275

[Fortsetzung von S. 274]

navigation and agriculture, whether antique, medieval or contemporary. The resulting summa of technical-scientific knowledge leads us to presume that his work was aimed at readers who were cultured and erudite. Thus, once again, despite the use of the vernacular and the abundance of illustrations, the main public to whom a work on architectural theory was destined was not one of artisans.

Kommentar: Wie will man das beweisen? Über den Preis?

This is true at least for the first edition, a luxury folio volume of high price. In the second vernacular edition of 1567, the reduction to quarto and the simplification of text and illustrations (D'Evelin Muther 1994, 355–66) probably signal the start of a `second phase' in Barbaro's project, a phase in which he seems to address himself to readers more interested in architectural practice. It is significant, however, that this revision follows rather than preceds the version for Venice's nobility-rulers-patrons.

For in 1556 Barbaro had consciously addressed the nobility of Venice, as shown by the wide coverage of specifically Venetian 'institutional' themes in the commentary – namely, the problems of the defence of the Serenissima's frontiers, of the Arsenale, of the silting of the lagoon, and of the Republic's building traditions (Tafuri 1987a, XXII–XXIV). These themes were, however, partially abridged for the 1567 Latin edition destined for a `European' public (Morresi 197, XLI–LIII). Characteristically it is in the violent criticisms aimed at Venetian tradition that the patriarch elect reveals the final aim of his project: 'And if they [the Venetian people] think that their houses, as usually built, should be considered exemplary, they are greatly mistaken, because in fact this custom is exceedingly bad and faulty' [EN 9] (Barbaro 1556, 179 [my italics]). Barbaro's target it the type of the noble house/fondaco

Kommentar: Ist ein venezianischer 'fondaco' nicht ein öffentliches Handelshaus? Der Fondaco dei Tedeschi ist bspw. gerade kein Privathaus!

which had remained unchanged for centuries, with its tripartite structure revealed on the façade regardless of the stylistic 'clothing' in which the building was dressed, whether Byzantine, Gothic or proto-humanist. His famous reconstruction of the antique domus – in which, following Alberti and Cesariano, the atrium and cavedium are identified as parts of a single courtyard (plate 3) – was therefore intended for educational purposes: namely to teach the antique style to a hostile Republic (Tafuri 1987a, XXIV).

Extending this educational aim to the whole work, it is possible to identify in it a far broader polemical aspect. […]