1 ‘Alberti and Vitruvius,’ Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissame Art (New York and London, 1969), p. 329.

2 A list of the editions of De statua, and a bibliography of the major studies on the treatise, are found in Alberti, Leon Battista, On Painting and On Sculpture, the Latin Texts of ‘De pictura’ and ‘Destatua,’ ed. and trans. Cecil Grayson (London and New York, 1972), pp. 5–7 Google Scholar and pp. 29-30. (All my references to De statua and De pictura are to the Grayson translations.) More recently, Borsi, Franco, Leon Battista Alberti, trans. Rudolf G. Carpanini (New York and London, 1977), p. 384 Google Scholar, has listed the major editions. I have little to contribute to the problem as to whether De statua is dated early (ca. 1435) or late (ca. 1465) in Alberti's career, for the question is not of great moment in the present study. The hypothesis advanced here concerning the close relationship between the conception of sculpture outlined in De re aedificatoria and in De statua does, however, suggest that the two treatises are chronologically proximate and that the treatise on sculpture thus comes rather late in Alberti's career. For a summary of the problems concernings the dating of De statua, see A. Parronchi, ‘Sul Delia statua Albertiano,’ Paragone, 117 (1959), 3-29, and Borsi, Alberti, pp. 304-305.

3 Several important exceptions to this generalization should be cited. Michel, Paul-Henri, Un idéal hutnain au XV^e siècle: La pensée de L. B. Alberti (Paris, 1930), pp. 383–401 Google Scholar, supplements an examination of De statua with a summary of Alberti's comments on the materials of sculpture and on the display of statues on buildings in De re aedificatoria. Seymour, Charles, Jr., Sculpture in Italy, 1400—1500 (Baltimore, 1966), pp. 2—10 Google Scholar, discusses general philosophical ramifications of the treatise on sculpture, and of early Renaissance theory in general, and refers briefly to the discussion of triumphal sculpture in De re aedificatoria. Grayson, pp. 22—24, notes that the observations on the materials of sculpture, on colossi, and on the ‘image made by chance’ in the treatise on architecture complement the discussion of related subjects in De statua.

4 Only Grayson, p. 19, has remarked on the narrow focus of De statua and has suggested that De re aedificatoria be viewed in part as a supplement to it. He does not, however, develop or substantiate this belief in any detail. I should add that the manifest high regard that Alberti expresses for sculpture in De re aedificatoria and De pictura makes the limitations of De statua appear to be even more evident. Four of the five artists to whom Alberti dedicated De pictura were sculptors (Grayson, p. 33), and he speaks of sculpture as being ‘surer’ than painting in Depictura (Grayson, Book III, p. 101).

5 A general framework for the specific points of correspondence between the two treatises is provided by the apparently similar approach of the architect and sculptor. Alberti writes in the introductory passages of De statua that he will offer the sculptor ‘correct and known methods’ in order ‘to make fewer and fewer mistakes’ (Grayson, p. 121). In like manner Alberti notes in De re aedificatoria that an architect works with ‘an admirable and intelligent theory and is able to devise with thought’ (Ten Books on Architecture, trans. James Leoni, 2nd ed. [1726; rpt. London, 1955], Preface, p. ix). In another passage in De re aedificatoria Alberti states explicitly that the architect's procedure is analogous to that of the sculptor: ‘the workman considers the parts [of the statue] with regard to their weight, the statue with regard to its outlines, and others perhaps as to other respects; so the parts of architecture ought to be divided in such manner that our considerations upon each of them may be as clear and as distinct as possible’ (Book VII, i, p. 132). I have slightly modernized the quotations drawn from Leoni's translation.

6 The relationship between the two treatises on painting has been thoroughly explored by Carroll William Wesfall. ‘The Two Ideal Cities of the Early Renaissance,’ Diss. Columbia University 1967, pp. 43-45.

7 Book VI, ii, p. 113. For a general discussion of the conception of ornamentation see, among others, Wittkower, Rudolf, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (New York, 1965), p. 33 Google Scholar. Westfall, Carroll William, ‘ In This Most Perfect Paradise’: Alberti, Nicholas V, and the Invention of Conscious Urban Planning in Rome, 1447-55 (University Park, PA. and London, 1974), p. 61 Google Scholar, and Borsi, Alberti, p. 316.

8 Alberti refers to the statues as ‘those most beautiful ornaments’ (Book IX, vii, p. 201). The specific ways in which sculpture renders a city magnificent and the reasons for Alberti's preference for the plastic arts will be developed later.

9 The physical properties of sculpture are dealt with largely in the context of the embellishment of ecclesiastical structures (Book VII, xvii, p. 160).

10 See below, p. 9.

11 The discussions relating to the decoration of different types of buildings are all prefaced with summaries of how notable ancient examples were embellished with statues. For example, he remarks that amphitheatres and theatres were decorated with ‘great numbers of statues’ (Book VIII, vii, p. 176), and that the principal ornament of public edifices were statues (Book VIII, ix, p. 183). There are many references to ancient colossi in the treatise. They figure prominently in a brief history of sculpture (Book VII, xvi, p. 159); ancient examples arc cited repeatedly (for example: Book II, iv, p. 25, where the colossus of Nero is mentioned; Book VII, xiii, p. 154, where many examples of colossi displayed in ancient religious structures are listed), and technical questions regarding the transport and construction of colossi are examined (Book V, i, p. 83; Book VI, v, p. 119; Book VI, vii, p. 122; Book IX, x, p. 206).

12 While most historians have stressed, rightly, Alberti's abhorrence of excess in art as in life (see, for example, Borsi, Alberti, p. 7), his opinions on the display of sculpture do not seem to allow a simple generalization. Alberti clearly admires the sculptural marvels of the ancients and would seem to wish that more were produced in his own time. (W. Smith makes the same point in ‘Definitions of Statua,’ Art Bulletin, 50 [1968], p. 266.) Interestingly, when he does censure the excesses of the ancients it is most often for the indiscriminate use of color or of precious materials to which he objects, and not to the number of works displayed (see, for example, Book IX, viii, p. 202). It is worth noting here that Cecil Grayson has remarked that leading motifs in Alberti's thought are the ‘pure delight in natural and man-made things’ and the desire to create a beautiful and pleasing environment (‘The Humanism of Alberti,’ Italian Studies, 12 [1957], p. 42).

13 Book VI, i and iii.

14 Such a reading of the passages in the treatise would link Alberti with the general outlook of the humanist litterateurs of the time in their own poetic musings on the meaning of the ancient monuments ( Krautheimer, Richard and Krautheimer-Hess, Trade, Lorenzo Chiberti, I [Princeton, 1970], pp. 302–305 Google Scholar; Weiss, Roberto, The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity [Oxford, 1969], pp. 59–72 Google Scholar). In the slightly earlier Defamilia (completed ca. 1433-34) the same attitude toward the ancient remains as an index to the decline of the Roman Empire is to be found (The Family in Renaissance Florence, a translation by Renée Neu Watkins of/ libri Delia Famiglia, Columbia, 1969; Prologue, p. 29).

15 Book IX, vii, p. 201.

16 Book VII, xvii, p. 161.

17 Book VIII, vi, p. 174.

18 Book VIII, iii, p. 168.

19 A useful rehearsal of the emergence of the free-standing statue of the Renaissance from the applied sculpture of the Middle Ages is Janson, H. W., ‘The Image of Man in Renaissance Art: From Donatello to Michelangelo,’ Sixteen Studies (New York, 1973), pp. 119–148 Google Scholar.

20 Book IX, viii, p. 203. In Filarete's largely derivative Trattato d'architettura the same master-servant relationship between the architect and the sculptor is advanced (Treatise on Architecture, I, trans. John R. Spencer [New Haven and London, 1965], Book I, p. 76).

21 An excellent summary of the social functions of ornament for Alberti is Westfall, ‘In This Most Perfect Paradise,’ p. 60. See also Michel, Alberti, p. 275. The manner in which aspects of this theory arise from the nature of the medieval Italian town has been described by Eden, W. A., ‘Studies in Urban Theory: The De re aedificatoria of Leon Battista Alberti,’ Town Planning Review, 19 (1943), 10–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Book IX, i, p. 188.

23 Ihid.

24 See above, n. 12.

25 Book IX, i, p. 187. He is writing herein a general sense about the application of all types of ornamentation. Alberti appears to be more concerned with materials and architectural decorations than with sculpture in the case of private buildings. The implication is that sculpture is reserved largely for display on public and ecclesiastical buildings. The subjects represented by sculptors are by and large significant political and historical ones, and the themes that ornament private houses are to be somewhat less serious in nature (Book IX, iv, p. 192).

26 For a general statement of how such a moral implication of ornament relates to more general aspects of Alberti's point of view, see Blunt, Anthony, Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450-1600 (Oxford, 1940), pp. 3, 9, and 21Google Scholar. As for the hierarchy of materials, terra-cotta wall decorations are apparently sufficient for the lower orders of society (Book VI, v, p. 119). But here again the sculptures must be disposed clearly ‘so that even considering the meanness of the structures nothing more handsome could be desired’ (Book VI, v, p. 119). Alberti, I should add, goes into some detail on the matter of making figures in stucco and plaster (Book VI, ix, p. 126).

27 Book VII, i, p. 162. Wittkower, Architectural Principles, p. 7, has described Alberti's program of church decorations. Alberti does qualify somewhat his defense of the rich embellishment of churches by noting that the sculpted decorations should be austere so as not to distract the faithful (Book VII, i, p. 162).

The relief sculptures in the interior of Alberti's San Francesco at Rimini (begun ca. 1450) are the clearest indication of how the precepts outlined in De re aedificatoria might be reflected in Alberti's practice (Borsi, Alberti, pp. 128 and 130, makes this same point; C. Ricci, Il Tempio Malatestiano [Milan and Rome, 1924], remains the basic history of the structure). It is difficult to determine the actual share of Alberti in the sculptural program. But the fact that the application and extent of ornament appear to follow his written precepts suggests the program was conceived in conformity with his thinking. The glorification of the patron, the central subject of the works, departs from the conventional religious content suggested for a church in the architectural treatise. For the content of the program and attribution and dating of the sculptures, consult Seymour, pp. 129-134, and p. 239 n. 6 and n. 8. While the projected inclusion of the sepulchers on the exterior of the building might also point to an affinity with the treatise, it is just as likely that medieval precedent accounts for their presence (Borsi, p. 135). The triumphal arch form of the facade might also point to a parallel with De re aedificatoria and the interest expressed there in such monuments (see below, n. 63).

28 Book VII, xvii, p. 161.

29 Book VII, xvii, p. 160. Discussion of the materials of sculpture is found also in De statua. Magnino, Julius Schlosser (La letturatura artistica, manuale delle fonti della storia dell'arte modema, 3rd ed., trans. Filippo Rossi [Florence and Vienna, 1967], p. 119 Google Scholar) has noted how the treatment of materials in De statua, especially the praise for bronze and marble, is dependent on Pliny. Wittkower, Consult Rudolf, Sculpture: Processes and Principles (New York and London, 1977), pp. 79–98 Google Scholar, for a general examination of the importance of Alberti's consideration of the materials and techniques of sculpture in the early Renaissance.

30 See above, n. 12.

31 Only Seymour, p. 6, has discussed this facet of Alberti's thought, but he does little more than to note that opportunities for the display of the triumphal art advocated by Alberti were rare. See Fiske Kimball, ‘Luciano Laurana and the “High Renaissance,“’ Art Bulletin, Io (1927-8), 125-150, for a brief discussion of how the triumphal monuments in the late quattrocento painting, View of an Ideal Town (Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery), derive from a description of such monuments in De re aedificatoria. See Haftmann, Werner, Das italienische Saiilenmonument (Leipzig and Berlin, 1939), p. 22 Google Scholar, for mention of Alberti's general importance in the Renaissance concept of the triumphal monument.

32 Book VII, xvi, p. 158.

33 Book VII, ii, p. 159.

34 Book VIII, iii, p. 167.

35 Book VII, xv, p. 159.

36 Book VIII, iv, p. 170.

37 Book VIII, vi, p. 175. A more conventional characterization of the monument is found in the Mirabilia Romae. Here the structure is described as being ‘made for the Emperor returning from triumph,’ and thus is seen to commemorate individual achievement, as it had for the ancients, and not depersonalized victory as in De re aedificatoria ( Scherer, Margaret R., Marvels of Ancient Rome [New York and London, 1955], p. 75 Google Scholar).

38 Book VIII, i, pp. 163-166. For an examination of the development of the fifteenth-century tomb monument see Pope-Hennessy, John, An Introduction to Italian Sculpture, III, Italian Renaissance Sculpture, 2nd ed. [London and New York, 1971], pp. 41–54 Google Scholar, and Panofsky, Erwin, Tomb Sculpture: Four Lectures in its Changing Aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bemini, ed. H. W. Janson [New York, 1964], pp. 72–93 Google Scholar. Neither author mentions Alberti's discussion of the sepulcher, but our understanding of the retrospective character of the Renaissance tomb is enhanced by this theoretical formulation.

39 Book VII, xvii, p. 161.

40 Grayson, Book II, p. 81.

41 The basic treatment of the relationship between Alberti and Vitruvius remains Krautheimer, ‘Alberti and Vitruvius.’ The social thrust that Alberti gives to architecture is viewed as a primary distinction between the two. For an opposing view, see Brown, F. E., ‘Vitruvius and the Liberal Art of Architecture,’ Bucknell Review, 2, No. 4 (1963), 99–107 Google Scholar.

42 The Ten Books on Architecture, trans. Morris Hickey Morgan (New York, i960), Book I, Vii, p. 31.

43 De re aedificatoria, Book VI, xiii, p. 130.

44 The Ten Books on Architecture, Book I, i, p. 6.

45 The Historia Naturalis was, generally, one of the most influential ancient texts for all aspects of Alberti's studies of art. As one index of Pliny's importance G. Mancini notes that Pliny is cited more often than any other writer in De re aedificatoria (Vita di Leon Battista Alberti, 2nded. [Florence, 1911], p. 355). One of the few books owned by Alberti noted in his will was his copy of the text (G. Mancini, ‘II testamento di Leon Battista Alberti,’ Archivio Storico Italiano, 72 [1914], 20). A note on Pliny's influence on the sculptural theory of the Renaissance is found in Seymour, p. 5 and p. 220, n. 5.

46 Janson, H. W., ‘The “Image Made by Chance” in Renaissance Thought,’ Sixteen Studies, pp. 53–74 Google Scholar.

47 Grayson, p. 9.

48 See Jex-Blake, K. and Sellers, E., The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art, rev. ed. (Chicago, 1968), XXXIV, pp. 29–35 Google Scholar.

49 Note in Pliny, for example, XXXIV, pp. 31-33. The organization of such passages is the same in the two texts. Alberti, like Pliny, moves from the discussion of the beginnings of a sculptural type, for example, the colossus, to a listing of the famous works of that genre.

50 Pliny's condemnation of the tendency in his time for sculptors to seek money rather than glory (XXXIV, p. 61), with a resulting decline in sculpture, might be likened to Alberti's criticism of sculptors who create works simply to make a ‘name famous’ (Book VIII, iii, p. 167).

51 Pliny, XXXIV, p. 15.

52 XXXIV, p. 21.

53 xxxiv, p. 19.

54 XXXIV, p. 61.

55 This is not the place to summarize the vast body of literature relating to civic humanism. For a critical discussion and summary of the latest writings, see Trinkaus, Charles, ‘Humanism, Religion, Society: Concepts and Motivation of Some Recent Studies,’ Renaissance Quarterly, 29, No. 4 (1976), 692–694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Among the most important defenses of the idea of Alberti as a civic humanist, see Garin, Eugenio, Italian Humanism: Philosophy and Civic Life in the Renaissance, trans. Peter Munz (Oxford, 1965), pp. 61–65 Google Scholar, and Holmes, George, The Florentine Enlightenment, 1400-50 (New York, 1969), pp. 137–145 Google Scholar. A more traditional presentation of Alberti as a man of letters who praised first a contemplative rather than an activist philosophy is found in Gadol, Joan, Leon Battista Alberti, Universal Man of the Early Renaissance (Chicago and London, 1969), pp. 213–243 Google Scholar.

The problem of reconciling these seemingly divergent thrusts of Alberti's thought is difficult. Recently, Garin himself has drawn back from his portrayal of Alberti as a civic humanist and has suggested that he be seen equally in many of his writings as a cynical misanthrope (‘Studi su Leon Battista Alberti,’ Rinascente e rivoluzioni [Rome and Bari, 1975], pp. 135—136). I am not certain that a resolution of these conflicting tendencies is possible. Alberti was a complex and not always consistent individual. There is, further, a strong rhetorical character in his work, and each of his writings must be understood in part as a “response to, and reflection of, an immediate context. Michael Baxandall, for example, has shown how this is true for De pictura (Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition, 1350-1450 [Oxford, 1971], pp. 125-129).

56 In De familia the good of the community is continually put forth as the highest form of good, and those who defend the community are viewed as model heroes. ‘Glory springs up in public squares,’ Alberti writes, ‘reputation is nourished by the voice and judgment of many persons of honor, and in the midst of the people’ (Book III, p. 169). And shortly before this famous passage, Alberti notes that a ‘good citizen loves tranquillity, but not so much his own tranquillity as that of other good men… . He desires the unity, calm, peace, and tranquillity of his own, but much more those of the country and of the republic’ (Book III, p. 169). These two statements can serve as a description of the nature of the hero commemorated by the Albertian triumphal monument. For a general study of Alberti's view of fame, see Michel, Alberti, pp. 579-592.

57 For an examination of the Oratorio Funebris, see Baron, Hans, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, rev. ed. (Princeton, 1966), pp. 412—414 Google Scholar and 429—430. Bruni's own belief that art should have an ‘import worthy of memory’ (Baxandall, Giotto, pp. 19-20) suggests a compatibility with the general meaning of Alberti's triumphal art.

58 Trinkaus, Charles, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought (London, 1970), I, 258 Google Scholar.

59 Baxandall, Giotto, pp. 53-58. In the chapter on sculpture from De remediis utriusque fortunae, that type of ancient sculpture intended to honor those who had done ‘worthy deeds’ was advanced as the highest form of art (Baxandall, p. 57). For a general treatment of Pliny's importance in the Renaissance idea of progress and of fame achieved through, and commemorated by, art, see Gombrich, Ernst, ‘The Renaissance Conception of Artistic Progress and its Consequences,’ Norm and Form (London, 1966), pp. 3–5 Google Scholar.

60 Lionello Venturi, History of Art Criticism, trans. Charles Marriott (New York, 1964), pp. 72-74, and Baxandall, Giotto, pp. 76-78. For Villani the idea of fame, as it related to the arts, was concerned in large part with the renown that artists bring to the city.

61 Schlosser, Julius v., Leben und Meinungen des florentinischen Bildners Lorenzo Ghiberti (Basel, 1941), pp. 74 Google Scholar, 171, and 190, and Krautheimer, Ghiberti, I, 315-334. For a brief note on the importance of Pliny for Ghiberti's theory, see Chastel, André, Art et humanisme à Florence au temps de Laurent le Magnifique (Paris, 1961), p. 92 Google Scholar.

62 Weiss, Classical Antiquity, pp. 59-70.

63 For the development of the equestrian statue and its relation to the ideal of the commemoration of fame, see H. W. Janson, ‘The Equestrian Monument from Cangrande della Scala to Peter the Great,’ Sixteen Studies, pp. 159-188. Alberti, surprisingly, does not mention the equestrian figure among the examples of triumphal monuments discussed in De re aedificatoria despite his earlier advisory work in 1444 on the equestrian monument raised in memory of Niccolo III d'Este ( Venturi, Adolfo, ‘Un opera sconosciuta di Leon Battista Alberti,’ L'Arte, 17 [1914], 153–156 Google Scholar). The integration of a triumphal arch with the Este monument reminds us that it was Alberti who made the triumphal arch an essential element in Renaissance architecture. On the use of the triumphal arch in Alberti's architecture, see Wittkower, Architectural Principles, pp. 33—49. For the relation between Pliny and the revival of the portrait bust, see Pope-Hennessy, John, The Portrait in The Renaissance (New York, 1966), pp. 71–72 Google Scholar. Consult also Lavin, Irving, ‘On the Sources and Meaning of the Renaissance Portrait Bust,’ Art Quarterly, 33, No. 3 (1970), 207–226 Google Scholar.

64 Weiss, Classical Antiquity, pp. 59-72. For some examination of the specific ramifications that this more precise archaeological attitude had on sculpture and sculptural theory, see Krautheimer, Ghiberti, I, 277-305.

65 As Alberti notes in De re aedificatoria, from ancient buildings ‘one can learn a great deal as from the best masters’ (Book VII, i, p. 133), and in his own career in such disparate roles as architect and map-maker, this conviction in the direct study of antique monuments was borne out. Krautheimer characterizes Alberti as follows: ‘Unlike his fellow humanists … he drew on another source as well [in addition to the writings of the ancients]: the monuments of ancient architecture which he knew in Rome and elsewhere’ (‘Alberti and Vitruvius,’ p. 325).