, 16 March 1726 [5].

48. Letter, 19 February 1724 [4].

86. Letter, 30 March 1726 [3].

49. Letter, 4 March 1724 [4].

51. Letter, 16 June 1725 [2].

87. Letter, 18 May 1726 [3]. The festa of the porcellina, which involved throwing food to the crowd from the Palazzo Pubblico, took place in Bologna on St Bartholomew’s day (24 August) from as early as 1249 until it was suppressed by the French in 1796. Ragg, 1900, pp. 249–50.

52. Letter, 31 October 1725 [3].

88. Letter, 20 April 1726 [5].

43. Letter, 14 August 1723 [2].

50. Letter, 9 June 1725 [2].

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 67

67

18/11/15 17:24

89. Letter, 4 May 1726 [8].

122. Letter, 10 November 1726 addressed to Francesco [5].

90. Letter, 4 May 1726 [7].

123. Poser and Bruyn, 1999, pp. 79–88.

91. Letter, 18 May 1726 [3]. Holy Week in 1726 was 14–20 April.

124. G. Lancisi, De noxiis paludum effluviis, Rome: Salvoni, 1717, cited in Poser and Bruyn, 1999, p. 85.

92. Letter, 29 May 1726 [2]. 93. Letter, 1 June 1726 [5].

125. F. M. Nigrisoli, Febris china chinae expugnata, Ferrara: Lilium, 1700, earlier edn 1687, cited in Poser and Bruyn, 1999, p. 114.

94. It had been rebuilt in 1724. Honour, 1967, p.104.

126. Letter, 16 November 1726 [2].

95. G. F. Coyer, Voyages, Paris 1775, vol. 2, p. 18, cited in Burke, 1987, p. 190. Letter, 1 June 1726.

97. Letter, 5 June 1726 [5].

127. The pattern is usually the result of concurrent infections by two species of the genus Plasmodium, one causing paroxysms every 72 hours and the other every 48 hours. Tertian malaria is caused by the malaria parasite Plasmodium vivax, a form of malaria in which paroxysms of fever occur. Poser and Bruyn, 1999, pp. x, 1.

98. Letter, 29 May 1726 [3].

128. Letter, 23 November 1723 [5]; Letter, 30 November 1726 [4].

99. Francesco Maria Nigrisoli (1648 Ferrara–1727 Ferrara) held the chair of

129. Letter, 30 November 1726 [5]; Letter, 7 December 1726 [3].

theoretical and practical medicine at the University of Ferrara. He was the author of Dell’anatomia chirurgica delle glandole (1681–82) and Febris china chinae expugnata (1687). He wrote to Muratori about his interest in deformities and monsters, and in cattle diseases. (Quagliano, n.d. and Pasi, 1986, pp. 34–43.) 100. Letter, 29 May 1726 [2].

130. Letter, 18 January 1727 [5]. At this time singers were increasingly being drawn to England but, in fact, the peformances at the Teatro Capranica in Rome in 1727 were L’Amore generoso by G. B. Costanzi and Il Cid by Leonardo Leo, both of which had the famous castrato Farinelli as the primo uomo and a highly respected tenor G. B. Pinacci, so clearly not all the best singers had left Italy.

101. Letter, 15 June 1726 [6].

131. Letter, 22 February 1727 [3].

96. Letter, 29 May 1726 [2].

132. Letter 15 February 1727 [7].

102. Letter 19 June 1726 [3]. 103. Letter, 22 June 1726 [2]; Letter, 26 June 1726 [4]. 104. Letter, 29 June 1726 [6]. 105. Letter, 10 July 1726 [4]. 106. Letter, 20 July 1726 [6]. Letter, 10 August 1726 [3]: ‘La Signora Marchese ha terminato di prendere l’aqqua della Villa, e sta bene, e là passata felicemente, la pregherò che nella lettera che scrive alla Signora Marchese sua Madre ringratij il Signor Pietro Pescatori per avere riaccomodato l’ochiale che gli donò.’ It is not known who this Pietro Pescatori is who repaired the cardinal’s glasses. A carpenter of this name appears in a payment of 3 March 1698, 16 May and 1708 in connection with models for the Tomb of Alexander VIII. (Olszewski, 2004, pp. 283–84, nos 309 and 31.)

133. Letter, 8 March 1727 [3]. 134. Letter, 10 July 1723 [5]. The Palazzo Mantica (Nolli 110) was at the beginning of the Salita di Marforio (Nolli 108), which continued the Corso left around the Campidoglio, and which was swept away in the creation of Piazza Venezia and the Via dei Fori Imperiali. See Roma antica e moderna: o sia nuova descrizione di tutti gl’edifici ..., 1750, Volume 2, p. 357: ‘Nel principio della vicina Salita, detta di Marforio, si osserva a mano manca, sotto il Palazzo del Baron Mantica, un’avvanzo di questo Sepolcro [di Cajo Publico Bibulo], che erea di forma quadrata, e di pietra Tiburtina, col seguente Epitaffio …’. The palazzo was enlarged with the acquisition of an adjacent house by Francesco Fontana in 1704. (L. Finocchi Ghersi, s.v. ‘Fontana Francesco’ in Contardi and Curcio, 1991, p. 373.)

109. Letter, 31 August 1726 [3].

135. Letter, 22 February 1727 [3]. Ippolito III Bentivoglio, 4th Marchese di Magliano, in 1727 married Marianna Gonzaga (1706–1758), daughter of Ottavio II Gonzaga of Mantua (1667 Vescovato–1709 Bologna) and Maria Rosa Trotti (married 1698). There is a collection of poetry composed for the occasion (Rime, 1727). Ippolito died two months after the wedding. (http://genealogy. euweb.cz/gonzaga/gonzaga4.html; http://magliano-heba.blogspot.com.au/.)

110. Baldini and Sangiorgi, 2008, p. 70, illustrated with an old photograph.

136. Letter, 22 February 1727 [3].

111. Letter, 31 August 1726 [4].

137. Letter, 8 March 1727 [5].

112. Letter, 7 September 1726 [2].

138. Letter, 22 February 1727 [3]; Letter, 8 March 1727 [5].

113. Letter, 28 September 1726 [4].

139. Letter, 25 January 1727 [4]; Letter 8 March 1727 [4]; Letter, 5 April 1727 [4]; Letter, 19 April 1727 [2]; Letter, 26 April 1727 [4]; Letter, 3 May 1727 [3].

107. Letter 16 August 1726 [3]. 108. They were still in Lugo on 24 August. Letter, 24 August 1726 [3]; Letter, 26 August 1726 [1.

114. Baldini and Sangiorgi, 2008, p. 68, although this building was built in the nineteenth century by Rancredo Lolli, but it may have replaced the building known to the cardinal. 115. Letter, 28 September 1726 [4]. 116. Letter 28 September 1726 [4]; Letter, 5 October 1726 [2]. 117. Letter, 10 October 1726 [3]. See Benati, 1990; Cassoli, 1980. 118. Letter, 18 October 1726 [4]. 119. Letter, 27 October 1726 [4]. 120. Letter, 27 October 1726 [5]. For bird-catching, see Chapter 4.4. 121. Letter, 9 November 1726 [6].

68

Libro MARSHALL.indb 68

140. Letter, 19 April 1727 [4]. 141. Letter, 19 April 1727 [4]. 142. Charas, 1677, p. 215. Earlier editions 1670, 1673. The original book was in French. According to Lawrence (1978), Charas concluded that vipers provided ‘valuable remedies for itch, erysipelas, measles, smallpox, leprosy and were a valuable adjunct to the production of a beautiful skin’. 143. Nesbit, 1787, p. 143, wrote of the viper that ‘its efficacy as a medicine must be slight, and depend entirely on its alimentary virtues, though the viper’s broth has been long and much esteemed.’ 144. Knoefel, 1988, p. 49, citing his response to Charas, Letter on Some Opposition Raised to the Observations on Vipers.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

145. The British Dispensatory. Containing a faithful translation of the London pharmacopoeia. Published by the college of Physicians, London: Edward Cave, 1747. See Haigh, 1974, p. 2043. 146. Letter, 3 May 1727 [3]. 147. Letter, 8 February 1727 [2]; Letter, 22 February 1722 [2]. 148. Letter, 17 May 1727 [1]. 149. Letter, 7 June 1727 [4]. 150. Letter, 7 June 1727 [6]; Letter, 21 June 1727 [2]. 151. Letter, 14 June 1727 [1]. 152. Letter, 21 June 1727 [3]; Letter, 25 June 1727 [2]. 153. Letter, 28 June 1727 [2]. 154. Letter, 5 July 1727 [1]. 155. Letter, 12 July 1727 [3]. 156. Senna (Cassia occidentalis) was widely used as a laxative. 157. Letter 19 July 1727 [1]. Cf. Iacobilli, 1653: ‘Quest’acqua per le sue mirabili virtù, del continuo è frequentata in prenderla da infinite persone, ed è giornalmente cavata e condotta non solamente in Roma, Fiorenza, Milano e altro luoghi di Italia: ma anche in Germania, in Portogallo, in Costantinopoli e in altre regioni lontanissime; ricevendosi per tutto mirabili effetti per essa, e però e denominata Acqua santa.’ 158. Letter, 26 July 1727 [1].

di Domenico Arcolani di Viterbo 55 / Angelo Marcieri di Venegia 30’. Then follow the occupants of the Casa de’ Spagnuoli, some of whom may have been servants of the Patrizi. In the ‘stalla dei Patrizi’ were some more servants (this for 1750): ‘Stalla di Patrizii / Cristofano Ferrari da milano 29 / Gian Claudio … di Bisangon 22 / Antonio Giuseppe … 28’. If she moved into the villa it is not documented: the stati d’anime for the parish of S. Susanna for 1749 does not include the Villa Patrizi (ASVR, S. Susanna, Stati d’anime, vol. 55, 1749). Normally, because the census was made at Easter, there are only a few servants listed for villas outside the wall. She might have returned to her family in Palazzo Sacchetti, but the stati d’anime for the relevant parish, S. Biagio della Pagnotta, are missing for this period. Although the morti volumes do survive, she does not appear in the volume covering the years 1752 to 1780, although other members of the Sacchetti do, such as Maria Maddalena Sacchetti, daughter of Ottavia’s brother Giovanni Battista Sacchetti and Ginevra Muti and grandaughter of Matteo Sacchetti (17 July 1757), evidently the ‘Maddalena’ living with Ottavia in 1748, and Giovanni Battista (20 November 1759) (ASVR, S. Biagio della Pagnotta, Morti, V, 11, 1752–80, fols 17v, 28r). Nor does Ottavia appear in the morti for S. Luigi dei Francesi for 1722–59 (ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, Morti, VI, 1722–59). 168. Valesio, V, 1729–36, p. 509, August 1732: ‘Mercordi 20. Celebrandosi oggi la festa di s. Bernardo, alle 22 ore S. Beatitudine andò a visitare la chiesa di esso santo alle Terme e di lì all’improviso volle andare fuori di porta Pia fin alla villa de’ Patrizi, dove voltò e ritornò al Quirinale.’ 169. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B41, fols 180–81. (Doc. 5.9.) 170. Antonio David, Portrait of Ottavia Patrizi. Drawing. Private Collection.

159. ASV, Archivio Patrizio-Montoro, B70, no. 1 (Doc. 5.5.) 160. Ferraro, 1994, vol. 1, p. 288. 161. Presumably there were reasons why Patrizio could not have transferred the luoghi di monti non vacabili that he inherited from the cardinal, as the cardinal had planned to do. 162. ASV, Archivio Patrizio-Montoro, B70, no. 2. (Doc. 5.5). 163. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B12, fols 67r–90r. (Doc. 5.9.) 164. This is the date at which the relative worth of the family’s built assets can most clearly be established, as the family possessions were thoroughly valued for probate at Patrizio’s death. This is summarised in a document in ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montori, B437. These valuations are for the improvements, and not for the land. The villa improvements were worth 41,480 scudi, compared to the palazzo at S. Luigi, which was worth somewhat less at 34,423 scudi, with Castel Giuliano at 15,057 scudi, and Sasso a mere 3,477 scudi. It means that the family’s wealth was going towards improving the infrastructure of the urban properties: the palazzo at S. Luigi mostly during the elder Patrizio’s lifetime, and the villa in Costanzo and the cardinal’s lifetimes. The major agricultural properties at Castel Giuliano and Sasso had much less spent on them. 165. The rooms over the garden are evidently in the Casino of the villa, and must be on the Mezzanine: ‘e le due stanze sopra il Giardino per la sua Famiglia Casa, ed anche il Commodi della Cucina, e due stanze sotterranee per quello gli possa bisognare con facoltà di godere il passaggio libero, e senza riserva per il Giardino, e per tutta l’intera Villa.’ 166. This could be a simple mistake, but inventories rarely make errors. 167. She is present in the stati d’anime in Easter 1748, a few months after Patrizio’s death, but gone the following year. ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, Stati d’anime, vol. 55, 1748: ‘Isola di Patritij / Palazzo / Illustrissima Signora Ottavia Sacchetti vedova del Marchese Patrizi 42 / Cecilia Contechini 53 / Antonia Mori 26 / Angela Petrini di Terni 21 / Jacinta Gentilazzi di Palestrina 23 / Giulio Carrari di Albano credenziere 56 / Filippo Moltoni 24 / Bellardino Giorgi di Milano 20 / Illustrissima Signora Maddalena Sacchetti 12 / Isabella Ercole cameriere 54.’ The household of Giovanni follows: ‘Illustrissimo Signor Marchese Giovanni Battista Patritij Montorio 48 / Illustrissima Signora Virginia Patritij moglie 30 / Costantino 4 / Santa Ricci di Castelgiuliano 30 / Giulia Giustiniani di Montorio 25 / Chiara Benincasa 22 / Maddelena Trafieri Luchese 28 / Elisabetta Fochi vedova

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 69

69

18/11/15 17:24

Chapter 1.5

Virginia and Giovanni, Porzia and Francesco ‘God has made her ugly, ugly I have taken her, ugly I look after her’ (Giovanni Patrizi Chigi Montoro)

Maria Virginia Patrizi (1718–1788) and Giovanni Chigi Montoro (1700–1772) As a child, Maria Virginia (often referred to simply as Virginia), the daughter of Patrizio and his first wife, Angela Carpegna (Fig. 1.42),1 appears only intermittently in the cardinal’s Letters: as having had chicken pox, or as having been with her grandfather, Costanzo, at Castel Giuliano.2 As Cardinal Patrizi had feared, her stepmother, Ottavia, never had children, meaning that the family (that is, Patrizio) had to employ the legal device of ‘arrogation’ whereby the son of another family, usually a younger son, was adopted and took the name of the adopting family, combining it with his own.3 Arrogation differed from adoption in that the person arrogated was an adult. It would usually be financially advantageous for the adopted son, who otherwise would not have had much in the way of financial means of his own, but it would also mean his family name would be subordinate to that of the adopting family, or it may even be eliminated. In this case the Patrizi looked to Giovanni Chigi Montoro, who came from a branch of the Chigi family, a Sienese family with whom the Patrizi had long had ties and in the person of Pope Alexander VII was responsible for the rise of their family in the seventeenth century. Maria Virginia and Giovanni married in 1736, and the marriage capitoli make very clear that as soon as the marriage had taken place Giovanni was to substitute the Patrizi name and arms for his own.4 In fact, the name became ‘Patrizi Chigi Montoro’ almost immediately, but the Chigi arms would disappear, and the Chigi name would gradually drop out of use. The capitoli also insist that the Patrizi were to provide the second-floor apartment of the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi for the couple, any children they might have, and their servants. Giovanni would receive 2000 scudi per annum to support himself, his wife and family. 70

Libro MARSHALL.indb 70

The principal estate of the Chigi Montoro was at Montoro, in the Nera Valley not far from Narni, and it remains in the Patrizi Montoro family. The marriage meant that many Chigi Montoro objects and furnishings entered the villa and are fully recorded in the 1772 inventory.5

Fig. 1.42. Roman painter, Portrait of Angela Carpegna Patrizi (?). Oil on canvas, 73 x 60 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-PlanckInstitut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

The Married Life of Maria Virginia and Giovanni We gain a vivid insight into the nature of the marriage of Maria Virginia and Giovanni from the letters of Charles de Brosses, a French visitor to Rome and one of our most important sources about Roman life at this period. De Brosses, who visited Rome in 1739–40 but whose letters on Rome were in fact written between 1745 and 1755,6 in writing to his correspondent Madame Cortois de Quincey he describes the social customs pertaining in Rome. He is particularly resentful of the Roman practice of married women having admirers, or cicisbeos. The husbands, he writes, are not the problem, it is the cicisbeos. The cicisbeos ‘do not have any more intimate pretension’ (in other words, were not lovers), and were oppressively faithful; it was as if a woman had two husbands rather than a husband and a lover. De Brosses, with his very different French view of the role played by a married woman’s lover, found that it was the cicisbeos, rather than the husbands, who cruelled his pitch: the galants are so assiduous that they become Arguses a hundred times more inconvenient than the husbands; one finds them planted there always day and night, in order, I believe, to thwart a poor third party, who would try his luck: that odious race of cicisbeos marry the women ten times more than the husbands.7

In his own case: I am disposed to be the lover of a petite Madame Ricci, who is as pretty and dainty as can be; did she not have eternally a certain Don Paolo Borghese, who squeezes her so tight that one cannot pass a thread between them. I will tell you presently that this Don Paolo is a very pretty figure; I retract; I find him very ugly.8

Of particular interest for our purpose is the experience of de Brosses’ friend Bénigne Legouz de Gerland.9 Rather than attempting to assail a woman like Signora Bentivoglio, who is never seen without her gallant the Marchese Bevilacqua, Legouz has been more crafty: he addresses himself to Virginia Patrizi, newly married to Count Montoro, and very ugly, by means of which she does not have to be vouched for.10

Legouz had only just arrived in Rome, and did not yet know everyone which resulted in an amusing incident. Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 71

De Brosses describes how there were eight or ten people present at Signora Borghese’s bedside, where she was lying in.11 (The custom of receiving visitors at one’s bedside had been begun by Louis XIV, and by the eighteenth century was well-established in Rome, primarily for women.) They had begun by discussing the women of the town, and which of them were to their tastes. Naturally, de Brosses praised Signora Ricci, and makes a revealing comment about the different conceptions of female beauty then prevailing in Paris and Rome. The Romans did not consider Signora Ricci to be beautiful because in Rome ‘beauty consists in the regularity of the large proportional traits’. The Romans had no term corresponding to the French ‘une jolie femme’ (a pretty woman), which implied a certain petite liveliness. Hence Signora Ricci, who evidently had this quality, appealed to the tastes of de Brosses and his fellow Frenchmen. Legouz then praised his favourite, Maria Virginia Patrizi. In doing so he revealed that it was not simply her ugliness, and consequent lack of a bodyguard of cicisbeos, that attracted him to her: For me [he said], I am for Virginia Patrizia, she is not pretty, she is very dark, thin, and pockmarked; in spite of this, she pleases me more than any other. She is young, gay, of a sweet and spiritual temperament; she has a free, easy figure, with small dark and piercing eyes that go to my heart.12

An evil star, however, prompted him to go further: She is my mistress; I do not know Lord Montoro her spouse, but I want to see her often with him, and I would make him so many bows and scrapes that it will be too troublesome for him not to ask me to dine twice a week.13

At this, everyone bit their lips to stop themselves laughing, for Montoro was in fact in the room, sitting in the ruelle, the privileged space between the bed and the wall.14 Signora Borghese in particular seemed to enjoy the joke, as she held back de Brosses from intervening to stop his friend making a fool of himself. Montoro, however, rose to the occasion: What you want, Monsieur, I have not been mistaken in; God has made her ugly, ugly I have taken her, ugly I look after her. I can scarcely imagine that one ought to have become enamoured of her, and I am very content that a man of spirit and good taste, who has come from so far away, should find her to his taste and to prefer her to the most beautiful women. In order to make you see that we 71

18/11/15 17:24

Patrizi family jewels that appear in other portraits follows this prototype, although the jaw is fuller, the nose is less prominent, the features more regular and the eyes are less lively (Fig. 1.44).18

Entertainments in the Villa It would be interesting to know whether Maria Virginia and Giovanni used the villa immediately following their marriage, but the documents are uninformative on this point. However, when Patrizio succeeded Costanzo in 1739, we begin to hear much more about the villa as a social space. In the spring of the year after Costanzo’s death all the talk was of the conclave. Pope Clement XII Corsini had died on 6 February 1740; the conclave began on 17 February and would last six months, until Prospero Lamberti was elected as Benedict XIV on 17 August 1740. On 14 May the 23-year-old Horace Walpole, son of the British Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole, on his Grand Tour in Rome, wrote to Sir Horace Mann, British Resident in Florence, that the night before he had been to an assembly at the villa Patrizi: Fig. 1.43. Jean-Étienne Liotard (1702–89), Portrait of Maria Virginia Patrizi, c. 1736. Pastel on paper, 61 x 45 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

are not so troublesome as you believe, nor so difficult to get to know, do me the honour of coming tomorrow to dine with me.15

And indeed, de Brosses tells his correspondent that Legoux dined regularly chez Montoro. Perhaps conscious of the casual cruelty towards women who did not conform to prevailing ideals of beauty that this anecdote so vividly reveals, de Brosses concludes by observing: ‘you know well enough that all our gallantries do not go beneath the skin. Madame Montoro, although not very pretty, is in fact very pleasing, and appears to be attached to her husband.’16 Maria Virginia’s portraits support these perceptions of her not being a classic beauty, but having a certain French vitality. In a pastel now attributed to Jean-Étienne Liotard that, it has been argued, was painted on the occasion of her marriage (Fig. 1.43),17 she has a fairly prominent nose and a sparkle in her eyes. An oil painting by Sebastiano Ceccarini of a more mature woman, wearing a wig and 72

Libro MARSHALL.indb 72

Last night all the world was at the Villa Patrizzi [sic]: there was music, dancing, two banks at pharaoh, cards, etc. The Pretender [James III] and his two babes, being present, none of the English would dance. The Princess [de Craon] sat by him the whole night; there is the strictest intimacy between the two families. She has proposed to the Prince [de Craon] to go to the Ascension at Venice, and he is not the man to refuse what she likes; so you must not expect to see them so soon. I shall know tonight, but too late to send you word.19

In a letter written at the same time to Thomas Ashton, Walpole wrote: We are going tonight to a great assembly, at one of the villas just out of the city, whither all the English are invited; amongst the rest, Mr Stuard and his two sons. There is one lives with him called Lord Dunbar, Murray’s brother, who wou’d be his minister, if he had any occasion for one. I meet him frequently in public places, and like him. He is very sensible, very agreeable and well bred.20

This letter was completed by Thomas Gray, future author of Elegy in a Country Churchyard and Walpole’s travelling companion.21 In a letter to Richard West on

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Left: Fig. 1.44. Sebastiano Ceccarini (1703–83), Portrait of Maria Virginia Patrizi, 1740s. Oil on canvas, 89 x 71 cm. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.) Above: Fig. 1.45. Anonymous, Portrait of Maria Virginia Patrizi (?), 1740s. Whereabouts unknown. (Francesca Patrizi.)

20 May 1740 Gray writes about what was evidently the same event: I have more time than I thought, and will employ it in telling you about a Ball that we were at the other evening. Figure to yourself a Roman villa; all its little apartments thrown open, and lighted up to the best advantage. at the upper end of the gallery, a fine concert, in which La Diamantina, a famous virtuosa, played on the violin divinely, and sung angelically; Giovannino and Pasqualini (great names in musical story) also performed miraculously. On each side were ranged all the secular grand monde of Rome, the Ambassadors, Princesses, and all that. Among the rest Il Serenissimo Pretendente (as the Mantova Gazette calls Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 73

him) displayed his rueful length of person, with his two young ones, and all his ministry around him. ‘Poi nacque un grazioso ballo,’ where the world danced, and I sat in a corner regaling myself with iced fruits, and other pleasant rinfrescatives.22

Two months later, on 10 July,23 Gray refers again to this ball in a letter to his father Philip Gray: The Pretender (whom you desire an account of ) I have had frequent opportunities of seeing at church, at the corso, and at other places; but more particularly, and that for a whole night, at a great ball given by Count Patrizii [sic] to the Prince and Princess of Craon (who were come to Rome at 73

18/11/15 17:24

that time, that he might receive from the Emperor’s minister there, the order of the golden fleece) at which he and his two sons were present.24

These English observers were preoccupied with the ‘Pretender’ and his family—that is, James III and his sons, Charles Edward (Bonnie Prince Charlie) then aged 20, and Henry Benedict, later Cardinal York, then aged 15, their mother Maria Clementina Sobieska having died five years earlier in 1735—who, as we have seen, had been on good terms with the Patrizi since the cardinal’s time. As a representative of the new Whig and Hanoverian order, Walpole referred to him dismissively as ‘Mr Stuard’. Yet for the Patrizi the Stuarts were very much a part of their social circle. The principal guests of honour at the Patrizi assembly were, however, the Venetian ambassador to the Holy See, Marco Foscarini,25 and Marc de Beauvau, Prince de Craon (1679–1754), Regent of Tuscany, and his wife. Following the death in 1737 of Gian Gastone, the last Medici ruler, the Grand Duchy Tuscany had passed to Francis Stephen, Duke of Lorraine, in compensation for the loss of the Duchy of Lorraine which had been absorbed into France as part of the arrangements resulting from the War of Polish Succession. Not wishing to reside in Tuscany, Francis had had de Beauvau created a Prince of the Holy Roman Emperor and left him in charge of Florence. The tenor of the Prince de Craon’s regency was not high-minded. The Prince de Craon’s father had been a servant of the father of Francis, Duke Leopold of Lorraine, and had obligingly married his mistress. As Harold Acton wrote: The Princess de Craon, it was said, had originally been espied by Duke Leopold as a buxom girl driving turkeys in a field: this was the name who now gave tone to Tuscany— and a curious tone it was, that of a musical-comedy Court in a mere province of Austria. Masquerades, earthquakes, the Prince of Craon’s itch and his Princess’s lavements, intrigues, serenades, duels, theatricals, are the themes of these twenty-eight years before the arrival of that energetic reformer, Peter Leopold.26

Walpole, reporting on the doings of the Pretender to Mann, noted that the Prince and Princess de Craon ‘have been more than once at the Pretender’s; and even at their door the servants says they are gone to the Re d’Inghilterra. ’Tis much bragged of too, that he ordered coffee for them, which he has never done but once for anybody since he was in Rome.’27 In fact Craon had paid several visits to the Old Pretender.28 It was therefore unsurprising that 74

Libro MARSHALL.indb 74

the Patrizi should invite both. But they also invited the English, from both Whig and Jacobite camps, although the Whigs would not dance in the Stuart presence. The presence of the effective ruler of the nearest state to the north of Rome is testimony to the status of the Patrizi in Roman society at this date.29 Others in the Patrizi circle made similar invitations. Walpole tells us about the conversazione of Contessa Faustina Bolognetti30 ten days after the Patrizi event, which was held ‘for the Princess [de Craon] on Sunday [24 April 1740], and the two boys [Charles Edward and Henry Benedict] are to be there, if they do not go to Albano tomorrow, which is talked of.’31 A few months later, on 15 June, Patrizio put on another party at the villa which was noted by Valesio: The Marchese Patrizi gave this evening a conversazione with a ball [ballo], card games [gioco], and refreshments [rinfresco] alla Foscarini with an invitation to ladies and gentlemen in his villa outside Porta Pia and, in order to prevent any disorder, there were twelve soldiers of the Popolo Romano as guards at the entrance.32

This function Valesio calls a conversazione. The conversazione was a social occasion originating in France, where intimate sociable gatherings had become an essential feature of aristocratic life. Thomas Gray described the type of conversazione that he encountered in Florence on 19 March 1740, just as he was setting off for Rome, as ‘in the evening, what is called a Conversazione, a sort of assembly at the principal people’s houses, full of I cannot tell what’.33 In Rome, the conversazione was normally a regular ‘at home’ in which one’s doors were opened to a chosen few to meet and talk together on certain days.34 Later in the century the Patrizi would receive on Thursdays and Sundays, but this, of course, would be at their town palace at S. Luigi dei Francesi. French salons became important centres of intellectual activity, but Roman conversazioni, according to contemporary opinion, were more concerned with scandalous gossip, and were normally more formal and less intimate than this example. The Piano Nobile of the Villa Patrizi was well set up for these entertainments, and is discussed in more detail below. The main rooms for social events were the rooms running along the façade facing the Strada di S. Agnese (Fig. 1.46) ). Gray describes the apartments of the Villa Patrizi as being ‘small’, as indeed they were, being mostly about 22.50 palmi (5 m) wide. The first pair of rooms (PN02, PN03), the First and Second Anterooms, would have been quickly passed through by the arriving visitor,

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.46. Rome, Villa Patrizi, plans of the three floors. (David R. Marshall.)

but into which guests could spill as the evening progressed. The last pair of rooms, the Stanza alla Cinese and the Stanza delli Cristalli (PN05, PN06) were suitable venues for a conversazione proper, as they were separated only by a bussola (swing door), and the first of them had a fireplace. Between these two pairs of rooms was the Piano Nobile Gallery (PN04), a large room higher than the others that ran from one side of the villa to the other. From the ceiling hung two chandeliers of Venetian Murano glass which served, as Gray observed, to light the room to best advantage. Around the walls were sofas and console tables. This would have been where the dancing took place, or where the Whig Englishmen and women gathered who Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 75

were avoiding dancing because of the presence of the Pretender, perhaps sitting stolidly on the surrounding sofas or chairs or disappearing into the other rooms. The musicians, according to Gray, were at the upper end of the Gallery, that is, overlooking the Garden rather than the Scalinata, which is logical, since this would have been the area with least traffic. Some may have been seated behind the ringhiera (balustrade). They included, according to Gray, ‘Pasqualino’, who was probably Pasqualino Potenza, active in Rome during the 1740s, who was later popular in Jommelli’s Didone abbandonata at the Teatro Argentina in 1747.35 ‘La Diamantina’ is presumably not the Bolognese soprano of this name who died in Bologna before 1720, but possibly one Diamante Maria, also known as ‘La Diamantina’, who was singing in Padua in 1744 alongside the castrato Carestini.36 Giovannino was probably the composer and instrumentalist, especially cellist, Giovanni Battista Costanzi, known as ‘Giovannino del Violoncello’ or ‘Giovannino da Roma’ (1704–78).37 He was a protégé of Cardinal Ottoboni and was maestro di cappella at S. Luigi dei Francesi opposite Palazzo Patrizi in 1729, and later at S. Lorenzo in Damaso and S. Marco. He became president of the Congregazione di S. Cecilia in Rome in 1740. As Valesio indicated, there were also card games. Folding card tables were kept in the Galleriola (PN07), a service room running behind the Stanza alla Cinese and Stanza delli Cristalli and opening onto the Gallery, and would have been set up in the other rooms later in the evening. Such entertainments were more usually features of palace life than villa life, and the fact that a conversazione with rinfresco, ballo, and gioco took place at the villa is testimony to the closeness of the villa to the city, the palace-like nature of the Villa Patrizi that is reflected in its palace-like planning, and Patrizio’s love for the villa built by his favourite uncle and into which he provided so much input, and which, one suspects, was closer to his heart than the town palace.

The Villa during the Reign of Benedict XIV On 17 August 1740 Prospero Lamberti was elected as Benedict XIV.38 During Benedict’s reign, the villa appeared briefly on the stage of world events in a way that anticipated the part it would play in the events of 1849 and 1870. In August 1744, during the War of Austrian Succession, the Austrians, to the great distress of the pope, were occupying much of the Campagna preparatory to 75

18/11/15 17:24

marching on Naples. King Charles III of Spain (then king of Naples and Sicily) had advanced from Naples to meet them, and was camped in the Alban Hills.39 On 12 August Charles III repulsed an attack by the Austrians at Velletri, and shortly afterwards the Austrians were forced to abandon their attempt on Naples and retreat northwards. On 1 November they withdrew across the Tiber at Ponte Milvio, and the Spanish–Neapolitan army camped in the vigne between Ponte Milvio and Porta Pia. In the afternoon of 2 November Charles III, with a retinue of over 500 people, arrived at the Villa Patrizi where he planned to spend the night. Giovanni Patrizi, however, had removed everything inside the city walls for fear of Austrian looting, but Cardinal Colonna realised this and sent an army of servants with bedding and cooking utensils to prepare the villa for the king’s arrival. The next day, Charles III met the pope in his new Caffeaus in the gardens of the Quirinal Palace, before being welcomed as a liberator with ceremonial visits to the St Peter’s, followed by a banquet in the Vatican, and the Lateran Palace, returning to Velletri in the evening. Benedict joked that the visit had cost him as much as three villeggiature to Castel Gandolfo.40 These events are commemorated in a pair of paintings by 76

Libro MARSHALL.indb 76

Fig. 1.47. Giuseppe Vasi (1710–82), Entry of Charles III through the Porta Pia in 1744 (Porta Pia al Viminale), 1747. Etching.

Panini, now at Capodimonte.41 Giuseppe Vasi made an engraving showing the encampment of the armies outside Porta Pia, with the corner of the Villa Patrizi at the left, with Charles seated on his horse about to enter the Porta Pia (Fig. 1.47).

Maria Virginia Patrizi and the Masked Ball in Palazzo Farnese in 1751 In 1747 Giovanni Patrizi Chigi Montoro, Maria Virginia’s husband, succeeded his father-in-law. Between 1748 and 1749 he had the estate described in inventories that are drawn upon extensively in later chapters. In the same year he was appointed as under-treasurer of the Quirinal Palace (sottotesoriere del sacro palazo del Quirinale).42 Maria Virginia participated in another social event, one much grander than the conversazione of 1740. This was the masked ball held at the Palazzo Farnese in November 1751.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.48. Giovanni Paolo Panini, A Ball Given by the Duc de Nivernais to Mark the Birth of the Dauphin, 1751. Oil on canvas, 115.0 x 119.3 cm. Waddesdon Manor, the National Trust, 80.2007.2. (The National Trust.)

The occasion was the birth of the short-lived Duke of Burgundy (1751–61), the first child of the Dauphin of France, and the host was the French ambassador, the Duke of Nivernais. The piano nobile of the palazzo was lavishly decorated under the direction of Giovanni Paolo Panini, who had played a leading role in the decoration of the Villa Patrizi, and who was now much favoured for such projects by French ambassadors.43 The appearance of the spectacle is recorded in two paintings of the event painted for the Duke of Nivernais (Louis-Jules Barbon Mancini-Mazarin, 1716–98), French Ambassador in Rome from 1748 to 1752, which are now at Waddesdon Manor.44 One shows the concert, and the other (Fig. 1.48) the masked ball, in which Maria Virginia participated. In Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 77

1751, four years after her father’s death and her husband’s succession, she was a matron of 34. Unlike her stepmother, she produced numerous children, but all but Porzia (and possibly another daughter) would die young.45 Her first two children were daughters, Maria Porzia, who was born in 1737 and who died in March 1748, and Maria Angela, born 1739, date of death unknown, followed by the first of three sons, Prospero, born in 1740. Prospero carried all the hopes of the family, as is evident from his seven Christian names (Prospero Costanzo Matteo Aloysius Francesco Maria Balthasar). Unfortunately, he died two years later. The circumstances for some reason warranted a postmortem, which extended to cutting open the brain as well as other organs.46 Next was Costanzo, born in 1743 77

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.49. Giovanni Battista Piranesi, View of the Villa of Cardinal Alessandro Albani outside the Porta Salaria (Veduta della Villa dell’Emo Sig.n Card. Alesandro Albani fuori di Porta Salaria). From Vedute di Roma, 1760–78. Etching 54.5 x 78.7 cm. (Wikisource.)

who apparently died in 1750 or 1751; followed by an unnamed son who lived for four days in February 1748; and another son, Francesco, born in 1749 and who died in June 1751. Hence at the time of the festa in Palazzo Farnese she had just buried her fourth son, and would within a month or so be pregnant with her seventh child, Porzia, who lived to old age and became the backbone of the family. As the leading woman of the family, Maria Virginia had the resources and rank to be noticed, as indeed she was noticed by the chronicler who described the ball.47 He described the costumes in detail, several of which had a military theme. Maria Virginia Patrizi’s outfit was in the style of a dragoon: her dress was of jonquil-coloured silk, adorned with festoons of silver lace, with a shoulder belt adorned with jewels, and a bejewelled beret. The Duchess Salviati dressed in Hussar style, while gold brocade was much in evidence with other noblewomen.48 Members of families related to the Patrizi were also prominent, such as the Marchesa Gabrielli and the Marchesa del Bufalo.49 Unfortunately, Panini’s representation of the ball is generic, and would almost certainly have been painted before the event, so particular individuals cannot be identified with the exception of a few of the principals, such as James III in the lower balcony. But what contemporaries were most impressed by was the quality of the refreshments, or rinfreschi. At the fifth hour—that is, five hours after sunset, or about 10 pm50—came the first refreshments: flavoured waters, gelati, cornetti, small biscuits, and other pastries. The ball then continued until the eighth hour (about 1 78

Libro MARSHALL.indb 78

am) when various tables were set up in the ballroom with cold meat dishes and foreign wines, with quantities of various pastries. At this point a large stepped credenza, or sideboard, was opened, stocked with abundant cold dishes and wine. The ball (ballo) resumed in the main room and other rooms of the palace and went on until the eleventh hour (about 4 am), when a third, equally sumptuous rinfresco was provided. By then many of the masqueraders retired to the rooms where tables were set up for card games (giochi) and gambling. At the twelfth hour (about 5 am) a last serving of refreshments was provided, consisting of chocolate, small biscuits and various titbits. At dawn the festivities ceased, to great applause.51

Maria Virginia Patrizi and the Villa Albani Later in life we come across Maria Virginia Patrizi again as one of the socialites associated with the Villa Albani (Fig. 1.49). The Villa Albani, built for Cardinal Alessandro Albani (created cardinal in 1721), served similar social functions to the Villa Patrizi. Its antiquarian reputation owes much to the presence of the ‘high priest’ of early Neoclassicism, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, in the household of Cardinal Albani from 1755. Although Winckelmann’s image now gazes over the villa in the form of an oversized nineteenth-century bust in the garden, his apartments were in the Albani town palazzo, which Alessandro shared with his older brother Cardinal Annibale until the latter’s death in 1751. This is the present day

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Palazzo del Drago, at Quattro Fontane on the Via Pia, not far from the Villa Patrizi. This palazzo had once belonged by the seventeenth-century collector Cardinal Massimo and contained an important collection of antiquities, one of the main reasons why Albani had bought it.52 Many of the antiquities now at Villa Albani were once installed there. Too young to play much of a role in the reign of his uncle, Clement XI Albani—that role fell to Annibale— Alessandro had come to maturity in the barocchetto years of the 1720s, and had a character to match: de Brosses describes him as ‘a man of spirit, galant, and the most Fig. 1.51. Rome, Villa Albani, plan of the piano nobile of the Casino. (David R. Marshall.)

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 79

Fig. 1.50. Anton Raphael Mengs (1728–79), Apollo and the Muses on Mount Parnassus, 1760. Rome, Villa Albani, Gran Salone.

well known in the various societies of the town. He liked gambling, women, theatrical entertainments, literature, and the fine arts, of which he is a great connoisseur’.53 At the same time that Cardinal Patrizi was building the Villa Patrizi, Annibale and Alessandro were remodelling the palazzo at Quattro Fontane, converting Cardinal Massimo’s open loggia into a closed gallery (Fig. 3.42). Fig. 1.52. Giuseppe Mannocchi (c. 1731–82), Vault of the Gran Salone of the Villa Albani, 1774. Grey and black ink and watercolour, 565 x 125 mm. Formerly London, Chaucer Fine Arts. (Chaucer Fine Arts.)

79

18/11/15 17:24

To decorate the vault, Annibale employed Panini, who was then occupied with the Villa Patrizi, as well as the flower-painter Pietro Paolo Cennini. Cardinal Patrizi, in 1720, complained bitterly about Panini being too busy working on Cardinal Albani’s palazzo to finish his work for him, discussed in Chapter 3.9. Although Cardinal Alessandro Albani was fascinated by antiquities and tried to obtain the two antique statues discovered at the Villa Patrizi, his palazzo at Quattro Fontane was decorated in a style that had much in common with that of the Villa Patrizi. The door panels were decorated with full-blown barocchetto ornament and mirrors and the vault gallery was decorated by Panini and Cennini with dense fictive stucco ornament, with severely restricted openings into which were inserted glimpses of putti and other figures (Fig. 3.42). This scheme may have been chosen to coordinate well with Massimo’s antique reliefs installed on the walls. Forty years later, Alessandro Albani’s taste had not changed much. The vault of the Gran Salone of the Villa Albani, recorded in a drawing of 1774 by Giuseppe Mannocchi (Fig. 1.52),54 designed by Carlo Marchionni, shows a similar concern with fictive stuccoes, and there are 80

Libro MARSHALL.indb 80

Fig. 1.55. Paolo Qualeatti (agrimensore), Map of the Vigna Silva, 1751. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B12, fol. 121v. (Archivio Segreto Vaticano.)

illusionistic oculi not different in principle from those by Panini in the earlier ceiling at Palazzo Albani-del Drago. The fact that Anton Raphael Mengs chose the quadro riportato format traditional for long narrow ceilings for the main scene tends to obscure the continuities between the ceiling as a whole and Albani’s earlier commission.55 The Casino as a whole was not so different from the Villa Patrizi as one might think.56 In the plan of the Casino (Fig. 1.51) there is a not dissimilar arrangement to the Villa Patrizi, except that there are fewer bedrooms; the necessity to accommodate an extended family was less important for Cardinal Albani whose family was not Roman and who had an ample and spacious palazzo at Quattro Fontane. There are more reception rooms, a row of small ones at the back (at the top of the plan) and larger ones at the front. Communication between the two enfilades takes place either at the ends or at the middle, where the Gran Salone runs lengthways, not crossways like the Villa

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Patrizi Gallery (PN04). In part this reflects the fact that the Villa Albani was orientated in one direction only, towards the garden, and not two ways, as in the Villa Patrizi. Some of these rooms are as exotically decorated as those of the Villa Patrizi. At the left end of the file of small rooms is a Chinoiserie room, with panels of painted leather, complete with brackets for porcelain. At the other is a gabinetto decorated with numerous brackets, in this case for statuettes. These two rooms corresponded in function, if not position, to the Stanza alla Cinese (PN05) and Stanza delli Cristalli (PN06) at the Villa Patrizi. While Albani’s most famous antiquities, such as the Antinöus and Orpheus and Eurydice reliefs, decorate the two fireplaces on the main enfilade of rooms, these rooms are frescoed with illusionistic landscapes and architecture not so different from those that were on the Ground Floor of the Villa Patrizi. To be sure, the Chinoiserie panels are rectilinear in the emerging Neoclassical style, not curvilinear, and mirrors play a lesser role than they did at the Villa Patrizi; nevertheless the Villa Albani is closer to the barocchetto than to the Empire style. Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 81

Fig. 1.54. Giovanni Battista Nolli, Map of Rome, 1748. Engraving. Detail with the Vigna Silva outlined. (David R. Marshall.)

Similarly, if we consider the life that was led in the Villa Albani, the famous fresco of Apollo and the Muses on Mount Parnassus in the Gran Salone by Anton Raphael Mengs (1728–79) (Fig. 1.50)57 takes on a more barocchetto aspect. Traditions going back to the eighteenth century identify several of the muses in the Parnassus as portraits, including Mengs’ wife Margarita Guazzi Mengs, Albani’s mother and his sister Maddalena. Others are said to be portraits of other women in Albani’s life—the beauties of the Villa Albani set—including Vittoria CheruffiniLepri, the daughter of Albani’s lifelong friend, Francesca Gherardi Cheruffini; the Contessa Bolognetti (whose husband owned the villa next door to the Villa Patrizi); and Marchesa Grimaldi. Included in the list is Marchesa Patrizi; that is, Maria Virginia.58 That a woman so derided in her youth for her ugliness should feature in this most dogmatic statement of the values of ideal beauty is one of the ironies of eigh81

18/11/15 17:24

teenth-century art. But which muse is she? Mengs’ muses are so idealised that making identifications is difficult. Mengs’ wife is now confidently identified with the muse Calliope resting on the column on Apollo’s left, on the basis of her portrait by Mengs.59 The muse on Apollo’s right has been identified with Vittoria Cheruffini-Lepri. Which then might be Maria Virginia? It is difficult to identify her upturned nose, slightly heavy jaw, and lively eyes, in any of these beauties, with their Grecian profiles, oval faces, and vacuous expressions. The best fit to the marriage portrait is the muse (Urania, or Astronomy) in the right foreground inscribing the globe (which is a startling ultramarine blue). It has the air of a portrait and the head is set at an angle perhaps designed to disguise the fact that her profile was not Grecian. In a preparatory study a more Grecian profile is shown, suggesting that the element of portraiture, if this is what it is, was inserted at a later date. 60

Vigna Silva The most important change to the villa during these years was the acquisition of the Vigna Silva in 1751, as well as a smaller canebrake (cannetto) nearby. The sale was arranged by Monsignor Francesco Pacca, Uditore della Camera Apostolica, and guardian of Count Francesco Silva, who was a minor, aged about fifteen, and his sisters.61 The property, however, formed part of a fedecommesso of their late mother, Contessa Giovanna Silva, and required papal approval to go ahead. One of the arguments put forward in support of breaking the fedecommesso, apart from the generous price of 2700 scudi that Giovanni Patrizi was offering, was that the properties were in poor condition and costs exceeded returns. Moreover, the vigna had been damaged by the whirlwind (turbine) of 1749, and expensive repairs were required.62 This whirlwind swept through Rome on the night of 11–12 June 1749, coming from the direction of Ostia and passing across the corner of the Castro Pretorio to the Vigna Silva. What struck one commentator, Padre Boscovich, was the way reports of damage (it took place at night) seemed to lie in a straight line.63 He took out his new copy of Nolli’s map, published in 1748, and plotted the reports on the map. This both confirmed the fact that the tornado travelled in a straight line and, with slightly circular reasoning, that the Nolli map was accurate. As was customary, the acquisition of Vigna Silva brought with it obligations to pay rental to various religious houses, in this case those of S. Susanna, SS. Vincenzo 82

Libro MARSHALL.indb 82

ed Anastasio, and S. Prassede.64 Subsequently, in 1758–59, the purchase was brought under the terms of the Patrizi fedecommesso in exchange for vacabili.65 The vigna and the canebrake are drawn in a plan made by the agrimensore Paolo Qualeatti for Giovanni later in the year (Fig. 1.53).66 This plan corresponds exactly with the Nolli map, published three years earlier (Fig. 1.52). The canebrake was a certain distance away, between the Vigna Florelli and a road leading to S. Agnese called Via Cupa.67 The Via Cupa was the extension of the road running from the corner of the Castro Pretorio past the Vigna Silva that curved around to meet the Strada di S. Agnese shortly before S. Agnese (Fig. 1.54).68 Part of the canebrake (C) is identified as being hard (sodivo) and scrubby (sterposa) ground. The Vigna Silva had a small Casino and a tinello, both marked on Qualeatti’s plan and described in the 1772 inventory.69 There were four main rooms in the Casino decorated in a noble, but not lavish, style and hung with printed German fabrics. In one of the two sitting rooms were hung 33 ‘carte cinesi’. Other minor works in these years included opening up a gateway between the Villa Patrizi and Villa Bolognetti in 1769. Assuming the reference to Villa Patrizi excludes the Vigna Silva, this opening must have been in straight section of wall marked by five prospettive, discussed in Chapter 4.5. One of the prospettive was gone by 1815— no. 4—and since this was near the point where the most important avenues from the main buildings of both villas meet this may have been where the gateway was located.70

Pope Clement XIV and the Stanza del Trucco We hear little more of Maria Virginia and the Villa Patrizi. Clement XIV Ganganelli (pope 1769–74) appointed Giovanni foriere maggiore, one of the ceremonial positions in the papal household concerned with forward planning and logistics. This appointment was perhaps a sign that the already strong links of the Patrizi with the papacy were strengthening.71 Moroni records that Pope Clement XIV spent several hours at the villa every day playing trucco in the Stanza del Trucco. The two adjacent rooms were evidently fitted out for his personal use, as one of them is identified in the 1772 inventory as the ‘stanza .. dove si muta Sua Santità’ (the pope’s changing room).72 This is discussed more fully in Chapter 4.2.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.55. Giuseppe Antonio Olivieri (?), Porzia Patrizi, 1765 (?). Oil on canvas, 74.5 x 58 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Fig. 1.56. Gian Domenico Porta (1722–80), Portrait of Porzia Patrizi as Diana the Huntress. Oil on canvas, 98 x 72.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Porzia Patrizi (1752–1835) and Francesco Naro (1743–1813)

Standard Bearer of the Holy Roman Church) which had been awarded to the Naro by Innocent XI, a post held ever since by the head of the Patrizi Montoro family. Francesco also held a civic post at the Campidoglio, scudiere d’onore e cancelliere del popolo romano (Honorary Shield-bearer and Chancellor of the Roman People). He was a man of some culture, and a member of the Arcadian Academy. According to Maddalena Gondi Patrizi, Francesco’s ‘tastes and aspirations were literary and artistic, and he gladly left the management of his many affairs to his wife Porzia, and his eldest son’.76 He succeeded on the death of his father in 1772, two years after the marriage, when a full death inventory was undertaken, drawn upon below. Porzia redecorated the Mezzanine of the villa, discussed below (Chapter 3.7), and inventories in 1788 describe the possessions that she owned in her own right.77 One of her portraits shows her as Diana in a garden (Fig. 1.54), and although the garden is not a portrait of the Villa Patrizi, it undoubtedly refers to it.78 She lived until 1835. She and Francesco accomplished what two generations had failed to do; they produced a male heir, another Giovanni (1775–1817), their second child.79 In 1797, at the age of

Maria Virginia and Giovanni had only one child who survived into adulthood, a daughter, Porzia, born in 1752 when Maria Virginia was 35 (Figs 1.55–1.57).73 As with the previous generation, there was no male line through which the succession could pass, so Porzia was married at the age of 18 in 1770 to Francesco Naro, Marchese di Mompeo (1743–1813), who took the Patrizi name by the same process of arrogation as had Giovanni (Figs 1.58, 1.60).74 A poem by Gioacchino Pizzi dedicated to them at their marriage identifies them as ‘Francesco Naro Patrizi’ and ‘Porzia Patrizi’, the Montoro name being of no interest at this point, although today it is the Naro name that has dropped out of use by the family.75 Porzia’s dowry was 20,000 scudi, in addition to the 22,000 scudi of Maria Virginia’s dowry: the process of arrogation and marriage had the particular advantage that the dowry, because it originated in the Patrizi family, remained there. Francesco brought to the family the feudal papal office of vessilifero ereditario della Santa Romana Chiesa (Hereditary Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 83

83

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.57. Anonymous, Seated Portrait of Porzia Patrizi Holding a Flower. (Francesca Patrizi.)

Fig. 1.58. Gian Domenico Porta (1722–80), Portrait of Francesco Patrizi Dressed as Cassandrino. Oil on canvas, 154.5 x 97.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

22, Giovanni married Cunegonda of Saxony, daughter of Prince Franz Xavier of Saxony (1730–1806), the uncle of Elector Frederic Augustus III, King of Saxony, for whom he acted as Prince Regent from 1763–68. Franz Xavier had married morganatically in 1765 Contessa Chiara Spinucci of Fermo, a marriage that was later legitimised, and settled in France. They had numerous children, and at the beginning of the French revolution four of them accompanied their eldest sister, who was married to the Duc d’Esclignac, to Rome, where they were entrusted to a Barberini princess and educated at the convent of Tor de’ Specchi. All four married members of the Roman nobility: one an Altieri, one a Riario, and one a Massimo.80 By marrying royalty the Patrizi moved out of the narrow circle of the Roman nobility into the wider network of European royalty. However, when Napoleonic troops occupied Rome in January 1809 their life was disrupted. The ‘black’ (pro-papal) nobility of Rome resisted the deportation of Pius VII, and Giovanni, together with

the princes Massimo, Altieri and Barberini were arrested and were deported to France. Francesco returned in April 1810, but in 1811, when Napoleon was requiring chosen children of the Roman nobility to be taken to France to be educated there in order to create a docile ruling class imbued with Napoleonic values, Francesco refused, and was arrested on 25 November 1811. His children were sent to the Military School of Prytanée de la Flèche, in the Loire Valley, accompanied by their mother Cunegonda. Giovanni was imprisoned, first at Civitavecchia, then at Fenestrelle, and finally at the Château d’If, the prison island off Marseille later made famous by Alexander Dumas’ novel The Count of Monte Cristo. The full story of their experiences was assembled from primary sources by Maddalena Gondi Patrizi (1866–1945) in a book published privately in 1911 and in English in 1915.81 Francesco died in 1813, and on Giovanni’s return to Rome in 1814 he arranged for an inventory to be taken of the family possessions, drawn on extensively here. A

84

Libro MARSHALL.indb 84

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 1.59. Unidentified Roman painter, Portrait of Francesco Patrizi Naro. (Miniature). Whereabouts unknown. (Francesca Patrizi.)

Fig. 1.60. Unidentified Roman painter, Portrait of Giovanni Patrizi Naro. Oil on canvas, 136 x 98 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

comparison of this inventory with that of 1772 reveals that, not surprisingly, the villa had suffered in the intervening years. There were few substantive changes, but many of the furnishings are described as having suffered considerable wear and tear. Giovanni was created Senator of Rome in 1815 by Pius VII, and devoted the remaining two years of his life to public service. One of his portraits (Fig. 1.58), shows him wearing a chain with a bell, and a star.82 He is seated in front of the villa, indicating that this was important to him, and his right arm rests on the plan of the villa, identical with the Cipriani plan discussed below. There is no surviving inventory made at his death at the young age of 42 in 1817, the one made in 1814 having presumably sufficed. 83 At this date his children were aged only 20, 19 and 14, and their grandmother, Porzia, matrona di ferro, was effectively head of the family. The eldest son, Saverio (1797–1881) became a Jesuit monk while the second, Costantino (1798–1876) went into the

Church where he had an illustrious career, being created cardinal in 1834. He was close to Pius IX and involved in the events of 1870, when he was Secretary of the Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition in 1860. He also served as Archpriest of the Patriarchal Lateran Basilica (from 1867) and as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals (from 1870) until his death in 1876. Napoleon had banned primogeniture, so Porzia prevailed upon Saverio and Costantino to renounce their claim on their inheritances (they might otherwise have named as their heirs the Jesuit order or the Church) in favour of the youngest son, Filippo (1801–58), who succeeded at the young age of 16. Filippo and his sons would rebuild the villa after it was destroyed in the unrest of 1848–49, discussed in Chapter 5.1.

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 85

85

18/11/15 17:24

Notes 1. Roman painter, Portrait of Angela Carpegna Patrizi (?). Oil on canvas, 73 x 60 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 213 p. 372.) On physiognomic grounds a painting published by Pedrocchi (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 215, p. 374, oil on canvas, 74 x 40 cm) is likely to be the same sitter. Maria Angela Carpegna (1684–1718) married Patrizio Patrizi on 12 January 1715 at the altar of S. Filippo Neri in the Chiesa Nuova (S. Maria in Vallicella). Their daughter Maria Virginia was baptised on 19 December 1717, and Angela died, presumably from complications resulting from childbirth, on 3 January 1718. A family tree drawn up by Paolo Patrizi refers to other children born dead, which I have not been able to confirm: Costanino (b. 1716), and Lorenzo. The dates permit the birth of two stillborn children, one in late 1715 and one in late 1716. (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B430, no. 31, fol. 17v.) 2. Letter, 18 May 1720 [4]; Letter, 16 May 1722 [5]; Letter, 26 August 1726 [3]; Letter, 22 February 1727 [5]. 3. See Bolli, 2004, pp. 24–25 in the context of Porzia and Francesco. Also Lloyd, 2010, pp. 15–49. 4. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B5 (Doc. 5.8). These marriage arrangements were approved by relatives on both sides of the family, including Costanzo and Mariano (the other brothers of the cardinal’s generation were dead by then), and Patrizio, as well as Giovanni’s father (another Giovanni), his mother, Maria Drusilla Santacroce, and his siblings Giovanni Bernardino, Abbate Alessandro, Federico Chigi, Francesco Costantino, and Lorenzo. 5. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B16. (Doc. 3.8.) 6. Jonard, 1981, pp. 49–50, citing Y. Bézard, ‘Comment le Président de Brosses a écrit ses Lettres d’Italie, Revue des Études Italiennes, April–June, 1922, pp. 81–96. 7. De Brosses, 1928, letter XLIV to Madame Cortois de Quincey, p.159: ‘les galants sont-ils si assidus, qu’ils deviennent des argus plus incommodes cent fois que les maris; on les trouve toujours là plantés le jour et la nuit, à ce que je cois, à contrecarrer un pauvre tiers, qui voudrait fair fortune: cette odieuse race de Sigisbés épouse les femmes dix fois plus que les époux.’ 8. De Brosses, 1928, letter XLIV to Madame Cortois de Quincey, p.159: ‘je me porte pour amoureux d’une petite madame Ricci, jolie et mignonne au possible; n’a-t-elle pas éternellement un certain don Paul Borghese, qui la serre de si près, qu’on ne passerait pas un fil entre eux. Je vous disais tantôt que ce don Paul est d’une très jolie figure; je me rétracte; je le trouve fort laid.’ 9. Legouz, like de Brosses, was from Dijon, where he was a noble member of the États de Bourgogne and a patron of the arts who founded the Musée de Dijon. Harder, 1981, p. 263. 10. De Brosses, 1928, letter XLIV to Madame Cortois de Quincey, p.159: ‘Legouz a été plus rusé; il s’est adressé à la Vergine Patrizzi, nouvellement mariée au comte Montolio, et forte laide, au moyen de quoi elle n’a point de garant.’

14. Waddy, in Tessin, 2002a, defines ‘ruelles’ as ‘places where ladies receive guests elegantly’, and cites the definition in the dictionary by Antoine Furetière, Dictionnaire universel, The Hague and Rotterdam, 1690: ‘Se dit aussi de l’espace qu’on laisse entre un lit et la muraille … Se dit aussi des alcoves, et des lieux parez où les Dames reçoivent leurs visites, soit dans le lit, soit sur des sieges. Les galans, se piquent d’estre gens de ruelles, d’aller faire de belles visites. Le Poëtes vont lire leurs ouvrages dans les ruelles pour briguer l’approbation des Dames.’ 15. De Brosses, 1928, letter XLIV to Madame Cortois de Quincey, p.161: ‘“Que voulez-vous, monsieur, je n’y ai point été trompé, Dieu l’a faite laide, laide je l’ai prise, laide je la garde; je n’imaginais, guère, qu’on en dût devenir amoureux, et je suis fort content qu’un homme d’esprit et de bon goût, soit venu de si loin, pour la trouver à son gré et la préférer à de plus belles. Pour vous faire voir que nous ne sommes pas si fâcheux qu’on le croit, ni si difficiles à faire connaissance, faites-moi l’honneur de venir demain dîner chez moi.”’ 16. De Brosses, 1928, letter XLIV to Madame Cortois de Quincey, p.161: ‘vous sentez assez que toutes nos galanteries ne passent pas l’épiderme. Madame Montorio, quoique peu jolie, est réellement fort gentille, et paraît attachée à son mari.’ 17. It was given to Sebastiano Ceccarini by Pedrocchi (2000, cat. 27, p. 120, Portrait of Marchesa Maria Virginia Patrizi. Pastel on paper, 61x 45cm) but has since been published by Bernardina Sani (Sani, 2009, pp. 106–7 and fig. 6) as an early work by Liotard. Sani suggests that her age is about 20 and that it was painted on the occasion of her marriage, that is, c. 1736. Liotard was in Rome in that year. The pendant (60 x 45 cm) was published by Pedrocchi (2000, no. 218a) as an anonymous portrait of Francesco Naro, and by Sani (2009, p. 109) as by Liotard, identification uncertain, but logically it represents Giovanni Patrizi Chigi Montoro. See also Röthlisberger, 2014, p. 187 and Jeffares (http://www. pastellists. com/Articles/Liotard3.pdf, accessed 15 November 2015). 18. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 28, p. 121, Sebastiano Ceccarini, Portrait of Marchesa Maria Virginia Patrizi. Oil on canvas, 89 x 71 cm. There is also a reduced copy by Gian Domenico Porta (1722–80). Oil on canvas, 70 x 60, documented in a payment of 1765. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 134, p. 264. This was one of three copies made at this time, the others being of Signora Luisa Verospi and Costanzo Patrizi, apparently for Porzia Patrizi, Maria Virginia’s daughter. In an inventory of paintings that had belonged to Giovanni that were not subject to the primogeniture made in 1776 appear the following: a portrait of Ottavia, and two other portraits, one of Porzia and one of Marchesa Verospi in the ‘stanza Turchina di cantone della villa’ (ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B16, fols 315–18, N.o XIV). There is also a small and rather crude portrait said to be of Maria Virginia recorded in a photograph (courtesy of Francesca Patrizi) (Fig. 1.43). 19. Walpole-Mann, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 23–25, see p. 23. 20. Gray (Toynbee), 1935, vol. 1 (1734–55), letter 85, pp. 152–55, on p. 154. Also Walpole (Toynbee), 1903, vol. 1, letter 30, pp. 64–68, on pp. 66–67 (in this edition it is ‘assemblée’ in French and Walpole-Mann, 1954, vol. 13, pp. 217–18. 21. Gray was in Italy from November 1739 to mid-1741.

11. The Signora Borghese in question was probably Agnese Colonna (1702–80) who married Principe Cardinal Camillo Antonio Borghese (1693–1763) on 4 October 1723. The child in question may have been one of her last children, Giacomo or Giovanni Battista, both of whom died in infancy. Her children were Eleonora (1727–79), Maria Vittoria (1729–1800), Principe Marcantonio IV (1730–1800), Livia (1731–1802), Paolo Aldobrandini (1733–92), Cardinal Scipione (1734–82), Ippolito (b. 1735, died in infancy), Orazio (1736–1801); Giacomo (birthdate uncertain, died in infancy); Giovanni Battista (birthdate uncertain, died in infancy).

22. Gray (Toynbee), 1935, letter 86, Gray to West, Tivoli, May 20, 1740, pp. 155–58.

12. De Brosses, 1928, letter XLIV to Madame Cortois de Quincey, p.161: ‘“Pour moi, je suis pour la Vergine Patrizzi, elle n’est pas jolie; elle est très brune, maigre, marquée de petite vérole; malgré cela, elle me plaît plus que pas une autre. Elle est jeune, gaie, d’une humeur douce et spirituelle; elle a une taille dégagée, de petits yeux noirs et perçants qui me vont au coeur.”’

26. Acton, 1980, p. 307.

13. De Brosses, 1928, letter XLIV to Madame Cortois de Quincey, p.161: ‘“C’est ma maîtresse; je ne connais pas le seigneur Montorio son époux, mais je veux le voir souvent chez lui, et je lui ferai tant de courbettes, qu’il faudra qu’il soit bien fâcheux s’il ne me donne à dîner deux fois la semaine.”’

86

Libro MARSHALL.indb 86

23. Mason’s edition of Gray’s letters gave the date as 16 July but Toynbee corrected this on internal evidence to 10 July. 24. Gray (Toynbee), 1935, vol. 1 (1734–55). See also The Thomas Gray Archive (http://www.thomasgray.org/). 25. Walpole-Mann, 1954, p. 25, note 10.

27. Walpole-Mann, 1954, vol. 1, Saturday 23 April 1740, pp. 6–12, on p. 9. 28. Walpole-Mann, 1954, p. 9, note 28, citing Stosch dispatches. 29. Gray’s letter was written from Florence, two days after his return there from a trip to Naples followed by Rome, and he added that he was in Naples for Corpus Christi, which in 1740 fell on June 16, the day after the Patrizi ball. This is based on a passage in Chracas, no. 3569, dated [Saturday] 18 June 1740 that referred to the feast of Corpus Domini being held on Rome on Thursday

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

[16 June]. It was not the usual procession because of the sede vacante. 30. Contesssa Faustina Bolognetti (c. 1702–76), the daughter of Ottavio Acciaiuoli, Marchese di Novi Conte del Cassaro (1664–1735) and Maria Anna Torriglioni, was married to Conte Giacomo Bolognetti, the owner of the villa adjacent to the Villa Patrizi. She was the dedicatee of the opera scenica Madama Ciana, a prose comedy by Francesco Borliassi, secretary of Cardinal Corsini (d. 6 February 1731), staged by the impresario Santi Ramelli from 30 December 1730 at Teatro della Pace, Rome. Her portrait was painted by Rosalba Carriera (her Diary in Sani, 1985: 26 May 1727 and 4 August 1727) and Giovanni Fratellini (1666–1731) (dated 1720, pastel on paper laid on wood 63 x 50 cm, sale Galerie Stuker, Bern, 9 May 2012, lot 1147). (Litta, 1819–83, s.v. ‘Acciaiuoli’; Franchi, 1997, p. 271; Franchi and Sartori, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 107–8.) 31. Walpole-Mann, 1954, p. 10, 23 April 1740. In the end the Stuart princes did not go until about 25 May. Walpole-Mann, 1954, p. 10, note 36. 32. Valesio, VI, 1737–42, p.340–43, Sunday 15 May 1740: ‘Il marchese Patrizi diede quest sera una conversazione con ballo, gioco e rinfresco alla Foscarini con invito di dame e cavalieri nella sua villa fuori di porta Pia e, per torre ogni disordine, erano di guardia al portone dodice soldati del Popolo Romano.’ 33. Gray, 1935, vol. 1, letter 81, Gray to Mrs Gray, Florence 19 March 1740, pp. 143–44, on p. 44. 34. Andrieux, 1968, pp.152–54. Andrieux noted that there were two types, the conversazioni di prima sera, which began when the Ave Maria sounded at dusk, and grander conversazioni di seconda sera that began two hours later and continued into the night. The Patrizi conversazione was evidently of the latter kind. 35. Between 1747 and 1777 Potenza participated in at least 57 opera productions across Europe. He visited England between 1758 and 1759 and was known to Pier Leone Ghezzi who described him as ‘assai noto’ in an undated caricature. 36. Grove Music Online, s.v. ‘Carestini, Giovanni [Cusanino]’; Francesco Degrada, s.v. ‘Carestini, Giovanni, detto il Cusanino’ in DBI, vol. 20, 1977. 37. Giovanni Battista Costanzi, known as ‘Giovannino del Violoncello’ or ‘Giovannino da Roma’ (1704–78), was reputedly the teacher of Boccherini. (Grove Music Online, s.v. ‘Costanzi, Giovanni Battista’.) See also Cametti, 1924, pp. 3–6, 39–43. 38. Gray learnt of it in Florence on 19 August, and regretted missing the event, but felt that the danger from heat and malaria at that time of year ruled out a journey to Rome. He told the story of Lamberti’s speech in the conclave: ‘Most eminent Lords, here are three Bolognese of different characters, but all equally proper for the Popedom. If it be your pleasures to pitch upon a Saint, there is Cardinal Gotti; if upon a Politician, there is Aldrovrandi; if upon a Booby, here am I.’ Gray (Toynbee), 1935, vol. 2, pp. 93–94, letter XXXVIII To Mrs Dorothy Gray, Florence, 21 August, NS, 1740. Gray gives the Italian version as he knew it: ‘Eminentissimi Signori. Ci siamo tré, diversi sì, mà tutti idonei al Papato. Si vi piace un Santo, c’ è l’Gotti; se volete una testa scaltra, e Politica, c’ è l’Aldrovandé; se un Coglione, ecco mi!’.

by the Duc de Nivernais to Mark the Birth of the Dauphin, 1751. 115.0 x 119.3 cm. Waddesdon Manor, the National Trust, 80.2007.1. 45. The morti and battesimi volumes for S. Luigi dei Francesi record the births and many of the deaths of her seven children. They were: (1) Maria Porzia, born 3 November 1737, died aged 11 on 21 March 1748 and buried in the family chapel in S. Maria Maggiore; (2) Maria Angela, born 9 June 1739, date of death unknown; (3) Prospero Costanzo Matteo Aloysius Francesco Maria Balthasar, born 25 September 1740, died 3 October 1742, buried in S. Maria Maggiore; (4) Costanzo born 28 November 1743, not in the morti but aged 6 in the stati d’anime for 1750 but not mentioned thereafter; (5) an unnamed son born 10 February 1748 and who died four days later on 14 February 1748, buried in S. Maria Maggiore; (6) Francesco, born 3 June 1749 and died aged two on 25 June 1751, buried in S. Maria Maggiore; (7) Porzia, born 28 September 1752 (ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, Battesimi, 1701–60 and ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, Morti, VI, 1722–59). A sample of the stati d’anime is ASVR, S. Luigi dei Francesi, Stati d’anime, 1750, unnumbered pages: ‘Isola Patrizi / Palazzo Patritij / Ill Sig.r Marchese Gioanné Montorio Patritij 50 / Signora Virginia Patritij 32 / Costan 6 / Francesco 1.’ Prospero, who is recorded as deceased on a family tree of 1747 (ASV Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31: ‘Dimostrazione dell’Albero della Nobilissima ed Antichissima Prosapia Patrizj Ritrovatosi in Siena per quanto s’è potuto e tutto siprova dagli Onori la medesima compartiti alla Citta’ di Siena la quale con gran ragione si gloria esser sua Originaria … Gio: Battisa Fabbri Pubblico Agrimensore … A.D. MDCCXLVII’). 46. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fols 507r–v: ‘Relatione di quello che ha si rinverme nel piciolo cadavere dell’Illustrissimo Signor Prospero Patritis, che volò al Cielo in età di anni due, e giorni tredici all’otto hore della notte delli 4 Octobre 1742 / Aperto, et imbalsimato dal Signor Adicola Polidori publico Professore di Chierurgo, e Anatomia in Roma Chierurgo dell’Illustrissima Casa con l’intervento dell’Eccelentissima Signor Dottor D. Andrea Baiola Medico parimente dell’ Illustrissima Casa …’. 47. Giovanni Reffini, Descrizione della Festa, Rome: Tipografia Generosi Salomoni, 1751, cited in Clementi, 1938, Part 2, pp. 90–98. 48. Reffini, in Clementi, 1938, Part 2, p. 95: ‘E la signora duchessa sposa Salviati sopraggiunse vibrante, in ricco abito da Ussera, con sottana di broccato a fondo damascato, color porpureo e con vari rami d’oro, d’argento e fiori naturali; il corpetto operato di color celestino era sostenuto dal solo braccio dritto: il berettone infine ottimamente proporzionato, era guarnito du rare pelle di Moscovia. La duchessa recava inoltre uno sciabolino di guardia d’oro e al busto la bottoniera di diamanti, oltre due gruppi di grosse perle al collo ed al fianco del berettone, compiendo un così ricco abito la spiritosa affabilità dell’E.S. La Sig.ra Marchesa Virginia Patrizi poi distinguevasi in abito alla Dragona, in raso color giunchiglia, tutto adornato di festoni di merletti d’argento, con una tracolla tempestata di gioe, che sosteneva una vaga Padrona ed una aggiustatura di testa a somiglianza di berrettone con numerose gioie di adornamento.’

39. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 35, pp. 101–9.

49. Reffini, in Clementi, 1938, part 2, p. 96. Costanzo Patrizi had married Porzia Gabrielli, and the cardinal’s niece Maria Maddalena (1682-?) had married Marchese Ottavio del Bufalo in November 1708.

40. Pastor, 1938–67, vol. 34, pp. 101–9. For an extended account of the event at the Caffeaus, see Johns, 2015.

50. For times in eighteenth-century Rome, see Andrieux, 1968, pp. 81–82. The hours were counted from sunset, which in mid-November in Rome is about 5 pm.

41. See Marshall, 2007c.

51. Ruffini, in Clementi, 1938, Part 2, p. 97.

42. Minozzi, 2000, p. 38. In 1760 Giovanni was appointed as Custode e Presidente Antiquario in the Campidoglio (Minozzi, 2000, p. 38, note 100. Archivio-Patrizi Montoro, B41, no. 324). Like the cardinal he was a member of the Arcadian Academy.

52. Beaven, 2010c, pp. 237–322.

43. Montaiglon and Guiffrey, 1912, vol.10, pp. 338–42; Arisi, 1986, p. 213; Boiteux, 1981, pp. 634–36. Fagiolo (1997, p. 150) publishes a description of Panini’s ‘teatro’ in the Sala, apparently from Chracas, Diario Ordinario, 1751, no. 5361. 44. Giovanni Paolo Panini, A Ball Given by the Duc de Nivernais to Mark the Birth of the Dauphin, 1751. Oil on canvas, 115.0 x 119.3 cm. Waddesdon Manor, the National Trust, 80.2007.2. Giovanni Paolo Panini, A Concert Given

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 87

53. De Brosses, 1928, vol. 2, p. 294, where he gives summary biographies of the cardinals at the time of the 1740 conclave: ‘celui-ci est chef des Piémontais, homme d’esprit, galant et la plus répandu de tous dans les sociétés de la ville. Il aime le jeu, les femmes, les spectacles, la littérature et les beaux-arts, dans lequel uil est grand connaisseur.’ 54. Giuseppe Mannocchi (c. 1731–82), Vault of the Salone of the Villa Albani, 1774. London, formerly Chaucer Fine Arts. Röttgen, 1993, cat. 45; Röttgen, 1999, cat. WK1, p. 403. 55. Paul, 2008, p. 32–34.

87

18/11/15 17:24

56. On the views of the Villa Albani, see Bayat, 2002. 57. Anton Raphael Mengs, Apollo and the Muses on Mount Parnassus, 1760. Rome, Villa Albani, Galleria. 58. See Röttgen, 1977, pp.107–8. That the main figures in the Parnassus are portraits first appears in the new edition of Richard, Description historique d’Italie, usually cited as 1770, vol. 6, p. 217. It is not in the first, 1760 edition. I have consulted the 1769 edition: Richard, 1769, vol. 6, p. 217: ‘Le salon d’en haut qui est la pièce principale de la maison, a un plafond pat Meinss [sic], peintre Saxon. Il a pour sujet Apollon sur le parnasse au milieu des Muses, ce grand morceau, pour le dessein, la sagesse de la composition & la beautee du coloris, seroit honneur aux meillieurs éleves de Raphaël. Plus on l’examine, plus on reconnoît combien Meinss a étudié avec profit, l’antique & les ouvrages de Raphaël qui subsistentà Rome; ce tableau est à présent d’autant plus agréable que toutes les figures principales sont des portraits connus.’ In 1787, Niccola d’Azara, in a list of works by Mengs, wrote ‘la volta della galleria della villa Albani fuori di porta Salaria, rappresentante il Parnaso con Apollo, e le Muse, una delle quali è il ritratto della marchesa Vittoria Lepri nata contessa Cherufini, e l’altra dietro col braccio alzato è il ritratto del moglie dell’autore.’ (‘Memorie concernenti la vita di Antonio Raffaello Mengs scritte dal cavaliere D. Niccola D’Azara’, in Fea, 1787, pp. xiii ff., see p. xlv.) Justi, 1923, vol. 2, p. 394 (first edition Justi, 1872), in describing afternoons at the Villa Albani and at Anzio, writes: ‘Die elegantesten Damen des römischen Adels waren ihm zu Ehren erschienen: die Gräfin Bolognetti, di Marchese Patrizi und Crescenzi’; discussing the Parnassus: ‘Die Familie war bei der Arbeit keineswegs überflüssig. Wie billig kan die schöne, gute Margarita mit under die Musen; sie war ihrem Gatten Inspiration wie Modell. Deshalb hält sie den Zettel mit dessen Namen, als wolle er ihr seinen Namen verdanken. Es ist eine majestätische, reiche Römerin, die die Grenzlinien des Schönheitsalters noch nicht uuberschriften hat. Auch noch anderen reizended Gästen des Kardinals ward es vergönnt, unter die Gestirne hieses Himmels versetzt zu werden. Die anmutig zierliche Gestalt auf dem Throne zur anderen Seite Apolls, die andeuten will, daß sie Mnemosyne ist, indem sie als Zeichen der Erinnerung das Ohr berührt, is die gefeierte Vittoriuccia, die Tochter der Gräfin Cheroffini. Noch andere Schönheiten der römischen Gesellschaft, die vor so gewiegter Kenner Augen Gnade gefunden, mögen hie als musikalische oder astronomische Dilettantinnen verborgen sein.’ This seems to be the source for Brigante Colonna, 1932, pp. 283–84, who wrote: ‘Come un cardinale del secolo d’oro, [Albani] si era circondato di artisti e di studiosi, di capolavori greci e romani e di belle donne, quali la contessa Bolognetti, la Marchesa Patrizi e la marchesa Grimaldi …. Si disse allora che Raffaello Mengs aveva effigiato le tre dame fra me Muse che circondano Apollo nella volta d’une delle sale di villa Albani. Certo, vi ritrasse, oltre la propria moglie Margherita Guazzi, ch’era stata modellata di professione, anche Checca, Tolla e Nena Cherufini, esemplari clamorosi e imperanti di così detto “generone” romano del tempo.’ Brigante Colonna also cited ‘Dutens’, but the description of the Villa Albani in his Itinéraire des routes les plus fréquentées (Dutens, 1775, pp. 61–62) (later editions seen to be the same, for example 1793) does not mention the ceiling. For Dutens see ‘Luigi Dutens e le sue Memorie di un Viaggiatore in Riposo’, Fanfulla della Domenica, 26 February 1882, cited in D’Ancona, 1911, pp. 407–31, who wrote, pp. 425–26: ‘[Dutens] frequentava anche i ritrovi serali del cardinale Alessandro Albani e della vecchia amica la contessa Cherofini, dove si giuocava alle minchiate.’ 59. Anton Raphael Mengs (1728–79), Portrait of Margherita Mengs-Guazzi. Madrid, coll. D. Pablo Jorda de Urries y Azara. Röttgen, 1977, p. 108 and fig. 26. 60. Vienna, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Inv. Nr. 14580. Röttgen, 1999, pp. 400–2, cat. 304 VZ 2; Beck and Bol, 1992, fig. 120, pl. 65. 61. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B12, fol. 121r: ‘appartiene alli detti Signori Conti Silva una Vigna ereditaria e fidecommissaria della beata memoria Contessa Giovanna Silva di capacità di pezze undici in circa, con suo Palazino, Tinello, Fenile, Botti, Stigli ed altri annessi, connessi e commodi posta fuori di Porta Pia nella strada dietro le mura di Roma confinando da una parte colla Villa di Illustrissimo Signore Marchese Giovanni Patrizi, e dall’altra colla villa dell’ llustrissimo e Reveredissimo Signore Cardinal Bolognetti, e dall’altro lato colla Vigna del Venerabile Colleggio de Marroniti, e d’avanti la strada pubblica’. (Doc. 6.2.1.) 62. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B12, fols 122r-v: ‘aver esso risoluto vendere detti due stabili, tanto più che doppo fatte diverse diligenze habbia rinvenuto il suddetto Illustrissimo, e Eminentissimo Signore Marchese Giovanni Patrizi confi-

88

Libro MARSHALL.indb 88

nante alla detta Vigna, che per incorporarla alla sua deliziosa Villa abbia offerto la vantaggiosa, ed esuberante somma di scudi due mila settecento moneta qual offerta conoscendo il suddetto Monsignore Pacca tutore suddetto ridondare in notabil evidente vantaggio de suddetti Signori Conte Silva pupilli, abbia perciò supplicato alla Santità di Nostro Signore Papa Benedetto XIV felicemente regnante affinchè per beneficio de sudetti pupilli e per esimerli da un iminente necessaria spesa di circa scudi trecento per rifare un … in essa Vigna rovinato dal noto turbine successo nell’anno 1749 si degnasse derogando alla testamentaria dispositione della detta Contessa Giovanna Silva concedere … di venire alla suddetta vendita, a la Santità Sua considerando la verità dell’esposto, et il vantaggio risultante alli detti pupilli di ritenere li detti stabili si perniciosi con suo special chirografo diretto a Monsignor Uditor Ementissimo segnato il di 19 decembre.’ (Doc. 6.2.1.) 63. Boscovich, 1749. 64. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B12, fol. 121v–122r: ‘… gravata di annuo canone di scudi tre a favore del Venerabile Collegio di SS. Vincenzo, ed Anastasio a Trevi, e di barile otto di mosto da prendersi alla Vasca a favor dell’ Venerabile Monastero di S. Susanna di Roma … ed … un canneto … gravato d’annuo canone di scudi sei, e baiocchi 30 moneta a favore dei Padri Vallombrosiane in S. Prassede …’. (Doc. 6.2.1.) 65. See the summary from Rubricelle 723 and 725 referring to ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B13, p. 132: ‘1758 12 Decembre. Istromento di surrogazione fatta dal Marchese Giovanni Patrizi a favore della Primogenitura de Casa per la rata di scudi 2700 della Vigna con Casino fuori di Porta Pia già da esso comprata dal Conte Silva, in luogo del Vacabile di Cubiculariato Apostolico soggetto ai vincoli della primogenitura’. Also ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B13, p. 135, summary from Rubricella 725: ‘1759 16 Maggio. Istromento di censo in sorte di scudi 2700 imposto dal Marchese Giovanni Patrizi sopra la Vigna fuori di Porta Pia, a favore della Primogenitura di Casa, e fideicommisso della beata memoria della Contessa Giovanna Silva, e del Conte Pietro Paolo Silva’. (Doc. 6.2.) 66. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B21, nos 9–10. Brown ink and green wash. Inscribed: ‘Piante della Vigna, e Canneto fuori di Porta Pia, che prima erano dell’Illustrissimo Signor Conte Silva, e presentamente spettano all’Illustrissimo Signor Marchese Giovanni Patrizij, per averli esso Signor Marchese comprati da detto Sigor Conte quale due Corpi da me Infrascritto Agrimensore misurati per ordine di detto Signor Marchese, l’hò trovat’ascendere … cioè / A. Vigna, secondo i suoi noti Confini decritti d’intorno alla Pianta sono Pezze Dieci, quarte due, et ordini Venticinque P. 10.2.25 / B. Canneto con una Porzione, di una quarta, et ordini sei sodiva, e sterposa, segnato in Pianta Lett: C. sono in tutto Pezze trè, quarta una, et ordini dieci P. 3.1.10 / Sommano assieme detta Vigna e Canneto a P. 13.3.35 / In Fede questo dì 16 decembre 1751 … Paolo Qualeatti Agrimensore’. (Doc. 6.2.2) 67. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B12, fol. 122v: ‘un Canneto di capacità similmente fuori in Porta Pia in luogo denominato Viacupa [sic] consistente da un lato con[blank]’. The summary in Rubricella 725 transcribes this as ‘Via Lupa’. 68. See the Rolla Plan (Plan of Streets and Allotments from Porta Pia to S. Agnese, c. 1890) which labels the road and shows its full route. Fig. 5.53 is a detail of this plan. Nolli does not indicate a Villa Florelli, only a Vigna Florenzi (see Fig. 1.52). 69. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B16, fols 273v–74v (Doc. 3.8). 70. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B13, p. 214, from Rubricella 723 and 725: ‘1769 6 Settembre. Convenzioni stabilite tra il Conte Giacomo Bolognetti e il Marchese Giovanni Patrizi sopra l’aperatura di una porta nel muro divisorio delle loro Ville fuori Porta Pia.’ 71. Technically a foriere (that is, forerunner) was on officer who went ahead of a ruler when he travelled to organise transport and accommodation. The post of foriere maggiore continued until recently as an hereditary post with Marchese Giulio Sacchetti, who retired in 2000, without a successor being appointed. It was one of the Participating Secret Chamberlains of the Cape and Sword (namely the foriere maggiore, the cavallerizzo maggiore, and the sopraintendente generale delle poste). By the papal motu proprio Pontificalis Domus of 28 March 1968, the court was reformed to reflect the changed position of the papacy and the decline in the power of the old nobility that had hitherto dominated it. 72. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B16, fols 274v (Document 3.8).

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

73. See note 45 above. A striking portrait of Porzia attributed to Giuseppe Antonio Olivieri (oil on canvas, 74.5 x 58 cm) (Fig. 1.53) has been identified with a receipt from Olivieri to Maria Virginia dated 1765, which would give the age of the sitter as 13, which would be unusually young for such a portrait. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 87, p. 203. 74. Gian Domenico Porta, Portait of Francesco Patrizi dressed as Cassandrino. Oil on canvas, 154.5 x 97.5 cm. Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 131, p. 261. Other portraits are Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 218, p. 377 (pastel on paper by an unidentified painter, 60 x 45 cm, pair with one of Porzia); Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 220 (unidentified painter, oil on canvas 73.5 x 53 cm). Another portrait said to be of Francesco is recorded in an old photograph (courtesy Francesca Patrizi) (Fig. 1.58). 75. Pizzi, 1770. Bolli, 2004, pp. 25–26. The complicated history of the Montoro succession is told by Bolli, 2004, pp. 26–27. The Montoro estate formed part of a fedecommesso which, because Giovanni did not have a male child, passed to the next male member of the Montoro family, and was claimed by Giovanni’s brother Costantino and by his nephew Antigono Frangipane. Meanwhile Porzia and Francesco had had a son in 1775, Giovanni, and in 1776 a legal agreement was reached that Costantino and Antigono Frangipane would share the income from the estate, and on Costantino’s death the fedecommesso would be split between Antigono and Giovanni. Porzia succeeded in adding a clause to the effect that the Frangipane succession had to continue in the male line or else revert to the Patrizi. The latter came to pass when the young grandson of Antigonio died in 1802. The Montoro heritage thus reverted to the Patrizi, including the palazzo and estates at Montoro, and properties at Narni, Otricoli and Viterbo. 76. Patrizi, 1915, p. 43. 77. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B434, no. 43. (Doc. 3.10.) 78. Gian Domenico Porta, Portrait of Porzia Patrizi as Diana the Huntress. Oil on canvas, 98 x 72.5 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 132, p. 262, who dates it early in the 1770s.) 79. They also had two daughters, the first-born Maria Prudenza and Laura, for whom no dates are discoverable, suggesting they died young. 80. Patrizi, 1915, pp. 48–49; Bolli, 2004, p. 29. Marianna, married in 1793 to Don Paluzzo Altieri; Beatrice married Duke Riario Sforza; Cristina married Marchese Massimo. 81. Patrizi, 1915. On Maddalena Gondi Patrizi, see Liviana Gazzetta, s.v. ‘Patrizi Gondi, Maddalena’, DBI, vol. 81, 2014. 82. Unidentified Roman painter, Portrait of Giovanni Patrizi Naro. Oil on canvas, 136 x 98 cm (paired with a portrait of Cunegonda of Saxony). Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 219, p. 378. Pedrocchi argues that, with its pendant, it was painted on the occasion of his marriage to Cunegonda of Saxony in 1796, since the date ‘1796’ appears on the back of one of the books. 83. Patrizi, 1915, p. 315.

Part 1. The Cardinal and his Family

Libro MARSHALL.indb 89

89

18/11/15 17:24

Part 2

Vigna and Villa Chapter 2.1

Vigna Patrizi 1650–1715

The Site Cardinal Patrizi’s new villa would be built on a vigna just outside the Aurelian walls at Porta Pia, a gateway designed by Michelangelo that would be the main topographical identifier for the villa, usually identified as the ‘villa fuori di Porta Pia’ (villa outside Porta Pia). The area is not well documented visually, as maps and views mostly stop at the walls. What the area inside the Porta Pia was like in the later sixteenth century can be understood from a fresco in the Lateran Palace of about c. 1589 (Fig. 2.1).1 This shows a view from the Piazza di Montecavallo and the Palazzo del Quirinale down the Via Pia (now Via XX Settembre). The Via Pia was a long straight street laid out by Pope Pius IV (1559–65) along the ridge of the Quirinal to S. Agnese fuori le Mura, partly following and old route, the Alta Semita, but departing from it so as to pass through the walls some distance to the north of the ancient Porta Nomentana, which consequently became redundant and was closed off and a new opening with Michelangelo’s gateway created further to the west. In the fresco the termination (mostra) of the Acqua Felice, an aqueduct built by Sixtus V (1585–90) is visible. The route of this aqueduct had little to do with the Via Nomentana or Via Pia; it approached from the right in the view, past the Baths of Diocletian, following the route of the Aqua Marcia, Aqua Tepula, and Aqua Julia to Porta Maggiore, and would play a limited role in supplying water to the Villa Patrizi (see Chapter 4.4).2 Further up the Via Pia a road goes off at an angle to the left, one branch of the Via Salaria (today Via Piave) that passes through the walls at Porta Salaria (closed off in 1561), out of sight to the left in the illustration. In 1561 the properties immediately within the walls, such as the area between the mostra of the Acqua Felice and the city walls (later Villa Costaguti), and the triangular wedge between the Via Salaria, Via Pia, and the walls (later Villa Valenti 90

Libro MARSHALL.indb 90

Fig. 2.1. View of Via Pia with Palazzo del Quirinale, c. 1589. Fresco. Aula Massima (Aula dei Pontefici), Palazzo Lateranense. (Monumenti, Musei, e Gallerie Pontificie, Archivio Fotografico, XXXIII.71.32).

Gonzaga, now Villa Paolina), were simple vigne, with the occasional rustic structure, but no significant buildings. The best indication of the nature of the area outside the walls in the later sixteenth century is provided by the bird’s-eye view of Étienne Dupérac and Antonio Lafréry Fig. 2.2. Étienne Dupérac (c. 1525–1604), Map of Rome, 1577. Engraving. Frutaz, 1962, no. CXXVII. Detail of Vigna Patrizi area.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.3. Leonardo Bufalini (late fifteenth century–1552), Map of Rome, 1551. Woodcut. Frutaz. 1962, no. CIX. Detail showing the Vinea Camilli Sutoris.

(1577) (Fig. 2.2), the area inside the walls being at the top.3 The new road outside the Porta Pia is indicated as the Via Sanctae Agnetis, that is, the road to S. Agnese Fuori le Mura, a name still current in the eighteenth century as Strada di S. Agnese. The ground is shown rising to a slight ridge parallel to one of the roads where the villa would be located. The old road, marked Via Nomentana, runs from the ancient gateway between another slight ridge and various Roman ruins that are also marked on the Bufalini map of 1551, which identifies this area as the Vinea Camilli Sutoris (Fig. 2.3). The old Via Nomentana would have run directly beneath the formal garden of the new villa (Fig. 2.4). From 1556 until shortly after 1575 an earth ravelin, designed to defend the Porta Nomentana, stood in the area and is visible in maps of the period.4 No buildings are shown in the area of the future Villa Patrizi until the Cartaro map of modern Rome of 1576 (Fig. 2.5).5 Cartaro shows, in rudimentary form, a typical rural building with a tower-like second storey on the right (east) of the line of the old Via Nomentana. This appears to be located somewhere near the site of the later Capannone (shed) (see Chapter 4.5), and to have been associated with a more formally laid out area of the vigna in the wedge of land within the bend in the Aurelian Walls at the Porta Posterula (Fig. 2.4). Cartaro also shows a widening of the road along the walls in front of the Porta Pia, formed by a re-entrant wall on the west and a curved one on the east. Cartaro’s map of ancient Rome (Fig. 2.6) shows a row of imaginative tombs lining the Via Nomentana outside the walls. On 14 December 1601 Antonio Bosio, author of Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 91

Fig. 2.4. Rodolfo Lanciani (1845–1929), Forma Urbis Romae, 1893–1901. Detail superimposed on the Nolli map of 1748. (David R. Marshall.)

Roma Sotteranea, visited the area and wrote that after ‘a few steps in a straight line as one leaves the Porta Pia’ he came to a vigna ‘above the gate (porta) of which is written the name Pompilio Desiderij’ where he found a small antique cemetery reached by descending a few steps.6 It is an attracFig. 2.5. Mario Cartaro (active 1560–1620), Map of Rome, 1576. Engraving. Frutaz, 1962, no. CXXVI. Detail of Porta Pia and Vigna Patrizi area.

91

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.6. Mario Cartaro, (active 1560–1620), Map of Ancient Rome (Celeberrimae Urbis Antiquate Fedelissima Topographia), Rome, 1579. Engraving. Frutaz, 1962, no. XXIII. Detail of Via Nomentana area.

tive hypothesis that this entrance to the vigna of Pompilio Desiderij was in the same position as the porticella of the Vigna Patrizi, of which more below (Fig. 2.4). In 1864 the cemetery was rediscovered, and included an apsidal building in the middle of the-then Pineta (conifer plantation) in the area of the former Villa Bolognetti, on the line of the future Via dei Villini, recorded in Lanciani’s Forma Urbis (Fig. 2.7) (see Chapter 5.2).7 Its location relative to the villa is made clear in Fig. 2.8 (also Fig. 5.46), a plan of the villa of 1885 before it was subdivided on which is drawn in red the streets of the 1890s and indications of the excavations derived from the Forma Urbis.8 After the subdivision of 1885 further excavations took place along the line of the antique Via Nomentana, from 1886 on the site where the Villino Ricotti was then underway, and from 1887 and 1889 in the area recently acquired by the Suore Belghe del Adorazione Perpetua. Excavations made during the digging of the foundations of the seat of the Direzione

Fig. 2.7. Rodolfo Lanciani, (1845–1929), Forma Urbis Romae, 1893–1901. Detail showing the antiquities on the Villa Patrizi, including the cemetery noted by Bosio. 1. Bosio’s cemetery. 2. Cemeteries lining Via Nomentana. 3. Mausoleum. 4. Villino Ricotti. 5. Church of the Suore Belghe del Adorazione Perpetua. 6. Pineta. 7. Pratone. 8. Casa Svizzera.

Fig. 2.8. The 1885 Plan (1). Plan of the Villa Patrizi in 1885, version 1, 1885 and later. Inscribed ‘a tutto 1885’. Pen and ink with added red. Detail showing the area corresponding to Fig. 2.7. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.) This is a plan of the Villa Patrizi dated 1885 with added details in red of the post-1890 streets and of archaeological excavations derived from Lanciani’s Forma Urbis. See also Fig. 5.45.

92

Libro MARSHALL.indb 92

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.9. Rodolfo Lanciani (1845–1929), Plan of Ruins Discovered while Excavating the Foundations of the Offices of the Ferrovie dello Stato. (After Lanciani, 1918, pl. XVI.)

Fig. 2.10. Rodolfo Lanciani (1845–1929), Section through the Ground beneath the Villa Patrizi on the Axis of the Large Mausoleum. (After Lanciani, 1918, pl. XVII.)

Generale delle Ferrovie dello Stato in the area between the Casino of the rebuilt Villa Patrizi and the Piazza della Croce Rossa (that is, in the area of the eighteenth-century garden and nineteenth-century Pratone (lawn)) at the beginning of the twentieth century revealed the remains of a Roman mausoleum and some Roman villas on the right side of the antique Via Nomentana (Fig. 2.9).9 On the left side were cemeteries extending to the Villa Borghese.10 Archaeological shafts were dug that revealed sixteenth-century pozzolana quarries, and further down, tufo quarries from the pre-Republican period (before c. 509 BCE), which are recorded in a sectional drawing which shows their relationship to the nineteenth-century Casa Svizzera and Pineta (Fig. 2.10).11 At some point after Bosio the vigna outside the Porta Pia was acquired by the Theodoli family from the Marchese Alfonso Theodoli and Giovanni Grilli.12 In 1650, following the death of Marchese Alfonso Theodoli in 1648, Carlo, Girolamo and Lothario Theodoli sold it to Mariano Patrizi the Elder (1599–1654) for 7000 scudi. There was a dispute two years later about the price; the Theodoli had only paid 6000 scudi for the property, and that included furniture that, Mariano claimed, was later removed by the Theodoli.13 Four years later Mariano died leaving the property to his nephew Patrizio the Elder (1629–1689),14 who continued payments to the Theodoli in 165815 and 1660.16 Patrizio did not ignore the property, spending 5000 scudi on the Casino and hay-sheds (fienili),17 and at the death of his wife, Virginia Corsini Patrizi, on 13 May 1703 the vigna was valued at 12,000 scudi; that is, the purchase price and what Patrizio had spent on it.18 Patrizio had

formed part of the Embassy of Cardinal Flavio Chigi to Louis XIV of France in 1664. There he would have had the opportunity to see French gardens at first hand, including Versailles, and perhaps his French experience had some influence on his work at the vigna.19 In Maggi’s bird’s-eye view of 1625 (Fig. 2.11) the piazza in front of the Porta Pia corresponds to Cartaro with the addition of a portal on the corner of the Vigna Patrizi, in the position corresponding to the Porta Pia gateway of the eighteenth-century villa.20 Maggi shows it as a pedimented structure. In Blaeu (1663)21 it is transposed to the wall closer to the Aurelian walls, evidently an engraver’s error and Falda’s large map (1676) (Fig. 2.12)22 precisely delineates a single arched opening with an attic zone and

Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 93

Fig. 2.11. Giovanni Maggi (1566–1625?) (designer), Paolo Maupin (active 1591–1635) (engraver), Carlo Losi (publisher), Map of Rome, 1625/1774. Woodcut. Frutaz, 1962, no. CXLVII. Detail of Porta Pia area.

93

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.12. Giovanni Battista Falda (1643–78), Large Bird’s-eye Map of Rome, 1676. Engraving. Frutaz, 1962, no. CLVIII. Detail of the Porta Pia area.

Fig. 2.13. Giovanni Battista Falda (1643–78), Small Bird’s-eye Map of Rome, 1676. Engraving. Frutaz, 1962, no. CLVI. Detail of Porta Pia area.

vertical accents on the attic and probably on the ends of the lower zone. The piazza had by now been regularised and is planted with trees. This feature is not shown on later maps, but may have been omitted for clarity since what is possibly one of these trees is visible in the Vasi view of the encampment of the army of Charles III in 1744 (Fig. 1.45). The presence of a portal of some pretension implies a building on the vigna to match, so that we can conclude that there was a Casino here before 1625. Falda’s small map (1667) (Fig. 2.13),23 though less informative about the portal, shows the Casino that Mariano and Patrizio owned. A cruder representation of a building in a similar position is found in the Cingolani map of the Campagna of 1692 (Fig. 2.14).24 Falda shows a two-storey structure, with a pitched roof, two windows on the upper storey and an entrance on the lower storey. Although the representation is rudimentary, in the other buildings that Falda shows in the area outside the walls he was careful to distinguish different types of massing, so that no two buildings are the same, which encourages one to suppose that he was correct in representing the Casino on the Vigna Patrizi as a single block. It is placed close to the Strada di S. Agnese, but separated from it by a wall, lined on the inside with a row of trees, extending from the Casino northwards. There are two other buildings on the block. One is a double structure that probably corresponds to the House of the Vignarolo and the Granaro visible in the Nolli map (see Chapter 4.5.); it seems to be too far from the walls to be the building shown by Cartaro. The other is a tall square

structure with a vertical feature, possibly a chapel or an dovecote. It is located in the area where the Boschetto would later be found, of which there is no sign. The vigna is divided into a series of rectangular plots with some

94

Libro MARSHALL.indb 94

Fig. 2.14. Giovanni Battista Cingolani dalla Pergola (active 1692), Topografia geometrica dell’Agro Romano: overo la misura pianta, e quantita di tutte le tenute, e casali della campagna di Roma con le citta terre, e castelli confinanti ..., Rome, 1704 (first edn 1692). (British School at Rome Library.) Detail of Porta Pia area.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

paths or roads that follow their boundaries. There is no hint of landscaping or of a garden, or of rising ground in the Boschetto area. What may well be a pictorial image of the Casino can be found in an etching by Herman van Swanevelt, inscribed ‘for della Porta Pia’ that dates from c. 1642–53 (Fig. 2.15).25 The identification is not certain, but seems plausible if the image, like the other etchings in this series, is reversed. It shows an area fenced with cane fencing (the piazza in front of the Porta Pia?), that meets a walled road (the Strada di S. Agnese?). The building has a tower with two upper windows, two chimneys, and a ground floor lean-to structure perhaps forming a porch, close to the road, with lower extension leading back with hints of rising ground, with steps leading up to a doorway. This corresponds well enough to the representation on the Cartaro map (Fig. 2.5). The neater and more compact one in the small Falda view may be less accurate. Swanevelt’s building is in poor condition, with flaking stucco and boarded-up upper windows. It seems likely that both Swanevelt and Falda shows us is the vigna as it appeared when it was owned by the Theodoli and as it was acquired by Mariano, but before the 5000 scudi that Patrizio expended on it, as there is no trace of the garden elements described in Patrizio’s Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 95

Fig. 2.15. Herman van Swanevelt (1603–55), View outside Porta Pia (For dalla porta piea), from Diverses veuës dedans et dehors de Rome, c. 1652–53. Etching. London, British Museum, F,2.221. (© The Trustees of the British Museum.) Here reversed.

death inventory of 1689 described below. Patrizio’s work on the vigna might date to the 1670s or 1680s.

Villas near the Porta Pia Patrizio’s work on the vigna needs to be seen in the context of a developing interest in the area for villa-building. This is most clearly brought out in the treatment of the area just inside the walls in the large Falda map (Fig. 2.16).26 The casual plantings of olives shown in earlier maps have begun to give way to formal parterres. At the Villa Costaguti, on the east of the Via Pia between the junction with the Via Salaria and the Porta Pia, a three-storey Casino, probably dating from before 1640, has been built directly onto the street,27 with a cypress avenue and rectangular cultivated plots.28 Outside the Porta Pia, in addition to the Vigna Patrizi, there were a number of similar vigne that had a not dissimilar history. These do not appear in printed maps 95

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.16. Giovanni Battista Falda (1643–78), Large Bird’s-eye Map of Rome, 1676. Engraving. Frutaz, 1962, vol. 1, no. CLVIII. Detail of the area inside the walls near Via Pia.

Fig. 2.17. Map of Vigna Capizucchi (villa Bernina a porta Salara). Archivio di Stato di Roma, Disegni e mappe, coll. 1, cart. 90, n. 654. (After Quintavalle, 2008.)

and bird’s-eye views before Nolli, since these all stop at, or near, the walls. On the other side of the Strada di S. Agnese from the Vigna Patrizi, lay the Vigna Capizucchi. In the Bufalini map it is called the Vinea fratrum Minervae, and in a map of c. 1600 (Fig. 2.17) it is called the villa Bernina a porta Salara, with its principal entrance in the side of the piazza outside Porta Pia, with a stradone (large road) running to the Vicolo della Fontana near Porta Salaria and another running parallel to this street, both still clearly indicated in Nolli.29 There is a small building shown near the first avenue, evidently the same one visible in Nolli, while more substantial buildings wall the area between Vicolo dela Fontana, Via Salaria, and the Via delle Mura. It was subsequently acquired by the Capizucchi, and by the time of Nolli there were a number of fountains, various avenues, and a few agricultural buildings, but no significant buildings other than those near the Via Salaria.30 Next to it was the Vigna Lancellotti, which was sold in 1804 to Monsignor, later Cardinal Falzacappa, and between them the Vigna Fagnani.31 In the remaining area enclosed between the Vicolo della Fontana and Strada di S. Agnese were the Vigna Pitoni, owned by the Altemps in the early nineteenth century, and Vigna Pasquali. On the other side of the Vicolo della Fontana where it met

the Strada di S. Agnese was the Villa Alberoni, discussed in Chapter 4.4. On the Vigna Patrizi side were the Villa Bolognetti (eventually acquired by the Patrizi), Villa Massimo, and Villa Pamphilj (eventually forming the Villa Torlonia), while abutting these to the south were the Vigna Silva (subsequently absorbed into the Villa Patrizi), Vigna dei Maroniti, and Vigna Abati.

96

Libro MARSHALL.indb 96

Disposition More detailed information about the Vigna Patrizi emerges from seventeenth-century documents and inventories. While these do not permit us to fully visualise the old Casino and its setting, by working backwards from what we know about the eighteenth-century villa it is possible to gain an impression of what it was like. A copy of a licence given by the Maestri delle Strade for work on the entrances to the vigna, dated 10 May 1684, refers to two gateways.32 One was the one facing Porta Pia, the other was in front of the Casino on the Strada di S. Agnese, probably in much the same place as the cardinal’s Portone. Patrizio was one of the Maestri delle

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.18. Perspective view and plan showing provisions for the plague outside Porta Pia (Prospectus Exterior Porta Viminalis vulgo Portae Piae, nec non S. Agnetis nuncupatae), 1656. From Gastaldi, Tractatus de avertenda et profliganda peste, 1684.

Strade, as well as Giovanni Battista Sacchetti, so that the licence was addressed to his oldest son Costanzo, then aged 30. The document gave Costanzo permission to place in front of the main gateway (portone) on Strada S. Agnese three steps (scalini) of travertine along its full length, 6 palmi (134 cm) wide, extending beyond the gateway, and four steps (scalini) in front of the other gateway (porticella), facing Porta Pia, where he could place two bollards (colonnette) on the sides as protection from carriages. These steps would have been carriage ramps, rather than pedestrian steps, as the need for bollards implies. The work was to be done under the supervision of Tommaso Zannoli and Pietro Andrea Bufalini. 33 More detailed information about the location of the porticella at this date is shown in a scaled illustration to Gastaldi’s Tractatus de avertenda et profliganda peste (Fig. 2.18), a book that records the provisions made by Cardinal Gastaldi for the defence of the city against the plague of 1656.34 This shows the piazza in front of Porta Pia shown by Falda. It is square and measures about 220 palmi (49.15 m) a side, while the Strada di S. Agnese measures about 60 palmi (13.4 m) wide. The walls of what will be the Villa Capizucchi and the Vigna Patrizi follow the line of the walls at a distance of about 60 palmi (13.4 m)from the towers. These walls continue up the Strada S. Agnese, and are of sufficient height for Gastaldi to propose closing the street with a gate just before it emerges into the piazza, which would form a convenient place to confine people arriving from the countryside during the plague. On the Vigna Patrizi side of the piazza is an opening that corresponds with the location of the porticella. There is also an opening into the Villa Capizucchi, and one into Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 97

the Vigna Patrizi about 200 palmi (44.7 m) along the walls from the Porta Pia. This latter opening corresponds to one shown on the Nolli map (Fig. 2.4), which also reveals the way that Gastaldi has tidied up and regularised the alignments of the piazza. This back entrance to the Villa Patrizi is described in an item referring to the walls dated 28 September 1719 as the ‘porta segreta’.35 It is evident, then, that the location of the entrances to the Villa Patrizi had long been established. The portone, porticella and porta segreta (Fig. 2.4) are described in the death inventory of Patrizio, dated 26 October 1689. The porticella near Porta Pia of the Maestri delle Strade document is called the portone, and its description makes no mention of what, to judge from the Maggi and Falda maps, was its masonry structure. The gate is described in detail, as consisting of two barred leaves lined with planks of olive wood, as well as the usual locks, keys, catenaccio (chain) and a sportello (small access door) having one leaf.36 Following a road that passes through this gate to the left one meets un altro portone grande, evidently the portone on the main road of the Maestri delle Strade document. The implication of this passage is that this road ran along the low ground parallel to the Strada di S. Agnese (see the small Falda plan, Fig. 2.13). The gate here, too, was of wooden construction, with two leaves, locks, and was rather old.37 The porta segreta was another such gate onto the street along the Aurelian walls.38 Turning right from the porticella was a hay-barn (fienile), perhaps the structure shown in the small Falda plan (Fig. 2.13). This contained various coaches and carts, including a cart used to transport hay from the vigna to Rome, a coach house, a stable, and a room for the cartdriver. From the hay-barn one reached the Casino (or palazzo), up a cordonata, that is, a stepped ramp.39 According to the small Falda plan the path along the inside of the walls turns at right angles up the slope, following the boundaries of the agricultural plot, but this may be somewhat schematic, and it may already have followed essentially the same route of the cardinal’s Cordonata, since this was the gentlest access route (as is indicated in Vasi’s 1781 map, the first to take the villas outside the walls seriously; Fig. 2.19).40 A piazza, presumably an area of level ground at the top of the rise, surrounded the Casino, which must therefore have been more or less on the same high site as the cardinal’s Casino, rather than on the street like the Theodoli casino. Facing the Casino was a peperino statue of a seated lion, while placed around the piazza were ten double-headed herms on pedestals.41 The latter would be re-used in the new villa, discussed in Chapter 4.5. 97

18/11/15 17:24

inventory was drawn up.44 There was also a cistern.45 The inventory then describes a chapel infaccia contiguo detto casone, that is, not as part of the Casino, but in the context of the garden. Possibly it was the small structure visible in the small Falda plan, where it seems to be situated in the Boschetto.46 The second garden was the giardinetto in centro al retrodetto. Evidently less important than the first, it seems to have been partly enclosed within the Casino.47 This contained another antique chest or sarcophagus (cassetta di marmo bianca piccola) measuring 1.75 x 1.25 x c. 1 palmi (39 x 28 x c. 22 cm), on which was inscribed the name ‘L. Pacuuius L.C. L. Maximus’, and some other vases. It is followed by a description of the part of the garden within the Casino under a low pergola or espalier, where were to be found numerous vases and bowls of flowers, including jasmine, anemones, and ranunculi.48 Fig. 2.19. Giuseppe Vasi (1710–82), Nuova pianta di Roma in prospettiva, 1781. Etching, 77 x 92 cm. Frutaz, 1962, vol. 1, no. CLXXIV. Detail of Villa Patrizi.

Gardens There were also two little gardens in the piazza, one facing the Casino and the other the cordonata. They were both surrounded by trellis-work (incannucciate) with a two-leaf gate in each. In the garden that faced the Casino were an antique sarcophagus ‘with a cross carved on the front with Our Lord’, measuring 8.5 x 3 x 2.5 palmi (190 x 67 x 56 cm), planted with jonquils (gionchiglie), and another marble sarcophagus (cassa di marmo bianco) measuring 8 x 3 x 3 palmi (179 x 67 x 67 cm) carved with little statues in low relief (statuette di basso rilievo) with jonquils and hyacinths (diacinti).42 In the four corners of this garden were planted Portuguese bitter oranges (merangoli di Portogallo). Around the garden were numerous vases of flowers: 75 vases of various carnations (garofali); a vase of rose di ogni mese; another with white double violets; two broken vases of one soma (c. 150 litres) capacity in which were sowed anemones (anemoli); a vase of jasmine with some bacchette (rods) planted with rose della chora, two basins with some carnations di seme; two little vases of jasmine with ‘peura’ within; and two with white and yellow violets respectively.43 In this garden was a casone, presumably a shed, with a two-leaf door, which contained 74 vases, most of which were citrus trees, presumably having been recently brought in for the winter, it being late October when the 98

Libro MARSHALL.indb 98

The Casino The Casino, or palazzo, had portoni at front and back.49 On one wall were two peperino statues of ‘Germans’ (Todeschi) on pedestals, and two statues in white marble, one representing a standing Jupiter with thunderbolts in hand and his eagle, and the other representing Mercury holding his caduceus, and three other statues.50 There were two main floors of the Casino, with access to the roof by a scala lumaca (spiral staircase) or ladders, so there was probably a terrace or loggia.51 Those on the ground floor included a room with two windows painted with landscapes in the manner of a hermitage (stanziolino dipinto con paesi a uso di Romitorio) with two windows, a tripod lavamano covered with panels painted to look like a tree-trunk (un treppiede da lavamano coperto di tavolette dipinte a uso d’un tronco) with a bed made like one for a hermit (fatto a uso di Romito) with drawers beneath for mattresses.52 It seems that the practice, more fully developed in the new villa, of having a room set aside as a romitorio, was already established at Patrizi properties in the seventeenth century. It is probable that Francesco Felice (who occupied the Romitorio in the new villa) already had an interest in the theme; he was 24 at the time of the 1698 inventory (see Chapter 3.10). There was also a room with a spinet.53 On the first floor were several more rooms, including a loggia, some with stamped leather hangings, some with soppraporte (overdoors) and soprafinestre (overwindows) as well as door curtains with the Patrizi arms.54 There was also a zampanaro and a credenza, so the signs of marquisate

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

status, and formal entertaining, were not absent.55 There were a number of paintings, especially on the first floor, although few of any note. The only named artists are Bamboccio, that is, Peter van Laer, although this may only mean a generic bambocciata, and Guercino, in the form of a copy of a Madonna piangente, probably the autograph Madonna in Adoration still in the Patrizi Collections.56 One item of interest was eight small pictures on slate with Old Testament subjects.57 One room on the piano nobile had a bronze statuette of Marcus Aurelius on a horseback, based on the statue in the Campidoglio, and a standing statue of ‘Lale’ with a tromba.58 From this description one can conclude that this was a building typical of the small buildings on the vigne around Rome, with the pergolas, roof terraces, and the potted plants typical of this type of rural building.

Boschetto The inventory then goes on to describe the boschetto, entered from a portone in the piazza in front of the Casino, which is clearly the Boschetto marked on the Nolli plan and visible in Manglard’s views, where the trees appear to be fully mature.59 The Boschetto, therefore, is discussed more fully below (Chapter 4.5). There were various gateways giving access to it, including a barred wooden double-leaf portone lined with planks that lead from the piazza to the Boschetto,60 another double leaf portone that went from the boschetto into the vigna ‘where the garden used to be’,61 and a single-leaf gate that led into the vigna.62 There was a wall with various stone slabs—one rectangular, one round, and one oval—and four scabelli (literally stools, but perhaps statue plinths) of broken peperino.63 Also on a wall were twelve statues, one of which, on a stair that descended close to the wall of the boschetto towards the portone of the vigna, represented Diana with her hunting dog, and the others various figures of masquerade figures and peasants, all of peperino.64 It is interesting to note the presence of such vernacular figures, common in early eighteenth-century north Italian villas, though more unusual in Rome at this date. The precise location of these is unclear; probably they were on a wall separating the piazza of the casino from the vigna. Some statues were ‘in pieces’, which suggests that the garden was not well maintained.65 Other statues remained in place when the cardinal built his villa, in particular statues of Flora and Bacchus, as well as more herms, probably placed on the vigna side of the piazza, as they would be in the cardinal’s villa, where they can be seen in Manglard’s painting (Fig. 4.1).66 Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 99

The inventory then goes on to describe the tinello, or servants’ lodging, which was probably the House of the Vignarolo visible in the Nolli map, and which was used for water storage.67 Finally there was a grotta’(cellar), and an area referred to as quadri della Mortella (squares of myrtle), where there was a marble statue of Venus on a non-working fountain.68 There was also a single-leaf door door that opened ‘in the wall facing a property owned by the Jesuits (dentro le Mura infaccia alli Jesuiti).69

Conclusion In conclusion, then, while the old vigna was more modest and rustic than the new villa, it was nevertheless a building of some importance, with about four main rooms on two levels. The distribution of the subsidiary elements—gateways, carriage ramp, carriage house, stables, and formal and kitchen gardens, as well as the buildings associated with the house of the gardener and vignarolo—was in its essentials like the cardinal’s villa. The Casino occupied much the same position as the new one would, but whether any of its structures would have been retained in the cardinal’s villa seems unlikely, as the plan of the new Casino (albeit a project) shows none of the irregularities that would be expected had parts of an old structure been retained. On the other hand, it seems that much of the old boschetto remained, as well, no doubt, much of the layout of the rest of the vigna.

Notes 1. View of Via Pia with Palazzo del Quirinale, Aula Massima (Aula dei Pontefici), Palazzo Lateranense, fresco, c. 1589 (Monumenti, Musei, e Gallerie Pontificie, Archivio Fotografico, XXXIII.71.32). Illustrated in Habel, 2002, fig. 11, p. 23, with a good detail in Cozza, 1994, p. 64, fig. 4. 2. Evans, 2002, p. 67. For the history of its construction and route, see Lanciani, 1881 and Rinne, 2010, pp. 122–36. 3. Frutaz, 1962, no. CXXVII. See also Anonymous (Dosio?), 1562, Frutaz, 1962, no. CXVIII. 4. Beatrizet, 1557 (Frutaz, 1962, no. CXIII); Sebastiano del Re, 1557 (Frutaz, 1962, no. CXIV); Fabio Licinio, (Frutaz, 1962, no. CXV), Dosio (1561 (Frutaz, 1962, no. CXVII). 5. Frutaz, 1962, no. CXXVI. 6. Bosio, 1632, pp. 435–36: ‘L’anno 1601. alli 14. di Decembre uscendo fuori della Porta Pia, e caminando per la Via Nomentana alcuni passi à mano diritta andando verso Sant’Agnese; in una Vigna (sopra la porta della quale è scritto il nome di Pompilio Desiderij) trovammo un picciolo Cimiterio sotterraneo; al quale si descende per alcuni scalini di mattoni; e crediamo sia l’antico adito di esso Cimiterio, il quale hà li suoi Monumenti cavati nel tufo; e sono aperti, senza alcuna Iscrittione, e memoria; se bene vi notammo questi segni. [here Bosio has diagrams of a ChiRho and a martyr’s palm.] Il detto Cimiterio è picciolissimo, havendo quattro, ò cinque strade, con tre, ò quattro Cubicoli solamente. Nel muro del discenso si vede

99

18/11/15 17:24

scolpita una gran palma: & io penso, che questo sia il Cimiterio di S. Nicomede Prete, del quale habbiamo trattato sopra nel Capitolo 44. Per esser così vicino alle mura di Roma; tanto più, che nella medesima Vigna si veggono alcuni vestigij di muri, che forsi sono della Chiesa del’istesso Santo.’ 7. For the excavations, see various notices in by De Rossi below; Lanciani, 1918; Jannattoni, 1952; Lanciani, 1990 and Barbini, 1998. For the 1864 excavations see Bulletino di Archeologia Cristiana del Cav. Giovanni Battista de Rossi, vol. 2, December 1864, p. 95: ‘XXX’; vol. 3, no. 2, February 1865, pp. XX: ‘XXX’; vol. 3, no. 3, March 1865, p. 24: ‘XXX’; vol. 3, no. 4, April 1865, p. 21: ‘Un secondo ipogeo cristiani nella Villa Patrizi’; and especially vol. 3, no. 7, July 1865, p. 49–53: ‘Delli ipogei cristiani scoperti nella Villa Patrizi’ and pp. 54–54:’Le iscrizioni trovate nei sepolcri all’aperto cielo nella Villa Patrizi.’ 8. 1885 Plan, version 1. There are two versions of this plan, the second, version 2, has fewer details derived from Lanciani. Patrizi Collections. See Fig. 5.46 for the whole. 9. Lanciani, 1918, tav. XVI; Jannattoni, 1954, fig. 1, p. 766. This plan shows the extent of the area excavated, with the plan of the new building indicated by dotted lines. The Casino and Casa Svizzera are drawn and lay outside the excavations, implying that they were still standing at this point. The level of the Casino platform is indicated as 68.76 m above sea level; the exploratory shafts went down to 34 m above sea level. The plans and sections were drawn by Umberto Barelli and G. Menis. 10. Lanciani, 1918, pp. 106–07. 11. Lanciani, 1918, tav. XVII; Jannattoni, 1954, fig. 2, p. 767. The pozzolana quarries lay at 46.5 to 49 m above sea level. 12. Franceco Solinas (correspondence) has suggested that the vigna must have been bought around 1590 by Theodolo Theodoli, first Marchese di San Vito, but I think it must have been acquired later than that. The instrument in ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B31, fols 140–41 (Doc. 6.1.2) indicates that it was bought from Marchese Alfonso Theodoli and Giovanni Grilli. The instrument, dated 3 December 1652, concerns a dispute about the price. The first part is signed by Niccolò Finetti, who seems to have been the agent for Mariano Patrizi, and the second by Monsignor Mario Fini, acting for the Theodoli. According to Finetti the problem was that the agreed price was 7000 (or 8000) scudi, even though the Theodoli had only paid 6000 scudi. Moreover, that price had included a great deal of furniture both in the casa and vigna that has since been removed. The Theodoli had replied that they took only a few minor items, so Mariano took Finetti and his cameriere Tommaso Galantini to the vigna and made a detailed inventory of what was in both casa, vigna and giardino. Mariano took legal action through notary Bonanni. A valuation at Mariano’s death valued the vigna at 7000 scudi (Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fol. 176v: ‘Capitale del’eredita di Beni liberi spettanto all B. M del Ill.mo Signor Marchese Mariano in deb.to a sottoscritti … Vigna di Roma — scudi 7000.’ The stati d’anime recognise a change of ownership at this time. 13. Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B4, no. 138r (Doc. 6.1.1). The Rubricella cites another item in B7 that I could not find there. Rubricella: ‘1650. 17 Giugno. Istromento do vendita fatta da Teodolo, Lottario, Carlo, e Girolamo Teodoli a favore del Marchese Mariano Patrizj di una Vigna incontro le Mura di Porta Pia, già comprata dal Marchese Alfonso Teodolo loro padre dalla Reverenda Camera Apostolica per scudi 6000 fatta per prezzo di scudi 7000 qual Vigna e gravata a favore del Capitolo, e Canonici di S. Maria Maggiore di Barili 6½ di mosto = Al Capitolo, e Canonici di S. Gio. Laterano di Barili 14 e un quarto di mosto = Al Capitolo, e Canonici di S. Maria in Via Lata di Barili 5 e un quarto di mosto in due partite una di Barili trè e un quarto, e altra di Barili 2 = Alla Chiesa di S. Vitale Barili 4 di mosto – Alli Padri di S. Gregorio scudi 1:60 = Alli Padri di Buonfratelli come eredi di Ottavio Cavalieri Barili Otto, e un quarto – Alle Monache di S. Susanna Barile due di mosto Tomo 7. Pag. 31. 1.’ Another Rubricella reference, not findable, is B93, p. 3 (Memorie dell’acquisto e proprietà della Vigna fuori di Porta Pia). According to the Archivio Segreto this busta is empty. Another Rubricella reference is B31, fols 140–11. 14. In his will he left it to his nephew Patrizio (1629-1689). The version of the will in ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B218 is ruined; there is another in ASR, 30 Notai Capitolini, Ufficio 10, not. Lucas Michelangelus, anno 1654,

100

Libro MARSHALL.indb 100

vol. 212, fols 31r–95v. 15. According to the Rubricella, this item is in ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B8, p. 19.1 but I could not find it there: ‘10 Luglio = Istro di quietanza di sc. 2200 fatta della V. Compagnia del Rosario erede del q. Ludovico Coltri a favore del March.e Patrizio Patrizj nepote, e donatario della bo: me. Del March.e Mariano Patrizj per prezzo di una Vigna fuori di Porta Pia, che si accoltò di pagare nella compra da esso fatta di detta Vigna ad esso venduta dal March.e Teodolo Teodoli Tomo 8. Pag. 19. 1.’ 16. According to the Rubricella, this item is in ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B8, p. 90.1, but I could not find it there: ‘1660. 17 Decembre = Istr. di quietanza di scudi 48: 13 fatta dal March.e Carlo, et altro Teodoli a favore del March.e Patrizj per residuo, ed ultima paga delli scudi 7000. Prezzi di una Vigna già venduta da essi Teodoli lotto li 17. Giugno 1650. Tomo 8 pag. 90 1.’ 17. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fols 213–18: ‘Effetti del fidecommesso del quondam Giovanni Patritij Seniore … [fol. 214r] Effetti liberi di me Patritio Patritij, quale pretendo siano tutti acquisti miei proprij, perche dalla robba di mio Padre, ho trovati tanti debiti, che ascendono a magggiore somma del capitle libero, ch’io trovai, altre … Vigna di Porta Pia proveniente dall’Eredità del Marchese Mariano mio Zio, ma da me spesovi, nel proprio Casino, Capannone, Cisterna, e finili, e scassati circa a cinque mila scudi, a sette fù pagata dal Marchese Mariano mio Zio si valuta scudi dodeci mila — scudi 12000.’ 18. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, fols 222r–v: ‘Per la somma … Vigne poste in Roma, e fuori di Roma come segue – Vigna della Riccia … — scudi 600 / Vigna fuori di Porta Pia — scudi 12000 /… / Stato dell’ Illustrissima Casa Patritij a tutto li 13 maggio 1703 giorno della morte dell’ Illustrissima Signora Marchesa Verginia Corsini Patritij / Agiuntovi lo stato dell’Eredita per Illustrissima Signorra acquistata dalla p.X Illustrissima Casa / … / Vigne Poste in Roma, e fuori di Roma come segue / … Vigna fuori di Porta Pia valutata / … scudi 12000.’ 19. See Berger and Hedin, 2008, pp. 19–20. Chigi was shown the châteaux of Vincennes, Le Raincy, Saint Germain-en-Laye, Maisons, Rueil, Saint-Cloud, and Versailles. 20. Frutaz, 1962, no. CXLVII. 21. Frutaz, 1962, no. CLIII. 22. Frutaz, 1962, no. CLVIII. 23. Frutaz, 1962, no. CLVI. 24. Giovanni Battista Cingolani dalla Pergola, Topografia geometrica dell’Agro Romano: overo la misura pianta, e quantita di tutte le tenute, e casali della campagna di Roma con le citta terre, e castelli confinanti ..., Rome, 1704 (first ed. 1692). Copy in the British School at Rome Library. 25. Herman van Swanevelt (1603–55), For dalla porta piea, from Diverses veuës dedans et dehors de Rome, c. 1652–53. Etching. Hollstein 62.I; Bartsch II.282.65. London, British Museum, F,2.221. There is a second state, British Museum, 1927,0518.94, which differs little. 26. See also De Rossi’s map of 1668, based on Falda’s small map of 1667. Frutaz, 1962, no. CLVII; detail reproduced in Cozza, 1994, p. 65, fig. 5. 27. Belli Barsali, 1970, note 36 on p. 91, citing G. Matthiae, 1942, p. 251 (but this is not in the bibliography) as dating the Casino to before 1640. It was described by Terlinden in 1724–25 (Terlinden, 1957, p. 415) and in guidebooks: Roma moderna (1741, p. 133), by Rossini (1771, p. 178) and Roisecco (1750, vol. 2, p. 609). At the beginning of the nineteenth century it belonged to Marchese Angelo Andosilla, before passing to Giovanni Torlonia, made Duke of Bracciano by Pius VI in 1794, who transformed it to the design of Antonio Sarti. It is described in Gasparoni, 1839, dedicated to Principessa Donna Anna Torlonia, born Sforza Cesarini, Duchess of Bracciano, wife of Principe Don Marino Torlonia. Gasparoni did not say when it was acquired. Gasparoni described it in detail, including Sarti’s work, which included an entrance that imitated the vestibule of Palazzo Farnese. It was known as the Villa Torlonia detto di Bracciano and was destroyed after World War II to be replaced by the British Embassy.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

28. For a plan of the Villa Costaguti, see ASR, Disegni e Mappe, cat. 89, n. 642, reproduced in Belli Barsali, 1970, p. 53 and the large Falda map. In general disposition, the Casino is like the one in the eighteenth-century Villa Patrizi, with two storeys, a mezzanine between, and an altana (open roof loggia). The plan is roughly symmetrical around the central axis, but, at least on the ground floor, the central room does not continue through the building, but is divided into two, as was the case in most such casini. The spiral staircase is pushed away to the rear on one side, as in the Villa Borghese. The rear façade looked onto three long avenues, with two other longitudinal avenues to either side and four cross avenues, and is described in 1741 as ‘nove viali, tre maggiori con grande spalllieroni di cipressi.’ Unlike the eighteenth-century Villa Patrizi, there was plenty of water and with fountains and water tricks: ‘belli giuochi d’acqua quanto si può dire e vedere … in varie parte per li Boschetti, nella Grotta di S. Antonio e di S. Paolo primo eremita, quantità di vasi e spalliere d’agrumi d’ogni sorta’ (Roma Moderna, 1741, p. 133): ‘La Villa Costaguti, tout contre la Porta Pia en ville, a une jolie maison, des jardins à fleurs, des bosquets, des haies et drèves en labyrinthe; mais la plus grand beauté consiste dans l’abondance et la variété des fontaines, tout en est plein, jusque dans la maison; les miroirs, choises, portes et meubles, tout en fait en sorte qu’il en volle grand nombre de jets d’eau, et quand on se veut baigner et qu’on en donne la permission aux jardinières, on est attrapé à tout moment.’ (Terlinden, 1957, p. 415.) 29. For the Vigna Capizucchi, see Quintavalle, 2008, pp. 10–14. For the villa Bernina map see p. 63, from ASR Disegni e mappe, coll. 1, cart. 90, n. 654. 30. Quintavalle reproduces another map of December 1795 (p. 65, ASR, Disegni e mappe, coll. 1 cart. 96, n. 897). 31. Quintavalle, 2008, p. 12. 32. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B41, fol. 229r: ‘Noi Marchese Patrizio Patrizi, et Marchese Gio. Battista Sacchetti di Roma, e suo disdetto Maestri di Strade concediamo licenza all’ Illustrissimo Signor Marchese Constanzio Patrizij che avanti il Portone della sua Vigna posta fuori Porta Pia nella strada maestra che va a Santa Agnese possa fare tre scalini di Travertino in tutta la longhezza di detto Portone et di larghezza palmi sei fuori del vicco dell’aggetto di detto portone con accompagnare nel fine di essi la selciata in pendenza sino all’altra selciata non portando pregiuditio al Pubblico, et anche concediamo licenza che possi fare quattro altri scalini avanti la porticella di detta Vigna corrispondente alle Mura della Città et che vi possi piantare due Colonnette dalle parti per difesa delle Carré non portando pregiudizio nessuno al Pubblico, et si faccia con l’assistenza di Tomasso Zannoli, et Pietro Andrea Bufalini Architetti, e Signori Scole Mastri. Per tanto commendiamo niuno sij per tal causa molestato datato li 10 Maggio 1684.’ Doc. 6.3.1. 33. For Tommaso Zannoli (documented 1655; died 1692/96), see the entry by Tommaso Manfredi in Contardi and Curcio, 1991, p. 459. In 1680 he was appointed ‘architetto sottomaestro delle strade’, until 1692. For Pier Andrea Bufalini (documented 1672-1688) who was ‘architetto sottomaestro delle strade’ from 1680 until 1688, see Contardi and Curcio, 1991, pp. 329–30. 34. G. Gastaldi, Tractatus de avertenda et profliganda peste, Bologna, 1684, reproduced in Cozza, 1994, fig. 6 on p. 65. 35. Cozza, 1994, p. 66: ‘seguitando a camminare dietro le mura … passato Porta Nomentana, o pure Porta Pia, lunghi qualche distanza da detta Porta per andare verso Porta S. Lorenzo un torrione incontro la porticella segreta della villa d’signori Patrizi tutto corroso da piedi e staccato dal vecchio muro della città, che col tempo può tutto pericolare e diroccare ….’, citing Archivio Storicio Capitolino, Archivio del pronotaro del Senatore, sez. I, Notai dei Conservatori, vol. 11, p. 189. 36. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fol. 78v: ‘Il Portone di detta vigna fatta a cancello foderato tutto con tavole d’olivo a dui partite con catenaccio grosso dalla parte di dentro con serratura e chiave et in esso un sportello a una partita con dui serrature con suoi braccioli e chiave.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 37. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fol. 78v: ‘Seguitando il viale incontro a detto Portone dalla parte a mano manca un altro Portone grande a dui partite con sportello in esso pure a dui partite tutti di tavole foderate a amandolate con dentro catenaccio piano serratura a chiave e di sopra saliscendo grande con suo monachetto il tutto vecchio assai.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 38. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fol. 87v: ‘Un altro Portone simile a

Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 101

detto che esce nella strada dietro le mura di Roma con Catenaccio tondo di dentro con serratura e Chiave.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 39. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fol. 80r: ‘Salita la Cordonata che va dal fenile al Casino attorno la Piazza di detto Casino in faccia a detto a capo a detta cordonata una statua di Peperino che rappresenta un leone a sedere.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 40. Frutaz, 1962, no. CLXXIV. Maier, 2013, pp. 268–69. 41. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fol. 80r: ‘Attorno a detta Piazza sopra i suoi piedi stalli dieci termini con teste a dui faccie.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 42. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fols 80r–80v: ‘Dui giardinetti in detta Piazza in faccia al Casino uno di qua e l’altro della a detta cordonata con attorno incannucciate con sui cancelletti uno per ciascheduno a dui partite con sui catenaccetti piani serratura e Chiave / In uno di detti giardinetti cioè quello avanti al Casino / Una Cassa di Marmo bianca che si stima servita per sepoltura antica con croce intagliata infaccia con Nostro Christo longa palmi otto e mezzo di canna larga palmi tre alta palmi due è mezzo dentro la quale sono piantate delle gionchiglie.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 43. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fols 80r–80v: ‘Quattro Piante di Merangoli di Portogallo piantate in terra nelli quattro cantoni / Settanta cinque vasi di garofali diversi - / Un Vaso di Rose di Ogni mese - / Un altro con viola bianca doppia - / Dui vasi da una soma tutti rotti nelli quali sono seminati Anemoli - / Un vaso da gelsomini [jasmine] con dentro alcune bacchette piantate di Rose della Chora[?]/ Dui catini con alcuni garofali [carnations] di seme /Dui vasetti da gelzomini con dentro peura [petra?] - / Una cassa di marmo bianca con statuette di basso rilievo infaccia intagliate longo palmi otto larga palmi tre alta palmi tre con dentro delle gionchiglie e diacinti - / Dui vasetti da un conto [e?] dui viola bianche e una gialla.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 44. They consisted of five vases of 1.5 soma capacity (c. 225 litres) containing Portuguese bitter oranges (merangoli di Portogallo); another five vases of one soma (c. 150 litres) capacity, also with merangoli di Portogallo; and another of half a soma (c. 75 litres); another ‘vaso bastardo’ with the same; four with jasmine; six Chinese (?) vases of 1.5 soma (c. 225 litres); twelve more Chinese vases of one soma (c. 150 litres); a merangolo cetrato (Seville bitter orange?) in a vaso bastardo; ten vases of 1.5 soma with limoncelli lustrati (citrus limetta, sweet lime?; or a kind of apple mela limoncella); four more of one soma; four more of half a soma; five more of ‘accaponature’ (?) in vases with jasmine; four ‘limoncelli di galizia’ in vases of 1.5 soma; a cetrate cattive (bad bitter orange [cetrangolo]) in a vase of half a soma; twelve cetrati from Florence in vasi bastardi; one vase of jasmine with a sword in the middle; one vase of 1.5 soma with merangoli giennensi [cetrati]; a red apple (mela rosa) from Florence, bastarda, in a vase of 0.5 soma; a red apple of Rome (mela rosa) in a similar vase; a limoncello di Calabria in a vase of 1.5 soma; twelve limoncelli di Calabria in vases of half form; twelve insiti (?) di bergamotte (either bergamot pear, pera bergomotta; or bergamot orange, citrus bergamia); one more of these from Florence in a vaso bastardo; a Chinese bitter orange (merangolo di china) in a vase of 0.5 soma; twelve merangoli di china in vases of jasmine; one inzito di Cetrato, e lustrato in a vase of one soma; one bizzaria in a half-form vase; one lemon tree (lumia; citrus limonaia) in a vase of 1.5 soma; a vase of jasmine of Alexandria (gelzomini d’Alessandria); two vases of jasmine of ‘carta legna’ (?). (Doc. 3.1.) 45. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fol. 81r: ‘Cisterna con girella di legno con sua conda e due vecchia con manichi a cerchi di ferro.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 46. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro B69, fols 81r–v: ‘Segue infaccia contiguo detto casone / Una cappella dove si dice la Messa - / Porta a dui partite con sua serratura e chiave / Finestra sopra a detta con fuso a una partita / Altare con sua pietra sacrata / Una tovaglia a dui teli di tela liscia longa palmi nove / Dui teli di tela longhi palmi dieci e cinquanta uno e l’altro palmi nove / Un paliotto tirato sopra il suo telaro in mezzo tre teli di Rosa rosso e attorno fregio fatto a scacchi di velluto a damasco cremisigiallo, bianco, carpellino[?] con trina di seta gialla rossa, e torchino / Scalinata sopra a detto Altare dipinta color di pietra venata torchina con goletta alla corame dorato / Un Crocefisso d’alabastro sopra a croce di Pero tinta nera con piede stallo a monti parimente di Alabastro alto tutto di detto piede stallo palmi tre in mezzo = / [fol. 81v] / Quatro statuette di petra bianca alta l’una palmi uno e un terzo con li piedi stalli che dui rapresentano dui angioli che rapresentano dui candelari e dui dui Mariè / Dui vasetti di terra dorati a tinti torchini con dui

101

18/11/15 17:24

rame di frutti di cera / Una predella avanti a detto altare che si apre fatta a cassa / Un Canterano di Noce con dui tiratori e di sopra si apre acassa con sue serrature a chiave longo palmi cinque e tre quarti largo palmi due e dui terzi alto palmo quattro.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 47. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 81v: ‘Giardinetto in centro al Retrodetto = / Una cassetta di marmo bianca piccola infaccia della quale è scritta L. Pacuuius. L. C [backwards] L. Maximus. Longa palmi uno e tre quarti larga palmi uno e un quarto alta palmi uno scarzo nella quale e piantata sempre vino / Cinque vasi tre da gelzomini e dui da un conto.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 48. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 81v: ‘Dalla parte di dentro del palazzo sotto la spalliera da basso = / Vasi di gelzomini numero 22 nella prima fila sotto la spalliera con dentro anemoli / Quattro Vasi di gelzomini con dentro diacinti / Detti da un conto e mezzo con dentro diacinti / Tre vasi di detto con dentro Ranuncoli / Trenta dui vasi d’anemoli nella seconda fila di un conto e mezzo tra i quali compresi dui vasi da gelzomini inoltre dui vasi di un conto e mezzo di ranuncoli / Nella terza fila otto vasi da un conto e mezzo di anemoli / Quattordici vasi di ranuncoli parimente di un conto e mezzo / Sette catini e dui vasi di gelzomini di semente di anemoli per detti con la sue store di scarica da caprir tutti che sono numero otto.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 49. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 82r: ‘Detto Casino dui Portoni uno dalla parte d’avanti e l’altro di dietro.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 50. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 81v: ‘Nella facciata del Casino dui Statue di peperino rapresentanti dui Todeschi sopra a suo piede stallo – / Dui statue di marmo bianco una che rapresenta Giove in piede con fulmini in mano e sua aquila e l’altra che rapresenta Mercurio con Caduce in mano a borsa / Tre altre statue dritte di marmo tutte rapezzate.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 51. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fols 82r–87v. (Doc. 3.1.) 52. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 82r: ‘Una porta a dui partite con sua serratura e chiave che entra a un stanziolino dipinto con paesi a uso di Romitorio dentro al quale un treppiede da lavamano coperto di tavolette dipinte a uso d’un tronco / Dui finestre in detta con fusti a dui partite con sui telari con vetrate una de quali senza vetri / Un letto fatto a uso di Romito con dui tiratori sotto con dui store [sic] ordinarie in luogo de Materazzi.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 53. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 82r: ‘Un spinettone a un registro con suo piede fatto a uso di quattro colonne con suo fregio e telaro.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 54. The sequences of rooms derived from the room inventory and the pictures inventory are difficult to correlate. 55. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 82r: ‘Un letto con banchi di lettiera di noce con tre tavole d’albuccio dui materazzi / Un Capezzale / Dui cuscini di lana di forza aperti di terluccio di genova ogni cosa / Un zampanaro di filandente gialletto guarnito di sete attorno riempite a fogliami con merletti a pizzi simili con sue fettuccie alle quattro cantonate.’ (Doc. 3.1.) In this context the term zampanaro seems to refer to the canopy, rather than the bed and canopy as a whole.

con tromba in mano alta con il piede stallo un palmo e 2/3.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 59. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 87v: ‘Boschetto in detta Vigna cominciando al Portone che sta nella Piazza de suddetto Casino ò Palazzo.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 60. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 87v: ‘Il Portone di legno fatto a cancello foderato tutto di tavole che dalla Piazza del Palazzo entra nel Boschetto a dui partite con sua serratura con stanghetta e chiave et un Paletta.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 61. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 87v–88r: ‘Un altro Portone simile al detto con sportello con serratura et il catenaccio in detto Portone e questa dal Boschetto va nella Vigna dove era prima il Giardino.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 62. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 88r: ‘Una Porta a una partita che esce come il detto in detta vigna con catenaccio inginocchiato tondo.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 63. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 87v: ‘Tre Tavole di Pietra per detto Boschetto con piede stallo di Muro, che una longa una Tonda, e una Ovata all’Ovata quattro scabelli di Peperino Rotti.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 64. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 87v: ‘Dodici statue che stanne nelli suoi piedi stalli di Muro una de quali nella scala che scende vicino al Muro del Boschetto verso il Portone della Vigna che rappresenta una Diana con il Cane e l’altra diverse figure di Mascherate e Villani tutti di Peperino.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 65. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 87v: ‘Cinque altre statue in pezzi pure di Peperino che erono come li dette.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 66. They were on the Boschetto side of the piazza, which is where they appear in Manglard. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 87v: ‘Boschetto in detta Vigna cominciando al Portone che sta nella Piazza de Suddeto Casino o Palazzo / Dalla Parte di detto Portone in detta Piazza / Dalla Parte di detto Portone in detta Piazza / Due Statue di peperino una per parte di detto Portone in piedi sopra li sudetti piedi stalli una rapresenta Flora, e l’altra Bacco / Quattro statuette o siano Termini di peperino sopra li muri che rispondono in detta Piazza tutti con fiori e frutti.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 67. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fols 88r–89v: ‘Nel Tinello di detta Vigna … Nel tinello dove si suol tenere l’acquata contigua a detto … Stanze sopra il Tinello dove abita il vignarolo.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 68. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 90r: ‘Nelli quadri della Mortella. / Una statue di Marmo che rapresenta una venere dove e una fontana secca.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 69. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 90r: ‘Una porta a una partita con serratura a chiave che esca dentro le Mura infaccia alli Jesuiti.’ (Doc. 3.1.)

56. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 102r: ‘Quadri della seconda Stanza mano manca detta galleriola … Due quadri simili del Bamboccio uno con figure e giocano a morra a l’altro a carte cornice nera tocca d’oro’; fol. 104v: ‘Quadri Seconda Stanza mano dritta … Quadri d’una Madonna piangente copia del Guercino cornice tutta d’oro.’ (Doc. 3.1.) See Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 66, p. 170; and Salerno, 1988, cat. 352, p. 408. 57. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 104r: ‘Secondo Piano Sala … Un quadretto in lavagna di Giona che esce dal Ventre della balena cornice tutta d’oro / Un altro simile de Sansone che sbrana il leone / Un altro simile con David piangente al sono di Cetra / Un altro simile di Moise bambino messo nel fiume / Un altro simile con la torre di Babele / Un altro simile un giovanetto che guida un Angelo con lanterna in mano e sin contra in un serpente / Un altro simile la Creazione del Sole e la Luna / Un altro simile d’un soldato fulminto da un angelo.’ (Doc. 3.1.) 58. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B69, fol. 86r: ‘Una statuetta di bronzo che rapresenta Marc’ Aurelio a cavallo all’uso di quello nella piazza di Campidoglio alto in tutto piede stallo, cavallo e statue palmo uno e mezzo longi il cavallo tre quarti – / Una statuetta di bronzo simile con Lale [sic] in piedi sopra a piede stallo

102

Libro MARSHALL.indb 102

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Chapter 2.2

Constructing the Casino

Building Trades Construction of a substantial building like the Villa Patrizi involved a wide range of tradesmen. The main structure of the buildings was erected by muratori, literally wallbuilders or masons, with tavolozza, a mix of broken bricks and rubble, bonded with calce, or lime mortar, supplied by a calciarolo, and pozzolana, volcanic cement.1 Stone dressings and structures like the staircases were made of travertine worked by the scarpellini, or stonecutters. The floors were paved with bricks, or mattoni, supplied by the fornaciaro (brickmaker or kiln-owner). They were cut to shape by a arrotatori di mattoni (brick-cutters), and laid by ammattonatori (bricklayers). Roof beams and other timber structures were supplied by a diversity of timber merchants and suppliers (some were members of the Giustiniani family) some of chestnut, others of white poplar. They were cut to size by wood sawyers (segatori di legnami), and shaped an assembled by carpenters (falegnami), who also made the simpler furniture. There was a considerable amount of metalwork. Iron was supplied by the iron merchant (mercante di ferro) and worked by the chiavaro, strictly speaking a locksmith but also a blacksmith (ferraro or ferraio) or tinsmith (stagnaro or stagnaio). The metalworking trades were specific to materials, so that there was a specialist worker (who in many cases was the supplier) for copper (ramaro), brass and bronze (ottonaro) and silver (argentiere). The decorator trades, apart from the painters (pittori), sculptors (scultori), and stucco workers (stuccatori) discussed later, included the wall painter, or whitewasher (imbiancatore), the plasterer (calciarolo) and the supplier of colouring (coloraro) who was also the varnisher (verniciaro). Gilding involved the battiloro (goldbeater) and the gilder (indoratore). Linen was supplied by the linarolo, copper vessels by the ramaro, and other metal vessels by the tinozzaro. Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 103

To support this construction activity, there were various categories of carrier: the barrow-boy or man with a hard cart or wheelbarrow (barozzaro), and the carter (carettiere). The carts were made by the the facocchio. A farrier (manescalco) attended to the horseshoes of the cart horses, and a saddler (sellaro or sellaio) to the leather harnesses. The horses were fed with hay and bran (semola) provided by the baker (fornaro) after stripping it from the wheat used for bread. An impression of what the building site would have been like can be obtained from an idealised image painted by the mid-seventeenth century artist (and principe of the Accademia di San Luca), Filippo Gagliardi (Fig. 2.20).2 Although the Villa Patrizi site was never so grandiose as this (few sites were) we can identify several of the protagonists. In the left foreground are three gentlemen, two of whom are perhaps architect and patron, like Mariano and Cipriani (who was addressed as ‘Signor’, indicative of his non-artisan status), the third perhaps an architect doing some setting-out. In the foreground are the scarpellini. One works with hammer and chisel to shape a rough block of travertine, while another uses a hammer-like chisel to do the fine dresssing. Between them is a set square used for getting everything square. In the villa travertine was only used for details and features like the staircases; the body of the building was made of tavolozza, a very coarse form of which Gagliardi shows in the middle ground. The barozzaro is taking some away, while other workmen are using long-handled shovels and rakes on a pile of what may be calce, pozzolana or sand (polvere). A load is being tipped from the cart of the carettiere, which is crudely made: the wheels consist of six shaped pieces of wood dowelled together, with plain poles forming the shafts for the draught horse. The tray was evidently hinged on the axle and rested on these shafts, but could be tipped up for emptying by several men putting their weight on the back of the tray, as Gagliardi shows. Various other 103

18/11/15 17:24

forms of manual haulage are shown in other parts of the painting. There would also have been much scaffolding, involving planks, centring, materials in buckets hauled up by rope and pulley.

Fig. 2.20. Filippo Gagliardi (c. 1606–59), Imaginary View of a Port with a Building under Construction. Oil on canvas, 123 x 173 cm. Private Collection.

Supply of Materials

to have been on the site every day, and was involved with payments and receipts for other trades as well, and the day labourers generally worked under his direction. Mariano seems to have dealt with him on a day-to-day basis. At one point in 1723 the cardinal, at Mariano’s prompting, considers giving him a gift in recognition of his services, but decides to postpone it until such time as he can do it personally.6 Cerone died in 1727, while still working on the villa, but unfortunately for the cardinal before settling all of the accounts.7 Travertine, used for fancier features and the staircases, had to be brought from the travertine quarries on the road to Tivoli. This was the domain of the master scarpellini, Filippo Buti and Francesco Maria Perini. The supply of stone seems to have been arranged by Perini.8 The cartage of travertine from the quarries at Tivoli cost 3 scudi

The basic building materials were obtained locally. Tavolozza, a conglomerate of broken bricks and rubble, was the basic material for walling, and could be endlessly recycled. Presumably the earlier Casino was re-used in this way. In cities with such a long history as Rome one could often hope to find much tavolozza on-site from previous buildings, and in excavating the foundations for the Capannone (shed) near the Aurelian walls large quantities of tavolozza were discovered, which, the cardinal notes, would greatly reduce the expense of that structure.3 The basic walling was under the direction of the capo mastro muratore (master mason), Carlo Cerone.4 Cerone was the closest thing to a ‘builder’ in the modern sense, working on all the projects of the cardinal and his family.5 He seems 104

Libro MARSHALL.indb 104

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

a cartload, and before the end of December 1722 Perini had transported 766¼ linear palmi (171.2 m), or 25 cartloads. He also organised the transport by sea (since it involved marinesi (sailors)) of two large peperino doors, which cost 24 baiocchi per linear palmo. For 24 palmi (5.36 m) of chimney lintels fronts (frontoni de’ cammini) each of 2 palmi (45 cm) the cost was 2 scudi 40 baiocchi, while the cost of for transporting travertine from the villa at Porta Pia to Francesco Moderato’s workshop for the construction of the Dolphin Fountain on the Scalinata was 20 scudi 40 baiocchi. Perini was also responsible for the transport of plaster (gesso) for the internal walls, and sand for mortar, as set out in an account of December 1718.9 The other essential component of mortar was pozzolana, the cement used in ancient Roman concrete that set under water. The villa itself stood over extensive deposits of pozzolana that had been quarried since antiquity, and especially in the sixteenth century, so that the pozzolana may have been quarried on-site (Fig. 2.10).10 For transporting it and other local materials the Patrizi had a cart horse (cavallo della carretta) of their own. On 2 December 1719 the cardinal questions Mariano’s proposal to dispense with it.11 He assumes that Mariano thinks that the bulk of the work has been done and it will not be needed any more, and that he has taken into account that it would not be a good idea to buy another later on if it were still to be needed. The cardinal suggests that it might be a better idea to keep it, and rent it out to cover costs. Possibly this horse drew the carretta della pozzolana for which there are payments for various jobs to be done by the cartmaker Signora Caterina Oldoni from 1716 to May 1717.12 A saddler was at hand, and horseshoes were also needed.13 Paving Bricks Bricks used for paving the rooms came from Rome and Sasso. The accounts mostly refer to the brickmaker (forniciaro), Giovanni Battista Sarazani, whose kiln for pipes (condotti) appears to have been at Monte Cavallo (the Quirinal), while some bricks were from ‘S. Pietro’.14 He produced thick bricks (mattoni grossi), cut bricks (mattoni rotati), white bricks (mattoni bianchi), thin tiles (pianelle), roof tiles (tevole or tegole), pipes (condotti and canali) and vases. The bulk of the bricks appear in the account for 1717, which totals 272 cartloads at 200 bricks per load, or 54,400 bricks in total, at five scudi per 1000. Some of the paving bricks came from the Patrizi feudo at Sasso where there was a brickworks functioning until the twentieth century (Fig. 2.21). The man with whom the cardinal dealt Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 105

Fig. 2.21. Photograph of the Patrizi feudo of Sasso in the 1920s, with the brickworks at the left and with additional labeling. (Paolo Patrizi.)

was one Pietro Magneni. On 16 July 1718 the cardinal has learnt of the arrival at the villa, by way of Castel Giuliano, of seven migliara (thousand) bricks (mattoni) in fourteen cartloads (that is, 500 to a cartload).15 The cardinal finds them to be expensive, at 26 scudi in total, or almost four scudi per 1000. He suggests that they use them for the Piano Nobile, and get the rest from Rome where they would be cheaper (although, as we have seen, Sarazani’s bricks cost five scudi per 1000). Presumably cartage from Sasso and Castel Giuliano would have added to their cost. The bricks from Sasso may have been the same size as those now in the Gallery at Castel Giuliano. These are of two sizes, oblong red bricks measuring about 130 x 260 mm and square yellow bricks about 170 mm square. At four scudi per 1000 the price of the oblong bricks works out at 59 baiocchi per square canna; the square bricks at 69 baiocchi per square canna.16 There are other references to bricks coming from Sasso in 1718 and 1719, when the cardinal states that if they cannot get them from Sasso they will have to get them from Rome.17 A year later, however, the paving (mattonato) of the Piano Nobile Gallery has not yet been finished.18 In 1720 bricks were being supplied for the Stanza del Trucco, including mattoni grezzi (grey bricks) for the Upper Terrace above the Servants’ Mezzanines.19 The bricks in the Casino were laid by the ammattonatore Giuseppe de Rossi. His contract for laying ‘white’ (yellow) and red bricks is dated 6 November 1717.20 It specifies that the cardinal is to provide all necessary lime mortar (calce) and masons’ work, and if de Rossi does not want to continue the work the cardinal has the right 105

18/11/15 17:24

to engage someone else. At the end of work it was to be measured and paid for at the rate (a ragione) of 60 baiocchi the [square] canna, ‘tagliati’ (that is, after cutting and fitting). De Rossi presented detailed accounts of the work done (Doc. 4.4) that reveal that many different types of bricks were used and their cost (which must include both material and labour costs) varied widely. The Piano Nobile Gallery was by far the most expensive, at 3.5 scudi per square canna, followed by the Ground Floor Gallery (2.80 scudi). The remaining areas cost much less: the landings (ripiani) of the Scala Grande and Scaletta (1.9 and 1.2 scudi); the Roof Terrace (1.3 scudi); the landing of the spiral staircase on the Piano Nobile (1.2 scudi); one Mezzanine room (MZ09) and seven Ground Floor rooms (1.2 scudi); the Stanza del Trucco (1.0 scudi); and the rest of the rooms on the Mezzanine and Piano Nobile (90 baiocchi). Window Glass The window glass was installed by the vetraro, or glazier, Gregorio Pierantonio, and his son Francesco who, for the most part, is the one who signs the receipts.21 The glass came from Murano in Venice, the centre of Italian glass manufacturing, and was packed into casse or chests containing mazzi (bundles) of glass panes; each mazzo consisting of 100 panes. The panes came in various sizes, called no. 10 (the smallest), no. 17, no. 28, and no. 36 (the largest), costing from 18 Venetian lire (1 scudo 80 baiocchi) per 100 for no. 10, to 50 lire (5 scudi) per 100 for no. 36. 22 The smaller two sizes were packed 400 panes to a cassa, the larger two sizes 200 panes to a cassa. Breakage was considerable. One list records the total number of panes used between 1 March 1718 until 6 May 1721 as 6469, of which 417 were broken.23 This works out at 6 per cent over the whole period, but on some days breakage goes as high as 33 per cent. Another document refers to a total of 4674 intact panes of which 414 were broken, or 9 per cent.24 To this had to be added the cost of the labour of the vetraro and the leading. The vetraro was paid 32.5 baiocchi for each four-pane window, 15 baiocchi for every 100 lead glazing bars, 4 quattrini (0.8 baiocchi) for each rod (bacchetta) of solder, and 20 baiocchi per 100 for cleaning.25 Most of the glazing (80 per cent) took place in 1718, which had dropped to 17 per cent in 1719 and only 3 per cent in 1721. 26 Some glazing was still going on as late as April 1723.27 When the destination of shipments are identified, the chapel comes at the beginning (1 March 1718); there is glass being supplied for the Scaletta, Mezzanine and Ground Floor in April 106

Libro MARSHALL.indb 106

1721, and glass is still being supplied for the Piano Nobile Gallery and the Galleriola in May 1721. The Stanza del Trucco seems to have been wholly glazed from 8 May 1721 onwards. After that there are only minor items, although in July 1723 the cardinal was anticipating ordering from Venice a cassa of glass to be used at the villa and at Castel Giuliano.28 In short, the Casino seems not to have been wholly weatherproof until well into 1721. Transport While most of the glass seems to have come from Venice, as late as 30 November 1720 the cardinal was exploring the cost of Roman glass.29 He wanted to know what 100 panes (a mazzo) of glass (vetri) cost in Rome, because he was getting quotes from Venice, adding on the transport costs (debito di porto).30 The main trade route from Venice to Rome was through Pesaro, and from Venice to Pesaro transport could be effected over water by employing the canal system of the Po Valley, which included Ferrara. It was easy, therefore, for the cardinal to intercept goods en route to check on their quality. This route was the one also used by travellers who took a day-and-a-half to get from Venice to Ferrara. For example, in 1714 the Chevalier van den Branden de Reeth left Venice at 10 pm on 14 February on a barge called Procaccio, arriving at Ferrara at dawn on 16 February, a journey of about 33 hours. He then travelled with a voiturier (vetturino, or coachman) overland in a carriage that went by way of Ravenna, Pesaro, Ancona and Loreto where he turned inland to Assisi and the cascade at Terni to Rome. The cost was 8 louis d’or for two.31 Goods could also be sent from Ferrara along the Po River to the delta, taking the southern branch to reach the Adriatic at Goro a little north of Comacchio, to continue down the coast to ports at Pesaro, Senigallia or Ancona. This was not always trouble-free. On 11 July 1722 the cardinal describes his agitation when, having sent off some packages of furniture, he learns that some ‘Signori’— of the Venetian government—in attempting to stop tobaccosmuggling, had blockaded the mouth of the river at Goro, and were attempting to make good their losses by employing brigantines against boats going from Ferrara to Senigallia.32 He worries that they may intercept the boat carrying his goods. Goro was in Ferrarese territory, and he states that he has given instructions in his official capacity to dislodge them, but he is not sure if they will succeed. The cost of shipping from Venice to Pesaro was 3½ lire (about 35 baiocchi) per cassa.33 The sea route around

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

the heel of Italy to the papal port of Civitavecchia was a possibility where glass was concerned, given that it was a high-value cargo that, as we have seen, was easily damaged, especially by the frequent transhipments required by the overland route. It was a possibility that was seriously considered by the cardinal, who investigated the costs. To send a cassa of no. 17 glass (400 panes) to Rome via Civitavecchia cost 11.55 scudi (including insurance at 6 per cent of value, and customs duties). This was quite expensive, considering that to get it to Pesaro, almost half way to Rome, cost one 36th of this amount. Items for furnishing the villa also came by way of Pesaro, often being checked by the cardinal in Ferrara. For example, on 27 July 1720 the cardinal tells Mariano that he has not had confirmation that the furniture has left Pesaro, and a small table (tavolino) that matches one already sent has arrived, and he will send it on in due course.34 Later, on 17 August 1720 he has learnt that the packages (balle) of furniture have left Pesaro, and by now should have arrived at the customs house (dogana) in Rome.35 He reminds Mariano to have them transported to the vigna as they are, and to unpack them there, and not to transport them on carts (carretti), but to borrow horse-drawn vehicles with shafts (stanghe) from the Chigi, Rospigliosi, or Paluzzo (Altieri) families. Similarly with furnishing fabrics: on 14 February 1720 the cardinal discusses the shipping of a package (balletta) of capicciola (the Sicilian term for a silk fabric made from waste silk).36 He has sent it under his own name by water as far as Pesaro, to be handed over to the forwarding agent (speditioniere), Pietro Catani, who will ship it to Rome by the first available transport (condotta), and be responsible for clearing Customs. Two weeks later the cardinal expect that the capicciola will be not long delayed, so that Francesco will be able to begin work.37 By Wednesday, 20 March the cardinal expects it to have arrived as he has checked that it had left Pesaro.38

Plan Before construction began, it was necessary for the architect, Sebastiano Cipriani, to prepare designs and to supervise their setting-out. In an album of drawings and photographs in the Patrizi collections (the Patrizi Album) are a plan (Fig. 2.22) and elevation (Fig. 2.39) of the villa, evidently drawn by Cipriani. They show the design at the inception of the project, before construction, and therefore must date to 1715–16. The plan is redrawn and Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 107

reorientated for clarity in Fig. 2.23, where the spaces have been numbered clockwise from the main entrance. Although this plan was followed in its essentials, there were variations in dimensions and details in execution. The evidence for this is the accounts of Giuseppe de Rossi, the ammattonatore, who laid the brick paving.39 As was spelt out in the contract, de Rossi priced the job by measuring each room, including door and window embrasures, calculating the area and costing it accordingly (Doc. 4.4).40 His accounts therefore provide the interior dimensions of each room, and the areas of door and window embrasures. These can be correlated with the Cipriani plan, allowing it to be redrawn as an accurate plan of the executed building. Each of the three floors was essentially the same in plan, although Room 4 on the Mezzanine was subsequently partitioned, and Room 9 on the Piano Nobile and Mezzanine was a gabinetto atached to the adjacent bedroom. What emerges is that whereas the Cipriani plan was conceived as almost a double square of 72 x 140 palmi (16.08 x 31.38 m), the executed building was slightly larger at about 73.5 x 143.5 palmi (16.42 x 32.06 m) (Figs 2.24–2.25). These dimensional changes appear to result from a number of small adjustments, chief of which concerned the rooms across the Strada di S. Agnese side of the building, the main representational spaces that formed an enfilade. In the Cipriani plan the first two rooms (PN02 and PN03) are narrower (18 palmi (4 m) compared to 22.5 palmi (5 m)). Possibly Cipriani was originally thinking of their Ground Floor function as rooms for servants, but realised that on the Piano Nobile symmetry and uniformity of dimensions across the building were more important. In the executed building the outer pairs of rooms are all the same depth (22.50 palmi (5 m)), but the outermost ones (PN02, PN06) are longer at 27 palmi (6 m) than the innermost ones (PN02, PN05) at 23 palmi (5.14 m). These rooms would have been perceived as alternatively oblong and square. The extra few palmi of the overall width of the building derives from the lengthening of the outermost rooms. On the east of the garden side the these extra palmi have been put to good used to widen the Chapel/Gabinetto, now 15 palmi wide (3.35 m), rather than 12 (2.68 m). The dimensions of the rooms on the western end of the garden side are less clear, but they were probably both roughly square (24 x 25 palmi (5.36 x 5.59 m).41 An important factor affecting the final dimensions of these rooms would have been the locations of the window embrasures, which are dictated by the symmetry and regularity of the façade elevation. In the Cipriani plan there is one particularly awkward point in PN02, where the nar107

18/11/15 17:24

rowness of the room causes the window embrasure nearest the staircase to cut into the wall. In the end this would not matter since this window was blind, and perhaps Cipriani was anticipating this, but it is awkward nonetheless. In the executed plan such problems are avoided.42 One consequence of adjusting the length of the rooms across the front is that the dividing walls between the corner rooms are no longer aligned. This might explain why Rooms 3 and 5 are not completely square, since reducing their length by the half palmo necessary to make them so would have interfered with the windows.43 These changes mean that the Scala Grande was shifted to the south. In the Cipriani plan the entrance door, which is on the central axis of the building, is aligned with the southern flight of the Scala Grande. This axis continues through the building to the Galleriola, which is also displaced towards the north. As built, however, the entrance door would have been perceived optically as being on the centre-line of the Scala Grande, although, according to the reconstructed plan, it was 0.75 palmi (17 cm) off-centre. (The Galleriola alignment was essentially unchanged.) 108

Libro MARSHALL.indb 108

Fig. 2.22. Sebastiano Cipriani (1662–1738), Project Plan of the Ground Floor of the Casino of the Villa Patrizi, c. 1715. From the Patrizi Album. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Another change involved the Ground Floor door on the west. In the views it is shown to be wider than the internal doors (see the indications on Fig. 2.24), whereas in the Cipriani plan it is the same width as the internal doors. This may have looked mean to anyone arriving at what was, after all, the main carriage entrance. On the Cipriani plan it would not be possible to widen the door, as one side is already hard up against a wall, but it could be done with the executed plan. The Cipriani plan does not make it clear whether the south flight of steps (shown dotted) descended into the Basement. None of the inventories refers to anything but the Scaletta leading to the Basement. This would have left a space beneath the rising flight and the half-way landing, which from the indications in the inventories did not give access to GF04. Instead, this was a space for cassapanchi (wooden bench seats with the family coat of arms) and items of use for the servants.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Main Staircase (Scala Grande) Normally at this period staircases were wholly enclosed, although grander Roman palaces had open stairs around a central cage (as in Palazzo Barberini, Palazzo Altieri and Palazzo Corsini), but these have four full flights on each level, not two. The Cipriani plan, however, shows no dividing wall between the flights, although it does so for the Scaletta. Moreover there was also quite a lot of ironwork associated with the staircases, so that it is possible that the Scala Grande was at least in part open (Figs 2.25, 2.26). Both options need to be borne in mind, but on balance the closed option is more probable, and I have assumed that the most reliable comparative example is the staircase at Castel Giuliano, designed by Cipriani, a decade or more earlier (Fig. 2.27). The Scala Grande was constructed by the scarpellino Francesco Maria Perini. His accounts tell us that each of the upper flights had sixteen treads, with two further treads on the landing.44 The lower flights has nineteen treads, also with a further two treads on the landing. The difference in number reflects the difference in height between Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 109

Fig. 2.23. The project plan (Fig. 2.22) redrawn for clarity. (David R. Marshall.)

the Mezzanine and Ground Floor. The accounts also give the width of each slab, which was slightly greater on the lower floors than the upper, and the overlap, from which it follows that the longitudinal dimensions of the lower flights were greater than the upper.45 These dimensions mean that the landing between the Ground Floor and Mezzanine was set against the wall shared with GF05, but the landing above was set further forward. This allowed room for the spiral staircase (lumaca) that began at Mezzanine level.46 The two landing treads would have corresponded to a central wall dividing the stairs, like the one at Castel Giuliano, which is decorated with pilaster strips (Fig. 2.27). Since the tread depth on the Ground Floor to Mezzanine flights was 1.63 palmi (36.4 cm), the thickness of the dividing wall would need to have been equal to two of these: that is, 3.35 palmi (74.8 cm).47 This would have meant the width of each flight was about 5.85 palmi (131 cm) if the staircase hall were 15 palmi (3.35 109

18/11/15 17:24

m) wide, as I have argued, or 6.33 palmi (1.41 m) according to the 16 palmi (3.57 m) width of the Scala Grande given by the Cipriani plan. Hence each end of the tread would have been embedded about 1 (or 0.8) palmo into the walls on either side. This is hardly spacious, and one is reminded of the narrow staircases at the Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano or the Villa Albani at Anzio. If the inner landings were the same width as the stair treads (5.85 palmi (131 cm) the landings at the entrance wall were probably 15.7 palmi (3.51 m) deep, and as wide as the staircase hall (15 palmi (3.35 m)).48 The one on the Ground Floor would have been faced with two rectangular or arched openings—the left framing the ascending flight, the right the service space—with a section of wall above. The one on the Mezzanine would have had a wooden beamed roof like the other rooms on this floor, 110

Libro MARSHALL.indb 110

Fig. 2.24. Villa Patrizi, plan of Ground Floor (reconstruction), with dimensions. (David R. Marshall.)

and comparable openings. Perini’s account, however, tells us that the backs of the undersides of the steps were cut away in a curve so as to eliminate the sharp stepped edge of the ceiling to the flight below (tagliato con diligenza a scurcio incavata per di sotto ciascheduno di essi scalini ad effetto di sminuire il travertino et accrescere il muro della volta sotto). This may have been necessary to maximise the headroom before stuccoing the ceiling as a shallow coved vault, as at Castel Giuliano (Fig. 2.27), or it may mean that the treads formed the ceiling as well as the floor. On the top floor at Villa Patrizi there would be no need for a rising flight, as there was nothing above. Instead there was probably a passageway—like the one on the

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Ground Floor—that may have given access to the spiral staircase (lumaca) that connected the Mezzanine and the Roof Terrace (loggia) (Fig. 2.26). There was also apparently access to the lumaca from the Piano Nobile Gallery (PN04). Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 111

Fig. 2.25. Villa Patrizi, plan of Piano Nobile (reconstruction), with dimensions. (David R. Marshall.)

111

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.27. Castel Giuliano, main staircase, view from piano nobile landing. (David R. Marshall.)

The dividing wall of the Scala Grande may have continued upwards, with (probably arched) openings to the rising flight on the right and the passageway on the left (Option 1 on Fig. 2.26). However, this was not strictly necessary, provided that the opening to the rising flight was enclosed by a balustrade, creating a spacious hall (Option 2 on Fig. 2.26). Such a hallway would also have given the opportunity for a frescoed vault, although there is no hint of one in the payments to painters, and it would surely have been mentioned if there were one.49 The possibility is worth exploring because of the ironwork on the Scala Grande recorded in the accounts of the chiavaro Pietro Monti.50 On 9 August 1718 he was paid for four

Fig. 2.26. Villa Patrizi, main staircase (Scala Grande), plans and sections (reconstruction). (David R. Marshall.)

112

Libro MARSHALL.indb 112

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

substantial iron balconies or railings (parapetti) weighing on average more than 100 kilos each for the Scala Grande, and again on 12 May 1720 for another five, also for the Scala Grande but weighing on average more than 150 kilos each.51 The scarpellino Perini’s account must be referring to the same items when he describes setting into the steps first four, then five, railings (sprange) at the base of balconies (ringhiere), which are probably Monti’s parapetti. Thus there appear to have been nine iron balconies or railings. Some of these would have been the small curved balconies that Manglard, although not Vasi, shows on the external windows corresponding to the Mezzanine and Piano Nobile landings of the Scala Grande (Fig. 2.28). (There were extensive balconies on the front and rear façades, but Monti refers specifically to the Scala Grande.) Such balconies are prominent in Cardinal Alessandro Albani’s villa at Anzio, built from about 1728 to 1735 (Figs 2.29, 2.30).52 This would account for some of them. The others might have been for the suggested railing. There is also a payment to Niccolò de Giudice ottonaro on 2 December 1719 for 17 brass balls, nine large and eight middle-sized, for the ‘staircases’ (le scale), which might be both the Scala Grande and Scaletta, or just one of them.53 Such staircase balls could be found in secondary staircases of open form, such as the Palazzo Monti at Bologna, a palazzo that the cardinal and Patrizio had studied, but at Castel Giuliano, however, the service staircase has no such trimmings (Fig. 2.34). They are also found on fancier sites like balconies or other structures involving iron railings, as at the Villa Albani at Anzio (Fig. 2.30). Such balls would be appropriate to the railings on the top floor that I have postulated, and for the equivalent railings on the top floor of the Scaletta. However, if the Scala Grande on the Piano Nobile did form a kind of staircase hall we would have heard more about it. Therefore the most plausible reconstruction is a more spacious version of the arrangement at Castel Giuliano with two arched openings off the window landing, the one at the left opening to a passageway (as in Option 1 in Fig. 2.26).54 Within the Scala Grande was a picture with a gilt frame of Time Holding a Clock.55 The fact that it had a gilt frame suggests that it was not a fresco, but it seems that the clock was real. On 13 August 1718 the cardinal approved what was probably this clock in its intended site, and wanted measurement to be taken so that ‘at night both spheres are illuminated’.56 This suggests that it was some kind of night clock, although these were usually portable.57 At Castel Giuliano the landings are accented with busts in niches to terminate the axes of the flights (Figs. 2.27), so perhaps this clock served a similar purpose. Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 113

Fig. 2.28. Details of window balconies of the staircase. Left: Manglard street view (Fig. 4.1). Centre: Vasi (Fig. 1.1). Right: Ex-Maraini (Fig. 4.4).

Fig. 2.29. Nettuno, Villa Albani, 1721. View of façade. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 2.30. Nettuno, Villa Albani, 1721. Detail of balcony. (David R. Marshall.)

113

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.31. The project plan (Fig. 2.22), detail of Chapel, with additional labelling. (David R. Marshall.)

Service Staircase (Scaletta) The service stair, or Scaletta, was situated between Room 9 (Chapel, Gabinetto) and the Galleries. The Cipriani plan shows the Scaletta as a flight of fourteen treads, ten of which are solid and four dotted (Fig. 2.31). The dotted lines must refer to where the staircase is crossed by a landing. Cipriani shows ten treads in the stretch between the landings, and another four dotted treads beyond the window landing. If this is transposed to the revised plan where the distance between the landings is 13.5 palmi (3 m), each tread would be a comfortable 1.35 palmi (30 cm) deep. The additional four treads would total 5.5 palmi (123 cm), leaving a narrow 3 palmi (67 cm) for a landing on the window. In the Cipriani plan the landing width is more like 4 palmi (89 cm) (Figs 2.32, 2.33). What Cipriani shows may be either (a) a rising flight from a landing in front of GF07, or (b) a descending flight into the Basement from the same landing. In both cases the other half of the space has no flight shown, since this was a passageway. Option (a) would provide direct access on the Mezzanine level to MZ07, hinted at in the inventories,58 but is problematic for a number of reasons.59 Option (b) would require the rising flight to be on the same side as the one shown, but rising from a landing on the window side, paralleling the descending flight into the Basement. 114

Libro MARSHALL.indb 114

Fig. 2.32. Villa Patrizi, service staircase (Scaletta), section (reconstruction). (David R. Marshall.)

Such an arrangement would correspond to the disposition of the Scala Grande and has the benefit of simplicity. The main landings would all be on the window side, while the half-way landings would be on the Room 7 side. On the Mezzanine level there would be no access to MZ07. While the treads widths drawn by Cipriani would be feasible for the descent to the Basement, if transposed to the upper levels there would be space for only one landing. If the treads are confined to the space between the landings at either end it makes for a two-flight staircase, but a steep one (about 37 degrees) (Fig. 2.32).60 The question

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.34. Castel Giuliano, service staircase, view from the ground floor hall. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 2.33. B. Villa Patrizi, service staircase (Scaletta), plans (reconstruction). (David R. Marshall.)

is complicated by the fact that the doorways at either end of the window landing on the Mezzanine (to MZ11 and MZ09) are called porticelle (small doors) in the inventories. This raises the possibility that these doorways were smaller than the standard doorways, and possibly shifted to the window side, precisely in order to permit slightly wider treads and shallower flights. This would be permissible in this part of the Mezzanine as the rooms were for servants and austerely furnished. The Scaletta flights were probably barrel-vaulted, as with the comparable staircase at Castel Giuliano (Fig. 2.34). The Scaletta was for the use of servants, and gave access to the Basement kitchens. The 1739 inventory, in describing the Basement, begins with ‘Porta che si scende alla scala che introduce alli sotterranei con chiave seratura, e un paletto segnata Numero 1’. Because of its position in the inventory, this is unlikely to be the doorway to GF07, but is probably a door that closed off the flight descending to the Basement. On emerging from the kitchens through this door a servant would face the opening to GF07, Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 115

the credenza, the room for serving food. Returning to the passageway the servant would be able to see into the Chapel (GF09) through a grating on his left, discussed in Chapter 3.8. The servants could turn left into the Chapel or right to a landing where the upward flight of the Scaletta begins, beyond which was the Ground Floor Gallery (GF04). At the top of the steps on the Mezzanine level the servant could turn left into MZ09 or right into MZ11, but could not immediately reach the Mezzanine Galleriola (MZ07) without going the long way around. On the Piano Nobile, at the top of the steps the servant could turn left into the Gabinetto (GF09), right into the Piano Nobile Gallery (PN04), or, since there was no upward flight, go along a passageway corresponding to the one on the Ground Floor (but on the opposite side) to the Galleriola Dipinta (PN07).

Basement and Kitchens The Basement must have had the same plan as the Ground Floor in order to support the upper walls, although the walls might have been thicker. The kitchens were located here, as well as rooms described as the dispensa (dispensing storeroom),61 the stanza de rami (where copper and iron utensils were stored), the tinello (servants’ dining hall) with a table, benches and shelves for ‘the use of servants who use them to store crockery during the villeggiatura 115

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.35. Detail of project elevation (Fig 2.40) showing roof turrets.

season’ (perhaps corresponding to Room 7),62 a credenza (butler’s pantry) with six ramate to store the good crockery and glasses and four wardrobes for storing all kinds of implements and objects (given the amount of storage this may correspond to Room 4), a carbonara (carbonaia: coal cellar), a ‘corridor’ containing five trestle tables that made up a very large table (tavolone) for a ‘grand meal’, which presumably would be set up on the Upper Terrace or in GF04 as required.63 As early as 9 July 1718 the kitchens were working, and the cardinal was happy that chimneys did not smoke. In 1725, however, smoking chimneys in the kitchens had become a problem, dirtying the interiors and damaging the paintings.64 Part of the solution seems to have been to switch from wood to charcoal as fuel. Eventually the problem was resolved. In 1718 the cardinal wanted all the French conveniences necessary for cooking the modern French way, and suggested getting the advice of a French cook, such as Monsù Muscettola, the cook of Cardinal de la Trémoille, ‘who is a capable man’.65 On 22 September 1722, he expressed his satisfaction with the location of the credenza where they would eat, as it was close to the kitchen and did not not clutter the Casino.66 Presumably he meant by this the tinello in the Basement rather than GF07 that at times had a credenza (serving table). The accounts of the carpenter (falegname), Giuseppe Santolini, give details of carpentry work in the Basement 116

Libro MARSHALL.indb 116

from 1 April 1719 onwards.67 From this we learn that there was a luogo comune della scaletta with an elm-wood table (the Room 7 position?), and various wooden doors. In December 1721 34 maiolica pipes were being installed here.68 In December 1721 copper pots were being acquired from Giovanni Banconi, ramaro del Sagro Palazzo Apostolico in Piazza Sciarra.69

Chimneys On 28 October 1719 the cardinal discusses chimneypieces for the five chimneys. He is firm in wanting them made alla francese (that is, of the low French type, with a mantelpiece, not the higher Italian type, and recommends using peperino (perhaps because it was easy to carve into serpentine shapes) and is anxious that the mouldings form a mantelpiece.70 Earlier he had wanted them to have mirrored overmantels.71 Three years later the chimneypieces were still not installed,72 and the cardinal suggests drawing their outline on the walls to see how they would look.73 The five fireplaces in question must be those in GF03, MZ06, PN02 and PN05, as well as the one in the kitchens referred to. The cardinal requested a chimney in his Gabinetto (PN09), but apparently did not get his way, as there is no chimneypiece in this room mentioned in the inventories.74 Manglard’s views show four chimneys

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Spiral Staircase, Guardarobba and Roof Terrace

Fig. 2.36. The Guardarobba, turrets and Roof Terrace. Top: Vasi (Fig. 1.1). Centre: Manglard street view (Fig. 4.1). Bottom: Manglard garden view (Fig. 4.2).

on the exterior, two on either side of the building, but he may not be reliable.75 The two on the Strada di S. Agnese side would be accounted for by the four fireplaces just mentioned, having taken the form of back-to-back flues in a shared chimneystack: GF03 and PN02 would be one, and MZ06 and MZ05 another. So what where the two chimneys on the garden side for? There is no hint in the inventories of any other chimneys other than the five mentioned in this letter. This leaves the kitchens. There may have been two back-to-back chimneys, the flues of which may have run all the way to the roof within the walls without engaging with the upper floors. This would place the kitchens in the rooms corresponding to Rooms 8 and 9, though 12 and 14 are possibilities. Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 117

Santolini’s accounts list every piece of wood employed for the construction of the spiral staircases (lumache) inside the cylindrical turrets leading to the Roof Terrace (Fig. 2.35).76 From these it is apparent that cypress stair treads were set into an elm-wood ‘spindle’ (fuso; that is, the shaft around which the treads rotate) made of three pieces of wood totalling 65 palmi (14.5 m) long. This dimension corresponds closely to the distance between the floor of the Mezzanine and the top of the cornice below the Roof Terrace (which is therefore probably the floor level of the Roof Terrace). This means that the lumaca went down to the Mezzanine. There is, however, mention of only one such spindle, and the data provided by the inventories makes it impossible for the lumaca to have gone all the way down on the Galleriola side. On the staircase side, however, as we have seen, there is a dead space where it would have fitted comfortably. Nor would it have been necessary to have a full-height lumaca on both sides, as one would have provided the necessary access to the Piano Nobile and Mezzanine; the other need only have gone down as far as the Guardarobba. Santolini explicitly refers to steps for two spiral staircases, but the number of steps is only 27, implying a height of about 13.5 palmi (3.0 m), which corresponds to the section going from the Guardarobba to the Roof Terrace.77 The treads in question seems to have been 3.5 palmi (78.2 cm) wide, 1.5 palmi (34 cm) deep at their widest point, and 0.5 palmi (11 cm) high. The upper parts of the turrets were wooden as well, forming pillboxes accessible to the Roof Terrace through two-leaf doors measuring 8 x 4 palmi (179 x 84 cm). There were three narrow windows in each turret. The views of Vasi and Manglard give slightly differing accounts of the turrets and Roof Terrace area (Fig. 2.36). Vasi seems to locate the turrets slightly towards the street façade from the centre-line of the building established by the roof ridge. Manglard’s street view places the turrets midway between the roof ridge and the street façade, while his garden view places them on the garden side. The first two are likely to be correct: in his garden view Manglard probably used an elevation drawing like the Cipriani elevation which does not indicate where the roof ridge was, and simply added the roof behind.78 This placement makes also best sense from the point of view of the plan and is the way it was done in the rebuilt villa. Manglard shows a hipped roof over the Guardarobba (his garden view is confused in this area), while Vasi, as far as one can tell, shows a sloping roof. The rebuilt Casino had such a hipped roof, but there the roof was higher overall 117

18/11/15 17:24

as the Villa Farnesina and the Villa Borghese, often had two projecting wings with a ground floor loggia between, which resulted in a plan involving two overlapping rectangles (Fig. 2.37). This overlapping-rectangle scheme is found in the Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano and the Villa Catena, and it is still discernible in Cardinal Albani’s villa at Anzio of 1728–35, in spite of its greater elaboration (Fig. 2.38 Even the Villa Valenti Gonzaga (Villa Paolina), built a generation later than the Villa Patrizi on the other side of the Porta Pia, still follows this basic plan, although it is an unbroken cubical block (Fig. 2.39).80 In such villas there is a large room facing the back of the villa, and a smaller one facing the front over the loggia. In no other Roman villa to my knowledge is there a main room or Gallery running from front to back as it does in the Villa Patrizi (Room 4). The sources and implications of such an arrangement are best left to the discussion of the Gallery (Chapter 3.3).

Elevation

Fig. 2.37. Top: Rome, Villa Borghese, plan. (After Belli Barsali, 1983.) Fig. 2.38. Centre: Nettuno, Villa Albani, plan. Fig. 2.39. Bottom: Rome, Villa Valenti Gonzaga, plan. (After Belli Barsali, 1983.)

because of an added attic, and it is hard to fit a hipped roof to Cipriani’s elevation, so Vasi is probably a better guide to what was built.79

Plan Comparisons The plan of the Villa Patrizi was somewhat unusual. Roman villas in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, such 118

Libro MARSHALL.indb 118

Cipriani’s elevation drawing (Figs. 2.40) seems to have been followed fairly closely in execution, since it corresponds closely to Vasi’s view (although the Mezzanine window surrounds there seem somewhat reduced). The details of the ornament display a strong borrominismo, above all in the way the main cornice rolls up into a volute, a motif derived from Borromini’s façade of the Oratory of the Filippini (Fig. 2.41). The Piano Nobile window frames have the combination of round hoods with straight side projections and circular ornamental feature of the upperstorey windows of the same building (Fig. 2.42), though Cipriani’s development of this idea is more conventional. Such forms were a staple of barocchetto architects, and were conveniently available in Borromini’s Opus Architettonicum, which published engravings of the details of the building (Fig. 2.43).81 The Mezzanine windows (Fig. 2.44) are more remote from Borromini, and employ C-scrolls with an angular junction that lacks both the architectonic understanding and sense of the organic nature of architectural forms characteristic of Borromini. In using C-scrolls they acknowledge contemporary French ornament—the C-scroll is the defining motif of the Rococo—but do so in a way that is characteristic of Cipriani, and which is found also in the wooden frames of the paintings and Chinoiserie panels in the interior. The Ground Floor windows (Fig. 2.45) have angular versions of Borromini ‘ears’, but in other respects are conventional. As with other barocchetto architects, Cipriani is careful to tie the window frames to

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

the stringcourses below, except for the Mezzanine, where the windows only have ornamental brackets that do not reach the stringcourse. This has the effect of detatching

Fig. 2.40. Sebastiano Cipriani (1662–1738), Project Elevation of the Casino of the Villa Patrizi, c. 1715. From the Patrizi Album. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Fig. 2.41. Rome, Oratory of the Filippini (architect: Francesco Borromini (1559–1667)), façade cornice.

Fig. 2.42. Window frames. Left: Oratory of the Filippini, upper storey. Right: project elevation, Piano Nobile (Fig. 2.40).

Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 119

119

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.44. Left: Villa Patrizi, project elevation (Fig. 2.39), detail of Mezzanine window. Fig. 2.45. Centre: Villa Patrizi, project elevation (Fig. 2.40), detail of Ground Floor window. Fig. 2.43. Sebastiano Giannini (engraver), Façade of the Oratory of the Filippini, 1725. From Francesco Borromini, Opus Architectonicum, Rome, 1725 (text by Virgilio Spada, 1647).

Fig. 2.46. Right: Villa Patrizi, project elevation (Fig. 2.39), detail of corner pilasters.

the Mezzanine windows from the architectonic lines of the structure, and thus de-emphasising them, as befits their subordinate hierarchical position. The outline of the main block is emphasised by the framing pilasters, which are doubled for emphasis in the usual way. They get thinner as they ascend in a way that is unrelated to their height, and because they are, necessarily, aligned along their outer edges, the centre-lines shift outwards as they ascend (Fig. 2.46). Such a treatment might cause offence to more fastidiously classicising eyes than Cipriani, and even to Borromini’s, who never does this. Ornament is concentrated on the central three bays that correspond to the Galleries and have a A-B-A rhythm, loosely identifiable as a triumphal arch motif (Fig. 2.47). The side openings on the Ground Floor have notched upper corners that are somewhat Borrominesque, and an additional thin attic, which results in multiple horizontal mouldings that provide strong support for the Mezzanine level. Here, as with the window frames, a greater freedom or ornament is permitted, in this case an exercise in Michelangelesque grotesquerie. Brackets are applied to tapering pilasters, a device reminiscent of the upper part of the Julius tomb or other Mannerist projects of Michelangelo. The central bay has a grotesque face with a bat’s wings that forms a crowning feature to the oval window in a way that is almost worthy

of Borromini’s monument to Cardinal Baronius in the Vallicelliana library or the aisle monuments in S. Giovanni in Laterano. Supporting the oval window from below is a split pediment with volutes and Borrominesque continuities of form that are interesting if confused. In the side bays are shields with what appear to be lions’ heads in the lower part. (The ornaments of this middle section seems to have been modified in execution to something less bizarre, to judge from Vasi.) The brackets support a balcony with a wrought iron railing and fancy scroll ornaments to give weight to the sections corresponding to the pilasters. This is similar to the treatment of the wrought-iron balcony in Cardinal Albani’s contemporary villa at Anzio (Fig. 2.48). The Piano Nobile has a full-blown serliana lighting the Piano Nobile Galleria, the design of which is fairly fussy. The side windows are unornamented tall rectangles cut into the wall, while the central arched opening is ever more elongated, a fact only partly disguised by the railing and the setting on pedestals of the columns from which the arch springs. Above the arch, unnecessarily, is a pair of volutes nestling against the keystone—perhaps a homage to Michelangelo’s Porta Pia (Fig. 2.49). Above the serliana is an attic zone with further windows lighting the Guardarobba and the tablet for the inscription discussed in Chapter 1.2. This more than doubles the height of the

120

Libro MARSHALL.indb 120

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.48. Nettuno, Villa Albani, balcony (top); Villa Patrizi, project elevation (Fig. 2.39), detail of balcony.

Room Heights

Fig. 2.47. Villa Patrizi, project elevation (Fig. 2.39), detail of the central bays.

side sections of the Serlianas below, and has a cornice scaled to the larger unit (the Piano Nobile level plus the raised roof of the Gallery). The whole central section is more successful than it deserves to be, although it is perhaps too insistently vertical. It is crowned by the Roof Terrace, which has a wrought-iron balustrade that swells out in the lower part like south Italian balconies designed, it is said, to accommodate the full dresses of the period. On either side are the turrets for the two spiral staircases, or lumache, that give access to the roof. These have ogee or biretta-like terminations. The overall design is effective, if perhaps a little top-heavy. It is certainly more richly decorated than most of the villas within the walls of Rome, and succeeds in combining the gravitas suitable for a town palazzo with a lightness both suitable for a villa and characteristic of the period. Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 121

The inventories make it clear that the Ground Floor and Piano Nobile were vaulted, while the Mezzanine had a flat ceiling. By correlating the Cipriani elevation with the indications from the inventories, the room heights work out at approximately 23 palmi high (5.24 m) on the Ground Floor, 20 palmi high (4.47 m) on the Mezzanine, and 25 palmi high (5.59 m) on the Piano Nobile (Fig. 2.50).82 In spite of the exaggerated height of the façade of the central bay of the Piano Nobile, the Gallery (PN04) cannot have been much higher than the other rooms, and Fig. 2.49. Rome, Porta Pia, detail of the façade towards the city. (David R. Marshall.)

121

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.50. Villa Patrizi, project elevation (Fig. 2.39), with dimensions (David R. Marshall.)

the rectangular upper windows shown on Cipriani’s elevation lit the Guardarobba. The arch of the central window would therefore have intersected the vault. The height of the springing of the vaults would have been about 19 palmi (4.24 m). Door openings would have been about 13.5 palmi (3.02 m) high by 5 palmi (1.12 m) wide, widening to 6.5 palmi (1.45 m) in the embrasures. Window openings were 11 palmi (2.46 m) high, beginning 4 palmi (0.89 m) above floor height, 6.5 palmi (1.45 m) wide on the inside of the embrasures and 5 palmi (1.12 m) on the outside. On the Ground Floor the ceiling heights would have been about 23 palmi (5.14 m). Door openings would have been about about 13.8 palmi (3.08 m) high and 5 palmi (1.12 m) wide, broadening to 6.5 palmi (1.45 m) in the embrasures. Window openings were 10 palmi (2.23 m) high, beginning 6 palmi (1.34 m) above floor height, and 6.5 palmi (1.45 m) wide on the inside of the embrasures, and 5 palmi (1.12 m) on the outside. The height of the springing of the vaults would have been about 18 palmi (4.0 m). On the Mezzanine door openings would have been about 11 palmi (2.46 m) high and 5 palmi (1.12 m) 122

Libro MARSHALL.indb 122

wide, widening to 6.5 palmi (1.45 m) in the embrasures. Window openings were 9 palmi (2.0 m) high, beginning 5 palmi (1.12 m) above floor height, 6.5 palmi (1.45 m) wide on the inside of the embrasures and 5 palmi (1.12 m) on the outside.

Blind Windows From the Cipriani elevation, the Vasi engraving and Manglard paintings it is not at first evident that many of the exterior windows of the executed villa were, in fact, blind, as can deduced from the inventories. Such fictive windows were a common feature of eighteenth-century palaces. The Palazzo Corsini by Ferdinando Fuga, begun in 1736, is an example where they are used extensively. They could also painted on interior walls, such as one in the entrance hall of the Palazzo Patrizi at S. Luigi dei Francesi, probably painted by Giovanni Paolo Panini (Fig. 6.14; see Chapter 6.1).83 There were various reasons for having them, but mostly it was a consequence of internal planning being at odds with the regularity of the exterior elevations, as at the Palazzo Chigi at Ariccia where they

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 2.51. Ariccia, Palazzo Chigi. Blind windows on the rear façade. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 2.52. Rome, Palazzo Barberini. Blind window on the left wing. (David R. Marshall.)

are used (but without surviving fictive window bars) to accommodate changes in internal levels (Fig. 2.51). At the Palazzo Barberini, which has three windows on each floor on the end walls of the wings, the central window on the left wing is blind on the ground floor and piano nobile because here was a small spiral staircase connecting the private rooms of Donna Anna Colonna and Don Taddeo Barberini (Fig. 2.52).84 The essential design principle was symmetry, and for this reason views like Vasi’s accept the fiction, so there is no way of telling from them which windows are fictive and which are real, especially when the pediments and framing are real, as was evidently the case at the Villa Patrizi. In the case of the Villa Patrizi the main reason for closing some windows would have been to avoid awkward problems that arose when the regularity of the exterior windows was transmitted to the interior. In the Cipriani plan the only problematic window was in Room 2, where it is cut into staircase wall (Fig. 2.22). It is interesting that Cipriani took the trouble to do this, which implies either that he was reluctant to have fictive windows at this stage, or simply that the logic of making such a drawing, and the need to express the idea of a regular external fenestration, meant that the simplest graphic solution was to cut into the wall. The executed building tells a different story (Fig. 2.24). Here three window embrasures are hard up against an interior wall—in rooms 2, 6 and 13—and in all of these, on the Piano Nobile and Ground Floor, this window was closed up. The result was that the remaining windows were either more or less equally placed on

the wall, or else firmly to one side. On the Mezzanine, the inventories point to the window on the Strada di S. Agnese side of PN02 being the one that was walled up. On the Ground Floor, a second window, the one nearest the Galleriola, was also closed off in room 6. It is significant also that none of these closures affect the enfilades, which are continuous along each side of the building, and end in views through windows to the countryside. The artists responsible for these fictive windows are recorded in the accounts. The building accounts record small payments to the painter Annibale Rotati, Giacinto Ferrugli and compagni on 1 November 1719 for six fictive windows in fresco on the façade, complete with framing and glazing.85 (There were, however, nine fictive windows in all on the exterior.) (There were fictive windows on the Servants’ Mezzanines as well; see Chapter 4.2.)

Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 123

Notes 1. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B31, no. 451 (Doc. 4.3), which was evidently an attempt to put in order expenditure on the villa. It lists payments to tradesmen from July 1716 to November 1727, totalling about 15,000 scudi. It is not a complete listing, but seems to cover much of the basic construction costs of the villa. It lists most of the tradesmen and suppliers other than painters, sculptors and glaziers who are to be found in Doc. 4.2. 2. Marshall, 1993, cat. FG 16, p. 538. Private Collection, 123 x 173 cm. 3. Letter, 5 May 1725 [1]. 4. For some reason Cerone only appears in Doc. 4.3 from 1724, but the receipts indicate that he was directing day labourers from at least 1719 (Doc. 4.2.5). 5. Letter, 12 July 1727 [2].

123

18/11/15 17:24

8. Doc. 4.2.21.

quittait Venise sir la barge dite le Procaccio et le 16, à l’aurore, arrivait à Ferrare, où il faisait marché avec un “voiturier” pour le conduire en chaise à Rome par Ravenne, Ancone, Lorette, assise, et la cascade de Terni, moyennant le prix des huit louis d’or pour deux personnes.’

9. Doc. 4.2.21.

32. Letter, 11 July 1722 [4].

10. Lanciani, 1918.

33. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B34D not numbered, my 26a (Doc. 4.2.23). This is a note about costs of shipping from Murano to Rome by way of Civitavecchia, possibly connected with the cardinal’s letter of 30 November 1720 (see above). In the letter of 18 July 1723 referred to above the cardinal states that a cassa of glass from Venice sent overland costs 3½ baiocchi: ‘Gli mando una nota di quello che mi costeranno a provederle quà, e mandarle per terra, che arriveranno a tre baiochi e mezzo l’una; riconosca, che cosa si pagarebbero a Roma, o pure a Civita Vechia affinché possa determinarci.’ (Letter, 18 July 1723 [4].)

6. Letter, 4 September 1723 [2]. 7. Letter, 12 July 1727 [2].

11. Letter, 2 December 1719 [3]. 12. Doc. 4.2.33. 13. For the saddler, see Doc. 4.2.33. For an account for shoeing horses, see ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, Patrizi B34D, no. 6. 14. ASV, Archivio Patrizi Montoro, B34D, no. 9 (Doc. 4.2.27). 15. Letter, 16 July 1718 [3]. 16. The calculations are as follows. 1000 bricks measuring 130 x 260 mm makes 33.8 square metres (6.8 square canne), which at 4 scudi per 1000 amounts to 59 baiocchi per square canna, while 1000 bricks measuring 170 mm square make 29 square metres (5.8 square canne), or 69 baiocchi per square canna. This is not easy to reconcile with the ammattonatore’s price of 3.5 scudi per square canna on the Piano Nobile and 90 baiocchi for the rest. If the ammattonatore’s price includes both labour and materials, as it must, the labour component must be small, given that the labour in laying both types of bricks would have been similar. If we suppose that the difference between the cardinal’s figure and the 90 baiocchi of the bulk of the paving is labour, then the breakdown of the 90 baiocchi would be 59/69 baiocchi for the bricks and 31/21 baiocchi for labour. 17. Letter, 8 April 1719 [2]; Letter, 30 July 1718 [1]; Letter 19 August 1719 [4]; Letter, 20 August 1718 [1]. 18. Letter, 25 May 1720 [1], where the cardinal responds to a note that he has received from Mariano for work needing to be done to finish the Casino: ‘Per liberarsi dunque dalli muratori nel Casino lei potrà far fare presentemente … il mattonato della Galleria’. Also Letter, 20 March 1720 [2]. 19. Letter, 6 July 1720 [5]; Letter, 24 June 1718 [1]. 20. Doc. 4.2.8. 21. Doc. 4.2.23. 22. ASV, Archivio-Patrizi Montoro, B34D, unnumbered (my 27). It is stated that: ‘Le lire ragguagliate a moneta Roma sono un pauolo per ciascheduna lira di quella moneta’. One paolo was equal to ten baiocchi. For the changing rate of the Venetian lira to the zecchino over time see Shaw, 1896, p. 317. 23. ASV, Archivio-Patrizi Montoro, B34D, unnumbered (my 21). (Doc. 4.5). This is a list of shipments of window glass with an indication of the number of broken panes. The first item reads: ‘A di 1 Marzo 1718. Si sono levate le due casse di vetri dentro la Cappella mazzi numero dicidotto, dalli quali vi n’erano venti vetri rotti.’ The second item reads ‘Adì detto in numero novantatre vetri ne sono dodici rotti’ and the rest follow this pattern. 24. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B34D, unnumbered (my 17). (Doc. 4.5.) 25. Doc. 4.5. 26. Doc. 4.5. 27. Doc. 4.2.23. 28. Letter, 18 July 1723 [4]. 29. Also on 1 January 1723 the cardinal is awaiting Mariano’s response about whether it is worthwhile commissioning panes of glass (lastre) in Venice when they have to be sent overland as far as Rome. Letter, 1 January 1723 [1]. 30. Letter, 30 November 1720 [3].One document (ASV, Archivio PatriziMontoro B34D, not numbered, my 26 (Doc. 4.2.23) may be connected with this (see below). 31. Terlinden, 1960, p. 227: ‘Le 14 février à 10 h. du soir van den Branden

124

Libro MARSHALL.indb 124

34. Letter, 27 July 1720 [3]. Also Letter, 13 July 1720 [4]. 35. Letter, 17 August 1720 [5]. 36. Letter, 14 February 1720 [3]. Capicciola was a Sicilian term, in general use in Rome, for a silk fabric made with waste silk (that is, the silk from the outer and innermost layers of the silkworm’s cocoon). This shipment evidently came from Venice, which was an important silk manufacturing centre. See Molà, 2000, p. 182. 37. Letter 2 March 1720 [2]. 38. Letter, 20 March 1720 [3]. 39. Doc. 4.4. 40. Doc. 4.2.8 and see above. 41. The Cipriani plan shows the external wall thickness as 3.5 palmi, and the inner wall thickness as 3.0 palmi. From the calculations based on the ammattonatore measurements it seems that the inner wall thicknesses on the Piano Nobile and Mezzanine were probably 2.5 palmi. I have assumed the wall thicknesses are the same on all floors, 3.5 palmi for the external walls, and 2.5 palmi for internal walls. 42. However, in the drawing the wall between Rooms 10 and 9 would benefit from being shifted half a palmo or so at the expense of Room 9. 43. Admittedly, the problematic dimensions of Rooms 12 and 13 make it hard to be certain about this, but it is unavoidable on the other side with the Chapel/ Gabinetto width set at 15 palmi. 44. That is, the mid-floor landing on the side towards Room 4; the landing on the window side would have been unbroken, as there was a window and balcony here, as Manglard, but not Vasi, shows. There were, however, sills to the doors to Rooms 13 and 2, which would have meant a small step up into these rooms. 45. The 32 treads of the upper flights were slabs of travertine 8 palmi wide, a measurement that included the amount embedded in the supporting walls, and 2 palmi deep, with an overlap of ¼ (0.25) of a palmo. Perini had to dress these down to 1¾ palmi wide, and carved mouldings on the front edge. This would have resulted in a tread depth of 1.5 palmi. The treads on the 38 lower flights measured 8 palmi wide by 2 1/6 (2.17) palmi deep, dressed to 1 11/16 (1.69) palmi deep, and ¾ (0.75) palmi thick. The overlap was 1/3 (0.33) palmi, which leads a tread depth of 1.63 palmi. The landing steps on the upper level were dressed to 7 5/6 (7.83) palmi wide by 2 1/6 (2.17) palmi deep, and those on the lower 8 x 2¼ (2.25) palmi. Although the step slabs were all ¾ (0.75) palmo thick they must have been dressed in thickness as well, as they need to be about 0.63 palmi thick to fit the available height. 46. On the plan the space available for the lumaca (spiral staircase) works out at about 6 palmi, although the spiral staircase needed about 7.5 palmi as the treads were 3.5 palmi long, plus a masonry wall estimated at 1 palmo thick. The plan has therefore been adjusted slightly, which means an extra 1.6 palmi available to the staircase landing, shown in grey. 47. An argument against the absence of a dividing wall is the fact that the landing treads are still 8 palmi wide, when they would need to be longer as the landing steps would have had to have been wedge-shaped.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

48. The 18 treads (and the corresponding dividing wall) would have measured 29.34 palmi (18 times 1.63 palmi ), which, subtracted from the depth of the hall (52.50 palmi), leaves 17.3 palmi. This is possibly too generous, but with the adjustment referred to in note 45 this dimension reduces to 15.7 palmi. 49. Guerieri Borsoi, 1988, suggested that one of the known payments to artists might be for such a staircase hall, but according to my calculations they are all accounted for with the other rooms.

65. This followed a temporary occupancy of the (Piano Nobile) Gallery. Letter, 9 July 1718 [1]. Although ‘Muscettola’ is a Neapolitan name, the fact that he was called ‘Monsù’ indicates that he was French-speaking. 66. Letter, 22 September 1722 [3]. 67. Doc. 4.2.26. 68. Doc. 4.2.5.

50. See Doc. 4.2.8.

69. Doc. 4.2.33.

51. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B34D, no 3: ‘quatro parapetti di fero per la scalla grande’ and ‘cinque parapetti di fero per la scalla granda’ (Doc. 4.2.18).

70. Letter, 28 October 1719 [4].

52. Fabrizi, 1988, p. 22. 53. Doc. 4.2.7. 54. One other piece of data is the ammattonatore measurements (Doc. 4.4.) that give the area of the ‘ripiano nella scala lumaca’ as 0.63 square canne, which is approximately the area of the space in front of the spiral staircase from the door to PN04 to the staircase. The same document twices gives a figure of 10.39 square canne for ‘li ripiani della scala grande’, with different rates for the paving bricks (likewise for the Scaletta ripiani). The fact that separate items are given for the Scala Grande and spiral staircase ripiani implies a separation between them. If the areas of the window landings (circa 2.1 square canne) and half-way landings (circa 0.7 square canne) are trebled and deducted from this figure it leaves about 2 square canne, sufficient for one passageway, either on the Piano Nobile or the Ground Floor. 55. It is mentioned in a payment to the gilder Antonio Giuliani, dated 30 September 1719, who applied four coats of oil paint followed by gilding to ‘a frame beside the picture for the staircase that represents Time who holds a clock in his hand’ (alla cornice a canto al quadro per le scale, che rappresenta il tempo, che tiene l’Orologio in mano). (Doc. 4.2.13.) 56. Letter, 13 August 1718 [2]: ‘Approvo l’Orologio nel sito che l’anno destinato, ma vorrei che prendessero le misure, che la notte sia potessero illuminare tutte due le sfere.’ 57. See Walker and Hammond, 1999. 58. In the 1739, 1748A and 1772 inventories the perito moves from MZ06 to MZ07, but in 1748B he moves from the Chapel on the Ground Floor Nel primo ingresso de’ mezzanini, che forma Galleria, venendo dalla Scaletta’ and in 1814 likewise from the Chapel to ‘Saliti al primo Piano per le Scale [that is, the Scaletta]’ and on to MZ06. 59. Objections to this option include: (a) The Mezzanine landing would face MZ07, with a doorway to MZ07 a necessity. (b) There would need to be a low and narrow passageway between MZ04 and MZ09 on the window side, with no access to the stairs. (c) Landings would divide the external windows. (d) The rising flight from the Ground Floor would block the doorway to GF04, which would mean no noble access to the Chapel, only access from GF07 and the above-mentioned passageway, clearly the territory of servants.

71. Letter, 5 November 1718 [1]. 72. Some chimneys, however, were installed in 1721. On 16 November 1721, Carlo Cerone, the capo mastro muratore, installed a chimney in the Mezzanine (un camino nelle stanze delli mezanini) (B34C, no. 1392) and on 6 December 1721 he installed a chimneypiece in the kitchen along with other work in the luogo comune (B34C, no. 1397) (Doc. 4.2.5). 73. Letter, 22 September 1722 [4]. 74. Letter, 28 October 1719 [4]. 75. Vasi shows two chimneys on the Strada di S. Agnese side, and one on the garden side, the fourth chimney position being hidden. There are other chimneylike features closer to the ridge but these may be the features shown by Manglard. 76. Doc. 4.2.26. 77. There is also reference to nine steps of the ‘first square flight’ (il primo branco quadro della lumaca) of the lumaca, which were probably within the Guardarobba, as well as landings. 78. However, it does not correspond exactly (Manglard stretches the lower storey), as would be the case if it were based on a tracing or carefully scaled from a drawing. 79. The domes of the staircase towers (cupolini) were finished by July 1718. Letter, 9 July 1718 [3]. In November 1718 the cardinal expects the completion of the Roof Terrace to be expensive: Letter, 25 November 1718 [2]. 80. See also the discussion of the Villa Catena in Marshall, 2009. 81. Borromini, Opus Architectonicum, Rome, 1725. Plates by Sebastiano Giannini (1725) to a text by Virgilio Spada (1647). 82. I have allowed 2 palmi (45 cm) for floor thickness. 83. Pedrocchi, 2000, p. 20, fig. 20 and p. 207. 84. Today on the piano nobile the staircase area has been made into a little cabinet-like space which retains the circular plan of the stair. See Waddy, 1990, p. 183, fig. 102, staircase S8. 85. Doc. 4.2.25.

60. The window landing would need to be 8.25 palmi deep to clear the full-sized doorways. The depth of the inside landings is likely to be the width of the flight; given that the Scaletta space was 8.5 palmi wide, and allowing 0.75 palmi for the dividing wall, the steps would be 3.9 palmi (870 mm) wide. If we round these figures off to 8 and 4 palmi, and subtract them from the total depth of the space, 25.50 palmi, it leaves only 13.5 palmi (3.03 m) for the flights. With 14 treads this makes for an average tread depth of 0.96 palmi (22 cm) while the risers would be 0.90 palmi (20 cm). With 12 treads the tread width would be 1.13 palmi (25 cm), while the risers would measure 0.96 palmi (21 cm). 61. Waddy, 1990, p. 38. 62. 1739 inventory: ‘Una tavola in mezzo alla stanza del tinello piegatora | Tre banche per sedere | tre scansie, che servano ad’uso delli servitori che se ne servono per tenere salviette piatti &c in tempo della villeggiatura’. 63. 1739 inventory: ‘Nel Corridore vi sta un tavolone diviso in cinque pezzi, che serve in un gran pranzo’; 1748 inventory: ‘Cinque tavole piegatore da tavola in buon essere con piedi di telaro.’ 64. Letter, 8 December 1725 [2]. Letter, 15 December 1725 [1].

Part 2. Vigna and Villa

Libro MARSHALL.indb 125

125

18/11/15 17:24

Part 3

Decoration and Function Chapter 3.1

Organisation of the Piano Nobile

The Inventories of the Villa Patrizi 1739–1814 The contents of the Villa Patrizi are recorded in inventories made at the death of successive owners. The first is that of Cardinal Patrizi’s older brother and heir, Costanzo, in 1739.1 The second was made following the death of Costanzo’s son, Patrizio, who died on 11 October 1747, his will being opened on 12 December. The task of making inventories of the properties extended through 1748 into 1749.2 There are separate inventories for the furnishings of the Casino and its dependencies, for the paintings, for which the perito, or expert appraiser, was the painter Placido Costanzi (1702–59), and the physical structures, gardens and vigne, for which the perito was Tommaso de Marchi. Attached at the end is a copy of an appraisal of the productive parts of the villa by the agrimensore Pietro Paolo Qualeatti. There is also a summary inventory giving the values of the main properties.3 As we have seen, Patrizio had no male heir and the villa passed to his adopted son and the husband of his daughter, Maria Virginia (1717–88), Giovanni Chigi Patrizi Montoro (1700–72). When he died in 1772 the properties were again inventoried.4 There is also an inventory of paintings not subject to the fedecommesso, many of which were in the villa.5 Maria Virginia died in 1788, and there is an inventory of her personal possessions dated 1 September 1788.6 As they had no male children, the same process took place as in the preceding generation, and Francesco Naro Chigi Patrizi Montoro (1743-1813) was adopted by arrogation and married their daughter Porzia (1752–1835). Francesco died in 1813, and his inventory is dated 28 March 1814.7 He was quickly succeeded by his son Giovanni (1775–1817) who died in 1817, but no new inventory was made. These are the inventories that concern the eighteenth-century villa. By correlating these inventories, it is possible to track changes in the furnishings of each room, and to track the 126

Libro MARSHALL.indb 126

movements of items from 1739 to 1814. It seems likely that the 1739 inventory is a fairly accurate record of the villa as the cardinal left it, and that Patrizio did not make many changes. With Maria Virginia’s marriage to Giovanni Chigi Montoro many paintings with a Chigi Montoro provenance were hung in the villa, and there was a major program of redecoration and refurnishing recorded in the 1772 inventory that probably took place not long after the succession (perhaps the early 1750s). Francesco Naro seems not to have done much, partly because the villa was fully furnished. The Napoleonic wars and Francesco and the younger Giovanni’s imprisonment led to the villa’s neglect, so that in 1814 it was evidently much as it had been in 1772, only somewhat run-down. The son of the younger Giovanni, Filippo, would have made drastic changes to the furnishings as he did to the garden, but because the villa was destroyed before his death there is no inventory to record them. The family had sufficient warning of the destruction of the Casino in 1849 to be able to remove most of the important furnishings. These were installed in the rebuilt villa, and were removed again when that was sold for demolition in 1909. Some items made their way to the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi or other Patrizi properties, including four large paintings by Raffaello Vanni. Other items passed to Giuseppe Patrizi (1862–1946), who moved them to a house in Via di S. Nicola da Tolentino, since demolished. This was comprehensively photographed at the death of his wife, Mary Frances Donelan Lee Cooper (1870–1933), in 1933, where a number of items from the villa, including paintings and window pelmets, are clearly visible (Figs 3.1–3.8). In two are visible the paintings from the Anterooms (Figs 3.1–3.3) while in others can be Figs 3.1–3.8. Photographs of the Patrizi house in Via di S. Nicola da Tolentino at the death of Mary Frances Donelan Lee Cooper Patrizi in 1933. (Photographer: Vasari, Rome. Courtesy of Francesca Patrizi.)

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 127

127

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.9. Andrea Francesco Nicoletti (active 1719), Sectioned Views of the Interior of the Palazzo della Prelature Carafa in Via dell’Orso, Rome. Rome, Gabinetto Comunale delle Stampe, GS 2796. (Museo di Roma.) (a): fol.1, vaulted hall; (b): fol. 2, staircase, part of a carriage house and piano nobile and second piano nobile rooms; (c): fol. 3, carriage house with carriage and piano noble and second piano nobile rooms (408 x 327 mm); (d): fol. 4, piano nobile and second piano nobile rooms, 320 x 300 mm; (e): fol. 5, part of piano nobile and second piano nobile rooms.

seen Manglard’s marine paintings (Fig. 3.7). The Rococo sofas (Figs 3.2, 3.4), and possibly chairs, may also have come from the eighteenth-century villa, as the pelmets almost certainly do (Figs 3.3, 3.4, 3.6). These passed to Giuseppe’s descendants. By correlating the information of the inventories with dimensioned plans and elevations of each room it is possible to reconstruct the hang of each room. Some of these elevations can be reconstructed with precision (especially second Piano Nobile Anteroom), while others can be reconstructed schematically.

The Paintings Collection The collection of paintings in the Villa Patrizi is of interest not because of the quality of the collection, which was not high, but because the majority were acquired to furnish the villa, rather than the villa being built to house the collection. There were only a few original paintings, such as the bozzetti for frescoes that Cardinal Patrizi had commissioned for the family’s town palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi, a few items the cardinal had acquired in Ferrara, the four Raffaello Vanni canvases belonging to 128

Libro MARSHALL.indb 128

his brother Costanzo by primogeniture that furnished the Piano Nobile Gallery, various family portraits and so forth.8 There were a great many copies, some probably by Giuseppe Passeri,9 others probably by Mariano or Francesco, as well as other paintings acquired as furniture pictures in job lots from rigattieri in Rome.

The Nicoletti Drawings In order to get a sense of what the Villa Patrizi would have been like inside it is worth looking closely at drawings by a member of the Sicilian Nicoletti family dated 1729 of the Palazzo della prelature Carafa in Via dell’Orso (Fig. 3.9).10 These provide a rare contemporary insight to palace interiors of the period. Two of the drawings together show a basement rimessa (carriage house) with a carriage, a staircase and a vaulted space, the piano nobile and a second piano nobile. The spatial relationships between the five drawings are unclear, but it is possible that ‘c’ and ‘d’ are the opposite sides of the same rooms (they have windows on the left and right sides respectively), as are ‘e’ and the left side of ‘b’. The carriage house in ‘b’ may be a section of half of the same space shown in ‘c’. For the floor levels

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

to align the figures on the staircase in ‘b’ must be ascending to landings on the piano nobile and second piano nobile. The vaulted hall in ‘a’ from the perspective seems to be located on the piano nobile and to be divided in the middle to show opposite sides of a single space. Judging from the treatment of roof and walls, on the second piano nobile of ‘c’ and ‘d’ there are two rooms separated by a corridor and the walls have been omitted for clarity. Conspicuous in these drawings is the role played by door and window curtains. What the drawings do not show clearly, however, is the way these feature affected the visitor’s perceptions of the piano nobile as they moved through it. At the Villa Patrizi, it is possible to reconstruct some of these perceptions by analysing changes in these features as revealed by the inventories.

Room Functions and Door Curtains The following chapters will elucidate the functions of each room of the Piano Nobile at the Villa Patrizi, set out on the plan (Fig. 3.10). The decorative elements that united the sequence of rooms of the appartamento nobile were the door curtains, window curtains, and their associated Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 129

pelmets (Fig. 3.11). In the Nicoletti watercolours we see door curtains hanging on rings on brass rails and drawn to one side—in all cases the window side—and in most cases also drawn up into a swag (Fig. 3.12). The door pelmet on the left of the piano nobile view has a broad fabric band with lambrequin fringes (contratagliate), with a wooden tavola consisting of a moulding with a carved wooden cresting above, all gilt. The corresponding unit at the Villa Patrizi is called in the Letters a baldachinetto. The corresponding pelmet on the floor above in the Nicoletti watercolour signals its lower status by the plainness of its tavola, which consists of the moulding only. On the piano nobile there is also an overdoor painting with a plain gilt frame. While overdoor paintings occasionally are used at the Villa Patrizi, the decorative scheme concentrated on the fabrics and their associated pelmets that were the prime structural elements. The same fabrics were, for the most part, used throughout the appartamento nobile for these features to give a decorative unity. The door curtains were the responsibility of Francesco Felice, who was very slow in ordering them. On 28 November 1722 the cardinal complains that after four-anda-half years Francesco has still not settled on the colour of the lining.11 On 21 and 28 November 1722 the cardinal 129

18/11/15 17:24

proposes an economical solution for the door curtains, which is to not have door curtains on every door, but in some rooms to simply have pelmets with their drapes (baldachinetto).12 He is afraid the large number of door curtains would create confusion. If the damasks have already been woven, he continues, they could be used for the beds. On 12 December the cardinal asks Francesco to send him a sample of the fine barbantina (Brabant cloth: a cloth, probably woollen, from Brabant, although some was produced in Venice) that he proposed for the lining so that he will not make a mistake in colour or fineness when he orders it. He also asks him what lengths would be needed for each portiere, and how much it would cost per canna.13 By 26 December the barbantina has been commissioned by the cardinal.14 The way the door curtains functioned is thrown into relief by subtle changes in their disposition across the sequence of inventories (Fig. 3.11). Visitors arriving by carriage at the villa would have descended at the west doorway, entered the staircase hall, and ascended the rising flight on the left past the Mezzanine to the Piano Nobile. On reaching the landing they would see to left and right door curtains that signalled that they were about to enter the appartamento nobile. These door curtains were of the older, seventeenth-century type consisting of a single piece 130

Libro MARSHALL.indb 130

Fig. 3.10. Villa Patrizi, plan of Piano Nobile showing room functions. (David R. Marshall.)

hung from a brass rail by brass rings, with no pelmet. They were made was of white leather with the coat of arms of Cardinal Patrizi painted on them. They were lined with cloth, with a yellow frieze, cords and tassels. Such door curtains were above all functional ways of stopping drafts when the doors were open. The door curtains within were, by contrast, of a more modern type, consisting of two pieces of fabric suspended beneath a pelmet and a valance. These would normally have been kept tied open, as their purpose was largely visual. Most were of white, green and crimson flowered damask, with a pelmet of burnished white and gold, with a shell form in the middle. On entering the First Anteroom (PN02), there was no need for a door curtain on the inside, as one had just been passed through, and in any case what faced visitors was more important than what lay behind them. Instead, there was an overdoor painting, representing Hercules and Omphale, while the opposite doorway leading to PN03 had the damask door curtain and pelmet. On the other side of this doorway, within PN03, was another overdoor, this time representing Bacchus Riding a Goatˆ, while over the opposite door leading to PN04 was a door

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

curtain and pelmet matching the one in in PN02. As visitors proceeded clockwise from the stairs they would therefore see door curtains with pelmets at the entrance to each room; as they returned, however, they would face overdoors. The symmetry within each room would thus have been subordinated to the experience of processing from one room to the next. Although the overdoor in PN02 seems to have remained in situ throughout (although temporarily absent in 1748),15 the overdoor in the Second Anteroom (PN03) on the First Anteroom wall has gone in 1748 and subsequent inventories and has been replaced by a door curtain and pelmet. This second door curtain and pelmet in PN03 would have improved the symmetry of the room at the expense of the differentiation between outward and return itineraries from the main staircase. This is in keeping with a developing eighteenth-century taste that favoured unified social spaces in place of the formal procession through a hierarchically arranged sequence of spaces.16 There would therefore have been door curtains on both sides of the door between the two Anterooms, so that it is hardly surprising that between 1772 and 1814 the door curtain in the First Anteroom was removed when all the door curtains were remade in brocatello di Napoli lined with canvas (the wooden parts of the pelmets were retained). There would Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 131

Fig. 3.11. Villa Patrizi, plan of Piano Nobile (reconstruction), showing door and window curtains. (David R. Marshall.)

therefore have been a progressive differentiation of status between the First and Second Anterooms in favour of the latter, although both rooms were originally decorated in a similar manner. The door and window pelmets were of carved wood painted pearl colour (light grey) and gilded (tavoletta liscia ingessata, e brunita, e filetti dorati; tavoletta perla, e oro usate). The gilding was by carried out by Antonio Giuliani.17 They were still in place (apart from the changes noted above) in 1814, and may have been re-used in the new villa after 1849. They may be identifiable with pelmets visible in the 1933 photographs of the house in Via di S. Nicola da Tolentino. There are two pelmet types here which look to be of early eighteenth-century date (the fabrics would have been replaced several times). The first type (Type A) (Fig. 3.13), of which there appear to have been at least seven in 1933, one placed over a door, the rest over windows, appear to be wholly gilded, or perhaps with a differently coloured central moulding (yellow?) with a shell motif in the centre. The second type (Type B), of which there were at least two in 1933, is somewhat grander, in gold and white or pearl grey, with a motif in the centre that is not 131

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.12. Detail of Fig. 3.09, drawing (c), showing door and window curtains.

easy to see in the photograph, but is either a cartouche or a shell (Fig. 3.14). They are related to those, yet grander still, that exist today in the Palazzo Patrizi at S. Luigi dei Francesi and which seem to date from the remodelling of the palace initiated by Cardinal Patrizi at the same time that he was decorating the villa (1721–22) (Fig. 3.15). Both of these types correspond well enough with the inventory descriptions of the pelmets on the Piano Nobile, which use terms like ‘con due fili dorati’ (with two gilded bands), ‘imbrunita bianco, et oro’ (burnished white and gold) and ‘filettate d’oro con fondo perla’ (filleted with gold with a pearl coloured background), while the description ‘conciglia in mezzo’ (shell in the middle) or ‘in mezzo … una mensoletta brunita, e dorata’ (in the middle … a burnished and golden bracket) describes well enough the shell-like form visible in the photographs.18 Neither type of pelmet is likely to be those on the Mezzanine, which were evidently simpler, being described as ‘straight’ (dritti) and decorated in gold and yellow and only found on the windows (see Chapter 3.7). The Ground Floor rooms had pull-up blinds and no pelmets. The difference between the two types of pelmet visible in 1933 is probably the difference between the window pelmets (Type A) and the door pelmets (Type B) on the Piano Nobile. 132

Libro MARSHALL.indb 132

Top: Fig. 3.13. Detail of Fig. 3.7 showing pelmet (Type A).. Centre: Fig. 3.14. Detail of Fig. 3.6 showing pelmet (Type B). Bottom: Fig. 3.15. Pelmet on the Piano Nobile of Palazzo Patrizi at S. Luigi dei Francesi. (David R. Marshall.)

Window Curtains The window curtains seem initially to have been made of cotonina (calico), called ‘tela bianca’ in the 1739 inventory. On 21 February 1722 the cardinal writes that he has an unnamed loving friend (amorevole [amico]) who wants to contribute something to the furnishing of the family by commissioning (and paying for) the cotonina.19 This friend is, however, of advanced years, and they need to move fast. This batch was to be used for the curtains of the cardinal’s

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

apartment, the two balconies of the Piano Nobile Gallery, the two main doors (portoni) on the Ground Floor, as well as one for the main door of the Stanza del Trucco.20 He has seen a suitable fabric, in two colours, in a shop in Piazza Farnese, and he wants Mariano to get a sample of this with information about where it came from. By 7 March 1722 the cardinal had received the sample from Rome, and has been advised of the quantity required.21 He asks for the approximate cost per canna in order to prepare him for dealings with his amorevole. He considers getting it from Marseille, which would be of better quality, but risky, so it might be better to get it from Pisa, where, according to Mariano, the sample was made. On 28 March he hopes his amorevole will give him enough for the windows; if not he will refer the matter to Mariano.22 The amorevole delivers, and by 25 April has commissioned 200 canne of the fabric from Pisa, and the cardinal sends Mariano a sample. It ought to be enough for the various doors, the balconies of the Gallery, and the window curtains, but the last can be deferred as they are not yet needed.23 On 2 May 1722 he writes to Francesco in response to suggestions that the latter has made about the window curtains.24 He observes that, the rooms being Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 133

Fig. 3.16. Villa Patrizi, Piano Nobile plan showing fresco painters. (David R. Marshall.)

small, it is necessary to have furniture that does not clutter them up, which may mean that the issue was whether the window curtains reached to the ground and potentially interfered with the furniture. He suggests that the best way to proceed is for Francesco to have one curtain one made up to see how it looks. He informs Francesco, who needs to collect the shipment from Customs, that it will be addressed to the cardinal. He proposes putting the cotonina in the Guardarobba and installing the curtains after his return. In a letter the same day to Mariano he gives the same instructions, adding that if Panini thinks it is important to have them in place earlier he will make the necessary arrangements.25 By 5 June that cardinal expects the furnishing of the apartment to be complete—seats, curtains and door curtains—and if some finishing touches were lacking people will understand. He expects the curtains for the balconies to have been done, and also the Ground Floor curtains (see Chapter 3.8).26 On 19 June the cardinal observes that his earlier suggestion to delay making the curtains until 133

18/11/15 17:24

his return no longer applies, as when no one was taking villeggiatura the curtains were not needed, but now that Ottavia is going there they are necessary. After the villeggiatura season is over they can be removed in order to save wear and tear. 27 He adds that the balcony curtains must be strong enough to cope with being blown against the iron railings.28 Probably the curtains were installed at this time. By 1748 the window curtains seem to have been renewed, as in that year and 1772 they are described as being made of barbantina. In 1814 they are called ‘tele all’imperiale’.

Ceiling Frescoes Each of the main rooms of the Piano Nobile had vaults of a lightweight form of construction (see Chapter 4.2) that were frescoed (Fig. 3.16). The Gallery (PN04) was painted by Giovanni Paolo Panini and Antonio Grecolini, discussed below. The Galleriola (or Galleriola Dipinta) (PN07) was painted by Pietro Zerman, and completed by Filippo Sciugatrosci following Zerman’s death in August 1719.29 We know from payments to the fresco painters that the subjects of some of the remaining ceilings—that is, the four pairs of rooms at each corner—were based on the planetary deities, namely Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Apollo. Such a scheme had been common since at least the king’s apartments at Versailles where the sequence of gods runs: Venus–Diana–Mars–Mercury–Apollo. The theme of the Four Elements for the Gallery was equally conventional, and would have involved four more of the Olympian gods: Ceres, Juno, Vulcan and Neptune. Unfortunately the inventories, being concerned only with movable objects, do not describe the ceilings in each room, nor do they identify the rooms by the subjects of their ceilings. We do, however, know the painters of these ceilings and what they were paid, although it is not clear which room was which. Most payments are for 70 scudi, evidently the set price for each of the corner rooms. The ceilings were done in three groups, completed in May 1718, August 1718, and June 1719. A speculative identification of the subjects and painters of the other rooms might take the following line of argument. It would be logical for work to have begun with PN02 and to have progressed across the Strada di S. Agnese side, followed by the garden side. Chronologically, work began with Antonio Grecolini with a room that might be the stanza di Mercurio, followed by Pietro Barbieri’s stanza di Giove. Mercury, the messenger of the 134

Libro MARSHALL.indb 134

gods, would make a suitable beginning to the sequence of rooms, Mercury announcing the visitor to Jupiter, head of the gods. The stanza di Mercurio might therefore be PN02, and the stanza di Giove PN03. The next two rooms are the stanza di Marte of Domenico Piestrini and the stanza di Venere of Giacomo Triga. Mars and Venus are complementary gods representing the male and female principles, and suitable for the two principal rooms for conversazioni. The stanza di Marte might therefore be PN05, and the stanza di Venere PN06.30 Giuseppe Rossi was paid for the lesser decorations of the stanza del Sole (that is, Apollo), and this is a suitable subject for a bedroom facing the rising sun such as PN08. That leaves three rooms, PN09, PN12, and PN13, assuming that Zerman’s PN07 had a simpler decoration not involving the planetary deities. If these had the Olympian gods as their subject, Minerva, goddess of wisdom, would be a suitable subject for PN09, the Gabinetto next to PN08 which was also the cardinal’s study. This leaves Bacchus and Diana for PN12 and PN13.

Decoration of Window Embrasures and Door Jambs The door frames and embrasures (fusti archetti e spallette) throughout the Piano Nobile were painted with ornament by Annibale Rotati and Giuseppe Rossi, who were contracted on 10 March 1720 to paint them in fresco at the rate of 3 scudi each.31 They also painted the window embrasures (li para petti archetti e spallette e sguinci delle finestre) in fresco and the window frames (fusti) in gouache (guazzo) at the rate of 6 scudi per window.

Notes 1. ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B434 (Doc. 3.2). The inventory is undated, but contains the internal date 8 January 1739 in an item referring to the Guardarobba. 2. Docs. 3.4–3.7. The spine of the volume is dated 1749 as is the folder enclosing the contents of the volume. The inventory of the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi includes dates from 21 February 1748 to 11 March 1748, while a summary of the value of buildings in the villa and vigna is dated 30 June 1749. 3. Doc. 3.3, dated 11 November 1747. 4. Doc. 3.8. 5. Doc. 3.9. 6. Doc. 3.10. 7. Doc. 3.11. 8. The main collections of the Patrizi family were kept in the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi and at Castel Giuliano. For the Patrizi Collections generally, and especially the core formed by Monsignor Costanzo Patrizi

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

(1590–1623), papal treasurer, see Pedrocchi, 2000, especially pp. 40 ff. 9. For Passeri’s copies for the Patrizi, see Graf, 1996, p. 530. These were made c. 1680 after such artists as Nicolas Poussin (A Sleeping Satyr), Guido Reni (The Trinity) and Titian (two Bacchanals). 10. Rome, Gabinetto Comunale delle Stampe, GS 2796, (a) fol.1, vaulted hall; (b) fol. 2, staircase, part of a carriage house and piano nobile and second piano nobile rooms; (c) fol. 3, carriage house with carriage and piano noble and second piano nobile rooms; (d) fol. 4, piano nobile and second piano nobile rooms; (e) fol. 5, part of piano nobile and second piano nobile rooms. See Walker in Walker and Hammond, 1999, cats 80 and 80b, pp. 222–23, Pietrangeli, 1971, p. 64 and Feigenbaum, 2014, pp. 1–3. One (2796c) has an inscription that includes a signature that has been read as ‘Andrea Francesco Nico.’ and a date that has been read as ‘1709’ but which Rossella Leone of the Museo di Roma informs me should be read as ‘1729’. The inscription, working from a photograph, seems to read ‘Andrea Francesco Nicoletti [unidentified word] delineo in Roma l’anno 1729’. The artist has been identified as the Sicilian architect Francesco Nicoletti (1703/9–76) but since this is incompatible with a date of 1709 and the fact that known works dated from 1769 (Fagiolo, 1997, vol. 2, p. 142) it has been suggested that this might be another member of the same family (Mancuso, 2012, p. 203, note 39). However, if the reading of 1729 is correct this objection disappears.

30. A possible objection is the wording of a payment to Piestrini referring to ‘una volta e di una stanza dipinta che rapresenta Marte’, which seems to imply a room with both walls and ceiling painted, but we know from the inventories that none of the eight corner rooms had frescoed walls (Doc. 4.2.24). 31. Doc. 2.4.25.

11. Letter, 28 November 1722 [2]. 12. Letter 21 November 1722 [3]; Letter, 28 November 1722 [3]. 13. Letter, 12 December 1722 Letter 1 [2]. 14. Letter, 26 December 1722 Letter 1 (to Francesco) [1]. 15. In 1748 two Manglard Marines earlier hanging on the wall nearby replaced it, but this seems to have been a temporary arrangement as it is back in place in 1772 and it may well be present in the 1814 inventory but not singled out. 16. Waddy, 1990, especially the diagram of the typical sequence of stanze di rappresentanza in a seventeenth-century palace (p. 5). 17. See the payment to Antonio Giuliani for gilding the Piano Nobile Gallery door pelmets: ASV, Archivio Patrizi-Montoro, B34D, not numbered, my 57 (Doc. 4.2.13). 18. The pelmets in PN02 are described in the following terms: ‘tavola di sopra imbrunita bianco, et oro con conciglia in mezzo’ (PN02, 1739, door); ‘tavoletta centinata, ingessata e brunita con due fili dorati in mezzo alla medesima una mensoletta brunita, e dorata’ (PN02, 1748, door); ‘tavola centinata filettata d’oro con fondo perla’ (PN02, 1772, door); ‘con tavolette centinate, ingessate, e brunite, e filetti dorati’ (PN02, 1748, window); ‘tavole filettate d’oro con fondo perla’ (PN02, 1772, window); ‘tavolette filettate in buono stato’ (PN02, 1814, window). Those in PN03 and other rooms on the Piano Nobile are described as being similar to those in PN02. 19. Letter, 21 February 1722 [2]. 20. Letter, 21 February 1722 [2]. See also Chapter 3.8. 21. Letter, 7 March 1722 [1]. 22. Letter, 28 March 1722 [5]. 23. Letter, 25 April 1722 [2]. 24. Letter, 2 May 1722 Letter 1 [3]. 25. Letter, 2 May 1722 Letter 2 [2]. 26. Letter, 5 June 1723 [1]. 27. Letter, 19 June 1723 [1]. 28. Letter, 19 June 1723 [1]. 29. See Chapter 3.3.

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 135

135

18/11/15 17:24

Chapter 3.2

Anterooms

Introduction

Boiseries and Fixed Installations

The first two rooms on the Piano Nobile have various designations in the inventories: the second is mostly referred to simply as the seconda stanza, while the first in 1772 is called the prima anticamera. The most useful designations are the First and Second Anterooms. The fact that PN02 was the first room that visitors entered from the staircase, contained a fireplace, and was furnished in 1739 with a letto a credenza (a chest containing bedding for the servants) indicates that this room functioned in a way similar to a sala dei palafrenieri. In a seventeenth-century palace the grooms or footmen waited in the sala dei palafrenieri, which was normally the first room at the head of the stairs, often the grandest room in the palace and heated by a fireplace. Rooms on the Ground Floor would also be set aside for servants not on duty.1 Room PN03 similarly accommodated the needs of attendant servants—in 1748 there was a cassetta da orinare (close-stool) in a wall and by 1772 a letto di noce a burò—as well as noble visitors. The principal furniture in both rooms began by being somewhat old-fashioned— there were large numbers of straight-backed Morocco leather chairs that could, presumably, be brought out into the Gallery if required—but with time it acquired tables of note. By 1772, following a program of redecoration undertaken by Maria Virginia, probably not long after she and Giovanni Patrizi Chigi Montoro inherited in 1748, the Second Anteroom had acquired a console table with a pietrasanta top that can be identified with one still extant in a private collection (Fig. 3.17). There is no indication of fixed lighting—such as sconces or substantial candelabra—in either of these rooms before 1772, by which time both rooms, and many others, had acquired chandeliers of Bohemian glass.

The cardinal’s views on how to decorate a room were strongly influenced by French ideas. When first discussing the Second Anteroom, he makes it clear that what he wants is French style boiseries. He writes that he

136

Libro MARSHALL.indb 136

would like to furnish the rooms as far as possible in the French style. I hear that the French adorn rooms well with mirrors, and they cover the walls with carving in low relief in wood of various designs partly coloured and partly gilded, which fill the wall spaces. Therefore I would like to not have frames on these paintings, but to situate them amongst these carvings, which serve to ornament the paintings. In

Fig. 3.17. Console table with pietrasanta top. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall / owner.)

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

every room I would like to put two mirrors, a French-style chimney, and have the rest of the room filled with paintings, to which these carvings would serve as a frame.2

This seems to have been too much to ask, and the paintings in both Anterooms had smooth white frames of white poplar filletted with gold (liscia bianca, filettata d’oro) that were hung close to the wall (Fig. 3.18). That this was a novel idea in Rome at the time is apparent from the way the cardinal had to explain his wishes to Mariano, who evidently had thought that the cardinal had wanted him to cut away the stucco so as to set canvases flush with the wall surface.3 The cardinal explained that he only wanted them to seem fixed. In the end Mariano understood what the cardinal was intending but evidently considered it to be impractical, and the compromise of the white-and-gold poplar frames was agreed. The inventories refer to the paintings in both rooms being attacato al muro (attached to the wall).4 The surviving frames have brass eyes in triangular plates screwed to the upper rail of the frame, which seem to be the original fittings. These are such that if hung from hooks on the wall the paintings would lie flat against the wall, which is presumably what the perito meant by attacato al muro, as opposed to paintings hung by wires or chains from a rail or nail higher up the wall. (The cardinal only reluctantly accepted the installation of paintings by Raffaello Vanni in the Piano Nobile Gallery in traditional gold frames hung from nails; see Chapter 3.3.) It seems likely that the intent was to make the frames appear to be set flush with the walls, as if they were in stucco frames.5 Because the same frames and green wall-colouring were used in both Anterooms,6 they would have contributed to the effect of a unified suite of rooms. But they had little in common with the French-style boiseries (with inset mirrors) that the cardinal initially had in mind. Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 137

Fig. 3.18. Detail of white poplar frames of paintings from the Second Anteroom. (David R. Marshall / owner.) The mouldings are about 6.5 cm wide.

The First Anteroom The main decoration of the First Anteroom was established by three paintings each measuring 5 x 7 palmi (1.12 x 1.57 m). The first was a Lot and His Daughters from the school of Sebastiano Conca over the fireplace. It had a shaped canvas, and probably therefore a shaped frame, and was placed over the fireplace, and may have formed part of the fireplace surround.7 The other two were copies of works by Guercino, one representing Venus and Amor and Peace Destroying the Instruments of War. 8 There are known versions of these subjects by Guercino coming from houses in Cento (Fig. 3.19).9 They may be some of the copies that on 3 September 1718 the cardinal was considering

Fig. 3.19. (Left): Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, Il Guercino (1591–1666), Peace Setting Fire with a Torch to the Accoutrements of War. Detached fresco. Formerly Bologna, Taddia collection. (Right): Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, Il Guercino (1591–1666), Venus and Amor. Detached fresco, 167 x 138 cm. Cento, Pinacoteca Civica, Cento. (After Salerno and Mahon, 1988.)

137

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.20. Adrien Manglard (1695–1760), Harbour Scene, c. 1720. Oil on canvas, c. 22 x 67 cm. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall / Owner.)

Fig. 3.21. Adrien Manglard (1695–1760), Coast Scene with Men Loading Barrels, c. 1720. Oil on canvas, c. 22 x 67 cm. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall / Owner.)

having made for particular sites in the villa for which he wanted Mariano to send him measurements, which probably included the ‘Dosso Dossi’ copies discussed below.10 The cardinal displayed his caution and lack of expertise in artistic matters by proposing to have one of them made and then sent to Mariano for him to check on its quality. This would help to keep the artist on his toes before he did the others. Since the cardinal had the ‘Dosso Dossis’ copied because he knew them, the same may have been be true of the Guercinos. The School of Conca work was presumably sourced by Mariano in Rome. There were also in 1739 twelve ‘paesi, e vedute’ (landscapes, and views),11 two of which were by Adrien Manglard (Figs 3.20, 3.21).12 In 1748 the Manglards were moved to the space over the door to the main staircase that in 1739 and 1772 had an overdoor representing Hercules and Omphale (see Chapter 3.1).13 Four others can be identified with paintings probably by Domenico Roberti or a follower.14 There was also an oval Apollo Flaying Marsyas by Antonio Grecolini,15 the painter who collaborated with Panini in frescoing the ceiling of the Piano Nobile Gallery and who frescoed two other ceilings, one of which may have been this room if this were the Stanza di Mercurio frescoed by Grecolini between March and May 1718, as I have speculated (see Chapter 3.1). This was paired with a matching Atalanta and Hippomenes, identified as being by Francesco Patrizi, although Placido Costanzi, the perito in 1748, gives it to the ‘school of Passeri’.16 Another pair consisted of an unattributed Death of Cleopatra17 and a Nativity18 likewise given by Costanzi to the ‘school of Passeri’. Since the Atalanta and Hippomenes was similarly attributed by Costanzi, it is possible that the Nativity was also by Francesco, or else by Mariano Patrizi or Felice

Trulli, since on 27 August 1718, at a point when the plan was to decorate the whole Piano Nobile largely with paintings, the cardinal, no doubt encouraged by Mariano and Francesco, had suggested asking the amateur painters of their circle to contribute works: that is Francesco, Mariano, and Felice Trulli.19 It seems likely that other works in the villa attributed by Costanzi to the ‘school of Passeri’ may have been by one of these amateur painters, since Passeri was their teacher and model.20

138

Libro MARSHALL.indb 138

The Bacchanals in the Second Anteroom Given the diversity of subject matter and the diversity of sources of the paintings in the First Anteroom it seems unlikely that the cardinal or Mariano had a particular theme or program in mind. The Second Anteroom (which may be the Stanza di Giove frescoed by Pietro Barbieri from May to August 1718), seems to have been more iconographically coherent, as the paintings had mainly bacchic subjects or were still lifes, most of which survive. There were sixteen pictures (seventeen in 1739, including the overdoor), with mainly bacchic subjects and still lifes, most of which are extant. They had frames that matched those in PN02. The 1739 inventory provides enough information to reconstruct the hang of the paintings in some detail (see Figs 3.22–3.25). The location of some paintings is specified and, since the perito seems to have proceeded systematically, it is possible to infer the location of others from the sequence. Over the table on the south wall was a vertical oval representing Summer. Above this was a Vase of Flowers. Its pair, the Various Fruits, was placed between the windows on the north wall, where it would have fitted neatly because of its vertical format. The

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.22. Villa Patrizi, Piano Nobile, Second Anteroom, reconstruction of north wall. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 3.23. Villa Patrizi, Piano Nobile, Second Anteroom, reconstruction of east wall. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 3.24. Villa Patrizi, Piano Nobile, Second Anteroom, reconstruction of south wall. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 3.25. Villa Patrizi, Piano Nobile, Second Anteroom, reconstruction of west wall. (David R. Marshall.)

Spring appears next in the inventory and probably hung below it, corresponding to Summer on the opposite wall. The single overdoor represented Bacchus Riding a Goat which would have been over the door to PN02 on the west side of the room as it is mentioned first.21 The main

pictures on each wall formed a set of four Bacchanals, each measuring 8 x 6 palmi (1.79 x 1.34 m) inside their frames. These are recorded in photographs taken at the house in Via di S. Nicola da Tolentino (Fig. 3.1) and are now in a private collection.22 Their subjects are The Sacrifice of a

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 139

139

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.26. Unknown artist, The Sacrifice of a Donkey to Priapus, copy after presumed lost mural by the studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino) (1532–1602) or Settevecchi (1520–90) in the Saletta dei baccanali in the Castello Estense, Ferrara. Oil on canvas, c. 180 x 135 cm. Private Collection. (Owner.)

Fig. 3.27. Unknown artist, Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne with the Drunken Silenus, Elephants and Camels, copy after studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino) (1532–1602) in the saletta dei baccanali in the Castello Estense, Ferrara. Oil on canvas, c. 180 x 135 cm. Private Collection.

Donkey to Priapus (Fig. 3.26),23 Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne with the Drunken Silenus, Elephants and Camels (Fig. 3.27),24 The ‘Mozza per la Vendemmia’ (the Vintage) (Fig. 3.28),25 and Triumph of Bacchus in a Chariot Drawn by Tigers (Fig. 3.29).26 We are well informed about the Bacchanals because they are discussed by Cardinal Patrizi in his correspondence with Mariano. The cardinal’s apartment in the Castello at Ferrara (Fig. 1.31) included a small room or passageway decorated with wall paintings of bacchanalian subjects known as the saletta dei baccanali (Figs 3.30–3.32).27 This room connected the loggia degli’ aranci (loggia of the orange trees), a terrace or giardino pensile (hanging garden) overlooking the moat where orange trees in tubs are placed in the summer, with a passageway outside the chapel. Nearby are the main rooms where Cardinal Patrizi would have conducted his public business. One can imagine him sitting among the citrus trees on the loggia dreaming of villeggiatura at Porta Pia, before returning to his offices through the saletta dei baccanali. Living with these wall paintings on a day-to-day basis he

had evidently grown to like them. They did not offend his sense of decorum—he considered them to be ‘lively, but not obscene’ (sono allegri, ma non osceni)—and their subjects may have suggested that they would make suitable decorations for his villa in the form of copies.28 Besides, they were the right size for one of the rooms; which room in particular was not an issue that initially preoccupied him. The cardinal first considered enlarging the relative size of the figures, but he did not trust his copyist (who is not named) to cope. In the end, he accepted that the size at which he would have them copied—which is approximately the same as the originals—would suit the room, even if one needed to add some paintings of flowers and fruit and some mirrors. This was done, as we have seen, although the mirrors were not needed. Today, there are three panels in the saletta dei baccanali in Ferrara, all located on the right wall as one leaves the loggia degli’ aranci, representing the Triumph of Bacchus,29 The Vintage, and the Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne. The Triumph of Bacchus on the left includes a satyr around whose arm is entwined a snake, a motif that is part of the

140

Libro MARSHALL.indb 140

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.28. Unknown artist, The ‘Mozza per la Vendemmia’ (The Vintage), copy after studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino) (1532–1602) in the saletta dei baccanali in the Castello Estense, Ferrara. Oil on canvas, c. 180 x 135 cm. Private Collection.

Fig. 3.29. Unknown artist, Triumph of Bacchus in a Chariot Drawn by Tigers, copy after Camillo Filippi and Bastianino (Sebastiano Filippo the Younger) (1532–1602) in the saletta dei baccanali in the Castello Estense, Ferrara. Oil on canvas, c. 180 x 135 cm. Private Collection.

Figs 3.30–3.32. Studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino) (1532–1602), Murals in the saletta dei baccanali in the Castello Estense, Ferrara. Left: Triumph of Bacchus in a Chariot Drawn by Tigers.

Centre: The ‘Mozza per la Vendemmia’ (The Vintage). Right: Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne with the Drunken Silenus, Elephants and Camels. Each oil on plaster, 160 x 120 cm.

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 141

141

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.33. Conrad Martin Metz (1749–1827), after Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio) (1583–1520), The Triumph of Bacchus. Etching and aquatint, printed in grey-brown ink, 392 x 450 mm (plate). Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1985-52-14996. (Philadelphia Museum of Art.) Published by Metz in Imitations of Ancient and Modern Drawings, London, 1789 and in The Restoration of the Arts in Italy to the Present Time …, London, 1798.

iconography of Bacchus,30 which Titian rethought as a version of Laocoön in the famous statue group in his Bacchus and Ariadne in the National Gallery, London.31 The Titian came from Alfonso II d’Este’s camerino d’alabastro in the Castello, located either in the Via Coperta or the adjacent ravelin on the other side.32 In the Titian the satyr behind holds a thyrsus in a position that could be misread as being held in the snake-entwined satyr’s left hand; in the mural the snake-entwined satyr in fact holds a staff or thyrsus in just this position, which implies at least a partial dependence on the Titian. The Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne on the right is essentially a copy of Raphael’s lost design for the Triumph of Bacchus, probably executed by Gian Francesco Penni, made in 1517 also for the camerino d’alabastro, and known from a print by Conrad Martin Metz (Fig. 3.33).33 The drawing was sent to Ferrara, where it was painted by Pellegrino da San Daniele (the painting is now lost).34 Raphael’s design has a nude Bacchus and a clothed Ariadne, but both figures in the mural are clothed.35 The middle panel represents a mythological grape harvest, and has generally been called The Vintage or some such title.36 Given that the other two panels have overlapping subjects (Bacchus appears in both), it might be possible to identify the draped figure wearing a wreath as Bacchus and the woman holding up a glass of wine 142

Libro MARSHALL.indb 142

with Ariadne, but the identifications are uncertain. The satyr at the right is derived from the satyr at the left of Giovanni Bellini’s Feast of the Gods, also from the camerino d’alabastro.37 The three scenes can be read as occupying a quasi-continuous space. The skylines line up, as do the edges of the foreground bands, and a mound-like space is spread across the boundary between the left and middle scenes. The whole composition is closed at the left by a pair of bacchantes initiating a movement to the right, and at the right by an embracing couple that arrests this movement and turns it back on itself. Understood as the middle part of a single composition, The Vintage can be understood as a development of the subjects of the flanking panels, asserting that the principal gift of Bacchus to humanity was wine, in the way that in the following century Giovanni Boulanger (1606–60) would include Bacchus among the Vintagers in his cycle of bacchic subjects in the Galleria del Bacco in the Palazzo Ducale, Sassuolo.38 These murals have in the past been attributed to Titian, Dosso Dossi, and Ugo da Carpi. Cardinal Patrizi, following the-then prevailing view, believed them to be by Dosso Dossi (Dossio). They receive a surprising amount of attention in guidebooks to Ferrara as a consequence of a residual local memory of the famous Giovanni Bellini, Titian, and Dosso Bacchanals from the camerino d’alabastro of Alfonso II d’Este with which they were immediately associated in the absence of the originals—with good reason, as we have seen. In the Neoclassical period Mengs, Canova, Cicognara and Appiani all worried over the question whether they were by Dossi or Titian.39 Their reputation persisted into the twentieth century.40 Ella Noyes, for example, wrote in 1904: ‘they are interesting as the last melancholy relics of the Bacchanalian scenes with which the Dukes of Ferrara filled their palace’.41 Today, the murals are recognised as being considerably later than the camerino d’alabastro Bacchanals. Arcangeli attributed them to various hands associated with Sebastiano Filippi the younger, known as Bastianino: Camillo Filippi and Bastianino for the Triumph of Bacchus; ‘Amico di Filippo’ for The Vintage, and Camillo Filippi for The Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne.42 More recently, documentary evidence has emerged to show that the first versions were begun by Leonardo da Brescia in 1562, and they were radically restored in 1569 by Bastianino and ‘compagni’, and again in 1574 by Bartolomeo Faccini.43 The label in the room today states that Leonardo da Brescia was responsible only for the framing and fictive terms, and associates The Triumph of Bacchus with Settevecchi, The Vintage and The Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne with the studio of Filippi.44

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Only three murals exist today, but Cardinal Patrizi had four copies made. The fourth painting (Fig. 3.26) represents the sacrifice of a donkey in front of a statue of Priapus enclosed by a leafy baldacchino. The subject is one alluded to in the camerino d’alabastro, but not directly represented. Bellini’s Feast of the Gods depicts the braying of a donkey that put paid to the attempt by Priapus to take advantage of the nymph Lotis. In retaliation, Priapus demanded the annual sacrifice of a donkey. The baldacchino is similar to one in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili (1499 and later editions) that shelters a herm of Priapus (Fig. 3.34).45 The placing of the scythe of Priapus scythe in the hand of the statue (rather than in the tree above him, as in the Feast of the Gods) in both images supports the hypothesis that the Hypnerotomachia is the source.46 While Cardinal Patrizi could hardly have described the Hypnerotomachia image as ‘allegro, ma non osceno’, given the prominent genitalia of the god in the uncensored versions of the woodcut, the copy, and presumably its model, is much more decorous. Where would the original of this composition have been located? The proportions of the figures, the foreground flowers, the landscapes, and the general disposition of the elements suggests that the Sacrifice belonged to the same series as the other three. The fictive architectural framing in the saletta dei bacchanali continues around the others walls, implying that there may originally have been six or more, although the cardinal only refers to four. Early manuscript and printed guidebooks do not indicate the number of scenes in the saletta dei baccanali,47 but from 1787 guidebooks are more specific, and describe only three paintings. It is therefore possible that the fourth scene was on the opposite wall to the other three, and was destroyed between 1720, when Cardinal Patrizi had it copied, and 1787. Another possibility is that the original was to be found elsewhere in the legate’s apartments. If so, the model may have been a fresco on the chimney in the nearby sala del consiglio (today known as the salone dei giochi) representing a Bacchanal with the Sacrifice of Priapus referred to by Barotti in 1770.48 There is now no trace of decoration in the chimneypiece in question, although Arcangeli has tentatively identified a fragment of a bacchanal mounted in the saletta dei baccanali as a remnant.49 This, however, does not correspond to the Sacrifice, so it is more likely that it was on the now blank wall of the saletta dei baccanali.50 In one other respect the cardinal’s copies may reflect the different appearance of the saletta dei baccanali in his day. Today the paintings are set between fictive pilasters composed of herms and weakly illusionistic window openPart 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 143

Fig. 3.34. A Sacrifice to Priapus, woodcut, from Francesco Colonna, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, Venice: Manutius, 1499.

ings beneath a fictive cornice. In 1875 Cittadella, while admitting that earlier guidebooks refer to the murals being in this room, observed that the three frescoes seemed too cramped, giving the eye no rest, and asked whether they might not have been moved there from somewhere else.51 Looking at the room today, it is not clear why he should have thought they looked so awkward,52 but perhaps the answer lies in his observation that he was unable to inspect the margins of the paintings because they were covered with fixed frames (cornici infissevi).53 He makes no mention of the herms that today separate the scenes, or indeed of the fictive cornice that runs around the room. Had framing been applied over the herms and the fictive cornices before 1875? If so, this might well have dated from the seventeenth or early eighteenth centuries. Hence when the cardinal wrote that he would like to have the copies ‘adobbare tutti una stanza facendogli una piccola cornice, che apparissero incastrati nel muro’ he may have had in mind the arrangement that then prevailed in the stanza dei baccanali, as well as the current fashion for fixed installations. Cardinal Patrizi’s decision to make copies of murals he was acquainted with in his apartment in the Castello in Ferrara makes it clear how contingent was the choice of decorative elements in the villa. As we have seen, the ceiling had been frescoed before the cardinal began to think seriously about the wall decoration of the Anterooms, and it is clear that his choice of bacchanals as the principal subject was driven by matters independent of the overall program, and precisely which room they were to go in 143

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.35. Pietro Paolo Cennini (1661–1739) (here attributed). Left: Various Fruits. Right: Vase of Flowers. Both oil on canvas, c. 180 x 60 cm. Private Collection. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 3.36. Mariano or Francesco Patrizi (here attributed), The Four Seasons. Top left: Winter. Top right: Summer. Bottom left: Autumn. Bottom right: Spring. Whereabouts unknown. (Courtesy of Francesca Patrizi.)

remained fluid for some time. Similarly, the decoration of the other rooms was fluid both in type and location until 1722. The program of the ceilings was considered independently of the rooms: it was one task to decide the subjects of the ceilings, and another to decorate the rooms below. The supporting paintings, however, demonstrate a certain coherence with the main theme established by the Bacchanals. The cardinal’s letter implies that the two still lifes in the Second Anteroom (Fig. 3.35)54 were commissioned to complement the Bacchanals, and thus can be interpreted as extending the theme of the vintage to other fruits of the earth. These may have been commissioned by Mariano, since the cardinal does not otherwise mention them. On stylistic grounds, they can be attributed to Pietro Paolo Cennini (1662–1725), who collaborated with Panini on the vault of the gallery of the Palazzo Albani-del Drago and in the Quirinal mezzanine.55 The same may be true of the Garzi copies,56 presumably based on paintings available in Rome that Mariano may have chosen because at least one of their subjects (Bacchus and

Ariadne and Polyphemus and Galatea) complemented the Ferrara copies (Figs 3.37–3.38). The paintings of the Four Seasons, probably by Mariano or Francesco, may also have been painted for the room for the same reasons (Fig. 3.35).57 The other works in the room, including a pair after Maratta58 (again possibly by Francesco or Mariano) and two bambocciate (genre paintings)59 are less closely linked thematically. The decoration of the First Anteroom may have been the result of a similar dynamic. The starting point may have been the Guercino copies, that, as I have suggested, may have been based on originals that the cardinal was familiar with in northern Italy. This was then developed, probably at Mariano’s direction with a work from the school of a Roman painter (in this case Conca) (or was this really a copy?) to complete the set of large paintings then on the two main walls, developed into larger units by being surrounded with landscapes and ruin pieces that had no particular iconographic connection with the large pictures.

144

Libro MARSHALL.indb 144

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Top: Fig. 3.37. Luigi Garzi (1638–1721), copy after, Bacchus and Ariadne. Oil on canvas, 36 x 134 cm. Private collection. (David R. Marshall.)

The Taste of the Pope The Bacchanals were hardly daring paintings, but the cardinal was concerned that Pope Benedict XIII should be offended by them. When the pope is about to visit the villa, the cardinal tells Mariano to instruct the housekeeper not to show them to him because he may laugh at them (see Chapter 1.3). The pope at the time that the cardinal conceived of the commission, Clement XI, might have been more sympathetic. But probably in commissioning the works the cardinal was thinking less of popes than of previous legates of Ferrara. It was, after all, his predecessor, Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, the nephew of Pope Clement VIII Aldobrandini, who had acquired Ferrara for the papacy in 1598 and who became its first legate. In one of the most famous acts of theft of the Renaissance, he stripped the camerino d’alabastro of its famous Bacchanals by Bellini, Titian, and Dosso Dossi that until that point, had remained the property of the Este family. Cardinal Patrizi, in a more orderly age, adopted a less dishonest means of acquiring his set of Bacchanals, but he was surely not insensitive to the-then widespread belief that the murals in saletta dei baccanali carried with them the aura of their more famous predecessors. Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 145

Bottom: Fig. 3.38. Luigi Garzi (1638–1721), copy after, Galatea and Polyphemus. Oil on canvas, 36 x 134 cm. Private collection. (David R. Marshall.)

Notes 1. Waddy, 1990, pp. 35 ff. 2. Letter, 9 December 1719 [4]: ‘il mio parere sarebbe d’accomodare le stanze più che sia possibile all’uso franzese, sento che li Franzesi ornano assai le stanze con delli specchi, e li siti delle muraglie li ricoprono con dell’intagli in tavola di basso intaglio di diversi disegni parte coloriti, e parte dorati, che riempiono le muraglie, vorrei pertanto a questi quadri non farci le cornici, ma situarli fra questi intagli, che gli faccino ornamento, in ogni stanza ci vorrei mettere due spechi, il cammino alla franzese, et il rimanente della stanza riempirla con quadri, a quali questi intagli servino di cornice.’ 3. Letter, 19 October 1720 [4]. 4. In the 1739 inventory (Doc. 3.2) the frames in PN02 are described as ‘Quadri con cornice bianco, et oro attaccati al muro tra grandi, e piccolo,’ and those in PN03 as ‘Quadri con cornice ingessate bianco, et oro attaccati al muro tra grandi, e piccoli.’ 5. In his letter the cardinal tells Mariano how he has had the copies varnished (velare) to heighten the resemblance to the originals. This raises the question of the nature of the surface in his day. Today, the much-restored murals have a varnish-like surface. Cittadella, writing in 1875, gives a long description of the paintings, observing that although some have suggested that they are in oil, but they are in fact in fresco, indicating that their varnished appearance is not new. Cittadella, 1875, note 63, pp. 46–47. ‘Il primo poi dei camerini contiene, disposti il fila di contro alle finestre e l’uno presso l’altro, tre dipinti che

145

18/11/15 17:24

taluni vorrebbero ad olio sul muro, ma da ritenersi a buon fresco. E chi potrebbe dire se fossero eseguiti per questo piccolissimo ambiente, ovvero per altro luogo e poscia qui trasportati? Qui li ricordano Frizzi nella sua Guida, Cesare Barotti nell’altro libro delle Pitture di Ferrara stampato nel 1770, e Scalabrini nell’opera delle Chiese nostre; ma pare impossibile che gli artisti, o l’artista se fu un solo, li avessero eseguiti l’uno si presso all’altro, di modo che non lasciano pure all’occhio dell’osservatore un po’ di riposo! Comunque sia, nè potende fare ispezioni sul muro nei margini delle pitture, perchè sono coperti da cornici infissevi, osserverò intanto come nessuna traccia veggasi attualmente di vecchio lavoro nella soffitta, e nella gola esterna del muro che vi corrisponde sul già citato giardino, come asserirono alcuni de’ nostri scrittori di avervi veduto.’ 6. Doc. 4.2.9. 7. School of Sebastiano Conca, Lot and His Daughters. 5 x 7 palmi (1.12 x 1.57 m) with smooth white frame filleted with gold (liscia bianca, filettata d’oro), ‘attached to the wall’. This, like the Guercino copies, must have gone on either the south or west wall. 8. Copy after Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, Il Guercino (1591–1666), Peace Destroying the Instruments of War and copy after Guercino, Venus and Amor. Both wide format (per traverso) 8 x 9 palmi (179 x 201 cm) with frame; 5 x 7 palmi (112 x 156 cm) without frame, and both with white and gold frames ‘attached to the wall’. 10 scudi the pair (1748); 8 scudi the pair (1772). These, like the Conca school work, must have gone on either the south or west wall. The Venus and Amor is not listed in 1739, but its presence is implied, and this must be a simple oversight. Both are in PN02 in 1748, 1772 and 1814 Placido Costanzi, the perito in 1748, was defeated by the subject of the first work, which he called ‘una donna con una torcia in mano’. In 1772 it is simply ‘La Pace’. These works are unlikey to be the copies after Guercino of Venus and Amor and Two Warriors in the Patrizi Collections because these are ovals and the dimensions do not match (each measures 112 x 85 cm). See Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 200, p. 355, as ‘Pittore Guercinesco della metà del sec. XVII’. 9. Guercino painted a Venus and Amor on the chimney-breast of an upper floor room in the Casa Pannini, Cento of 1615–17, now in the Pinacoteca Civica, Cento (167 x 138 cm) (Bagni, 1984, p. 143, pl. 115; Salerno and Mahon, 1988, cat. 24I, pp. 106–7). There is a preparatory drawing at Windsor Castle and an etching in reverse by Bartolozzi after the drawing, but the latter is too late to have been the model for the Patrizi painting (Mahon and Turner, 1989, cat. 1, p.1, pl. 1, Windsor 2532). There is a small painted version transformed into a Charity in the Rijksmuseum that Mahon and Turner argue must be a ‘copy of the small picture now lost, painted for Padre Antonio Mirandola (the young Guercino’s “discoverer”) and engraved in reverse in 1622 by G. B. Pasqualini while in Mirandolo’s possession.’ There are also various drawings related to this work. In the mid-1620s Guercino made drawings for a composition probably representing Peace setting Fire to the Instruments of War that Mahon and Turner connect with a detached fresco that represents only the figure of Peace Setting Fire with a Torch to the Accoutrements of War. (Mahon and Turner, 1989, cat. 163, pp. 84–85, pl. 168 and fig. 26. Mahon and Turner, pp. 84-5; also Grimaldi, 1968, pl. 29.) This was once in the Taddia Collection in Bologna, and came from a house in Cento and in 1768 was owned by the Tassinari family. Mahon and Turner note that it is recorded in the guidebook by Orazio Cammillo Righetti nato Dondini, Le pitture di Cento, 1768, p. 30 as being in the Casa Tassinari, and the inscription on Francesco Rosalpina’s engraving of 1800 indicates the same location. There is also an offset after an untraced preparatory drawing for the fresco (Mahon and Turner, 1989, cat. 606, p. 181). Mahon and Turner (1989, p. 85) suggest that the drawings, oval in format, may be designs for a chimney-breast (the subject was one suitable for a fireplace). The ex-Tassinari fresco might, for the same reasons, also have been part of a chimney-breast. If so, it is curious that both subjects painted may have been for chimney-breasts in houses in Cento. 10. Letter, 24 September 1718 [3]. 11. In 1739 these six paesi, e vedute, including the Manglards, were hanging around each of the Guercino copies (situati attorno al suddetto quadro). In 1748 the Manglards are described separately from the other ‘paesi, e vedute’ as overdoors, having evidently been moved to the space over the door to the main staircase temporarily vacated by the Hercules and Omphale overdoor. All twelve

146

Libro MARSHALL.indb 146

paintings are described in 1739 as being oblong (bislunghi), a term that was probably chosen to accommodate the different orientations of the paintings, since in 1748 they are divided into eight pictures in a vertical format measuring 3 x 1 palmi (67 x 22 cm), and two prospettive of similar dimensions; the Manglards would constitute the other two. This is made clear in 1772, when the twelve pictures, all having a major dimension of 3 palmi (67 cm), are separated into four in wide format and eight in vertical format (in piedi). Four of the works in vertical format are probably the Domenico Robertis discussed in the next note. The 1772 inventory describes the hang of these paintings as being a colonette, that is, in columns, which may mean that they were hung in twos one above the other on either side of two of the large paintings (probably the two Guercino copies). 12. Adrien Manglard, Harbour Scene (Fig. 3.20) and Coast Scene with Men Loading Barrels (Fig. 3.21). Private Collection. Both 3 palmi (67 cm) wide, and probably 1 palmo (22 cm) high, without frame. Actual measurements 28.5 x 72.5 cm inside frames. White and gold frames ‘attached to the wall’. Valued at 20 scudi each (1748). In PN02 in 1739, 1748, 1772 and 1814, The paintings are still in their original frames. Placido Costanzi, the perito in 1748, valued this pair relatively highly; they alone are worth more than the twelve pictures that includes them in 1776 (16 scudi). To the later periti they were just two among a job lot of small paintings. I have not located any payments for these works, but since the valuation in 1748 for the vedute of the villa was 20 scudi, and since this corresponds exactly to the payment for the vedute of the villa, which are documented as having cost 20 scudi the pair, it seems likely that this was their purchase price. On Manglard, see Chapter 4.1 below. He was working (with Andrea Colli) on the frescoes in the Stanza del Trucco from October 1720 to October 1721. His two vedute of the villa were painted between January and March 1721. A ‘disegno di marina’ commissioned in Rome by Nicolò Gaburri is recorded as bearing the date 1722 (Sestieri, 1994, p. 113; Maddalo, 1982, p. 15, citing G. Campori, Raccolta di Cataloghi ed Inventari inediti, Modena, 1870, no. 147. 13. Unattributed, Hercules and Omphale. 4 palmi (89 cm) horizontal format, without frame. White and gold frame ‘attached to the wall’. Installed as overdoor, probably over door to the Scala Grande. 4 scudi (1772). In PN02 in 1739, 1772 and 1814, but absent in 1748. In 1739 the subject is identified as Hercule and Iole and in 1772 as Hercules spinning, which makes it clear that the episode depicted is the one where Hercules dresses in Omphale’s clothes and holds a distaff. Another Hercules and Omphale was in MZ08 in 1748, but had a different format. 14. Domenico Roberti or school (here attributed), Four Ruin Pieces. Part of a set of eight paintings in a vertical format in PN02 in 1739, 1748, 1772, 1814. Each 3 x 1 palmi (67 x 22 cm) without frames. White and gold frames ‘attached to the wall’. Actual dimensions 71 x 27.5 cm. Oil on canvas. Published by Pedrocchi, 2000, cat. 62, p. 164, as Gennaro Greco detto Il Mascarotta (c. 1667–1714), Capricci con Rovine. They are more likely to be Roman than Neapolitan, as they are by a hand that appears frequently in paintings of the genre and is probably to be identified with Domenico Roberti or a follower. Roberti was active in the Accademia di San Luca until 1704 and would have been acquainted with Mariano Patrizi. 15. Antonio Grecolini, Apollo Flaying Marsyas. Oval, 3 palmi (67 cm) wide, without frame. White and gold frame ‘attached to the wall’. Pair with Atalanta and Hippomenes by Francesco Patrizi. 10 scudi (1748); 2 scudi (1772). In PN02 in 1739, 1748 (as Grecolini), 1772 and 1814. Costanzi in 1748 identifies the Apollo Flaying Marsyas as an orginal by Antonio Grecolini; in 1739 no attribution is ventured. Possibly this was a bozzetto for one of his frescoes in the villa. No work of this subject is listed in Sestieri, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 90–91. 16. Abbate Francesco Felice Patrizi, Atalanta and Hippomenes. Oval, 3 palmi (67 cm) wide, without frame. White and gold frame ‘attached to the wall’. Pair with Apollo Flaying Marsyas by Antonio Grecolini.10 scudi (1748); 2 scudi (1772). In PN02 in 1739 (as Abbate Patrizi), 1748 (as school of Passeri), 1772 and 1814. Costanzi in 1748 attributes the Atalanta to the school of Passeri, but the 1739 inventory, evidently relying on family knowledge, rather than connoisseurship, tells us the Apollo flaying Marsyas was by the late Abbate Patrizi, that is, Franceso Felice, who died in 1734, which is probably correct, since, as Graf has shown (Graf, 1988; Graf, 1995b), Mariano, who was also a painter, based

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

his work on Passeri, and Francesco no doubt did likewise. There is no Atalanta and Hippomenes among the Giuseppe Passeri drawings in Graf ’s catalogue of the Düsseldorf drawings (Graf, 1995a). A red chalk drawing on a letter from Giovannni Battista to Mariano of 26 September 1722 might represent this subject. In 1772 the pair to the Apollo and Marysas is identified as Apollo and Daphne, but it is likely that this is a misidentification; both subjects involve fulllength (one supposes) running figures. There is a sudden drop in the valuation in 1772, perhaps reflecting a loss of interest in early eighteenth-century artists. 17. Unattributed, Death of Cleopatra. 4 palmi (89 cm) with frame, 3 palmi (67 cm) without. White and gold frame ‘attached to the wall’. 3 scudi (1748); 3 scudi (1772). In PN02 in 1739, 1748, 1772, and 1814. Described in 1748 as being a half-length, and in 1772 as showing Cleopatra with the snake in her hand, it recalls Guido Reni’s treatments of the subject (for example Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Pepper, 1984, cat. 181, or London, Denis Mahon, Pepper, 1984, cat. 189) but the fact that Costanzi failed to attribute it suggests that it is not a copy after Reni. It had a shaped frame. 18. School of Giuseppe Passeri, Nativity. 4 palmi (89 cm) with frame, 3 palmi (67 cm) without. White and gold frame ‘attached to the wall’. 3 scudi (1738); 1.5 scudi (1772). In PN02 in 1739, 1748, 1772 and 1814. The Death of Cleopatra and the Nativity were of similar size and were framed similarly in shaped frames, but do not seem to have been by the same hand or to have originally formed a pair, as the disparate subjects indicate. 19. Letter, 27 August 1718 [2]. 20. In 1814 there were the same number of paintings as in earlier years that are described generically as venti quadri fra grandi e mezzani, e piccoli rappresentanti santi, vedute, ed altro. The reference to ‘santi’, unless it is a reference to the Nativity, makes one wonder if some changes were not made by this date—for example, there may have been the need to provide an overdoor following the removal of the pelmet and door curtain to PN03. 21. Unattributed, Bacchus Riding a Goat. 3 palmi (67 cm) high by 6 palmi (134 cm) wide, including frame. Smooth white frame filleted with gold. Overdoor, probably on the door to PN02. This overdoor is recorded only in the 1739 inventory and seems to have been removed before 1748. 22. Details common to all four paintings. Private Collection. 9 x 8 palmi (201 x 179 cm) with frame, 8 x 6 palmi (179 x 134 cm) without. Smooth white frame filleted with gold. 30 scudi the set of four (1748); 40 scudi the set of four with the two Vases of Flowers (1772). In PN03 in 1739, 1748, 1772 and 1814. 23. Unknown artist, The Sacrifice of a Donkey to Priapus, copy after presumed lost mural by studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino) or Settevecchi in the saletta dei baccanali in the Castello, Ferrara. Hung on the wall to PN04. 24. Unknown artist, The Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne with the Drunken Silenus, Elephants and Camels. Copy after studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino). Oil on plaster, 160 x 120 cm. Ferrara, Castello, saletta dei baccanali. The original was given to Camillo Filippi by Arcangeli (cat. 29, fig. 6b), and in 2001 was labelled as being by the studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino). This painting hung on wall backing onto the Scala Grande (south wall). 25. Unknown artist, The ‘Mozza per la Vendemmia’ (The Vintage), copy after studio of Sebastiano Filippi the Younger (Bastianino). Oil on plaster, 160 x 120 cm. Ferrara, Castello, saletta dei baccanali. The original was given to ‘Amico di Filippi’ by Arcangeli (cat. 28, fig. 6a), and in 2001 was labelled as being by Settevecchi. It hung on the wall backing onto the Scala Grande. The title given by Costanzi for this painting, ‘The Mozza per la Vendemmia’ reflects Roman usage: ‘mozzatore’ and ‘mozzatrice’ were Roman dialect terms for vintagers. At vintage in October young men and women were hired to bring in the grape harvest, and their return became one of the spectacles of Rome in the early nineteenth century. According to Gregorovius, the women would return on carts and other vehicles in the evenings, some carrying torches, and singing songs like a procession of bacchantes (Gregorovius, Passeggiate italiane, cited in Rossetti, 1981). With the mozzatori they would dance a dance similar to the saltarello. The return of the mozzatori and mozzatrici would be a popular subject in early nineteenth century representations by Bartolommeo Pinelli

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 147

and others (Bartolommeo Pinelli, Il ritorno del mozzatore dopo la vendemmia in Roma, 1817, engraving, see Rossetti, 1981, p. 80), while the saltarello appears in bambocciante paintings in the seventeenth century. One of the few eighteenth-century representations of the subject is by G. Reder (Festa for the Return of the Mozzatore in the garden of the Palazzo Rospigliosi on the Esquiline, 1848. Oil on canvas, Rome, Museo di Roma, MR 593 (Fagiolo, 1997c, vol. 1, cat. A29; vol. 2, p. 128, fig. 11). 26. Unknown artist, The Triumph of Bacchus in a Chariot Drawn by Tigers, copy after Camillo Filippi and Bastianino (Sebastiano Filippo the Younger). Oil on plaster, 160 x 124 cm. Ferrara, Castello, saletta dei baccanali. Arcangelo, 1963, cat. 27, fig. 4b (as the Triumph of Ariadne). Hung on the wall to PN02. 27. Baruffaldi, 1844, vol. 1, pp. 161–62, note 2 (by Boschini): ‘Noi crediamo opportuno indicarle, non solo perchè taciute dal Baruffaldi, ma più per la ragione d’essere il luogo di difficile accesso, avendo sempre servito, come serve tuttora, di ritirata al principe della provincia.’ See also Mezzetti and Mattaliano, 1981, vol. 2, p. 16. For Baruffaldi, see Novelli, 1997. 28. Letter, 7 September 1720 [3]. 29. Boschini and subsequent writers identified the protagonist as Ariadne, but it is male and must be Bacchus. Notes by Boschini in Baruffaldi, 1844, vol. 1, p. 261: ‘Il primo quadro a sinistra esprime Arianna sedente sopra un ricco carro dorato, tirato da due bacchiche tigri, cui fa corona una festosa truppa di satiri, di fauni, di ninfe e di baccanti danzanti, e suonanti istrumenti diversi.’ This has been followed by subsequent writers, including Gruyer, 1897, p. 417) who describes it in detail, down to Borella, 1990. Noyes (1904, p. 296) specifies the subject as Ariadne being led to her nuptials. 30. A satyr child at the left and a maenad in the centre background are also entwined by snakes. 31. Titian (active about 1506, died 1576), Bacchus and Ariadne, 1520-3. Oil on canvas, 176.5 x 191 cm. London, National Gallery, NG35. 32. For the extensive literature on the camerino d’alabastro, see the summary in Bayer, 1999, pp. 31–33, as well as Walker, 1956; Gould, 1969; Hope, 1971, parts 1 and 2; Goodgal, 1978; Hope, 1980; Hope, 1987; Brown, 1987. For the disputed identification of a painting in India as the Dosso Dossi Bacchanal of Men see Finocchi Ghersi and Pavanello, 2000. 33. Conrad Martin Metz, after Raphael, The Triumph of Bacchus. Etching and aquatint, printed in grey-brown ink, 392 x 450 mm (plate). This print was published by Metz in Imitations of Ancient and Modern Drawings, London, 1789 and in The Restoration of the Arts in Italy to the Present Time …, London, 1798. There is a copy in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1985-52-14996. There is also a preparatory study attributed to Giovanni Francesco Penni in the British Museum (Gere and Pouncey, 1983, no. 362, 173 x 301 mm), but the painting corresponds best with the drawing recorded by Metz. Metz’s engraving does not show the landscape with ruins found in the mural, but this may be at least in part derived from the school of Raphael, since it includes versions of the Basilica of Constantine and S. Giorgio in Velabro in Rome. 34. See Hope, 1980, p. 57; Bayer, 1999, pp. 35–36. There is a variant of the composition by Garofalo in Dresden (see Hope, 1971, part 2, fig. 20). Novelli, in notes to Brisigella and Novelli, 1991, note 4, p. 324, refers to a citation by Reggiani to the effect that the Triumph of Bacchus in the saletta dei baccanali is an old copy after Garofalo. 35. It is described at length by Boschini in his notes to Baruffaldi, 1844, vol. 1, p. 261, and Gruyer, 1897. 36. It is described at length in Boschini in his notes to Baruffaldi, 1844, vol. 1, and Gruyer, 1897, p. 118. 37. Giovanni Bellini, The Feast of the Gods. Washington, DC, National Gallery of Art, 38. Pirondini, 1969, p. 25, pl. 10. 39. Cittadella, 1875, p. 47: ‘Per quanto poi riguarda gli artisti dei tre quadri, chi volle riconoscerne due di Tiziano ed uno del Dosso; chi due di quest’ultimo ed uno

147

18/11/15 17:24

dell’altro: incertezza in cui furono pur anche un Mengs, un Canova, un Cicognara, un Appiani, un Camuccini, e che riesce di grandissimi elogio agli autori od [sic] all’autore di dette pitture.’ In this he follows Boschini’s notes to Baruffaldi, 1844, pp. 261–62, note 2. 40. Novelli, in her notes to Brisigella, gives a summary of the history of the attributions before Arcangeli, 1963. 41. Noyes, 1904, p. 296. ‘Opposite to the chapel in a little chamber, which was once a loggia opening on to the terrace outside, there are three paintings associated by a fond Ferrarese tradition with the name of Titian. The subjects are, Ariadne being conducted to her Nuptials, the Vendemmia, and the Triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne. The Vendemmia is ascribed by historians of art to Dosso, and the other two to his pupils, but a recent critic, M. Harck, attributes them with more probability to Girolamo Carpi. They are interesting as the last melancholy relics of the Bacchanalian scenes with which the Dukes of Ferrara filled their palace.’ 42. Arcangeli, 1963, cats 27–29, figs 4b, 6a, 6b. The essential literature on the attribution subsequent to Arcangeli is Mezzetti and Mattaliano, 1981, II, p. 16 (cites Arcangeli’s views); Bentini, 1987, pp. 91–93 (Bastianino); Borella, 1990, p. 59 (Camillo, Cesare and Sebastiano Filippi). 43. Spezzaferro, 1987, p. 5, and Bentini, 1987, p. 72. Also note by Novelli in Brisigella, note 4, pp. 513–14. 44. I have followed Arcangeli for the attributions. 45. Colonna, 1999, p. 19. 46. Other sources include the Saint Peter from Michelangelo’s Last Judgement (1534–41) who is the model for the man at the far left. 47. In the Descrizione delle pitture e sculture della città di Ferrara, a manuscript guide to works of art in Ferrara by Carlo Brisigella, who died in 1710, there is no indication of their number. Brisigella refers to ‘Diversi camerini sono tutti non tanto nella suffitta, quanto ne’ muro contigui al giardino pensile [the Bacchanals], dipinti con varj giuochi e scherzi di fauni, satiri e ninfe, per mano del buon Dosso Dosso, ed anche di Tiziano’. 48. Barotti, 1770, p. 188: ‘Del Maestro [Dosso Dossi] certamente è il Baccanale col Sagrificio di Priapo colorito sulla gola del Cammino [of the Sala del Consiglio]. It is also mentioned by Cittadella (in Arcangeli, 1963, cat. 30, p. 63) as a ‘bellissimo Baccanale col sacrifizio di Priappo sovra il cammino della Sala stessa del Consiglio, che si distingue per una delle sue [Bastianino’s] più belle opera.’ 49. Arcangeli, 1963, p. 63, Scena bacchica. 50. It represents two women with a child between. The first woman holds up a jug of wine (?) with both hands, the jug partly obscuring her face. She is assisted in this by the second woman. There are no explicit attributes to identify the women as maenads, but the actions are undoubtedly bacchic. 51. Cittadella, 1875, pp. 46–50. 52. His underlying motivation for this hypothesis was his awareness that this part of the Castello was reconstructed after the fire of 1554, which would preclude an attribution of the murals to Dossi. Cf. Arcangeli, 1963, p. 63 who calls this hypothesis ‘absurd’. 53. The relevant passage (p. 46) reads: ‘E chi potrebbe dire se fossero eseguiti per questo piccolissimo ambiente, ovvero per altro luogo e poscia qui trasportati? Qui li ricordano Frizzi nella sua Guida, Cesare Barotti nell’altro libro delle Pitture di Ferrara stampato nel 1770, e Scalabrini nell’opera delle Chiese nostre; ma pare impossibile che gli artisti, o l’artista se fu uno solo, li avessero eseguiti l’uno sì presso all’altro, di modo che non lasciano pure all’occhio dell’oservatore un po’ di riposo! Comunque sia, né potendo fare ispezioni sul muro nei margini delle pitture, perché sono coperti da cornici infissévi ….’

PN03 in 1739, 1748, 1772, 1814. In 1772 the two paintings are called loosely ‘Vasi di fiori’. In the entry for 1772 this pair is grouped with the Bacchanals and are said to have the same height of 8 palmi (179 cm), and a width of 2.5 palmi (56 cm). The 1748 inventory gives the dimensions as 6 x 2 palmi (134 x 45 cm). Since the dimensions outside the frame on the 1739 inventory are 9 x 3 palmi (201 x 67 cm), the 1748 dimensions gives a distorted frame shape, too wide at the top and bottom. As they appear in photographs of the house in Via di S. Nicola da Tolentino they have frames matching the Bacchanals and appear to be the same height. The Various Fruits was placed between the windows, above the wide sgabellone, and, later, the letto à credenza. The Vase of Flowers was above the oval painting of Summer, that, in turn, was above the table, almost against the wall opposite. 55. For Pietro Paolo Cennini (1661–1739) see Michel and Michel, 1979. His dates are often given as 1662–1725. but Michel and Michel cite the documentation in the Archivio Storico del Vicariato di Roma. Nicola Pio, in his ‘Life of Pietro Paolo Cennini’ (Pio, 1977, p. 197), refers to work by Cennini at Villa Patrizi, though he nowhere appears in the payments: ‘Nella villa dei signori Patrizij a Porta Pia, vi ha dipinto, nel nuovo palazzo, a fresco, a guazzo e a oglio in diversi quadri.’ Relevant comparative works at auction include Rome, L’Antonina, 28 May 2013, lot 724, Natura morta di fiori e frutta con pavone and Natura morta di fiori con pappagallo e maioliche. Oil on canvas, 72 x 100 cm, one of which is signed. 56. Copies after Luigi Garzi (1638–1721), Bacchus and Ariadne and Galatea and Polyphemus. Private Collection. 2 x 7 palmi (45 x 156 cm) with frame; 5 palmi (112 cm) wide without. Smooth white frame filleted with gold. Actual dimensions: 36 x 134 cm, frame mostly 6.5 cm wide. 6 scudi the pair (1748); 8 scudi the pair (1772). In PN03 in 1739, 1748, 1772 and 1814. This pair hung on the south wall, flanking the school of Passeri Summer and beneath two of the Bacchanals. Luigi Garzi was a pupil of Andrea Sacchi. No paintings of these subjects are found in Sestieri, 1994, pp. 75–77. 57. School of Giuseppe Passeri (possibly Francesco or Mariano Patrizi), The Four Seasons: Summer, Spring, Autumn and Winter. Vertical ovals, 1 palmo (22 bm) without frame. 6 scudi the set of four (1748); 2 scudi 40 baiocchi the set of four (1772). In PN03 in 1739, 1748, 1772 and 1814. The present whereabouts of these four paintings is unknown, but they are recorded in old photographs. Summer is identified specifically in the 1739 inventory (Ovato rappresentante l’estate sopra il tavolino) while what must be Spring is called ‘tre putti con scherzo di fiori’. Costanzi in 1748 calls them ‘putti, che formano le 4 staggioni’, Summer was over the table on its own, while Autumn was on the opposite wall under the Various Fruits between the windows. Winter and Autumn would be one of the pairs of ovals on the side walls. There are no paintings by Passeri of these subjects in Sestieri, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 143–45. 58. Copies after Carlo Maratta (1625–1713), One of the Hours and Venus and Two Amorini. Horizontal ovals, ‘misura da testa’ (that is about 25 x 30 cm, or 1.12 x 1.35 palmi) without frame. Smooth white frames filleted with gold. 5 scudi the pair (1748); 3 scudi the pair (1772). In PN03 in 1739, 1748, 1772 and 1814. These hung on the side walls (to PN02 or PN04). The originals are not identifiable from Mezzetti, 1955 or Sestieri, 1994. 59. Unattributed, Three Figures with a Sculptor and Three Cardplayers. Both 2.5 palmi (56 cm) square with frame, 2 palmi (45 cm square) without. Smooth white frames filleted with gold. 3 scudi the pair (1748); 1 scudo 60 baiocchi the pair (1772). In PN03 in 1739, 1748, 1772 and 1814.

54. Pietro Paolo Cennini (1661–1739) (here attributed), Various Fruits and Vase of Flowers. Private Collection. Both 9 x 3 palmi (201 x 67 cm) with frame, 8 x 2.5 palmi (179 x 56 cm) or 6 x 2 palmi (134 x 45 cm) without. Actual dimensions unknown. Smooth white frames filleted with gold. 12 scudi the pair (1748); 40 scudi the pair with the set of four Bacchanals (PN03/04-07). In

148

Libro MARSHALL.indb 148

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Chapter 3.3

Gallery

Introduction The Gallery was the principal representational space in the villa (Fig. 3.39). Unusually for Rome, it ran from one side of the villa to the other. After passing through the Anterooms, the visitor would have experienced the space opening up dramatically, with a raised vault and expansive views at either end. On social occasions the visitor could continue to move along the Strada di S. Agnese enfilade to the Stanza alla Cinese and Stanza delli Cristalli, but on more private occasions the Gallery also provided a means

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 149

of communication to the bedrooms on the southern corners of the building. It was richly, and symmetrically furnished with console tables, sofas and chairs, with four paintings by Raffaello Vanni on the walls. On one side it opened to the Galleriola Dipinta frescoed by Pietro Zerman (PN07), a long service room.

Fig. 3.39. Villa Patrizi, Piano Nobile, Gallery, schematic plan and elevations. (David R. Marshall.)

149

18/11/15 17:24

The Nature of the Baroque Galleria In seventeenth-century Rome the galleria as a roomtype developed as an addition to the standard sequence of rooms that had hitherto culminated in an audience room, or, under the influence of Versailles, in a representational bedroom. It was called a ‘galleria’ because of its elongated proportions compared to other representational rooms, and it may or may not have been hung with pictures or lined with statues. Often the only pre-existing space of similar proportions available was the loggia, and a loggia would sometimes also be, or would become, a galleria, but there was no necessary connection between such a galleria and a collection of pictures, a fact that Annibale Carracci’s choice of the conceit of a picture gallery for the vault of the loggia-gallery at Palazzo Farnese serves, paradoxically, to emphasise. The most vivid illustration of this is to be found at the Palazzo Albani (now Del Drago) at Quattro Fontane.1 When it was owned by Cardinal Camillo Massimo in the seventeenth century he decorated the loggia, as it then was, with antique reliefs. With such decoration, and in its proximity to the main stanze di rappresentanza, it was on the way to becoming a galleria in the new sense, but it nevertheless remained a 150

Libro MARSHALL.indb 150

Fig. 3.40. Rome, Palazzo del Drago (formerly Albani), view of the vault of the gallery. Frescoes Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691–1765) and Pietro Paolo Cennini (1661–1739). (David R. Marshall.)

loggia both in name and in function, as it was open to the courtyard. Significantly, to hang his collection of paintings and precious antique sculpture he constructed a separate picture gallery, as Lisa Beaven has shown.2 When Cardinal Alessandro Albani acquired the palazzo, however, he transformed the loggia into a modern galleria—that is, a lavishly decorated climax to the representational rooms—by enclosing it, having the ceiling frescoed by Panini and Pietro Paolo Cennini (Fig. 3.40),3 and installing mirrored doors. Hence in the palazzo at Quattro Fontane the distinction between an eighteenth-century galleria and a picture or sculpture gallery was clearcut. The galleria as the ultimate space in the sequence of stanze di rappresentanza came about, it could be argued, in response to a perception that the usual sequence of representational spaces ended in a whimper rather than a bang.4 Hence any opportunity to create a grand space was eagerly grasped. Already, following the example of Louis XIV at Versailles, the boundary between public and private apartments had been shifted to include

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Fig. 3.41. Rome, Palazzo Colonna, view of the Galleria Colonna. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Fig. 3.42. Rome, Palazzo de Carolis, view of the Gallery. (After Giuggioli, 1980.)

the bedroom, or at least a representational bed, as part of the public apartments. But this, it seems, was not enough. At Palazzo Pamphilj, the bridging of a street allowed for a long gallery, in the spatial sense of the term, at right angles to the façade. Significantly, this had a richly frescoed vault, by Pietro da Cortona, and rich doorcases, but no paintings. However, the gallery that would provide the most important model for the following century would be the Galleria Colonna (Fig. 3.41). As Christina Strunck has shown, the Galleria Colonna developed in stages by a process of opening up smaller spaces along one wing of the palace.5 Bernini, she argues, was responsible for the device of both connecting and separating three spaces, one long, two square, with pairs of screening columns. The last room, both in time and in the sequence of spaces, was the Sala della Colonna Bellica. It is raised on a series of steps and was effectively a throne room. The great bed designed by G. P. Schor for the presentation of Maria Mancini and his first was installed there as a lit de parade (representational bed) for Lorenzo Onofrio Colonna.

The pairs of columns would have suggested (or given rise to?) the usual arrangement of a bed set in an alcove behind screening columns. The Galleria Colonna was not primarily a place for displaying pictures, although pictures formed a large part of its decoration. Rather, it was to be a space of unparalleled magnificence. Easel pictures could contribute to such magnificence, but canvases were not, in themselves, what immediately came to mind as bearers of magnificence. Antiquities, coloured marbles, expensive marble-topped console tables, mirrors, and a spectacularly frescoed ceiling did the job rather better.

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 151

The Gallery of the Palazzo de Carolis One galleria that took its cue from the Galleria Colonna, inaugurated in its final form in 1700, was the gallery of the Palazzo de Carolis. This was rebuilt by Livio de Carolis from 1714 to designs by the architect Alessandro Specchi, and the decoration ran from 1719 to 1722.6 151

18/11/15 17:24

In other words, it was exactly contemporary with the Villa Patrizi, with the planning probably preceding it by a year. Cipriani and Cardinal Patrizi would almost certainly have been aware of what was going on there. The Palazzo de Carolis Gallery runs along the side of the building, and is divided into three parts by screening columns, thus displaying its clear dependence on the Galleria Colonna (Fig. 3.42). The planning seems to imply an eighteenth-century development away from a linear movement from staircase to audience room, towards a circuit of reception rooms suitable for conversazioni, rinfreschi, and card games.7 Although this tendency has not yet developed here to a great extent, the Palazzo de Carolis Gallery nevertheless seems to interpret the triadic spaces of the Galleria Colonna as a unified space that at the same time resolves itself into separate spaces that could be functionally distinct.8 The sociable eighteenth-century aristocrat could simultaneously experience movement from one discrete space, and activity, to another, while retaining oversight on what was going on in all three spaces. 152

Libro MARSHALL.indb 152

Fig. 3.43. Raffaello Vanni (1587–1673), Belshazzar’s Feast, c. 1638–49. Oil on canvas, c. 245 x 335 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana– Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

The Villa Patrizi Gallery: Circulation and Sources The Villa Patrizi had two galleries; one on the Ground Floor and one on the Piano Nobile. Here there was a different arrangement from the Palazzo de Carolis. As we have seen, from the head of the stairs on the Piano Nobile a visitor passed through two Anterooms before entering the Gallery, which ran transversely across the building. Such an arrangement is unusual in Roman villas, which traditionally divided the central part of the villa laterally, with a loggia facing one way and a room or rooms at the back facing the other. Precedents for such transverse galleries can be found in villas in the Lucca region, in Liguria (such as the Villa Gropallo in Genoa), and in Emilia and the Veneto, and certainly when he came to decorate the villa in 1719–26 Cardinal

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:24

Patrizi was strongly influenced by palaces and villas in Bologna and Ferrara.9 But the transverse Gallery may also be seen as an adaptation of the transverse alignment of the Palazzo Pamphilij, Palazzo Colonna and Palazzo de Carolis galleries to the villa form. Seen in this light the dramatic serliane at each end serve a similar function to the screening columns at the Palazzo Colonna and Palazzo de Carolis, except that here, as befits a villa noted for its views, the spaces beyond are constituted by views of the Campagna. This perhaps helps to explain the loss of the longitudinal extension that prompted the use of the term galleria in the first place. Alternatively, the serliane may encourage a reading of the Villa Patrizi Gallery as an adaptation of the Palazzo Pamphilj model to a situation where great longitudinal extension was not possible. Certainly the room arrangements suggest a similar interest in reception rooms for more modern kinds of entertainment. Immediately following the Gallery on the main façade were two exotically decorated ‘theme’ rooms, the first in Chinoiserie style (PN05) and the second almost Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 153

Fig. 3.44. Raffaello Vanni (1587–1673), The Death of Dido, c. 1638–49. Oil on canvas, c. 245 x 335 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana– Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

entirely mirrored (PN06). These rooms are separated from the Primary Bedroom (PN08) and Gabinetto (PN09) by the Galleriola (PN07), primarily a service room. On the other side was another bedroom, the Secondary Bedroom (PN13) and its anteroom, the Stanza della Creazione del Mondo (PN12). Hence one might suppose that the villa was designed for receptions that could circulate around the Gallery. There would have been a directional movement from staircase through the Anterooms (PN02 and PN03) in the traditional palace manner, but that this movement would then lose direction on entering the Gallery, with the two exotically decorated rooms (PN05 and PN06) being used for cards or conversation, and the large Gallery (with its two Murano glass chandeliers) for more crowded and less intimate associations, including dancing. 153

18/11/15 17:25

Mirrors and the Paintings by Raffaello Vanni That the Villa Patrizi Gallery should be seen as belonging to the tradition of the Palazzo Colonna Gallery is confirmed by its decoration. One of the things that was most admired in the Colonna Gallery was its painted mirrors. On 29 April 1719 the cardinal refers to a drawing that he has received from Mariano for the decoration of the walls of the Gallery. It showed large square or rectangular panels (riquadri) in each bay, as well as frescoed overdoors. He would like to hang painted mirrors against the panels; but he is from the beginning aware that was not in a position to afford them. So he is resolved on using four paintings by Raffaello Vanni instead (Figs 3.43–3.46).10 Given the apparently unproblematic nature of the substitution of paintings for mirrors, the mirrors would not have formed part of a tightly integrated design, and would have been of the self-contained type found at the Galleria Colonna. The Vannis had been acquired by the elder Mariano between c. 1638 and c. 1649, and in the 1689 inventory following the death of the elder Patrizio, and probably 154

Libro MARSHALL.indb 154

Fig. 3.45. Raffaello Vanni (1587–1673), The Abduction of Helen, c. 1638–49. Oil on canvas, c. 245 x 335 cm. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana– Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

still in 1719, were hanging in the most important room in the palazzo at S. Luigi dei Francesi, the Camerone on the Piano Nobile.11 The Vannis could not be installed in the villa until after the frescoing of the ceiling was completed, which was not until June 1720. In October of that year the cardinal is urging Mariano to hang the Vannis in the Gallery.12 Although he would prefer to have the paintings in the other rooms, set into the walls, ‘according to the current fashion’ (secondo la moda presente), for now they can hang the Vannis as they are, and if afterwards they want to change things there is time to do so. But things did not happen immediately: by the end of October the cardinal is wondering what is going on: is it because the frescoed overdoors and the balconies are unfinished?13 By early November he has learnt the reason, which seems to be that there is too much work still going on in the Gallery; besides, the painter’s scaffolding was still up.14 But he is

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

coming around to the view that the Vannis are likely to stay, as they are hard to move. By Christmas the scaffolding has been dismantled, and the cardinal is impatient to hear how the paintings look.15 At the beginning of January they are still not in place, but Mariano has evidently measured them, and discovered that one is one palmo higher than the others.16 The cardinal decides to make do with this, recommending that the odd-sized one be placed where it is least visible: when they are installed they can decide whether the asymmetry is too great to bear.17 Later he hopes some tinkering with the frames might minimise the discordance.18 The Vannis were too big to install other than by hauling them up on the outside of the building and in through one of the the large windows at the ends of the Gallery.19 For this reason only one balcony railing (ringhiera) was installed.20 They were finally moved to the villa on 12 April 1721.21 The problem for Cardinal Patrizi was that the Vannis had carved and gilded frames: they are described in the inventory of 1772 as having ‘Salvator Rosa’ frames, a type of frame that became popular at the end of the seventeenth Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 155

Fig. 3.46. Raffaello Vanni (1587–1673), The Punishment of Amnon, c. 1638–49. Oil on canvas, c. 245 cm high. Patrizi Collections. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

century, so they probably dated from then.22 As we have seen, he preferred paintings to be installed in fixed installations, but the cardinal’s modern Francophile and north Italian taste was at odds with Roman practice. Roman palazzi were collection-orientated and continued to be hung with gilt-framed pictures in the traditional way. The age and quality of collections was an important indicator of their owner’s status and of the length of the history of his family in Rome. But this was not how Cardinal Patrizi envisioned his villa. It was a building without a collection, and so needed above all to be fashionable. The Vannis really belonged in the town palace, the site and symbol of family tradition. Removing them to the villa meant that the qualities that made them useful in the town palace— the fact that they were acquired by an (ideally) illustrious ancestor, were by a (relatively) important artist, and had the gilt-framed patina of age—were more hindrance than 155

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.47. Giuseppe Chiari, Apollo, Aurora, the Seasons and Time, c. 1690. Rome, Palazzo Barberini. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

help to what the cardinal wanted to achieve that was, evidently, to rival, as far as possible on a limited budget, the luxurious effect of the Galleria Colonna. In the end, there never would be money for painted mirrors, and the Vannis seems to have stayed in place until the destruction of the villa in 1849.

Choosing the Painter of the Vault Frescoes The selection of the painter for the vault of the Gallery was a drawn-out process lasting ten months. It was shaped by four issues: the cardinal’s distrust of painters in general and Panini in particular when it came to finishing a job, the cardinal’s reluctance to pay the sums necessary for a painter of note, his plan to recruit young, cheap painters in Bologna who would have an incentive to finish the job expeditiously, and Mariano’s support for Panini. The discussion begins on 9 July 1718, shortly after the Letters begin, when the cardinal mentions that the painters are close to finishing their work on several of the rooms, and suggests that they could therefore be producing pensieri—that is, concept sketches—in pencil (lapis) for the other rooms.23 It seems to have been the practice for him to be sent such pensieri for approval, although unfortunately none survives.24 He asks whether anything has been settled about the Piano Nobile Gallery. He is concerned that the Roman painters that Mariano approves of will be too expensive, and if they cannot find anyone suitable he volunteers to find a suitable young—and hence cheap—painter in Bologna. He would like to have a pensiero from Mariano to show such artists. 156

Libro MARSHALL.indb 156

By 20 August the cardinal has been investigating potential painters in Bologna. He is considering three, none of whom is named. One is good at figures, another at landscapes without figures, and the third at chiaroscuro work (chiari scuri), fictive architecture (prospettive), and ornaments. The last, he has been told, is particularly talented in painting chiaroscuros in fresco (a fresci di chiari oscuri sia omo singolare) and is possibly Pompeo Aldrovrandini. The cardinal clearly has these painters in mind for work in fresco, but not necessarily for the Gallery, which he refers to separately, as much as for the Ground Floor rooms. He goes on to note that these painters work in oils and fresco, and he proposes commissioning two works from each in this medium. Although this was evidently meant to be a kind of trial for work in fresco, these works were to form part of the decoration of the walls of the Casino, and he asks Mariano to send either measured length of strings or measured drawings of the sites where the paintings could go.25 A week later the cardinal is thinking further along these lines. He is beginning to share Mariano’s view that they should not use wall-hangings throughout the Piano Nobile, and now favours a mix of mirrors and paintings.26 The idea of mirrors would develop fruitfully, as is discussed in Chapter 3.5. The paintings could be by by young artists hoping to establish their reputations (pittori giovani che vengono sopra una buona aspiratione) who will work for moderate prices. Some could be painted by Mariano, Francesco, and Felice Trulli, and they could use some paintings belonging to the family that are not suited to the apartments where they are currently located, and in this way the rooms could be furnished.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

Left: Fig. 3.48. Giuseppe Chiari, Apotheosis of Marcantonio II Colonna, ceiling of the Sala della Colonna Bellica, 1700. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

Centre: Fig. 3.49. Giuseppe Chiari, Saint Clement in Glory, c. 1715. Rome, S. Clemente. (David R. Marshall.)

In November the cardinal returns to the question of the painter for the Gallery, and asks whether ‘Signor Pietro Pittore’, has painted the Piano Nobile Gallery.27 This is probably Pietro Barbieri, who had finished the vault of the stanza di Giove in August. 28 This is the only indication that Barbieri was being considered for the Gallery. By December Mariano has settled on the concept (idea) for the Gallery vault. Evidently this corresponded to what was executed: a number of figurative scenes set in painted ornament, potentially by two different artists.29

were paid 70 scudi. However, by 18 February 1719 Chiari had turned down the job.31 What Chiari would have provided had he been given the commission is an open question, as Chiari worked in a variety of styles. Earlier in his career he had painted a number of ceilings in a broadly Cortonesque style, with figures and shallow architecture around the cornice and clouds and aerial figures in the centre of the field. For example, about 1690 he painted a ceiling fresco of simi-

Giuseppe Chiari

Right: Fig. 3.50. Carlo Maratta, The Triumph of Clemency, 1673–75. Rome, Palazzo Altieri. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 3.51. Giuseppe Passeri, Allegory, c. 1680. Castel Giuliano, Gallery. (Patrizi Collections / David R. Marshall.)

By 31 December 1718 the cardinal has learnt that the name of the artist that Mariano favours for the Gallery: Giuseppe Chiari, who was one of the leading Roman painters of the day, and a pupil of Carlo Maratta.30 The cardinal immediately raises difficulties: he is afraid of the cost and that Chiari will not complete the job. Yet the sum he was prepared to pay was not negligible. He proposes paying Chiari 100 doppie, equivalent to 300 scudi, with an additional 50 scudi available if Chiari held out for more, making a possible total of 350 scudi. This was quite generous: while the Gallery was large, it was only three times the area of the other rooms, for which the artists Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 157

157

18/11/15 17:25

lar proportions to the Villa Patrizi Gallery representing Apollo, Aurora, the Seasons and Time in Palazzo Barberini (Fig. 3.47).32 It owes much to Guercino’s Aurora at the Villa Ludovisi (1621), and the adoption of a high Baroque manner may have been out of deference to Cortona’s great ceiling in the salone. Another precedent for the Villa Patrizi vault would have been his vault of the Sala della Colonna Bellica in Palazzo Colonna, representing the apotheosis of Marcantonio II Colonna (painted 1698–1700) (Fig. 3.48).33 Nevertheless, Chiari’s more recent projects were in a somewhat different vein. Seven months before being approached for the Villa Patrizi he had completed one of the Lateran Apostles (The Prophet Obadiah), and a few years before that he had painted his best-known ceiling, the Saint Clement in Glory at S. Clemente (c. 1715) (Fig. 3.49). This adheres closely to the prototype of Maratta’s ceiling at Palazzo Altieri (Fig. 3.50), in both composition and in the use of a cartouche field. Given Chiari’s close ties to Maratta, the Maratta formula would have been an attractive possibility, especially as this type of field had also been employed by Giuseppe Passeri in his ceiling in the Gallery at Castel Giuliano of c. 1680 for the elder Patrizio, and which the young Mariano and Giovanni Battista may have witnessed being executed (Fig. 3.51).34 Such a solution would have left much of the vault free to be treated in a fairly plain manner. Indeed, Chiari’s manner by the end of the second decade was becoming increasingly classicising, so that the ceiling painting in the Gallery of the Palazzo de Carolis that he painted at about the same time that he was approached for the Villa Patrizi (c. 1720) consists of a strict quadro riportato representing Bacchus, Venus and Ceres set within a stucco frame on an otherwise bare vault.35 In short, left to himself, Chiari’s solution would probably have been classicising in conception, yet, as we have seen, Mariano seems to have already decided on a scheme involving a number of discrete figurative fields set within ornament of some kind.36 Perhaps the cardinal’s lack of enthusiasm for Chiari also had an aesthetic component, since he seemed to prefer Bolognese quadratura to the high classical tradition.

The Tardiness of Painters The cardinal’s anxiety about Chiari’s slowness was fuelled by his increasing irritation with the slow progress of the painters then at work in the villa, above all Panini. Panini had begun the Ground Floor Gallery in May 1718, but was evidently working on other jobs, and it would not 158

Libro MARSHALL.indb 158

be finished until three years later, in May 1721. Already in July 1718 the cardinal is complaining that painters merely suit their own convenience.37 Discussing Chiari in December, he is concerned that he might begin but not finish because of taking on other work (as Panini had evidently done).38 In January 1719 he spells out his concerns more fully, but blames his brothers as well: they should have realised from their experience with the Ground Floor Gallery just how long painters take to finish their work, and that it will be worse in the Piano Nobile Gallery if it is dependent on the discretion of the painters and the irresolution of his brothers, and he will have to live with it in an unfinished state for the rest of his life.39 This implies that the other brothers had some say in the choice of painters for the Gallery.40 In February he complains that work has been going on on the Ground Floor Gallery for eight months, ‘and God knows when it will be finished’.41 Painters typically begin work and leave it incomplete for years on one pretext or another, and so he insists the Mariano puts pressure on the painters to get them to give first priority to their Patrizi commissions, and to require them (Chiari in particular) to make an agreement (patito) to finish within a specified time. If accredited painters (pittori accreditati)) would not accept this, they (the Patrizi) should make do with those who will. He is relieved when Chiari declines, because if he had been given the commission ‘it would not have been seen even by their great-nephews’.42 It is unclear whether Chiari deserved this diatribe, or whether he was simply collateral damage in the cardinal’s annoyance at Panini’s lack of application.43

Giovanni Paolo Panini and Antonio Grecolini Now that Chiari was out of the picture, the cardinal and Mariano needed to establish who else was able to begin the work. Mariano, who seems to have been backing Panini all along, had arranged for the latter to provide a pensiero, which had been well received.44 While the Cardinal defers to the brothers’ opinion, he insists that he does not want Panini to begin the job and then not complete it, as he has done with the fresco in the Ground Floor Gallery. Implicitly suggesting to Mariano that he should look elsewhere, he states that if it costs a few tens of scudi more he can provide it. In March 1719 he urges Mariano to get a move on, and wants to know that the Gallery commission is settled, but he is still afraid that Panini will do what he did on the Ground Floor.45 The cardinal becomes increasingly anxious that the painters

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

will not make sufficient progress over the summer, and if they do not the work will be on hold until the spring of 1720.46 He repeatedly tells Mariano to make them speed up, and to use more than one painter so that the work progresses more quickly. Late in March 1719 a decision has still not been made.47 There is still doubt about whether any of the Roman painters can or will finish it, and the cardinal repeats his earlier idea to have a drawing sent to him so that he can find a Bolognese painter who can be sent to Rome to do the job. Mariano, however, still seems to be pushing for Panini, and the cardinal is somewhat mollified by learning of a proposal for Panini and his wife, who the latter ‘is determined to give a little villeggiatura’, to stay in the Mezzanine.48 Even better, Francesco Galli Bibiena, who was expected to start work in the Ground Floor (see Chapter 3.9), could take his wife as well, and the two women could keep each other company while their husbands worked. Cardinal Patrizi would not be the first villa builder to make such arrangements to have a job finished: Agostino Chigi, after all, set up Raphael’s mistress, ‘La Fornarina’, in the Farnesina in order to ensure that Raphael finished that job, although the distraction in Panini’s case was not a woman but the lure of other work. But staying on-site was a logical way of ensuring sure painters did a full day’s work at a site some distance from the city. It was, however, only really possible in spring and summer, since the painters had to sleep rough. References to their overnighting there are generally associated with the term ‘vigna’, suggesting that they slept either in the farm buildings, or in the open. The fact that Panini and Bibiena were offered the Mezzanine indicates a special status. Sleeping at Porta Pia was not, however, possible in winter because of the cold, which meant that the painters had to walk there and back from the city. This wasted a lot of time, and the painters were therefore reluctant to come (they could work more productively on other jobs and easel paintings in the city).49 But in the warmer months there was the ever-present threat of malaria; but in this case it was spring, and therefore there was no ‘superstition about the air’ (superstitione dell’aria). By June, however, the cardinal expected the painters to be nervous about overnighting at Porta Pia.50 Antonio Grecolini was now in the picture, and the artists were clearly negotiating for a good price. The cardinal was prepared to give in on this, and and to allow Mariano to increase it to what is ‘just’, provided that the job is done quickly.51 By 29 April 1719 they had settled the price, which the contract reveals would be the same as the top price the cardinal was prepared to pay Chiari—350 Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 159

scudi—divided equally between the figure painter (Grecolini) and the ornamental painter (Panini).52 On 6 May the cardinal remains fairly reluctant about employing Panini but has given in to Mariano, still wanting Panini to finish the Ground Floor Gallery before starting the upper one.53 The cardinal had been pursuing his plan of employing a young Bolognese painter, and had recruited Pompeo Aldrovandini (1677–1735/39), but the brothers would deploy him on the Ground Floor, not the Gallery (see Chapter 3.9).54 On 12 May the cardinal has learnt that the painters—presumably Pietro Zerman (died 1720), who was working on the Galleriola, Grecolini, who was working on PN12 (probably) and Panini—are now sleeping at the vigna. 55 On 20 May the cardinal writes that he is pleased the the painting goes on apace, but he still does not want Panini (who he now accepts will paint the Piano Nobile Gallery) to start work there before finishing the Ground Floor Gallery.56 The contracts with Panini and Grecolini were signed four days later, on 24 May, and by 27 May the cardinal has sent money to pay the painters.57 Reading between the lines, this sequence of events reveals just how much say Mariano had in choosing the painters for the Gallery vault. As accademico di merito at the Accademia di San Luca, he evidently had excellent connections with the Roman art scene, and in putting forward Chiari’s name he was putting forward the name of a painter who was probably the most highly reputed painter available, a painter who had, some years before, done one of the ceilings in the Galleria Colonna, then as now the grandest palazzo in Rome. When that gambit failed, he backed Panini, who was much less experienced but whose career was in the ascendant. He would be elected to the Accademia di San Luca at the end of the year, and in the following year was working for the Patrizi, Cardinal Albani, and the pope himself. The cardinal would certainly not have employed him if Mariano had not insisted, and he was clearly more comfortable with the Bolognese quadraturisti Bibiena and Aldovrandini. The way Mariano diverted these painters to the Ground Floor rooms hints at the possibility that he considered them to be unsuitable for the most important ceiling in the Casino. Presumably Mariano was as supportive of Grecolini as he was of Panini, but his ability to finish a job (or at least, their job) made him less of a target for the cardinal’s hostility.

159

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.52. Giovanni Antonio Grecolini (1675–1725), Martyrdom of Saint Clement, 1715. Fresco, S. Clemente, nave. (David R. Marshall.)

Executing the Gallery Vault Fresco Work evidently got underway on the vault fresco as soon as the contract was signed, and by 24 June 1719 the cardinal has learnt that the painters are about to finish up, and he is ready to provide the necessary funds to pay them. In fact Panini kept working until at least 17 August, by when he had been paid for, and presumably completed, 75 per cent of the job. Grecolini, however, had barely begun his figured fields, and was still working on another room, probably PN12, for which he only received a final payment on 17 June.58 This would have given Panini free reign to set out the fields that Grecolini was to paint and to begin painting the ornament. As the cardinal remarks, things go faster when painters work separately.59 Hence by the middle of August the Gallery would have had blank fields distributed across Panini’s largely complete ornament.60 After the worst of summer was over, the painters resumed work at the start of October, and Grecolini worked on the figured fields of the Gallery.61 The cardinal is now much happier, even though work on the Ground Floor Gallery remains in stasis. On 25 November 1719 he expects Grecolini to finish his work on the Gallery vault soon, even though the central field has not been begun.62 Grecolini (and other painters) work through the winter, but less intensely than in the autumn.63 To avoid problems with working in fresco, the cardinal recommends on 13 January 1720 that Mariano make fires in the rooms.64 Until this point the weather seems to have been mild, but a week later, work is suspended because of the cold.65 By 3 February the painters seem to be back at work, but by 14 February the cardinal is again worried that it is too 160

Libro MARSHALL.indb 160

Fig. 3.53. Rome, Palazzo Alberoni, gallery, before the destruction of the palazzo and the reinstallation of the frescoes in Palazzo Madama. Frescoes by Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691–1765), 1725. (Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, 15557.)

cold.66 By 24 February the cardinal has learnt that the painters are ready to return to work, and although it is very cold in Ferrara, Mariano assures him that cold is not a hindrance to work in fresco.67 The cardinal, evidently much happier with Grecolini’s work practices than Panini’s, believes that he will not go off on some other project and leave the job incomplete, but even so he tells Mariano to insist on this. The central field, however, has still not been begun, and the cardinal urges Mariano to have Grecolini proceed with the studies and cartoons for this while the cold weather persists. On 2 March the cardinal is happy that the cold has not slowed down the work, but is concerned about the slow rate of progress.68 On 20 March the cardinal urges Mariano to get Grecolini to hurry up and finish the Gallery, with some success, as the payments show a burst of activity at this point. On 23 March the cardinal expresses his pleasure that the painters have honoured their commitments—he is

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.54. Rome, Palazzo Madama, ceiling from Palazzo Alberoni, detail. Frescoes by Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691–1765), 1725. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

probably thinking of Grecolini, Panini (who had largely completed his share of the vault), and Piestrini (who was painting one of the other rooms (PN09?), although this would not be finished until June.69 On 29 March there is talk of the scaffolding coming down in the Gallery, from which the cardinal concludes that Grecolini is working on the central field: he received his final payment on 29 April. 70 By 18 May the gilding of the main cornice was underway, which means that the frescoed ceiling was complete.71 On 1 June the cardinal has nothing but praise for the painters applying themselves to their work (that is, Panini, Grecolini, Piestrini, and Aldrovandini on the Ground Floor). He points out that it is, after all, the right season for such work, and (somewhat patronisingly) that working on the villa constitutes a country holiday (villeggiatura) for the painters. Evidently Panini had to do some work after Grecolini had finished (probably including fixing up the ceiling after putting in holes for the chandeliers, as discussed below) and he received his final payment on 7 June 1720.72 In early July the cardinal is still concerned the Panini finish the Gallery before the summer is out, but he must be thinking of the frescoed overdoors, which would not be done for some time (see below).73 Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 161

Fig. 3.55. Rome, Palazzo del Drago (formerly Albani), vault of the gallery, detail. Frescoes by Pietro Paolo Cennini (1661–1739) and Giovanni Paolo Panini 1691–1765), 1721. (David R. Marshall.)

The Vault Fresco by Panini and Grecolini Panini and Grecolini’s contracts indicate that there were five figured fields, the middle one oval. A schematic diagram of the probable arrangement is shown in Fig. 3.39. Grecolini’s contract describes the subjects. The choice was conventional enough: in the subsidiary fields were the Four Elements—Earth, Air, Fire, and Water—probably in the form of personifications, as they are described as i quattro elementi, figurati e intonati, with their associated gods in the central oval. The gods associated with the four elements are normally Ceres (Earth), Juno (Air), Vulcan (Fire), and Neptune (Water). Antonio Grecolini (Rome 1675–c. 1725) was a pupil of G. B. Leonardi (a follower of Lazzaro Baldi) and Benedetto Luti. His works often display the soft refinement of Luti, as well as elements of Baldi’s more robust style.74 He painted few surviving secular or illusionistic works; one of the most important is one of the scenes from the 161

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.56. Rome, S. Croce in Gerusalemme, vault of the library. Frescoes by Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691–1765), 1724. (David R. Marshall.)

life of Saint Clement in S. Clemente, painted in 1715 (Fig. 3.52).75 This employs a modest di sotto in sù of the kind that Luti favoured, in which the protagonist and reclining foreground figures have a fairly low viewpoint but little foreshortening, and the di sotto in sù effect is achieved largely by setting the background figures low, and looking upwards. In order to be able to infer what Panini’s framing for Grecolini’s figures scenes would have been like, one needs to consider Panini’s two most comparable works of the period, the gallery of the Palazzo Albani-del Drago, underway at the same time (Figs 3.40, 3.55), and the salone of the Palazzo Alberoni (now installed in Palazzo Madama) painted a few years later in 1725 (Figs 3.53, 3.54). The Palazzo Alberoni ceiling is a full-blown exercise in Bolognese quadratura that creates several layers of fictive 162

Libro MARSHALL.indb 162

space, but the contract for the Villa Patrizi only refers to l’ornati putti figure, e festoni appartenenti a detti ornati finti; there is no mention of fictive architecture. Moreover, the Palazzo Alberoni ceiling is wholly in fresco, whereas the Villa Patrizi ceiling was frescoed, stuccoed and gilded. The Palazzo Albani-del Drago ceiling, while basically frescoed, has gilded stucco leaf ornaments on mouldings outlining the major divisions and at the points of the fictive spandrels (Fig. 3.55).76 The quantity of stucco and the amount of gilding are not large relative to the ceiling. Panini’s contract price for the Villa Patrizi ceiling included the cost of the gold leaf, which the painter had to supply, so that gilding was an integral part of the job of frescoing the ceiling.77 The gilding was carried out by Antonio Giuliani, who used 400 sheets of gold leaf to add gold highlights (lumeggiare) to the ceiling.78 Gilding implies stucco work, and there are payments for stucco in the Gallery immediately after Panini finished and when the scaffolding was being dismantled, but it is not certain that this was on the ceiling. These indications point to the ceiling having been something like the Palazzo Albani-del Drago gallery, but with more prominent fields for the main scenes. This raises the question of Panini’s stylistic allegiance in 1719–20. It has generally been assumed that he brought a knowledge of quadratura with him from Piacenza, but he was only twenty when he arrived in Rome and with no known decorative work in Piacenza, so that it is possible that his adoption of the Bolognese quadratura manner by 1724–25 (the dates of the ceiling of the library at S. Croce in Gerusalemme (Fig. 3.56) and the Palazzo Alberoni ceiling) followed, and was a consequence of his contact with painters like Aldrovandini and Bibiena at the Villa Patrizi. Certainly the best indication of what the Villa Patrizi ceiling was like can be obtained from looking at his Palazzo Albani-del Drago ceiling, which does not employ quadratura.

Chandeliers As something of an afterthought, Panini and Grecolini’s ceiling had to accommodate two chandeliers. On 6 April 1720, when Panini had done most of his work and Grecolini were close to completing the central field, Cardinal Patrizi raises with Mariano the need to leave a hole in the ceiling for a chandelier, so as not to damage the finished fresco.79 Two weeks later, on 20 April 1720 he approves of Mariano’s decision to install two rings, rather than one, in the ceiling to carry the chandeliers, since the single chan-

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

delier that he had proposed initially would not have lit the room adequately, or else would have needed to have been una gran macchina.80 More importantly, although this is not mentioned, a single chandelier would have had to have been hung from the middle of Grecolini’s central scene. Since the design of the ceiling was established first, the position of the chandeliers was probably chosen to avoid interfering with the main figured fields. The chandeliers would not be installed until 1722. On 6 June 1722 the cardinal discusses duplicating a small crystal chandelier that is quite bearable (soffribile) and beautiful for what it cost.81 He believes it could be installed in the Stanza delli Cristalli, or else a companion could be made and both would could then be installed in the Gallery, which was the course of action eventually adopted. By 1 August 1722 another chandelier has arrived at Ferrara similar to the one already sent, and the cardinal has already packed it up to send on the next shipment to Pesaro;82 by 15 August it is on its way.83 These chandeliers, he states, are not very beautiful, but adequate for the villa, and he believes that if they were larger they would have created too crowded an effect.84 With these, according to what Francesco tells him, the Gallery will be fully furnished.85 Later, in June 1723 the cardinal sends further chandeliers (lumiere): if these were too ordinary to go in the main rooms of the Casino, they can be put in the Stanza del Trucco or Ground Floor Gallery.86

Furnishing the Gallery With the expectation that the painting of the Gallery was approaching completion in mid-1719, the cardinal turns his attention to the furniture.87 It was Francesco’s job to organise this, but he needed strong direction. The cardinal, in fact, wanted drawings made of the way that all the Piano Nobile rooms were to be furnished.88 Some furniture for the Piano Nobile was to come from Ferrara, but it needed repairs. The sofas (canapé) and chairs for the Gallery, however, were newly commissioned, presumably in Rome since the cardinal was not directly involved. The console tables, however, were acquired by him from Marchese del Grillo.89 The cardinal wanted to install them opposite the sofas, the only symmetrical way of doing it. He tells us that they had gilded feet, and the inventories amplify this: they measured 8 x 4 palmi (179 x 89 cm), with carved feet and festoons, with masks and figures of satyrs at the corners, all of which was gilded, and the top had a breccia veneer. Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 163

The Decoration of the Gallery Panini and Grecolini’s frescoes, with their varied fields and gilt highlights, would have harmonised with the rest of the decoration of the Gallery, the most richly decorated room in the villa. Like the rest of the Piano Nobile rooms, it had doorcases of fictive giallo antico marble painted by Giulio Candiotti.90 Giallo antico was a popular finish for door frames, but only the more expensive palazzi and villas used real marble veneers. A case in point is the ground floor of the Palazzo Ruspoli, where the door frames were veneered with giallo antico. The piano nobile door frames there were even fancier, being inlaid with oriental alabaster. As Rossini’s Mercurio Errante reported in 1715: ‘it is a rare thing, unique both for the quality of the stone, and for the quality of the doors’.91 The doorcases of the Villa Patrizi could hardly compare with this. The door and window embrasures and window frames were painted with ornament by Annibale Rotati, Giacinto Ferrugli and Giuseppe Rossi.92 On the divisions of the windows at either end of the Gallery were wooden columns with gilded shafts, bases and capitals.93 The pelmets were gilded, as were ornaments above them, while there were details picked out in gold on the walls above. This gilding was executed by Antonio Giuliani. The main cornice seems to have been especially lavish. It is referred to by Cardinal Patrizi on 18 May 1720, when he laments the cost, about ‘cinque migliaia d’oro’ (five thousand sheets of gold).94 Gold leaf came in books of 24 or 25 sheets about 3 cm square, so that this amounted to up to 4.5 square metres of area to be gilded. This is exactly the same quantity employed on the stuccoes around the cornice of the Gallery of the Palazzo Medici-Ricciardi in Florence executed by Anton Francesco Andreozzi to a design by G. B. Foggini in 1687, which required ‘cinque migliaia d’oro di zecchini veneziani in foglia’; that is, five thousand sheets of gold from Venetian zecchini.95 The Gallery Medici-Riccardi cornice (Fig. 3.94) is quite elaborate, with stucco figures. In fact, Giuliani’s accounts reveal that only 3 migliaia were needed;96 even so, the Villa Patrizi cornice must have been substantial, although it did not necessarily have the figurative elements of the Medici-Riccardi cornice. The floors, however, were modest, being paved in plain bricks, of a type that was more expensive that those used elsewhere in the villa, but far from the elaborate marble floors of the grandest palazzi and villas (see Chapter 2.2). 163

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.57. Frascati, Villa Grazioli, loggia, detail of panel with a statue of Diana. Frescoes by Giovanni Paolo Panini, 1736. (Bibliotheca Hertziana–MaxPlanck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome.)

The Frescoed Overdoors By 29 April 1719 Cardinal Patrizi had accepted that painted mirrors, and by extension the frescoed riquadri against which they were to be set, would be replaced by the Vannis.97 Nevertheless, the cardinal wanted to retain the design for the frescoed overdoors that had formed part of this project, and asks Mariano to obtain a revised estimate for just this part. But because the ceiling frescoes had to be finished first, the matter was set aside until 4 May 1720, when the cardinal writes to Mariano about the form the overdoors should take, anxious that the matter be resolved before the scaffolding used by the painters was taken down.98 By now he is considering options other than the April 1719 design. He notes that there are six overdoors, which can be dealt with in one of two ways. One is to use framed paintings but this, he points out, is the more costly option, even with mediocre paintings.99 The other is to do them in fresco in such a way that they 164

Libro MARSHALL.indb 164

are coordinated with the vault.100 If, however, it is decided to go with framed canvases, Mariano should inform the cardinal of their dimensions, how much they are likely to cost, and whether they should be figure compositions, landscapes, or perspectives.101 The implication is that he would acquire them. He concludes, however, that the fresco option fits better with the plan to later remove the Vannis and replace them with painted mirrors.102 In other words, although framed overdoor canvases might work with the Vannis, they would not work so well with the mirrors. The cardinal also reminds Mariano to have the undersides of the arches of the main windows painted while the scaffolding is up, and recommends a painted dado against which the chairs, sofas and tables will be placed.103 The fresco option was decided upon, and on 18 May 1720 the cardinal writes that he approves of Mariano’s ideas and that he would like them done that summer.104 On 6 July 1720 he is still hoping that Panini will paint them over the summer, so that he can install the furniture,105 and in August he is still hoping that work will recommence.106 The furniture is moved in, but nothing is done on the overdoors, yet in November the cardinal is still hoping they will be done before winter, as they need to be done before the Vannis and the balconies can be installed.107 The scaffolding was taken down by Christmas,108 but the overdoors would take much longer than the cardinal had hoped: it was not until 2 January 1726 that Panini was paid 52 scudi for six soprapporte (overdoors) in fresco with figures in ghiazo scuro (that is, chiaroscuro, or grisaille), four soprafinestre (overwindows) in fresco with festoons of coloured flowers; four little arches with their flanks and embrasures (squinci) in the four lesser windows; frescoed pilasters around the large windows at the ends, and a frescoed plinth (zoccolo). Panini’s frescoed overdoors must have gone above the pelmets, perhaps taking the doorways up to the cornice and the start of the vault. The monochrome figures perhaps anticipated those at Villa Grazioli (Fig. 3.57), while the festoons of coloured flowers over the lesser windows were perhaps like those in the library at S. Croce in Gerusalemme (Fig. 3.5). There was not much space between the large windows at either end of the room. This explains the decision to use frescoed pilasters there, perhaps like those flanking the doorway at the Palazzo Alberoni (although there they form part of a more fully developed illusionistic scheme that was evidently absent at the Villa Patrizi. These must somehow have been accommodated to the gilded wooden columns discussed above. The four little arches and embrasures were probably illusionistic

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.58. Rome, S. Croce in Gerusalemme, vault of the library, detail. Frescoes by Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691–1765), 1724. (David R. Marshall.)

arches above the sidelights, again as at Palazzo Alberoni. The frescoed dado would have covered the walls behind the tables, sofas, and chairs. The wall spaces on which the Vannis hung were evidently plain. There is no mention of sculptural overdoors, a feature of the grander palaces of the period, such as the Palazzo Albani-Del Drago, and indeed the system of door curtains and frescoed overdoors would not permit it. The letters, however, contain a number of drawings of such doorcases by Mariano (Figs 1.14–1.15).

Pietro Zerman and Filippo Sciugatrosci in the Galleriola Dipinta The Galleriola Dipinta (PN07) was frescoed by the little known Pietro Zerman (c. 1690–1719).109 The agreed price was 70 scudi, but receipts and records of payments total 75 scudi, as well as amounts totalling 12.10 scudi that seem to be ex-gratia payments made after his death in August 1719.110 Zerman had been ailing since before 5 August, when the cardinal wrote that he was did not believe that his illness was caused by the air at the villa, and proposing that Mariano should get the door frames and windows Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 165

painted by a ‘pittore di minor reputatione’ (painter of little reputation).111 The cardinal had learnt of Zerman’s death by 19 August 1719, while taking villeggiatura in Lugo. He observes that Zerman was a virtuous man, of whom much was expected. He expresses sympathy for his large family that had lost two older sons in the same year, leaving two younger daughters. Evidently Zerman died of a feverish disease, and the cardinal is convinced that the cause was not the air at the villa, since no one else was ill, but rather the hot summer and the fact that he was not in perfect health and, being financially in need, worked too hard.112 Zerman’s work was finished by Filippo Sciugatrosci (active 1721–47), presuably the ‘pittore di minor reputatione’, but apparently there was not much more to be done as the only document referring to the completion is a receipt for 90 baiocchi on 18 August 1720.113 Since there were no paintings, mirrors, or other wall features, and the room was known as the galleriola dipinta, probably both walls and ceiling were frescoed; if so, the decoration must have been fairly simple, as the agreed price of 70 scudi was the same as for just the ceilings in most other rooms, and considerably less than for the vault of the Gallery. Since its subject is never mentioned it was probably ornamental or quadratura work. 165

18/11/15 17:25

Notes

27. Letter, 5 November 1718 [1].

1. Delfini, 1985; Delfini Filippi, 1987.

28. The only other ‘Signor Pietro pittore’ employed on the villa was Pietro Zerman, but he began the Galleriola (PN07) only in July 1719.

2. Beaven, 2011, chapter 6. 3. Pio, 1997, p. 198: ‘Poi ricercato da signori Rasponi, andiede a Ravenna et in quei bellissimi casini di una loro villa, fece molti lavori e d’ordine del detto cardinale Anibale Albani andiede a Soriano a dipingere una stanza de; cristalli, assieme con altri due pittori di figure e di ornati, come anco nel palazzo di Roma alle Quattro Fontane, ha fatto tutti li fiori che sono nella galleria, famosamente dipinta dal predetto Giovanni Paolo Pannini.’ 4. On galleries, see Waddy, 1990, p. 5, fig. 1, pp. 59–60 and Strunck and Kieven, 2010.

29. Letter, 3 December 1718 [2]. Letter, 24 December 1718 [1]. In the first of these letters the cardinal seems to believe that the painter has been chosen; in the second he talks of separate painters of figure and ornaments. 30. Letter, 31 December 1718 [2]. 31. Letter, 18 February 1719 [1]. Ozzola, 1909, p. 28, transcribes parts of this passage, with some omissions, and is cited in Kerber, 1968, p. 84.

6. Zanella, 1994, p. 71.

32. Giuseppe Chiari, Apollo, Aurora, the Seasons and Time, c. 1690. Rome, Palazzo Barberini. Kerber, 1969, pp. 76–77; Sestieri, 1994, fig. 270. Pascoli, 1933, pp. 211–12. Pascoli tells us that the program was devised by Bellori, who was his friend. Chiari also painted in the Palazzo Barberini a Birth of Pindar, which is a strict quadro riportato.

7. Girouard, 1980, pp. 181–212.

33. Strunck, 2007b, p. 92.

8. See Marshall, 2010b, for a fuller account of the gallery of the Palazzo de Carolis.

34. They were aged 17 and 22 respectively at the time.

5. Strunck, 2007a, Strunck, 2007b.

9. The cardinal compared the Villa Patrizi to the Villa Lolli at Maiano Monti near Fusignano (see Chapter 1.4) but there are no known plans of this villa, which seems to have been rebuilt in the nineteenth century. 10. Letter 29 April 1719 [1]. 11. For the Vannis, the subjects of which are Belshazzar’s Feast, The Death of Dido, The Abduction of Helen and The Punishment of Amnon, see Appendix 1.4.2. 12. Letter, 5 October 1720 [2]. 13. Letter, 26 October 1720 [6].

35. The fresco was removed in 1783 (Kerber, 1968, p. 84) and in recent times re-installed. See Giuggioli, 1980, tav. CLXIII for an illustration of it in situ; also tav. CLXVI. See also Sestieri, 1994, fig. 269 and Bowron and Rishel, 2000, pp. 345–48. There appears to be no documentation for the fresco. The earliest reference is in Pascoli, 1933, vol. 1, p. 214: ‘Fecene un altro per la volta d’una stanza della nuova fabrica del marchese de Carolis che rappresenta Cerere e Bacco …’, and in an inventory of the palace by Luigi Vanvitelli dated 22 September 1751, which attributes the ceiling in this room to Chiari (Giuggioli, 1980, pp. 364, 166). The gallery of the Palazzo Carolis measures 29.0 x 6.5 m, and is on the northern side of the building, with two windows at one end on the Corso, and eight along the side on Via Lata. See the plan in Giuggioli, 1980, p. 359, no. 3.

15. Letter, 25 December 1720 [3].

36. Kerber sums up Chiari in these terms: ‘Chiari may be called an eclectic whose artistic formation was rooted in an attempt to master every task within the tradition of the great achievements of idealistic art.’ (Kerber, 1968, p. 86.)

16. Letter 4 January 1721 [2]. On the dimensions, see Appendix 1.4.2.

37. Letter, 30 July 1718 [2].

17. Letter, 18 January 1721 [1].

38. Letter, 31 December 1718 [2].

18. Letter, 1 August 1722 [1].

39. Letter, 28 January 1719 [3].

19. At 11 x 14 palmi (246 x 313 cm) without frame, and probably about 13 x 16 palmi (290 x 357 cm) with frame, it would have been difficult to get them through the doors into the Gallery (which were about 13 palmi (290 cm) high) let along up the stairs, which were quite narrow.

40. The main problem the cardinal had with his other brothers involved their reluctance to pay their share on the Ground Floor, as will be discussed in Chapter 3.8.

14. Letter, 9 November 1720 [3].

20. Letter, 26 October 1720 [6]; Letter, 2 November 1720 [2]. 21. See the receipt from Antonio Fedele for taking down the pictures and moving them to the villa (Doc. 4.2.33). 22. That they were reframed later is possible, but unlikely. The three paintings at Castel Giuliano no longer have frames, while the Belshazzar’s Feast at Montoro is installed in the kind of fixed frame of which the cardinal would have approved. The ‘Salvator Rosa’ (or ‘Maratta’) frame employs stepped ogee and convex mouldings around a broad scotia.

41. Letter, 11 February 1719 [1]. 42. Letter, 18 February 1719 [1]. 43. Pascoli, 1933, however, makes no mention of Chiari having a reputation for slowness. 44. Letter, 18 February 1719 [1]. 45. Letter, 4 March 1719 [2]. Letter, 11 March 1719 [3]. 46. Letter, 18 March 1719 [1].

23. Letter, 9 July 1718 [2]. These would be the rooms on the Piano Nobile by Domenico Piestrini (including the stanza di Marte) and Antonio Grecolini (possibly the stanza di Mercurio), both of which were finished in May; a room by Giacomo Triga (finished in June); and Pietro Barbieri’s stanza di Giove (May–August). Getting underway were the Galleriola by Pietro Zerman (begun in July), Giacomo Triga’s Stanza di Venere (August) and Panini’s vault of the Ground Floor Gallery, begun in May.

47. Letter, 25 March 1719 [2].

24. See below, and Letter 18 February 1719 [1].

52. Letter, 22 April 1719 [2]. Letter, 29 April 1719 [3].

25. Letter, 20 August 1718 [2].

53. Letter, 6 May 1719 [1].

26. Letter, 27 August 1718 [2].

54. Letter, 6 May 1719 [1]. 20 May 1719 [3].

166

Libro MARSHALL.indb 166

48. Letter, 8 April 1719 [1]. 49. Letter, 16 July 1718 [2]. 50. Letter, 10 June 1719 [2]. 51. Letter, 15 April 1719 [2].

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

55. Letter, 12 May 1719 [1]. Letter, 20 May 1719 [3]. Letter, 10 June 1719 [2].

88. Letter, 6 July 1720 [1].

56. Letter 20 May 1719 [1].

89. Letter, 4 November 1719 [2]. Letter, 6 July 1720 1720 [3].

57. Letter, 27 May 1719 [2].

90. Doc. 4.2.4.

58. Doc. 4.2.14.

91. Rossini, 1715, pp. 84–85, describing Palazzo Ruspoli: ‘Nell’ultima stanza dopa la Galleria, vi sono quattro Busti antichi; ed è dipinta come l’altre, rappresentanti varie Favole degl’ Antichi, come [85] il Bagno di Diana; il Monte Parnaso, a simile altre; li stipiti, ed architravi delle Porte di questo Appartamento, son impellicciati di giallo antico.’

59. Letter 12 May 1719 [1]. 60. Guerrieri Borsoi points out that Panini was not given the commissions for the figured fields was not through lack of confidence in him, but to speed up the work (Guerrieri Borsoi, 1988a, note 36). 61. Letter, 7 October 1719 [2]. Grecolini received a payment on account on 29 September (Doc. 2.4.14). 62. Letter, 25 November 1719 [3]. 63. He was paid 30 scudi on account on 15 November, implying that he would work through into January, and 20 scudi on 16 February. There was another 20 scudi on 29 March, followed quickly a month late by the final payment of 45 scudi on 29 April, which implies that he worked intensively in early spring to finish the job (Doc. 2.4.14).

92. Doc. 4.2.25. There had been work on various Piano Nobile rooms by Domenico Rossi from October to December 1719. A new contract was drawn up on 20 March 1720 with Rotati and Giuseppe Rossi, the latter evidently being the new painter hired to paint the ‘parapets’ of the windows of the Piano Nobile that the cardinal refers to on 20 April 1720 (Letter, 20 April 1720 [4]. 93. Doc. 4.2.13. 94. Letter, 18 May 1720 [1]. 95. Gregori, 1972. 96. Doc. 4.2.13.

64. Letter, 13 January 1720 [4].

97. Letter, 29 April 1719 [1].

65. Letter, 20 January 1720 [3].

98. Letter, 4 May 1720 [2].

66. Letter, 14 February 1720 [2].

99. Letter, 4 May 1720 [2].

67. Lettter, 24 February 1720 [2].

100. Letter, 4 May 1720 [2].

68. Letter, 2 March 1720 [1].

101. Letter, 4 May 1720 [2].

69. Letter, 23 March 1720 [3].

102. Letter, 4 May 1720 [2].

70. Letter, 29 March 1720 [2].

103. Letter, 4 May 1720 [2].

71. Letter, 18 May 1720 [1].

104. Letter, 18 May 1720 [2].

72. Doc. 4.2.20.

105. Letter, 6 July 1720 [3].

73. Letter, 6 July 1720 [3].

106. Letter, 10 August 1720 [2].

74. Sestieri, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 90–91. On Grecolini, see Loisel, 1992; Lemme, 1998, pp. 56-58; and especially Guerrieri Borsoi, 2002.

107. Letter, 2 November 1720 [2].

75. Giovanni Antonio Grecolini (1675–1725), Martyrdom of Saint Clement, 1715. Fresco, S. Clemente, nave. See Guerrieri Borsoi, 2001. For the bozzetto: Giovanni Antonio Grecolini (1675–1725), Martyrdom of Saint Clement, 1715. Oil on canvas, 73 x 98 cm. Rome, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica di Palazzo Barberini, inv. 4574. Another of his works is Moses and the Serpent of Bronze for S. Rufino at Assisi, for which there is a bozzetto formerly in the Lemme Collection: Giovanni Antonio Grecolini, Moses and the Bronze Serpent. Oil on canvas, 22 x 40 cm. Lemme Collection. Sestieri, 1994, fig. 519; Lemme, 1998, p. 277.

108. Letter, 25 December 1720 [3]. 109. Few works are known by him. He provided illustrations for Giovanni Battista Sintes, Relation du voyage de monseigneur Andrè de Mello de Castro a la cour de Rome, enqvalité de envoyé extraordinaire du roi de Portugal Dom Jean V. aupres de Sa Sainteté Clement XI, Paris: Chez Anisson ..., 1709. 110. Doc. 4.2.32. 111. Letter, 5 August 1719 [3].

76. Delfini Filippi, 1987.

112. Letter, 19 August 1719 [2]; 30 August 1719 [1, 2].

77. Doc. 2.4.20.

113. Doc. 4.2.28.

78. Doc. 2.4.13. 79. Letter, 6 April 1720 [3]. 80. Letters 20 April 1720 [5]. 81. Letter, 6 June 1722 [4]. 82. Letter, 1 August 1722: ‘Letter, 1 August 1722 [1]. 83. Letter, 22 August 1722 [1]. Letter, 15 August 1722 [6]. 84. Letter, 1 August 1722 [1]. 85. Letter, 1 August 1722 [1]. 86. Letter, 12 June 1723 [4]. 87. Letter, 6 July 1720 [1].

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 167

167

18/11/15 17:25

Chapter 3.4

Stanza alla Cinese

Introduction

China and the Early Eighteenth Century

This room, the stanza alla chinese as it is called in the 1739 inventory, or stanza delle vernici as it is called in 1748, or stanza di porcellana as it described during the planning process, was the first room past the Gallery on the main enfilade along the Piano Nobile. It formed a unit with the next room, the Stanza delli Cristalli, and there was no door between them. It was hung with lacquer (vernice) panels (tavole) in a style that is partly Indian (all’indiana) and partly Chinese (alla Cinese), and can usefully be classified as being in a Chinoiserie style. There were also vases (buccheri) on terracotta brackets painted with Chinese motifs, and overdoors in the Chinese style. Unlike most of the other rooms, the Stanza alla Chinese was significantly redecorated by Maria Virginia Patrizi and Giovanni Chigi Patrizi Montoro between 1748 and 1772, probably in the early 1750s. The complex circumstances of the commissioning of the decoration of the room began with the fireplace, which was under discussion from September to December 1720, but things slowed down in 1721 with the conclave and resumed only in March 1722, when the cardinal asks Mariano to get Panini to make estimates for the stanza di porcellana and the stanza delli cristalli. By June 1722 attention is focused on lacquer tavole—that is, japanned wooden panels painted with Chinoiserie imagery—and sconces (placche). These were delivered in two stages, in November 1722 and May 1723. The lacquer panels survive, so that it is possible to arrive at a reconstruction of their probable hang (Figs 3.76–3.78). The furniture, too, was decorated with floral and Chinoiserie motifs, as were some of the fabrics.

What prompted Cardinal Patrizi and his brothers to create such a room? Before the Villa Patrizi, it is difficult to consider Rome to be a centre of Chinoiserie like those countries that had extensive trade links with India, China and were, especially the Netherlands, Great Britain, and France. Accounts of Chinoiserie pass over the early eighteenth century where Rome is concerned, and neither Honour nor Impey point to instances of Roman Chinoiserie before the middle of the century.1 An earlier letter from William Smith, in Rome in 1616, to Lord Arundel, referring to ‘works after the China fashion wch is much affected heere’, is sometimes cited as evidence for Chinoiserie pieces being available in Rome at this date,2 but Huth argues that this would have been a piece of Venetian lacquer, not necessarily Chinese in any way other than in the technique.3 Similarly, Huth argues that what was probably a lacquer chair used by Crown Prince Ladislaus of Poland at a banquet with Pope Urban VIII in 1624 was neither oriental nor a piece of Chinoiserie.4 Roman collections did contain precious objects of Chinese, Japanese or Indian manufacture. For example, the inventory of 1706 of the museo di curiosità of Cardinal Flavio Chigi (1641–93) has various items, including small items in lacquer and various items of orientalia.5 But there is only patchy evidence of Chinoiserie pieces in Rome before the eighteenth century, and there was certainly no widespread embracing of Chinoiserie during the seventeenth.6 From the early eighteenth century lacquer pieces, including chairs, presumably Venetian, begin to appear. For example, the inventory of Marchese Niccolò Maria Pallavicini in his Palazzo all’Orso in 1714 records

168

Libro MARSHALL.indb 168

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.59. The Grand Mogul (Effigies Magni Mogul). From Athanasius Kircher, China monumentis, 1667, plate V.

Fig. 3.60. The Emperor of Tartary (‘Imperis sino Tartarici Supremus MONARCHA’). From Athanasius Kircher, China monumentis, 1667, plate Aa.

in the room next to his bedroom a figured lacquer chest with all’indiana figures; in a room near the courtyard were eight lacquer chairs arabeschi all’indiana, with four more in nearby rooms.7 But that is about it. Part of the problem was that, in papal Rome around 1700, China was suspect. Jesuit missionaries, beginning with Saint Francis Xavier (1506–52) who travelled to India and Japan but died before reaching mainland China, and especially Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) who established a mission in Beijing, had greatly increased Western knowledge of China, and their reports were brought together and disseminated by Jesuit scholars, in particular Daniello Bartoli, author of Della Cina (1663) and Athanasius Kircher, author of China Monumentis (1667).8 The Sicilian Jesuit Prospero Intorcetta (1626–96) made the first translations of Confucius into Latin (1667).9 The Jesuits consequently

were deeply involved with sinology.10 Kircher, like others before him, had attempted to trace Eastern religions to ancient Egypt, and so assimilate them to Western traditions,11 and Kircher’s book was driven by religious and missionary concerns. As Lightbown observes, Kircher’s book, ‘in appearance a general treatise, is really a classic production of the missionary spirit, in which curiosity never corrupts the cultural and religious orthodoxy it accompanies.’12 Such attitudes discouraged too enthusiastic an adoption of things Chinese in papal Rome, always on the watch for heresy. Particularly problematic were the books of Confucius that Intorcetta had translated. For some Jesuits the books of Confucius implied a natural knowledge of the Supreme Deity; but for their enemies these texts were atheistical. The question was whether Confucian ancestor worship was a social ceremony (as

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 169

169

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.61. Johann Oswald Harms, Designs for Left and Right Wings for Two Chinese Town Scenes for the Opera ‘Roland’, 1697. (After Mazingue, 1986.)

Fig. 3.62. Giovanni Carlo Sicinio Galli Bibiena (attributed), Gabinetto reale. Engraving on paper, 17 x 33 cm. Milan, Museo Teatrale della Scala. Milan, 1975, cat. 2397/c. (After Milan, 1975.)

the Jesuits argued) or a religious one. Clement XI ruled against the Jesuit position in 1704 and again in 1715 (the year Cardinal Patrizi was elevated to the purple). Matters went from bad to worse and the Emperor Kangxi banned Christian missions in 1721.13 As Lightbown observes: ‘there can be do doubt that the celebrated controversy of the Chinese rites, which began to run at its hottest in the decades 1690–1710, had an adverse effect on Chinese studies among ecclesiastics’.14 The result was that in 1716 Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, the leading sinologist of his day, was told that Apostolo Zeno knew only one or two people in Rome who were students of Chinese.15 This did not mean that Chinese objects were not still coming direct to Rome from China. Valesio in 1727 writes that a number of chests of precious objects (including silks and porcelain) had been sent as a gift to the Collegio di Propaganda Fide by the Emperor Kangxi of China.16 Benedict XIII heard of this and sequestered the goods. After some prevarication, the chests were handed over and sent to the Vatican Palace. Benedict apparently then sold the goods, part of the proceeds going to a member in the household of Cardinal Coscia and part going to pay for the renovation of S. Sisto Vecchio. Kircher’s book is of interest because it includes two full-page plates that convey a vivid impression of what, in the third-quarter of the seventeenth century, a regal Chinese interior was thought to have looked like. One represents the throne room of the Great Mogul (Fig. 3.59), and the other the Manchu Emperor (Emperor of Tartary) (Fig. 3.60).17 On at least one occasion these Kircher illustrations were used as models for the decorative arts.18 These interiors look more Baroque than Chi-

nese, but with a greater emphasis on richly ornamented fabrics in the form of hangings, carpets, and clothing. Bells substitute for tassels on the Great Mogul’s throne canopy and embroidered frieze, although tassels adorn the ropes that tie back the Manchu emperor’s curtain. Hangings have vertical stripes of varying widths, distinct from Baroque damasks in the details though less so in general effect. Those of the Great Mogul are ornamented with repeated snowflake and floral designs, while those of the Manchu Emperor consist of a repeated motif of four fish forming an oval around a stemmed flower in the wide band and a vine scroll and fruit-like forms in the narrow one. Carpets are in the form of a grid with jewellike ovals surrounding rosettes made of leaf forms (Great Mogul) or squares in alternating groups of herringbone stripes and steps. Sunbursts occasionally appear on floor or ceiling. The Manchu emperor wears a costume with a dragon embroidered on the chest and a conical hat clearly based on Chinese models. The Great Mogul’s attendants wear turbans and belted, embroidered garments like the orientals in a painting by Adam Elsheimer. Kircher’s Indian and Chinese interiors are, then, heavily upholstered spaces that differ from those of a Baroque palace mainly in the details of the ornament and in the way upholstery encroaches on every available surface, including the floor. But these images could inspire: according to La Fontaine they prompted Louis XIV to have the walls of his private apartments lined with fabric imported from China.19 Outside Italy, however, and in the secular world, Chinoiserie was becoming of increasing interest, especially in France and in the German courts influenced by France and

170

Libro MARSHALL.indb 170

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

stimulated by the discovery of the techniques of making porcelain in Meissen in 1710. In Italy this new wave of Chinoiserie seems to have manifested itself first in northern Italy, especially in Turin, and often in the performance arts, especially opera.20 At this time operatic culture was diversifying. In the early seventeenth century court operas had focused on a narrow range of classical themes, but by the end of the century the subject areas had expanded to include, among others, Asian antiquity and a timeless Chinese or Indian east. A libretto by the leading librettist of the period, Apostolo Zeno, called Teuzzone, was the first to be set in China.21 It was an immediate success, being first staged in 1706 in Milan with music by Paolo Magni and Clemente Monari,22 and again in 1707 in Venice,23 in 1708 in Naples24 in September 1716 in Turin,25 and, in the best known version today, with music by Vivaldi in Mantua for Carnival 1719.26 This last performance Cardinal Patrizi would no doubt have have heard about in Ferrara, given the way that his Letters demonstrate a vivid awareness of the social events elsewhere in northern Italy. The story of Teuzzone is set in a wholly fictional China, and concerns the death of Troncone, Emperor of China, and the succession problems of his son Teuzzone, a topical subject at the time of the War of Spanish Succession. Its sets included a nocturnal battlefield with a ‘Royal Pavilion’,27 a graveyard,28 and an ‘ampitheatre’ prepared for the declaration of the new emperor, with a royal throne,29 a wood near the royal palace,30 an underground prison,31 and an altar prepared for sacrifice set within clouds that subsequently part to reveal a royal palace.32 How Chinese any of these sets were is unclear, but drawings of sets with plausibly Chinese buildings survive for the opera Roland performed at the Brunswick Opera House in 1697 (Fig. 3.61).33 These sets, for a wing stage, were by Johann Oswald Harms, who had been in Italy. Chinese themes appear to have been most fully developed in interior sets identified as Chinese cabinets. This set type appears early in the century in Venice,34 and another opera to a Zeno libretto, Gianguir, performed in 1724, contained a set of a gabinetto chinese. It is possible that a number of Bibiena set designs of lavishly ornamented interiors were seen as being in some way Chinese or oriental. A gabinetto reale, attributed to Giovanni Carlo Sicinio Galli Bibiena (1717–60) (Fig. 3.62),35 although considerably later, shows a rich and dense ornamentation, with figurative panels set within a dark framing, which seems to recall northern lacquer cabinets. Later Chinese set designs, or drawings related to them, are more explicitly Chinese in style. An example is a drawing by Domenico Fossati (1743–84).36 Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 171

All’Indiana and alla Cinese As we have seen, Kircher gave equivalent weight to both India and China in his engravings of the Grand Mogul and the Emperor of Tartary, and the mixing of Mughal India with Manchu China was not uncommon. India, although having closer trade ties with Europe, was considered to be of less interest, partly because its political system was less admired than that which China was supposed to have had.37 The opera Gianguir, although having a scene taking place in a gabinetto chinese, was set in Agra, India. This lack of distinction between the two was characteristic of the period of early eighteenth-century Chinoiserie, and is in marked distinction to a more truly Chinese Chinoiserie emerging in France with Watteau and flourishing by the 1740s with Boucher. While the room at Villa Patrizi was identified as being ‘Chinese’ by 1739, at the time when Cardinal Patrizi was ordering the furnishings he used the term ‘all’indiana’, and continued to do so after he had the opportunity to examine the lacquer panels on their way to Rome. The term all’indiana or its equivalent was not uncommon in the seventeenth century: lacquer and Japan work was described in Germany, and occasionally in Holland, as Indianisch werk.38 Stalker and Parker’s book on japanning in 1688 describes their illustrations as ‘patterns for Japan work in imitation of the Indians’.39 Characteristically confused is the report of a German traveller at the Palace of Rastatt who referred to ‘lacquered Chinese panelling of a cabinet made by an Englishman who had been in India’.40 Huth cites the example of a presumably Chinese or Japanese lacquer box described in 1560 as being façon des Indes, meaning an oriental item.41 ‘The Indies’ was a term of great generality to begin with, and encompassed both Asia and the Americas, so that an addition of ‘Indian’ gods to a 1614 edition Vincenzo Cartari’s Imagini de gli Dei delli Antichi includes Mexican as well as Hindu and Japanese deities.42 In part this was a case of insufficient knowledge permitting a vague conception of an exotic Other that lumped all these cultures together; but it may also in part derive from the fact that many Chinese goods, including lacquer, were shipped through India, particularly the Coromandel Coast, so that Chinese lacquer screens were called Coromandel screens. Moreover, it was wrongly believed that Indian shellac was the basis of oriental lacquer, so that in that respect the technique was Indian.43 Patrizi may have been aware of the Indian trade connection for Chinese and Japanese artefacts. Hence his use of the term all’indiana may have reflected a perception that these artefacts were 171

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.63. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type B (3), 1722. Scene with Enthroned Ruler. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Fig. 3.65. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type E (1), Scene with a Dragon, 1722. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Fig. 3.64. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type B (1), Scene with Rock and Garden Arches, 1722. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

indeed Indian, rather than Chinese in the same way that Greek vases were considered to be Etruscan because they came from Etruscan tombs. In any case, Cardinal Patrizi did, on occasion, use the term ‘cinese’, implying that he was aware of a distinction, however vague that might be. In Italian inventories, the term all’indiana sometimes appears in conjunction with arabeschi (arabesques), the term that had come into use for grotesques.44 It seems likely that to begin with all’indiana work was thought of as a variation or development of grotesques. Certainly at the Villa della Regina in Turin the ceiling by Filippo Minei has been described as a grotesque ceiling where ‘Chinoiserie monkeys, mandarins and parasols are mere substitutes for the more usual Roman fauns, ignudi and fans’.45 172

Libro MARSHALL.indb 172

But in many ways the cardinal’s use of the term all’indiana was accurate, as the imagery of his Venetian lacquer panels is as much Indian as Chinese (Figs 3.63–3.65). There are elephants (Fig. 3.66) as well as ko-ko birds (Fig. 3.67), and many figures are dark-skinned, some evidently derived from Mughal miniatures (Fig. 3.68). The painter’s style has affinities with the illustrations in Stalker and Parker’s Treatise on Japanning of 1688—including the occasional use of paving grids in awkward perspective (Figs 3.69, 3.70)—without being obviously based on them. The artist has a distinctive style, with cursive terminations to pennants and foliage (Fig. 3.64), and considerable comic flair, which suggests a high degree of creative independence. The room may therefore be more correctly understood in terms of the thinking prevailing in the 1720s as a stanza all’indiana, provided that the India in question is understood to be the ‘Indies’, that exotic world to the East, a Cathay that is less wholeheartedly Chinese than the mid-century Cathay would be.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

‘Fig. 3.66. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type C (2), detail, Scene with Elephant, 1722. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Fig. 3.68. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type F (2), detail, Scene with Figures Derived from Mughal Miniatures, 1722. Patrizi Collections (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Fig. 3.67. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type B (2), detail, Scene with Ko-ko Bird, 1722. Patrizi Collections. (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Fig. 3.69. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type F (1), detail, Scene with Paved Terrace, 1722. Patrizi Collections (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.) Fig. 3.70. Models for japanned ornament, from Stalker and Parker, 1688, pl. 19.

Porcelain and Lacquer In the decorative arts, Chinoiserie arose in part as a consequence of the fact that two of the most admired technologies in the decorative arts—porcelain and lacquer—were Chinese in origin. Objects in both materials had been imported into Europe in increasing quantities during the seventeenth century in a booming trade with the East dominated by the Netherlands, and from 1698 increasingly by the English. This naturally led to attempts by Europeans to master the technologies involved. Where Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 173

porcelain is concerned this was accomplished with spectacularly success by Johann Frederick Böttger at the Meissen works of Augustus the Strong of Saxony near Dresden in 1710. In spite of strenuous efforts by Augustus to keep the 173

18/11/15 17:25

technology secret, he was betrayed by Christoph Konrad Hunger and Samuel Stölzel, enabling Claudius du Paquier to establish a rival factory in Vienna, which produced its first successful piece of porcelain in May 1719. Other centres soon acquired the techniques and set up porcelain works, including Venice. In spring 1720 Stölzel returned to Meissen after virtually destroying the Vienna works he had helped to establish, while Hunger went to Venice and teamed up with Francesco and Giuseppe Vezzi, using his contacts to arrange an illegal shipment of the kaolin used in porcelain manufacture from mines in Saxony. The Vezzi company was formed in Venice 1723, but failed in 1727.46 It was natural, given that the models were Chinese, for European porcelain to adopt Chinoiserie themes, so that, of the fewer than 200 pieces of Vezzi porcelain that survive, many have Chinoiserie subjects,47 although porcelain would not be confined to such themes.48 European efforts to master the technology of lacquer was less succesful than with porcelain. Chinese and Japanese lacquer was made from a resin obtained from the sumach tree, rhus vernicifera, which is only found in East Asia and was never successfully introduced into the West. European lacquer was instead made from gum lac or shellac, a gum formed by the secretions of an insect, coccus lacca, on branches of certain Indian trees that interacted with excretions of the tree itself to form a resin that could be dissolved in spirits of wine and used as a varnish.49 Hence rather than being a thick, hard layer built up in many coats and worked by carving and polishing, European lacquer work was a kind of opaque varnish applied in layers to a base, normally of wood. The term used in Italy, vernice or varnish, was therefore an accurate description of the Western technique. The true nature of lacquer was not understood in the West until the publication of Trattato sopra la vernice by Filippo Buonanni in 1720, but since the resin could not be shipped to Europe, nor could the sumach tree be cultivated in the West, Eastern lacquer was never successfully replicated in the West, japanning (the term adopted in England)50 continued to be relied upon for items imitating oriental lacquer.51 The centre of Italian lacquer manufacture was Venice, where lacquer had long been made, and where Chinoiserie lacquer began to take off after about 1660.52 The earliest reference to Venetian lacquer in a Chinoiserie style is provided by the French traveller Maxime Misson, who visited Venice in 1688 and noted that the lacquer of ‘Venice is usually much esteem’d and you may have some at all prices’.53 Identifying what was being produced at this time, however, is not easy. From what little data he had available to him, Huth concluded that ‘Venice used as 174

Libro MARSHALL.indb 174

models furniture originating in England and in Holland and at the same time began to use Far Eastern patterns of decoration becoming fashionable in the north’, which is where the oriental pieces were mostly coming from. 54

Lacquer, Porcelain and Mirror Cabinets The early eighteenth century, then, was a period when three new, or newish technologies were available to the designers of luxury interiors: porcelain, lacquer, and, as we will see in the next chapter, mirrors. The way they would be showcased would be to create small rooms (cabinets, or gabinetti) with one or more of these technologies as the main theme. The beginnings were found in the Netherlands, centre of the East India trade, and the first lacquer and mirror cabinet is held to be the one in Huis ten Bosch of the widow of Frederik Henry of Orange, Amalia van Solms-Braunfels.55 The first two decades of the eighteenth century were difficult years for France at the end of Louis XIV’s reign, so that the finest manifestations of such cabinets were to be found in the German-speaking lands, initially given impetus by members of the House of Orange. There, princes and electors, would create ‘lacquer cabinets’, ‘porcelain cabinets’, ‘mirror cabinets’56 or Chinoiserie rooms, which used various combinations of lacquer, porcelain, and mirrors. The first was at Schloss Orianenberg near Berlin in 1663 for Louise Henriette of Orange-Nassau, daughter of Amalia van Solms and wife of the Elector of Brandenburg, followed by a Neue Porzellankammer in c. 1695.57 This focused on tiered displays of porcelain, like Versailles garden fountain buffets, set against blue-and-white tiles, but without mirrors.58 Such rooms flourished from there into the first decades of the eighteenth century. In Germany the combination of porcelain and mirrors was more common than porcelain and lacquer. At Schloss Charlottenburg at Berlin in 1706,59 the designer, Eosander van Göthe combined a porcelain display with mirrored walls. Other examples were at Schloss Mainz for Lother Franz von Schönborn, 1695–1700, which was a Spiegelzimmer; a Holländisches Kabinett, with a mirrored ceiling and porcelain mounted on the chimney for the Elector Max Emmanuel, 1693–95 at the Residenz, Munich (no longer in existence); a Spiegelkabinett for Graf Johann Ernst von Nassau-Weiburg Schloss at Weilburg, 1699-1709; a Spiegelkabinett at Schloss Bieberich for Elector Georg August von Nassau-Idstein of 1706-09; a Spiegelkabinett for Markgräfin Sibylla-Augusta von Baden Schloss Favorite, Rastatt, 1709–11; a Vergültenes Grot-

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.71. Württemberg, Schloss Ludwigsburg, Lackkabinett (Lacquer cabinet), 1714–22. Japanned panels by Johann Jakob Saenger.

Fig. 3.72. Turin, Royal Palace, Gabinetto da toeletta dell’appartamento della regina, 1732–34. Filippo Juvarra (1678–1736) (architect).

tesco Zimmer and Porzellan Zimmer for Lothar Franz von Schönborn at Schloss Gaibach, 1709–14; a Spiegelkabinett commissioned by Herzog Wilhelm von Sachsen-Merseburg for the apartment of his wife Henriette Charlotte at Merseburg Castle (1712–15) by Johann Michael Hoppenhaupt I (1685–1751);60 a Spiegelkabinett for Lothar Franz von Schönborn at Schloss Pommersfelden, 171418; and a Porcelan und Spiegel Cabinet of 1710-18 at the Gartenpalais Schönborn in Vienna. The Spiegelkabinett at Schloss Weikersheim, which dates from 1708–17,61 consists of gilded wooden carvings set against a painted red wall, with porcelain on brackets distributed across the whole available area, together with a few round or oval mirror set behind some pieces, as well as mirrored window (and door) embrasures. Hence in Germany the pairing of mirrors and porcelain prevails over that of porcelain and lacquer. There was a good reason for this: the mirrors would set off the backs of the porcelain pieces.

In other cases a mirror cabinet and lacquer cabinet complement each other, as they did at the Villa Patrizi. At Schloss Ludwigsburg, Württemberg, there is a pure Spiegelkabinett of c. 1711–16, with round, oval and shaped mirrors set within gilded stuccowork, as well as a Lackkabinett with porcelain dating from 1714 to 1722 (Fig. 3.71).62 The Lackkabinett consists of a fully integrated scheme based on large japanned panels by Johann Jakob Saenger, with tiny brackets for small pieces of porcelain beneath each panel and on the ‘pilasters’ between the panels.63 The fashion spread to Italy, above all at Turin where, following the Peace of Utrecht in 1714, Vittorio Amedeo II was created king, first of Sicily and then from 1718 of Sardinia. This resulted in a frenzy of building royal palaces under the direction of Filippo Juvarra, as well as accompanying activity in interior decoration. Chinoiserie themes begin tentatively to appear in the Villa della Regina under

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 175

175

18/11/15 17:25

Juvarra’a direction in 1723-24,64 and reached maturity in 1732–34 in the gabinetto da toeletta dell’appartamento della regina designed by Juvarra for the royal palace in Turin (Fig. 3.72).65 This is full-blown lacquer cabinet like the one at Ludwigsburg, based on vertical columns of lacquer panels set within gilded boiseries, with numerous mirrors but lacking brackets for porcelain. Although a decade later, and far grander, than the Villa Patrizi room, the Turin gabinetto da toeletta is, nevertheless, a useful point of reference.

The Villa Patrizi Stanza di Porcellana Cardinal Patrizi’s room, then can be understood as an attempt to create a porcelain cabinet or lacquer cabinet, the two media as we have seen often being found together, on the model of such examples as these. In Rome there seems to be no record of a comparable room having been fitted out at Palazzo Ruspoli or at Palazzo de Carolis, the most directly comparable projects in Rome immediately preceding the Villa Patrizi, although, as we shall see, there is some indirect but tenuous evidence for a Chinoiserie room in the Quirinal mezzanine in 1721. Nor do there seem to have been comparable rooms in Bologna or other cities of northern Italy the cardinal may have known. The cardinal, along with Mariano, Francesco and Patrizio, would no doubt have heard about such northern porcelain or lacquer cabinets as those described, and in any case the concept of a room decorated with lacquer panels and pieces of precious porcelain on brackets was one that was easily transmitted without the need for visual sources or travelling artisans. But the evidence of the Letters suggests that, as with so much else at Villa Patrizi, the initial conception was much vaguer than this citing of previous instances implies. To begin with porcelain seem to have been uppermost in the brothers’ minds. In September 1720 the cardinal refers to a stanza di porcellana, in a way that implies that the idea originated with Mariano.66 This reference to a stanza di porcellana comes shortly before the cardinal’s ideas-hunting exploration of Bolognese palaces with Patrizio that would result in the Stanza delli Cristalli, discussed in the next chapter, which would distract the brothers somewhat from the idea of a porcelain or lacquer cabinet. This reference falls in the year that the Vezzi porcelain factory was established in Venice, but whether Mariano was thinking of Vezzi porcelain at this point is uncertain. News may already have reached Rome of the Vezzi works; on the other hand, Mariano may simply have been responding to the general interest in porcelain that had been current throughout Europe since 1710. 176

Libro MARSHALL.indb 176

As far as the cardinal was concerned, his motivation for having a stanza di porcellana would have been to have what was fashionable. But, unfortunately, the cardinal had no collection of porcelain to display. The 1739 inventory refers to brackets of terracotta painted alla chinese that would have supported buccheri of various sizes. The term ‘bucchero’ normally refers to vases made of dark terracotta, and presumably this is what they were, since if they had been of porcelain the fact would undoubtedly have been pointed out by the perito, as he would do in 1772 in referring to what are clearly later, unrelated pieces.67 These buccheri seem to have been substitutes for true porcelain pieces that the cardinal intended to obtain but never did. It is therefore hardly surprising that the room ended up as a lacquer cabinet, rather than a porcelain one. Some terracotta pieces that, by tradition, are associated with the villa might in fact be the last of these buccheri.68 Yet the room was initially intended to be a porcelain room in other ways than by being a place to display porcelain vases. This will become clear if we examine the Letters dealing with the commissioning of the fireplace.

The Fireplace: Patron, Middleman, and Artisan Being situated in Ferrara, the cardinal was well placed to deal with artisans in Venice, and the Letters document his role as the person who receives designs from Mariano in Rome and sends them on to Venice. In Venice the cardinal had need of a reliable contact to advise on which artisans and workshops to go to and to help ensure that his wishes were implemented. Initially he used Monsignor Alessandro Aldobrandini (1667–1743). Aldobrandini had been papal nuncio in Venice since 1713, and Patrizi would have been communicating with him professionally as a matter of course.69 Aldobrandini’s career was strikingly similar to that of Patrizi. He had succeeded Patrizi as papal nuncio in Naples in 1708,70 before moving to Venice. On his creation as cardinal in 1730 he succeeded to Patrizi’s titular church of SS. Quattro Coronati and to his post of papal legate in Ferrrara.71 Like Patrizi he died in Ferrara, in 1734. As well as being in the right place, Aldobrandini was a person whose buon gusto could be trusted.72 Indeed, the cardinal was inclined to defer to him in matters of taste. He instructs Mariano to take Aldobrandini to the villa when he comes to Rome, in order to judge whether it is well proportioned to its site, since it is similar in size to Aldobrandini’s own villa.73 Aldobrandini came from the same Florentine branch of the family as Clement VIII,

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

builder of the Villa Aldobrandini at Frascati, and had a villa in Tuscany. On 18 May 1720 the cardinal writes that Aldobrandini has just returned from England, and he has asked him to bring chandeliers and sconces from there.74 On 24 August, after sending various items from Ferrara to Rome, the cardinal wants to know from Mariano and Francesco what other mirrors would be needed and their sizes, and the number of sconces, overmantel mirrors, and other ornaments, together with drawings and the quotes for them received from Roman manufacturers, so that the he can give the commission before Aldobrandini leaves.75 Aldobrandini was leaving because he had been appointed nuncio to Spain in July 1720,76 following the recall of Cardinal Pompeo Aldrovandi, who had been compromised by his role in the Alberoni affair, and was evidently about to leave. Aldobrandini’s departure meant that a new go-between was needed. On 26 October 1720, writing about a damask door curtain that needed to be ordered, the cardinal considers asking a certain Cavaliere Spada to fill this role, or else the ricevitore of Malta who, he understands, may have had dealings with Aldobrandini.77 Two years later he is still lamenting the absence of Aldobrandini, but has found an unnamed ‘cavaliere of good taste’ to handle the commission.78 Even with someone to ensure compliance with his wishes, the cardinal was nervous about successfully getting his ideas across to the artisans in Venice, particularly Mariano’s design for the fireplace. This he had received by way of Francesco, but it was only a sketch, and not good enough to give to the workmen in Venice. The cardinal therefore requested full-size drawings, suitably coloured with the correct pigments for the areas to be gilded or lacquered, with separate sheets for the fireplace and overmantel. Realising this to be asking too much, he changed the request to dimensioned measured drawings of half the chimneypiece. It seems that the drawings eventually sent him were quite large, though not, presumably, full-size. Not being prepared to wait for these to arrive, he sent Mariano’s original drawing on to Venice to be worked up into a finished design and costed. This allowed the artisans in the Venice of Andrea Brustolon to have their head, and sure enough the design came back as an expensive gran macchina so laden with carving that it would clutter up the whole room. The issue, therefore, was not only one of price, but also of taste. Some idea of the style of Venetian artisans at the period can be gleaned from the gran macchina of a bedroom from the Palazzo Sagredo in Venice, now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, which is securely Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 177

Fig. 3.73. Abbondio Stazio of Massagno (1675–1745) (stuccowork), bedroom from the Sagredo Palace, Venice, c. 1718. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 06.1335.1a–d. (Metropolitan Museum of Art.)

dated 1718. Here three-dimensional stucco putti disport themselves among stucco draperies and ornaments (Fig. 3.73).79 Patrizi was evidently unsympathetic to such florid late Venetian Baroque plasticity, and aspired to a greater subtlety and refinement (which would also cost less). He tells Mariano that the style or decoration that he wants in the room should take the form of low relief carvings, which will make the work more ‘polite’ or delicate (gentile).80 The terms of reference of this clash of taste are significant: the classical is not part of Patrizi’s vocabulary, but delicacy is. His critique is not founded on a Baroque-classical opposition, but on an extravagance-moderation opposition that is Arcadian in spirit. At the same time, throughout the process there is the underlying assumption that the quality of Venetian goods is best, but that the items might be in better taste and cheaper if made in Rome. Mariano’s worked-up design was costed in Rome at 130 scudi, a significant sum, nearly twice the cost of frescoing the ceiling. This was then costed in Venice and, as the cardinal had expected, the price was even higher. The 177

18/11/15 17:25

Roman price being still too high, the cardinal’s thoughts turn to economies, chief of which is to substitute the intended pigment of the lacquered part, porcelain dust, with the more commonplace marble dust. The room, therefore, was originally intended to be a stanza di porcellana in the colouring of its principal feature as well. This taste for extending the precious material of porcelain beyond small luxury objects to the surfaces of a room would culminate in the porcelain rooms at Caserta and at the Royal Palace of Madrid. These were created by royalty to display, in the most spectacular way possible, the capacity of the royal porcelain factories. Cardinal Patrizi, lacking such resources, was forced to abandon even this modest display of porcelain surfaces. But if he could not have porcelain, he could have the imagery that normally accompanied it, and so these marble-dust whites were then to be painted with all’indiana designs, also in keeping with the furniture he already owned that was intended for the room. This plan was evidently carried through, presumably by Roman workmen, and the 1739 inventory describes the chimney as being in white and gold and painted alla chinese.81 The case of the fireplace exemplifies the cardinal’s mindset about Venetian and Roman manufacture. While looking first to Venice, and looking closely at what Venice had to offer, he was always open to the possibility of making things in Rome, for reasons of economy, and to avoid the expense and inevitable damage incurred in transport.82 This attitude is found in the proposal to use tables and mirrors already acquired from Venice as the models for matching pieces made in Rome (a warning about attempting to identify place of manufacture from style alone). This suggestion is made in the context of another clearly and repeatedly stated aesthetic principle: that all the pieces in a room should be coordinated.

The Lacquer Tavole and Panini as Coordinator of the Decoration In the case of the lacquer pictures or panel (tavole di vernice, or quadri di vernice) and sconces (placche), however, the Venetian option proved to be the better one (Figs 3.63–3.69 and Figs 3.74–3.77). These are discussed in the Letters beginning in June 1722, more than a year after the discussions about the fireplace, and by this point Panini is involved.83 Before this he had been only one of several fresco painters, one who caused particular annoyance by going off and doing other jobs without finishing his work from Patrizi. The cardinal had returned to Rome for the conclave in 1721, and it is possible that this visit led to 178

Libro MARSHALL.indb 178

him changing his mind about Panini. By 1722 Panini is spoken of admiringly for his buon gusto, and it is clear that he was actively designing the interiors of the later rooms: the Stanza alla Cinese, the Stanza delli Cristalli, and the Primary Bedroom. The cardinal’s gratitude to Panini for the role he was playing is expressed with a rare use of metaphor: his villa, like a beautiful woman, should not appear unless properly clothed, and having spent so much on building it, he does not want to be shamed by its decoration.84 Hitherto, the decoration had been directed by Mariano and Francesco; from 1722 they formed a team with the Piacentine professional. A large part of this change of role for Panini seems to have been the recognition on Patrizi’s part that for the decoration not to shame him it needed to be coordinated, and to best coordinate a room a master designer was needed. The cardinal seems first to have become aware of this issue in November 1720, when he embarked on an ideas-hunting expedition to Bologna with his nephew Patrizio. There they learnt of an unnamed young man who served this function at the Palazzo Monti.85 On Panini’s part, it is possible that he was aware not only of the young man in Bologna, but also of the role that Filippo Juvarra was playing in Turin, where the architect was active at designing and coordinating interiors, sometimes commissioning paintings from Panini and others to form part of them. This concern with the coordination of the parts did not, however, mean that the concept of the decoration of the room was not changing and developing. By 6 June 1722 Mariano, Francesco and Panini had settled on the designs of the Stanza alla Cinese and the Stanza delli Cristalli, and the cardinal is ready to commission the lacquer pictures (quadri di vernice) and the sconces ‘of lacquer and mirror glass’ (placche tanti di vernice che di cristallo),86 but he has to wait until late July before he receives the drawings. He laments the absence of Monsignor Aldobrandini as middleman, and is afraid the price (as in the case of the chimneypieces) would be outrageous. He hopes to pay only 10 scudi for each piece, and his fall-back position is to simply paint them with figures all’indiana, and not to bother with lacquer. But the quotes prove to be surprisingly low: 2 zecchini, or 4 scudi, for each of the lacquer panels and sconces. (The way the two items are conjoined implied that each lacquer picture had a corresponding sconce, yet in the inventories sconces are found only in the Stanza delli Cristalli.)87 There are four sconces that survive that match the style of the lacquer tavole, but otherwise do not correspond to the inventory items for the Stanza delli Cristalli, as

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

they have two candles, unpainted mirror glass and little brackets suitable for porcelain (Fig. 3.79), whereas those described in the inventories for the Stanza delli Cristalli have single candles and are made of gilded wood with chiaroscuro figures painted on the glass and applied leaf and cornucopia carvings. One possibility is that the sconces discussed in the Letters had been removed from the Stanza alla Cinese before 1739, or never installed. In any case, when they arrived, Mariano appears to have queried their taste (garbo), to which the cardinal defensively replies that they correspond to the drawings that had been provided to him.88 If the surviving sconces are those Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 179

Top left: Fig. 3.74. Schematic reconstruction of the hang of the lacquer tavole in PN05, north wall. (David R. Marshall.) Too right: Fig. 3.75. Schematic reconstruction of the hang of the lacquer tavole in PN05, east wall. (David R. Marshall.) Bottom left: Fig. 3.76. Schematic reconstruction of the hang of the lacquer tavole in PN05, west wall. (David R. Marshall.) Bottom right: Fig. 3.77. Schematic reconstruction of the hang of the lacquer tavole in PN05, south wall. (David R. Marshall.)

179

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.78. Schematic reconstruction of the hang of the lacquer tavole in PN05 with sconces, south wall. (David R. Marshall.)

commissioned for the Stanza alla Cinese, it is possible that the idea was to have units consisting of a lacquer picture and a sconce that supported two candles and a piece of porcelain, and these sconces were later replaced by the terracotta brackets referred to in the inventories. If so, the effect would have been something like Fig. 3.80. The resulting room would have been brightly lit, especially as the cardinal was considering having chandeliers as well, although those discussed in the Letters ended up in the Gallery.89 (In 1739 both the Stanza alla Cinese and Stanza delli Cristali had chandeliers.) The lacquer pictures arrived in Rome by way of Ferrara and Pesaro at the beginning of December, and on 9 December the carpenter Giuseppe Santolini was paid to attach hangers to them and install them.90 Commissions for lacquer pictures, however, continued, and are discussed in the Letters until the end of May. On 19 December there is reference to ‘carte’ needed to finish the camera di vernici, which might be maps, prints, or Chinese works on paper. The following week in response to Francesco’s request to commission lacquer chairs matching the mirrors in Venice, the cardinal asks him to supply pictures painted on paper (dipinta in una carta) that show the way the lacquer chairs were to look, so that he could give unambiguous instructions to the Venetian artisans.91 Apparently this did not proceed, as the chairs in PN05 and PN06 in 1739 were not of lacquer. There is also reference to lacquer panels for 180

Libro MARSHALL.indb 180

Fig. 3.79. Wall sconce, probably from Villa Patrizi. Patrizi Collections (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

a chimney, possibly in the context of the refurbishment of the palazzo at S. Luigi, so the items being ordered may have been intended for both places. Possibly the hanging of the batch received in early December had revealed the need for additional lacquer pictures for the Stanza alla Cinese. If so, these might have included the unique example of Type A, which differs from the others (Fig. 3.80).92 Certainly the Stanza alla Cinese and Stanza delli Cristalli were still not finished at the end of May, apparently after receiving the case of lacquer panels that had reached the cardinal from Venice by 15 May.93 A month earlier, on 10 April 1723, the cardinal welcomes the news that lacquer was now being produced in Rome.94 There seems little doubt that had he known of these artisans earlier, he would have had the panels made in Rome. In fact lacquer artisans had been active in Rome earlier, since Buonanni, in his treatise on lacquer published in 1720, refers to one active ‘years ago’ in Via dei Coronari who used a ‘black varnish that is very similar to the Chinese, but does not have its qualities’.95 But clearly it was not then an established trade.

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

The Pope’s Mezzanines

Fig. 3.80. Venetian manufacture, lacquer tavola, type A, Scene with a Man Riding a Camel, 1722. Patrizi Collections (David R. Marshall / Patrizi Collections.)

Most intriguing is a passage in the letter of 26 December 1722 to Mariano, written concurrently with the letter to Francesco about the pictures of the lacquer chairs dipinta in una carta, where the cardinal again discusses the problem of making the Venetian artisans understand what is required. It is evident that Mariano has a clear idea of what he wants to have depicted on these (lacquer) pictures (quadri). The cardinal suggests making a ‘more distinct detail (drawing)’ (dettaglio più distinto), with measurements and a written description of what was to be painted, for him to use in communicating with the artisans in Venice. Even so, he writes, it would be better to have them painted on canvas; to have them painted on ordinary paper, as opposed to ‘le carte indiane’ would not be satisfactory. In other words, the cardinal wants the imagery sent to him in the form of an (oil) painting on canvas, a more durable support than ordinary paper, although ‘Indian paper’ would be satisfactory because it was a better support for oil paint.

Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 181

The cardinal states that it would be easy to make these pictures in Rome because in Rome there is the model (modello) that the pope’s major-domo (Niccolò del Giudice) had used for the pope’s mezzanines.96 These mezzanine rooms had been painted the year before by Panini and Pietro Paolo Cennini. Panini, who was evidently in charge, received a payment on 18 December 1721 for four rooms.97 The decoration of one room, known as the Appartamento del Panini, survives today relatively intact, and is decorated with architectural landscapes (Fig. 3.81). Also surviving are detached quadratura temperas from another of room in the Sala del Belvedere, called ‘del Torrino’, which seems to have been part of this commission. The Patrizi were very interested in this project: earlier, on 18 April 1722 the cardinal writes that Patrizio had been to see the apartment in order to borrow ideas while the pope (Innocent XIII) was away at Saint Peter’s.98 The cardinal, characteristically, comments that there was a big difference between what he could hope to accomplish and what a pope could do, although the surviving Quirinal apartments are modest. Given the context of the cardinal’s discussion, this modello must have had all’indiana or Chinoiserie imagery, which implies that one of the rooms in the Quirinal mezzanine had a Chinoiserie, or all’indiana, theme. Unfortunately there is no other evidence to confirm this, and there are no Chinoiserie or all’indiana motifs in the surviving frescoes. But if there were such a room, Cardinal Patrizi, by way of Mariano, would have been following the lead of the pope in adopting this decorative style and in employing a process that would be repeated a decade later in March 1732 when Filippo Juvarra, on a visit to Rome in connection with his project for the Vatican Sacristy, was offered some tavole a vernice della China dello Gappone, perhaps best translated as ‘Chinese lacquer panels from Japan’.99 He acquired two which were sent to Turin, where they provided models for the rest of the panels executed by Pietro Massa in Turin from 1734–37 installed in the gabinetto da toeletta dell’appartamento della regina, or gabinetto cinese, in the Palazzo Reale in Turin (Fig. 3.72).100 The modello referred to by the cardinal and known to Mariano may therefore have been an oriental panel of some kind, like the Japanese lacquer panel acquired by Juvarra. But would it have also been the inspiration for the lacquer pictures delivered in December, which are evidently those that exist today? It is possible: it may be that the reason for the discussion in late December was 181

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.81. Giovanni Paolo Panini, Villa Landscape, 1722. Fresco. Rome, Palazzo del Quirinale, the pope’s Mezzanines. (After Laureati and Trezzani, 1993.)

Fig. 3.82. Attributed to Jean Barbault (1718–62), A Dance in Northern Italy, c. 1740. Private Collection, Switzerland. (After Thornton, 1984.)

that Mariano wanted the new lacquer pictures to better correspond to the model. If so, it helps us better to understand how the Patrizi lacquer cabinet was designed. An Italian artist, a Panini or a Juvarra, in seeking to create interiors in accordance with the concept of a northern lacquer cabinet, would have needed specific models, and sought out oriental lacquer panels that, it seems, were rare in Rome for the reasons outlined earlier. The two artists, however, interpreted these models differently according to their different circumstances. Juvarra, with far greater patronal ambitions and resources behind him, interpreted it regally, with wall-to wall lacquer and French-inspired boiseries. Panini, working a decade earlier, employed a rather simpler model, an array of lacquer panels hung on the wall, which fitted better with north Italian practice. This array, however, would not have been as undetermined as the usual hang of paintings. As the reconstruction diagrams demonstrate (Figs 3.74–3.77), the panels had to have been quite tightly coordinated. In August 1722 there is reference to a drawing of the room (described as a gabbinetto, but from the context the Stanza alla Cinese) being prepared by Panini, implying an overall plan of the hang that was conceived in relation to the room boundaries, and to a dado or frieze.101 The work of Panini at the Villa Patrizi may therefore have had more in common with what Juvarra was doing in Turin than may at first appear. As a designer of coordinated interiors it would have been important for Panini to have kept himself informed of the latest fashions since Turin, at the time, was the Italian centre with the most energetic program of building and decoration. Although

Juvarra had moved to Turin in 1714, before Panini had properly established himself in Rome, he maintained his Roman connections. In 1724 he commissioned paintings of the Castello di Rivoli from Panini and Locatelli, and in 1732, the same year that he acquired the lacquer panels in Rome, he was thinking of Panini. In that year he produced a design for the anticamera of the apartment of the Principessa di Piemonte in the Palazzo Reale at Turin.102 The overmantel is in a similar style to the gabinetto da toeletta, while the walls were intended to have installed in them large square paintings, two prospettive a capriccio by Panini, two by ‘Marcetto’ (Marco) Ricci, and one by Pompeo Aldrovrandini.103 Aldrovrandini had also worked at the Villa Patrizi. Juvarra was still thinking of Panini in 1736 after he had moved to Spain, commissioning from Panini in that year paintings for the royal palace at La Granja de San Ildefonso.104 It is possible that such connections between Turin and Rome and between Juvarra and Panini existed as early as 1722. This brings us to the scenes painted on the lacquer panels. As we have seen, although the idea for such panels probably came from Rome, they were made in Venice, with a greater or lesser understanding of whatever model Panini had in Rome. If an oriental panel lies at the back of the commission the sources might be hard to confirm. It is hard to believe that Panini had any hand in their design, and it only occurs to the cardinal after receiving the initial quotes to request that each scene be different. Are the subjects therefore improvisations by Venetian artisans on the basis of drawings of the Quirinale mezzanine modello supplied to them? This

182

Libro MARSHALL.indb 182

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.83. Andrea Bolzoni (1689–1760) after Filippo Suzzi (d. c. 1752), Section of the Noble Apartment of Signor Fortunato de Cervella (Spaccato Scenografico dell’Appartamento Nobile dell. Ill.mo Sig. Fortunato de Cervella …), detail, from Jacopo Agnelli, Descrittione delle Grandiose Solennità …, 1736. (Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 1385-308.)

The Remodelling of the Stanza alla Cinese and Chinoiserie at Montoro

is perhaps more likely than that detailed designs were provided from Rome.

The Hang of the Tavole The way the lacquer tavole were hung (Figs 3.74–3.77) is much simpler and less integrated than such lacquer cabinets as the stanza della toeletta in Turin (Fig. 3.72).105 As we have seen, in the Anterooms the cardinal initially wanted French-style boiseries covering the walls of the rooms of the Piano Nobile with features like paintings or mirrors set within these, but settled for framed pictures close hung against the wall. Similarly in the Stanza alla Cinese he settled for the tavole being arrayed against the wall (which, like those in the Anterooms, would have been coloured.) This was an approach generally in keeping with north Italian practice. In a painting of a Venetian interior dating from about 1740 (Fig. 3.82) we see an interior hung with strips of green damask (?) held in place with gilded regoli, a prominent fabric frieze, and mirrors or metal sconces hung from nails by fabric strips tied in a bow.106 In Andrea Bolzoni’s engraving of the Chinoiserie retrocamera of the Palazzo Cervelli in Ferrara in 1736—the closest, if not the only, representation we have of an Italian Chinoiserie room of the first half of the century—we find a similarly prominent fabric frieze and the distribution in a regular array of small precious objects across the wall surface (Fig. 3.83).107 In this case the objects consists of maiolica plates, small pictures or mirrors in complex frames and shelves for porcelain. Part 3. Decoration and Function

Libro MARSHALL.indb 183

The Stanza alla Cinese was one of the first rooms on the Piano Nobile to be significantly redecorated. This is recorded in the 1772 inventory, but the redecoration, by Virginia and Giovanni, may have taken place as early as the early 1750s since it is likely that the urge to redecorate would have followed fairly quickly on succession.108 They added bussole, or lightweight doors, decorated with mirrors and gilded carving on a pearl-grey background to separate the two rooms, and replaced the lacquer tavole with Chinoiserie silk wall-hangings. These changes suggest that this room was the focus of fashionable attention. When first built it would have been in the vanguard of advanced taste, and these changes may have been made to keep it there. By the standards of the newer French Chinoiserie of Watteau, Huet, or Boucher the lacquer tavole may have seemed out-of-date. Moreover, the concept of separate pieces hung on the wall, Venetian style, would not have been adequate in a world now fully accustomed to the kind of tightly integrated decorative scheme that the Villa Patrizi had been in the forefront of promoting, but which would now seem to have not gone far enough in embracing boiseries, wood carvings and other wall-controlling devices. Chinoiserie taste was also favouring simpler schemes that relied on walls

Fig. 3.84. View of Castello di Montoro (Narni). (David R. Marshall.) Fig. 3.85. View of Cappella di S. Egidio, Montoro (Narni). (David R. Marshall.)

183

18/11/15 17:25

Fig. 3.86. Chinoiserie room, Castello di Montoro, c. 1748–49, detail. (David R. Marshall.)

Fig. 3.87. Chinoiserie room, Castello di Montoro, c. 1748–49, detail of paper wall-covering. (David R. Marshall.)

covered with a dado below and Chinese or Chinoiserie fabrics, or paper painted with Chinoiserie themes, covering the rest of the wall. Examples of this latter type of scheme are common at this period, but the one of most relevance here is found in a room at the Patrizi castello at Montoro. When Giovanni Chigi Montoro married Maria Virginia Patrizi in 1736, he brought to the union the property from which one of his titles derived, at Montoro, in Umbria near Narni. Montoro was a feudal possession centred on a castello consisting of a medieval tower that had been englobed by a sixteenth-century structure that had changed little by the eighteenth century (Fig. 3.84).109 Immediately following his succession in 1748, Giovanni built a chapel dedicated to S. Egidio separated from the castello by a long garden, now truncated to create a piazza in front of the chapel (Fig. 3.85).110 A bundle of documents records building work on the chapel in 1748–49,111 and one may suppose that the Chinoiserie room at Montoro dates from that time. This room does not have the silks used at the villa, but Chinese painted wallpaper covering the walls down to a dado, against which are built long benches (Fig. 3.86–3.88). Such papers were manufactured in China or to European Chinoiserie designs, and were common at mid-century.

Notes 1. Honour, 1973; Impey, 1977; Morena, 2009. 2. See González-Palacios, 1991, p. 168, and Lightbown, 1969, p. 238: ‘The wandering English painter William Smith, writing from Rome on 12 March 1616 to Lord Arundel to solicit his patronage, tells him that during the two previous years “I have also been emploied for the cardinalles, and other Princes of these parts, in workes after the China fashion wch is much affected heere”.’ Letter printed in M. Hervey, The Life, Correspondence and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, Cambridge, 1921, p. 501, cited by Lightbown. 3. Huth, 1971, p. 13. Lightbown considers these probably to have been wares in lacquer or japan. 4. Huth, 1971, p. 13. 5. Lightbown, 1969, p. 263, citing Incisa della Rocchetta, 1925. 6. This statement may need to be qualified. A closer study of inventories would turn up more items, but all too often published inventories omit such items in favour of painting and sculpture, so that the data is far from complete. 7. Rudolph, 1995, pp. 211–31, citing ASR, Archivio dei 30 Notai Capitolini, uff. 37, notaio S.J. Ursinius, filza 282, fols 409r–564v. For the cassetta dà commodità see p. 217: ‘Nella stanza contigua à questa, dove dormiva il Marchese defonto … una Cassetta dà commodità miniata, e verniciata con figure all’indiana (fol. 448r, no. 91). For the lacquer chairs, see p. 218 (fol. 453v): ‘Stanza contigua verso il Cortile … Otto sediole verniciate, arabeschi all’indiana con il fondo, e spalliera Lavorato à grate di paglia, Indiana cuperte di sopra di sopra di damasco Cremisi e di sotto di taffettano color simile’; p. 220 (fol. 457v): ‘Due altre sedie verniciate all’indiana di paglia a gratella compagna alle sopra descritte’; p. 221 (fol. 461v): ‘Due sedie con fusto verniciato, e rabascato all’indiana con fondo, e spalliera fatta à grate compagne alle sopradescritte’. 8. Kircher, 1667; Lightbown, 1969, pp. 248 ff. Kircher had an early interest in China, telling his superior in 1629 that he wished to become a missionary to the country. His China Monumentis (1667) was an encyclopedia of China, which combined accurate cartography with mythical elements such as dragons. Kircher main informant was another Jesuit, Martino Martini (1614-61) who went as a missionary to China in 1643 and published De Tartarico Bello Historia (Rome, 1654); Novus Atlas Sinensis (Amsterdam, 1755) and Sinicae Historiae Decas Prima (Munich 1658) (Lightbown, 1969, p. 249). Others include Father Johann Gruber (Lightbown, 1969, p. 249). See also Findlen, 2004. 9. The first edition is In urbe Quamcheu, 1667, reprinted in Goa, 1669. (In-

184

Libro MARSHALL.indb 184

Rediscovering a Baroque Villa in Rome: Cardinal Patrizi and the Villa Patrizi 1715-1909

18/11/15 17:25

torcetta 1667; Intorcetta, 1669)

teuzzone.html> (accessed 3 March 2014).

10. See Zoli, 1973; Zoli, 1982.

27. Campo di battaglia illuminato di notte. Padiglione reale ove sta Troncone ferito, appoggiato a grand’asta. I have used the set descriptions as they appear in the libretto of the 1719 Vivaldi staging. They are worded slightly differently by Ferrero, 1990, p. 276, who presumably follows the libretto of the Turin edition.

11. Lightbown, 1969, p. 265 ff. 12. Lightbown, 1969, p. 250. 13. Hsia, 2004, especially pp. 38890; Minamiki, 1985; Rule, 1986, chapters 2 and 3; Mungello, 1985. 14. Lightbown, 1969, p. 265. 15. Lightbown, 1969, p. 265, citing Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (Theophilis Sigefridus Bayerus), Museum Sinicum, vol. 1, Saint Petersburg, 1730, p. 14. 16. Valesio, 1977–79, vol. IV, p. 862, Tuesday 30 September 1727: ‘Nel di precedente giunse a Propaganda Fide il regalo mandato dall’imperatore della Cina a S. Beatudine, consistente in più centinaia di pezzi di seta e oro, in cento pezzi di zibellini, in 10 libre di censé, radica assai preziosa, in erba tè, cento ventagli, cofani, cassettini, scrigni e porcellane. Gli cardinali della congregazione aveano pensato di mandarlo al papa con proprietà, anco alle persuasioni di monsignor Nicolai, stato lungo tempo in quei paesi e per mostrare stima e gradimento a quella gente superstiziosamente ceremoniosa, quando verso le 24 ore giunse un beneventano palatino a monsignor Ruspoli, segretario di detta congregazione, con dirgli che S. Beatitudine voleva detto regalo: in prelato si scusò con dire che egli dovea darne parte a’ cardinali della congregazione, da’ quali sarebbe poi a S. Beatitudine, essendo stato portato da due missionarii diretto alla congregazione. Partissi il detto palatino, ma poi alle 2 hore in circa di notte ritornò con biglietto di palazzo che le fosse onninamente consegnato, e così fu portato nelle casse imballato a palazzo e questa mattina cavato fuori alla presenza di S. Beatitudine e ritrovatevi molte porcellane rotte, essa la radica di censé mandolla al cardinale Cienfuego tutta senza riserbarsene pur un pezzo, acciò l’inviasse all’imperatrice, e data il tè, tabacco e altre droghe a vendere al Mansueti speziale di palazzo, tutto il rimanente, alla riserva di qualche pezzo di drappo, vendé a Donato, cameriere del cardinale Coscia, per il prezzi di scudi 2700, de’ quali 2,000 diede subito per la fabrica inutile del convento di S. Sisto: cio si udì subito con dispiacere ed ammirazione di tutta la città.’ I would like to thank John Weretka for bringing this passage to my attention. 17. Kircher, 1667, plate V, Effigies Magni Mogul. Kircher, plate Aa, Effigies Monarchae Sinico-Tatarici (on plate: Imperis sino Tartarici Supremus MONARCHA). Other full page plates showing standing figures in interiors are Bb, Effigies P. Adami Schall; Cc effigies P. Matthaei Ricci & Colai Ly Pauli; and Dd and Ee Habitus Foeminarum Sinesium. 18. See Sander, 2000. 19. Gruber, 1992, p. 234. 20. Honour’s Roman examples, such as members of the French Academy donning oriental costume for the Carnival parade down the Corso (1751, fig. 75, The Asian Procession, by Jean Barbault) or the Chinea designs are much later. Theatrical examples are also later, and he notes that the Chinese cult was reaching its height by the 1750s. 21. Ward, 2010, pp. 83–86; Strohm, 1997, chapters 6 and 7. 22. Milan, Teatro Ducale, music by Paolo Magni and Clemente Monari. Ferrero, 1980, pp. 90-91. 23. Venice, Teatro di San Cassiano, music by Lotti. Ferrero, 1980, pp. 90–91. 24. Naples, Teatro Fiorentini, music by Lotti and Vignola, sets by G. Cappello, entitled Inganno vinto dalla ragione. Ferrero, 1980, pp. 90–91. 25. Viale Ferrero, 1980, p. 89, and note 32. The music was by Diorè and Casanova and the set designer was Abati. TEUZZONE / Drama per Musica / Da rappresentarsi nel Teatro di S.A.S. / Di Carignano / Consagrato a Madama Reale / Maria Giovanna / Battista / di Savoja Nemours / Duchessa di Savoja / Principessa di Piemonte / Regina di Copro &c / In Torino, MDCCXVI Per Pietro Giuseppe Zappata, Torino, Biblioteca Musicale L.O.41. 26. The full text of the libretto is available at and at