Tafuri's Renaissance: Architecture, Representation, Transgression

Author(s): Daniel Sherer

Source: Assemblage, No. 28, (Dec., 1995), pp. 34-45
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171448
Accessed: 01/07/2008 12:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
 ' \
:E1
1. Marcantonio Raimondi after
Giulio Romano, I Modi, 1524,
position 5
Daniel Sherer has just completed his
Ph.D., "The Curious Eye: Anamorphosis
and the Beholder from Leonardo to
Holbein," in the Department of Fine Arts
at HarvardUniversity.His translationof
and introduction to Manfredo Tafuri's
Ricercadel Rinascimentois forthcoming
from Yale UniversityPress.
Assemblage 28: 34-45 ? 1996 by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Daniel
Tafuri's
Architecture,
Representation,
Transgression
In every era the attempt must be made to
wrest tradition away from a conformism
that is about to overpower it.
Walter Benjamin, Theses on The
Philosophy of History, 1940
A theory does not totalize: it is an
instrument for multiplication and it also
multiplies itself. It is in the nature of
power to totalize and it is your position,
and one I fully agree with, that theory is
by nature opposed to power.
Michel Foucault in conversation with
Gilles Deleuze, 4 March1972
In his 1989 essayon Giulio Romano,
ManfredoTafuri comparesthe licenza of
Giulio's architectureto the "licentious-
ness"of the print series titled, with pro-
vocative brevity,I Modi: portrayalsof
multiple variationsof sexual activityex-
ecuted by MarcantonioRaimondi after
original designs by Giulio.1 Emphasizing
Giulio's deliberateadoption of a classical
vocabularyof forms,Tafuri exposes a
subtle discrepancybetween the subject
of I Modi and its figurativecodes. This
divaricazionelends the printsa dimension
beyond the sexual:a pervasiveironythat,
in the end, makes them "neithererotic
nor pornographic,"but indicatorsof a
precise critical purpose. Documents of the
35
Sherer
Renaissance:
mentalityof sixteenth-centuryelites,
these images contain "possibleanticleri-
cal implications"and formulateaesthetic
alternativesto courtlymodes of self-
control.2Indeed, the transgressivecharge
of these printsdoes not derive from their
salacious content alone; it depends on
the clash between their subject matter
and a refined, classicizing style. Instead
of articulatingan explicit refusalof the
humanist ideal of decorum - the "fit"
of expressivemeans to expressedcontent
- this strategyof internalcontradiction
exposes decorum to its limit. Giulio thus
adumbratesa figurativecode that raises
infractionof received aesthetic values to
the level of an aesthetic principle.
Tafuri insertsthe printswithin the stud-
ied equilibrium between norm and
transgressionthat marksthe boldest
moments of Giulio's architecturaltrajec-
tory.3In his discussion of Palazzo Te, he
stressesthe balance struckin this edifice
between language and counterlanguage.
There, the ludic varietasof Giulio's
linguistic combinations (especially in
the gardenfacade of the east wing,
whose serlianeabruptlytransforma
series of columns into a series of pilas-
ters) defies classical ratio by employing a
curious admixtureof classical elements.4
Through the unashameditineraryof I

2. Giulio Romano, Palazzo Te, Mantua,
eastern wing, ca. 1532-35, detail of
facade
assemblage 28
Modi and the meticulous "systemof
violations"of PalazzoTe, Tafuri charts
the emergence of antinormativeimpulses
within a capriciousall'antica style:one
that methodicallyunravelsits own order
in a kind of ecstatic classicism.
Tafuri'sanalysisof Giulio providesa test
case for a more ample historical process
studied in the last book he wrote before
he died, Ricercadel Rinascimento:
Principi,citta, architetti.5Its central
thesis is that in the Renaissance norms of
architecturalrepresentationwere based
on license and transgression.6Tafuri's
study elucidates the relationshipbe-
tween architectureand society through
an analysisof period mentalities, aes-
thetic forms, and the politics of patron-
age; exhibiting a wider cast of characters
and informed by a more ambitious
scope, it is like the Giulio article writ
large. As in his earlier investigations,
Tafuri discovershistorical value in archi-
tecture by isolating its extra-architectural
affiliations:ideological imperatives,
moments of political resistance,diffuse
mental habits.7In this, Tafuri engages in
a mode of researchcharacteristicof his
work. Indeed, it is typical of this histo-
rian to expose the discourse running just
beneath the surface of architectural
representation- a sort of architectural
"preconscious"- not by appealing to
the traditionalapparatusof contextual
analysisbut by adopting a critical proce-
dure that makes architecturethe focal
point of "polycentric"investigations.8
For the reader,the multifarious(and at
times contradictory)directions of this
project might prove daunting, if not
bewildering. But Tafuri is sure to illumi-
nate the labyrinthhe constructswith
bold clarificationsthat reveal its internal
structure.Because of these, the reader
becomes something like the ideal viewer
36
of Piranesi'sCarcerid'invenzionethat
Tafuri analyzed in La sferae il labrinto
(1980).9 For, just when the Piranesian
"voyage"seems to have ended nowhere,
disorienting the spectatorwho tries to view
the immense monument from an external
standpoint, an internal panoramasuddenly
opens, revealing that one has not yet left
the architecturalcosmos.At these points
what does one see? An infinite regressof
repressiveinstruments,a mise-en-abymein
which architecture is absorbedwithin
institutions and practices as questionable
as they are pervasive.From this optic,
Tafuri'sposition becomes clear, and one
sees how political and social strategiesdo
not vitiate, but ratherenhance, the power
of architecture to shape history.
Hence, it is not surprisingthat, in the
Ricerca,Tafuri opens the field of inquiry
- Renaissance architecture and its histo-
ries, from the Rome of Leo X to the
Venice of Andrea Gritti, from the Flo-
rence of Lorenzo the Magnificent to the
Spain of Charles V - to specific analyses
that expose the hidden implications of its
objects. This move refractsthe Renais-
sance into a multiplicity of moments,
revealing the scope of conflict that ani-
mates the architecturalfield. Conceived
historicallyas well as critically, this field,
for Tafuri, comprises different cultural
contexts and ideological networkscondi-
tioning architecture'sgenesis and recep-
tion. Thus Tafuri demonstratesthat under
humanism, representationenjoyed its
greatesttriumph, since its ambivalent
returnto the classical legacy - one that
investigatedthe internal logic of the ob-
ject, while placing this inquiry at the
disposal of power - still has consequences
that shape and disturbthe present.
In this, Tafuri paysclose attentionto the
interactionof longue dureeand histoire
evenementielle,using the reciprocityof

continuity and discontinuityas an effective
analyticinstrument.In fact, in the last
phases of his researchinto the Renais-
sance, from L'armoniae i conflitti (1983)
onward,'?Tafuri drew equally on the
annales tradition- Lucien Febvremore
than Marc Bloch," and especially Carlo
Ginzburgand JacquesLe Goff12 - and
on Foucault'snotion of episteme,mediated
throughthe readingsof his friend Massimo
Cacciari.'3Within these critical param-
etersTafuri addressedthe legacy of Rudolf
Wittkower.14 Tafurithus recastthe "archi-
tecturalprinciples in the age of human-
ism"by inscribingin them the clash of
formsand ideologies, the collusion of
patronsand architects,the imbricationof
urbanspace and specific projects,with
referenceto exchangesbetween "mean-
ing" and architecture.(Here one senses
not only Wittkower'spresence, but
Panofsky'sas well.)15Hence, Tafurifused
analysisof the ideological motivations
behind the theories, typologies,and prac-
tices of architecturefrom the Quattrocento
to the Cinquecento with the Saussurean
paradigmof langue and parole.As a conse-
quence of this conjunction of critical
forces, the historian'sword enters into
dialectical relationshipwith the architec-
turallanguagesof the past, making explicit
the structureof their codes.'6
The problem of language had, of course,
informedhis workon the Renaissance
from the mid-1960s onward,from
L'architetturadel manierismo(1966) to
L'architetturadell'umanesimo(1969), as it
did when Tafuri took the entire complex
of architecturalrepresentationas his
subject in Teoriee storiad'architettura
(1968).'7This study,which relies on a
structuralistMarxismreorientedby "op-
erative"positions articulatedby Aldo
Rossi, is generallyseen as Tafuri'smost
importanttheoretical statement.Yet it is
not this text, but ratherthe more histori-
Sherer
cally specific article "DiscordantHar-
mony from Albertito Zuccari"(1979) that
offersthe most effective means of access
to the itineraryof the Ricerca.A critique
of Wittkowerpervadesthe entire essay.18
Ratherthan attemptingto verifythe prees-
tablishedharmonybetween Renaissance
theories of proportionand architecture,as
Wittkowerdid, Tafuri focuses on ideologi-
cal tensions traversingan architectural
practice caught up in a restlessstruggle
with its own forms.These tensions caused
the period resaedificatoriato detach itself
graduallyfrom institutionalcodes of
meaning. In this analysis,Tafuri is as
implicitly "musical"in his objectivesas
he is explicitly linguistic in his methods.
His goal, then, as in the Ricerca,is to
isolate the gaps and silences peculiar to
architectureand to bring them to lan-
guage by combining historicaland theo-
retical inquiry.'9But one can also discern
an importantshift between the 1979 essay
and the subsequent study.Though Tafuri
continues to stressthe importanceof
formal experiment, in the Ricercahis
focus shiftsfrom semantic ambiguities
engendered by such investigationsto the
waysin which architecturalsignification
is mediated by institutionalframeworks
and manifest in political strategies.Im-
plicit in this play of forces, Tafuri argues,
is a trenchantcriticism of established
codes and languages.Thus architecture,
by constitutiona mute art, is prompted
by the historianto speakof the conflicts
that attended its genesis by a processof
risignificazione- the deployment of
unprecedented modes of representation
able to imbue space (especially urban
space) with explosive political meanings.20
Tafuri'sRenaissanceis thus not a unitary
history,an imposing edifice to be visited
by reverentartpilgrimsor blinkered
positivists.It is an ongoing hermeneutic, a
ricercain the fullest sense of the term
37
(which can be translatedeither as "in-
quiry"or "research").For Cacciari, "it is
much more than an inquiryinto the Re-
naissance;it is the vision of the Renais-
sance as inquiry."2'Tafuri'sunderstanding
of this pivotalperiod is motivatedby his
conception of architectureas a paradoxical
project,entangled in its own antinomies.
An autonomous critical activityshaped by
the internallogic of ricerca,it is, at the
same time, a heteronomousinstrumentof
representationconditioned by external
political pressures.
To addressthe problem of architecture's
dual constitutionas object of inquiryand
as social practice,Tafurifocuses on the
predicamentof the Renaissancearchitect,
who was caught between the tasksof mak-
ing his projectconform to a transcendent
idea and adaptingthe exigencies of his
workto those of power.22Here Tafuri'skey
concept, the idea of traditio,assertsitself
most forcefullyin his text;for it is tradition
that mediates between the poles of repre-
sentationand transgressionin the Ricerca:
"the idea - perfect music of the created
-cannot be reproduced.But it can be
represented:in this sense, the interpreta-
tions it receives, by definition imperfect,
are capable of giving rise to a 'chain' that is
virtuallyinfinite. Though the idea per se is
unattainable,the architectcan approachit
througha processof refraction,experi-
ment, and perpetualinquiry [ricerca]."23
Thus, for Tafuri, tradition,which bears
within itself the potential of betrayingthe
model (tradire)as well as that of transmit-
ting it to future generations (tradere),
providesthe nodal point that drawsrepre-
sentation and transgressioninto architec-
ture. More precisely, Tafuri'sconcept of
Renaissance architectureas perpetual
exchange between order and metamor-
phosis, appropriationand resistance,
traditionand experiment, raisesthe prob-

lem of understandingthe architectural
past through the cultural present (and
vice versa). Thus the critical study of
traditiondirects inquiry to the receptions
of architecturallegacies and articulatesa
"dialogue with the [present]age of repre-
sentation."This approach "marshalsthe
weak force"of historical analysisagainst
those who understandthe mneme of
architectureto be a linear progressionor,
even worse, a stimulus for nostalgias(of
either the Right or the Left).24
For Tafuri,the applicationof what one has
learned from contemporaryarchitectureto
the studyof the past of the discipline is
essentialto the progettostorico,the project
of historicalcomprehensionitself.5 Criti-
cal analysisinformedby the concerns of
the presentis (as Benjamin knew so well)
the most effective means of resistingthe
ideological abuse of the past.26Only in
brushinghistoryagainstthe grain, in
scrutinizingthe discontinuities,gaps, and
discrepancieshabituallyglossed over by
conventional narratives,can one compre-
hend architectureas a field of force com-
bining a pluralityof temporalorders.
Brunelleschiprovidesa case in point. One
would think that this figure could lend the
Renaissancethe statusof an incontrovert-
ible culturalfact, a humanistintervention
separatingthe congeries of the medieval
city from the rationalized,perspectival
mise-en-sceneof the Quattrocento.But
this is not so. Tafuri'sBrunelleschi,like his
Renaissancegenerally,conflatesthe dy-
namics of social deception with those of
aesthetic representation,the claim to
autonomyfor the architecturalobject with
the elaborationof this object within urban
space. For Tafuri,Brunelleschi'sradical
innovationhad a distinct condition of
possibility:a dialectical temporalitysuper-
imposing returnand novitas.Architectural
modernityfollowed from his criticalactu-
assemblage 28
alization of the antique lexicon. Hence, in
Teoriee storia,Brunelleschiattemptsto
resista linear historicismby articulatinga
strategyof dehistoricization,which, for all
that, is not averseto historicistcitations
all'antica, but is drivenforwardby them.2
Driven forward,yet inextricablybound to
Florence: in this paradoxicalsense,
Brunelleschi'sadherence to classical
languagebecomes crucial to any under-
standingof the explosiveforces his archi-
tecture unleashed within the preexisting
urbanfabric.By employing fragmentsof
antique syntax,this architectadumbrated
a future rationalitywhile recallinga classi-
cal paradigmthat had been largelyerased
in the medieval period.
As Tomas Llorenshas observed,Tafuri
read Brunelleschi throughhis own experi-
ence of Rossi, with whom he was closely
associatedin the late 1960s in connection
with the metodologiadella progettazione
stakedout in the pages of Casabella.28But
it is through Rossi'sarchitecturalproduc-
tion, not only his theoryof the city, that
Tafuri reinterpretedBrunelleschi. Like
Rossi,Tafuri'sBrunelleschi intertwines
geometric anonymityand urbantexture,
"autonomousand absolute architectural
objects"and a deeply ambivalenthistori-
cist vision of modernity.29
Tafuri exposesthe hidden implicationsof
Brunelleschi'suse of the instrumentsof
representationby analyzingthe roles the
architectassumed in a little-known
Quattrocentotext, the Novella del Grasso
legnaiolo.30In this text, Brunelleschi
deceives a carpenternamed Grasso
with the help of a group of conniving
Florentine artists.Justas Brunelleschithe
inventorof linear perspectiveinaugurated
the credible representationof nonexistent
space, Brunelleschi the deceiver of Grasso
leads the carpenterto believe that he had
become a nonexistentperson. In the first
38
case, the perspectivalmise-en-scene
defamiliarizesthe planarobject by imbuing
it with the illusion of depth, therebyunfold-
ing a "secondreality"of representations
before the public; in the second, the public
playsalong with the game of representation,
duping one of its members by grantinghim
a "secondpersonality"familiarto everyone
except himself. In both instances,the social
uses of mimesis give rise to a duplicate that
challenges the existence of the original.By
forcing the hapless Grassoto recount the
storyof his own alienation, and hence
relive it, the Brunelleschi of the Novella del
Grassoassumesthe guise of someone who,
by adoptinga calculating rationality,revels
in the absorptionof the individualwithin a
bewilderingplay of replications.31Implicit
in this readingis not only a daringanalogy
between aesthetic representationsand
strategiesof social mimesis that function by
interiorizingdelusions, but also a sortof
grudgingadmirationfor a figure whose
position in the historyof artand architec-
ture is so central that it is difficult to prop-
erly assess.In this analysis,one also can
detect a critique of power that has the abuse
of representationas its object: for Tafuri,
the transgressiveforce of Brunelleschi, his
abilityto install new symbolic codes within
the space of the medieval city, is not with-
out sinisterimplications.
At the veryleast the Ricerca,like Teoriee
storiabefore, strivesto capturethe uncom-
promisingmodernityof Brunelleschi's
approachto the problem of forginga new
architecturallanguage. Unlike Alberti,with
whom he is frequentlyassociatedas co-
inauguratorof the all'antica language,
Brunelleschiidentifies architecturewith the
object itself, not with a theoreticalproject
whose practicalimplicationswere inflected
in unexpected directionsby local idioms.
Hence, for Tafuri, Brunelleschi'sinterven-
tion could reconfigurean entire urban

systemmore effectivelythan Alberti's,just
as in the Novella, Brunelleschi the capri-
cious trickstercan pit the forces of society
againstthe individual,undermininghis
autonomy.32In both cases, as manipulator
of signs, Brunelleschi is relentless,leaving
nothing as it was before.
In the intellectual economy of the
Ricerca,the difference between these
figures plays a decisive role in the histori-
cal process Tafuri traces. This process
accords distinct functions to representa-
tion (one more critical, the other more
ideological) that derive from the different
stances these architects took towardthe
architecturalpast. Whereas Tafuri high-
lights Brunelleschi's great engineering
feat, the cupolone of Santa Maria del
Fiore, and his machinations in connec-
tion with Grasso, it is Alberti'srefusal to
participatein the reconstruction of Saint
Peter'sthat capturesthe historian'satten-
tion.33If Alberti looked askance at papal
building programs(he felt they betrayed
the traditionsof primitive Christianity,
which rejected magnificence), Brunel-
leschi did not hesitate to alter the entire
aspect of medieval Florence with his
cupola nor subject those who defied him
(at least according to the tale of Grasso)
to a mode of representationthat annihi-
lates its referent.34While Alberti stands
for the "'asif' of the disenchanted sub-
ject" who tries to resist the reduction of
ratio to techniques of social domination,
the same cannot be said for Brunel-
leschi.35For this architect used his ratio-
nality to awe an entire city and to
"expropriate"another self.36One might
even compare Filippo's strategyto the
architecturalmagnificence that Nicholas
V employed to "stupefy"the public when
he decided to rebuild St. Peter's.
Yet it is only with Bramanteand, in his
wake, Raphael, Giulio Romano, Peruzzi,
Sherer
and Serlio, and, in the Veneto, with the
conflict over the administrationof
Bramante'slegacy between Palladio and
Sansovino, that the tension between the
new "figurativeepisteme"heralded by the
return to the antique and the emergence
of a capricious licenza reveals its full
implications.37This license is not con-
fined to a period that has usually been
presented from the nebulous optic of
mannerism; it animates the length and
breadthof Renaissance architecture and
has crucial analogues in antiquity.At
best, these are partialmodels, not pure
sources, since the Renaissance figurative
epistemewas based on the impossible 3. BaldassarePeruzzi, project for San
attempt to restorethe architecturalpast to Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Rome, 1518-19,
a pristine condition. Albertiantheory,
plan
which fixed the ethical limits of techne
while disclosing its practical potentials for
architecture, obstructed its realization;
the liberties with regardto Vitruvian
precept taken by Bramanteand Raphael,
and, most clamorously, by Peruzzi give
the lie to the conventional historiographi-
cal notion that a "golden age" of classi-
cism was followed by a "laceratingcrisis"
in codes of representation.38The project
of exploring antiquity that appropriated
its survivingfragments,"alienated"its
architecturalgrammar,and placed its
components in new contexts, demon-
stratesthat humanist architecture per se
"expresseda refined and ardent equilib-
rium between a search for rules and the
experimental impulse."39Thus, in
Tafuri'sscheme, the "heterodoxspatial-
ity"that marksPeruzzi's project U 510 Ar
for San Giovanni dei Fiorentini embod-
ies a sprezzatura,a studied carelessness,
that abandoned classical rule in appear- 4. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger,
ance only. But this does not mean that study for an ordine unica to accompany a
the inventive capacity of Cinquecento commentary on Vitruvius,De
Architectura, 1542
architects was diminished by theoretical
reflection on the classical (and particu-
larly the Vitruvian) legacy. Far from it.
39

For instance, it is probable that in
connection with a planned Vitruvian
commentary,Antonio da Sangallo the
Younger invented a kind of ordineunica:
a Doric capital that suddenly becomes
Ionic then Corinthian. The accompany-
ing text explains:"Asone can see here,
these capitals are generated out of each
other."40Ratherthan inhibiting linguistic
experimentation,then, the Vitruvian
legacy served to stimulate it.
The attention that Tafuri lavishes
throughout the Ricercaon exchanges
between architecturaltheory and practice
in the Renaissance is matched in its
constancy only by an approachwith
which, more than any other, his name
has been associated:the historyof the
theory of language as a critical paradigm
for analyzing architecture. In this respect,
it is not so much a turn to Barthes,the
nouvelle critique,or the structuralistor
post-structuralistclimates of thought that
is at issue (though, of course, these cul-
tural presences were crucial for Tafuri, if
only as foils for his own historical criti-
cism).41Of more immediate moment for
his conception of the Renaissance is
"periodlanguage theory."For Tafuri, the
citation of precise aesthetic parameters,
such as those laid down by Castiglione,
within a discussion of Giulio's sprez-
zatura is not as promising as a parallel
analysisof linguistic theory and the prac-
tice of architecturefrom 1515 to 1540.
(Implicit in both is the problem of mul-
tiple models.) In this connection, he cites
Sperone Speroni, whose "Dialogo della
lingua," written between 1538 and 1539,
advocated the thesis of a naturallanguage
that spontaneouslycreates mimetic links
between things, while assertingthe im-
possibility of its recuperation. Speroni
explicitly compares the lost perfection of
this language to the irretrievable
assemblage 28
exemplumof classical architecture.42By
adducing this kind of evidence, Tafuri
does not force comparisonsbetween
cultural domains that had nothing to do
with each other. Instead, he tries to ex-
pose specific points of articulationbe-
tween theories and practices within the
same linguistic and conceptual en-
semble.43Here, too, his method is not
inspired by the discredited attempt to
trace "influences."44In fact, he specifi-
cally warnsagainst this naive historio-
graphical model: "instead,we can best
explore this terrainby using the concept
of diffuse mentalities as our guide:
metalanguagesobliquely traversingthe
spaces of architecturallanguage, deter-
mining their organizationand liberating
their potentials."45In the case of the
transgressiveimpulses that inform
Giulio's architectureand prints, these,
too, might be affiliatedwith so many
"metalanguages"that traversethe space of
representation.Giulio, then, need not
have been "influenced"by Castiglione's
concept of sprezzaturaor by the innova-
tive linguistic potentialities of abusione.
From this example it is clear that Tafuri's
"polycentric"analysis,which differenti-
ates the field of the figurativeepistemeby
isolating specific linguistic structuresand
emancipatorymoments that appear in
them, avoids an ingenuous, totalizing
Kulturgeschichte.For if Tafuri cites the
notion of a "syntax"of thought and action
informing differentaspects of a given
culture, this recalls the concept of par-
ticular "mental habits"that Panofskyused
to connect Gothic architectureto scho-
lasticism,46not the universalizingclaims
of Hegel's philosophy of history.47
Moreover,affinities with the early
Panofsky,the Panofskyof "Perspective
as 'Symbolic Form"'(1925), are self-
evident.48Tafuri'sassimilation of this
40
moment in Panofsky'sintellectual trajec-
tory helped him graspthe decisive inter-
relationshipbetween metaphysical ideas
in the Renaissance, specific techniques of
architecturalrepresentation,and ideo-
logical strategiesimpinging on both. In
the case of Peruzzi's approach to the
Pantheon as model, not to mention the
one formulated by Antonio da Sangallo
the Younger (in both cases, with refer-
ence to the project for San Giovanni
dei Fiorentini, the parish church for
Florentine nationals living in Rome),
the need to recuperate the antique as
eidos and the impulse to correct the
classical inheritance by recourse to sym-
bolic codes conditioned by metaphysical
constructsreinforce one another.49In
1518-19 neither Peruzzi nor his rival
Antonio chose to subject the Pantheon to
the humanist rhetoricalstrategyof aemu-
latio. Quite the opposite: their approach
to the antique model implied a ruthless
critique. "The antique is assimilated as a
manifestationof a 'hidden' truth that is
concealed by imperfections that are
merely human. Not the antique, but the
eidos manifest through it, is, in the end,
the ideal model."50In this sense, it is the
taskof the "moderns"to "renderthe
antique perfectlyAntique."This meant
not to imitate it slavishly,but to emend its
errorsby using the absolute idea of classi-
cal architecture as their guide.
One might ask how architecture'spoliti-
cal dimension fits into this approach. In
fact, a close political analysiswas implicit
from the outset, since Tafuri made sure
to point out that San Giovanni dei
Fiorentini played a decisive role in the
alliance Leo X forged between the figura-
tive cultures of Florence and Rome after
his elevation to the Papacy.51Yet it is not
his focus on Medicean strategy,but his
new interpretationof Alberti that best

exemplifies his discoveryof the concealed
political implications of architecture.
What is new about this interpretationis
Alberti himself: indeed, Leon Battista
becomes almost unrecognizable for those
used to more conventional approachesto
his achievement.52One had alwaysbeen
aware of Alberti'spitiless irony, his mas-
sive erudition, his status and sensibility as
exile; but now one discoversthat in De
Porcariconiuratione(1453), a text that
Nicholas V commissioned from Alberti to
recount the revolt of Stefano Porcari,the
humanist subtly undermines the "offi-
cial" version of the story.53Emphasizing
Alberti'sskillful use of indirect discourse,
which ensured Porcari'sheterodox politi-
cal ideas a place in the narrative,Tafuri
argues that by adopting this strategyLeon
Battistamanaged to expresssympathyfor
Porcari (an extraordinaryfigure who
attempted to overthrowthe Papacy and
establish a secular republic in its place).
Thus the speeches function as a gesture
of solidaritywith the vanquished revolu-
tionary. Discovering half-effacedlinks
between Cola di Rienzo's legacy, con-
flicts between the Comune and the
Papacy under Nicholas, and Alberti's
seething discontent, in Tafuri'stext the
"silence"within which the humanist
enveloped his real political intentions
suddenly releases its messages. In
"DiscordantHarmony from Alberti to
Zuccari,"Tafuri intimates that Leon
Battistacondemned architecture to si-
lence, and in so doing, secretly under-
mined the relationship between practice
and theory for the rest of the Quattro-
cento.54Now, in the Ricerca,one finds a
political explanation for this silence: a
tacit second-orderdiscourse, replete with
republican memories and a pointed
critique of the Papacy, that infiltratesthe
text written by the papal advisorwho had
been ordered to recount the triumph of
Sherer
the Church militant. Similarly, and
persuasively,Tafuri cites the statements
recorded in Giannozzo Manetti's biogra-
phy of Nicholas. These recall the Pope's
strategicobjective in undertakingthe
urban projects that he fostered:total
social stupefaction.55Here ecclesiastical
architecture, deployed as an instrument
of social control, utilized pagan forms for
the same reason the Pope employed
humanists:to place the potentially dan-
gerous heritage of pagan antiquity at the
service of a Christian mass projection. In
this analysis,Tafuri'stext bristleswith
Nietzschean reminiscences, and one
recalls his decisive encounter with
Foucault's leftist-Nietzschean critique of
Christianityand Cacciari's highly origi-
nal readingsof Thus Spoke Zarathustra.56 5. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger,
project for San Giovanni dei Fiorentini,
Here, too, one is reminded of Tafuri's 1518-19, plan
own Nietzschean remarkson the use and
abuse of historyand on current misun-
derstandingsof the legacy of the Renais-
sance. In Tafuri's reading of the present
situation, those who argue that the roots
of culture have been excised, and that a
"mnemic therapy"is the ordredu jour,
have missed the point: for this sort of
forced anamnesis "often produces mon-
tages that emit ambiguous messages."57
In an apt and courageous critique, Tafuri
does not spare the conservatives,who
yearn for an idealized past, nor the
equally misguided prophets of
postmodernity,who dehistoricize the
present. If the former exclude from his-
tory everythingthat contradictstheir
prejudices, the latter revel in the phe-
nomenon of representationas such,
enveloping the historical origins of the
crises of contemporaryculture in "clouds
of anesthetic smoke."58Displacing these 6. Antonio Labacco,engraving after an
false answers,Tafuri offers new conjec- original design by Antonio da Sangallo
tures based on careful readings of the the Younger, project for San Giovanni
political implications of cultural forms. dei Fiorentini, 1552, facade
41

In this he focuses on reversalsof value
(sudden or gradual) intrinsic to their
receptions. This approachavoids the
aforementioned ideological tranquilizers,
exposing nostalgic illusions while turning
historiographyinto a critique of institu-
tions and the representationsthey utilize.
From this standpoint, the decline of the
auratic work of art, the logic of represen-
tation that annihilates the referent,and
the proliferationof mimesis derive (albeit
by different routes) from the impossible
dream of restoringthe eidos of the an-
tique to architecturebetween 1450 and
1550. These different aspects of what
Robert Klein has called the "anguishof
reference"reflect a complex epistemo-
logical process that undermined as many
established techniques of representation
and as many uses and abuses of historyas
they perpetuated.59
To be sure, no victory (least of all a par-
tial victory) is permanent. In an expressly
Benjaminian mode, Tafuri comments:
"Nor is it legitimate for the historian to
identify with the victors - a vice that
complements the apologia for present-day
conditions that is, lamentably, still quite
active. Nothing is given as past. The
temporal order of historyis by its consti-
tution hybrid."60
Though the restless
search for new architecturalforms is
linked to the exposure of ideological
pressuresthat inform representation,this
does not mean that the architect'sun-
aided ricercacan consistently resistthese
pressures.61This taskfalls to the historian,
whose critical activitycasts new light on
the landscape of past architecture, liberat-
ing its suppressedpolitical valences.
(This emancipatoryaspect of his work,
incidentally, gives the lie to the facile and
widespreadmisreadingof Tafuri as a
pessimist who sees no hope for architec-
ture.) To these ends, Tafuri, like Carlo
Ginzburg, searches for evidence of ten-
assemblage 28
sion beneath the smooth surface of the
monument or the placid certainties of
supposedly "neutral"histories.62Though
this evidence is not positivisticallygiven,
it can be interpretedonce the historian
isolates the codes of representationthat
pertain to it.63Certainly, this is a different
Renaissance than the one founded on
Wittkower'sserene, transparent"prin-
ciples." Despite their elusiveness, these
principia claimed immediately to disclose
the philosophical implications of archi-
tecture to architects and historiansin
1949 - the year the ArchitecturalPrin-
ciples in the Age of Humanism appeared
- as they once did to Daniele Barbaro,
who "undera Renaissance dome ...
could experience a faint echo of the
inaudible music of the spheres."64
As alreadyseen, Tafuri'sRenaissance
"edifice"resoundswith other, more
conflictual echoes. Yet these, too, would
not have been possible without
Wittkower'sharmonies.Like the Renais-
sance architectshe studies,Tafuri subjects
his model to a dual strategyof tradereand
tradire.The Ricercathus "betrays"the
ArchitecturalPrinciplesby actualizing its
critical potentialsin salutaryand unex-
pected ways.This is at least partof the
reasonwhy the two historiansoffer radi-
cally differentconclusions while moving
from inherentlysimilarpremises.Among
the latter,the most conspicuous is the
conviction that the historyand theoryof
architectureare methodologicallyinsepa-
rable;a close second, that architecture,
though intimatelyconnected to wider
processesof culturalsignification,can
hardlybe reduced to them. Given the
presentsituation, it seems fair to say that
these historiographical"principles"are as
necessarynow as they were in 1949, if not
more so.
42
Notes
Mythanksto JamesAckerman for
his criticisms;
HowardBurnsforhis
assistanceat crucialpoints;Scott
Cohenforhis analysisof Giulio
RomanoandAntonioda Sangallo
theYoungerandforhis painstaking
readingof the firstdraft;Francesco
dalCo forhis stimulating insights
intoTafuri'shistoriographical prin-
ciples;BartThurber,forstressingthe
importance of CacciariforTafuri;
HeleneLipstadtandHarvey
Mendelsohnfortheirstylisticobser-
vations;andPaoloBerdiniforhis
contributions to an on-
penetrating
going discorsoTafuriano.Mark
Rakatanskypatientlyeditedthises-
say:to himthe greatestmeasureof
thanksaredue.
1. M. Tafuri,"GiulioRomano:
Linguaggio,mentalita,commitenti,"
in GiulioRomano(Milan,1989),
15ff.On the genesis,reception,and
suppressionby ClementVIIof I
Modi, see now I Modi: The Sixteen
Pleasures:An EroticAlbum of the
Italian Renaissance,ed. and trans.L.
Lawner(Evanston, Ill., 1988),3-46.
On the questionof whethersuch
"elite"imagesweredeliberately
eroticin the Renaissance, andfora
penetrating interpretationof their
figurativecodes,see C. Ginzburg,
"Titian,Ovid,andSixteenth-Century
CodesforEroticIllustration," in
Clues, Myths, and the Historical
Method(Baltimore,1989),77-95,
esp. 80.
2. Tafuri,"GiulioRomano,"15ff.
3. Ibid.,20ff.,esp. 32, 58. Cf. idem,
L'architetturadelmanierismo (Bari,
1966),49, 59, 79, andidem,
L'architetturadell'umanesimo
(Rome,1969),151ff.
4. Tafuri,"GiulioRomano,"20.
5. M. Tafuri,Ricercadel
Rinascimento:Principi, citta,

architetti (Turin, 1992). See the re-
views by T. Marder in Art Bulletin
77, no. 1 (March 1995): 137-39,
and J. Connors in L'Indice 8 (Sep-
tember 1992): 37-38, and R.
Ingersoll, "Tafuri'sRome," Design
Book Review 34 (1994): 29-31,
as well as the observationsin J.
Ackerman, "ManfredoTafuri
(1935-1994)," Journalof the Society
of ArchitecturalHistorians 9 (1994):
138. I was unable to consult the
special double issue of Casabella
619-620 (1995) dedicated to
Manfredo Tafuri, "I1progetto
storico di Manfredo Tafuri,"before
the present article went to press.
6. Tafuri, Ricerca,7. For observa-
tions on the political (and religious)
implications of the historyof repre-
sentation, see C. Ginzburg, "Repre-
sentation:Le Mot, l'idee, la chose,"
Annales E. S. C. 46, no. 6 (Novem-
ber-December 1991): 1291ff.
7. I owe this insight to discussions
and shared readings of Tafuri's
texts with my friend Preston Scott
Cohen. See, in particular,Tafuri,
Ricerca, 24, and his magisterial
Venezia e il Rinascimento (Turin,
1985), esp. chap. 1.
8. For the emergence of this term
in Tafuri's historiography,see A.
Foscari and M. Tafuri, L'armoniae
i conflitti (Turin, 1983), 8. Not sur-
prisingly, it was after Tafuri'scon-
tact with Carlo Ginzburg that this
"polycentric"method first appeared
in his work - one that is, more-
over, consciously allied with the
aims of microhistory:"Non e
comunque necessariamente alla
ricerca dell'evento, che un'anaisis
policentrica e microstorica e
chiamata ad affinare i propri
strumenti."In this sense, Tafuri
(and Foscari) employed "polycen-
tric"analysis as critique of conven-
tional distinctions between text and
context, based as they are on re-
search into single ratherthan mul-
tiple contexts, and, in a more gen-
eral sense, as a means of avoiding
an exclusive focus on histoire
evenementielle(in accordance with
the tradition of annales historiogra-
phy). It is, of course, significant
that L'armoniae i conflitti ap-
peared in the Einaudi series
Microstoriecreated and edited by
Ginzburg himself. For an example
of his microhistory,see C.
Ginzburg, The Cheese and the
Worms:The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-
CenturyMiller (Baltimore/Lon-
don, 1980); translationof II
formaggioe i vermi:II cosmo di un
mugnaio del '500 (Turin, 1976).
For methodological indications,
see idem, "Clues: Roots of an
Evidential Paradigm,"in Clues,
Myths, and the Historical Method,
96-125, and idem, "Checking the
Evidence: The Judge and the His-
torian,"in Questions of Evidence:
Proof,Practice,and Persuasion
Acrossthe Disciplines, ed. J.
Chandler, A. I. Davidson, and H.
Harootunian (Chicago/London,
1994), 290-303 (originally pub-
lished in Critical Inquiry 18 [Au-
tumn 1981]).
9. M. Tafuri, The Sphere and the
Labyrinth(Cambridge, Mass.,
1987), 25ff.; translationof La sfera
e il labrinto (Turin, 1980). Cf.
idem, Architectureand Utopia: De-
sign and Capitalist Development
(Cambridge, Mass., 1988), 15ff.;
translationof Progettoe utopia
(Bari, 1973).
10. See Tafuri's interview with
Fulvio Irace in Domus 653 (Sep-
tember 1983): 29.
11. Tafuri, Venezia e il Rinasci-
mento, xx, xxi, 9, 93, 103, 104,
122, 220. On Tafuri's reception of
Febvre, see D. Sherer, "Vasarias
Architect: Urban Strategies,Artis-
tic Theory, and the Language of
Sherer
Disegno," Design Book Review 34
(1994): 38.
12. See Tafuri, Ricerca, 14, 36.
13. See ibid., 15. Cf. Tafuri, "Cives
esse non licere. The Rome of Nicho-
las V and Leon BattistaAlberti:
Elements Towards a Historical Re-
vision," HarvardArchitectureRe-
view 6 (1987): 75 n. 45, in which he
explicitly alludes to the importance
of The Use of Pleasurefor his work.
I have been unable to consult the
locus classicus of Tafuri's reception
of Foucault: M. Tafuri et al., eds. II
dispositivoFoucault (Venice, 1977);
see Tafuri, The Sphere and the
Labyrinth,3ff., 25ff. On Tafuri and
Cacciari, see P. Lombardo, "Intro-
duction: The Philosophy of the
City," in M. Cacciari, Architecture
and Nihilism: On the Philosophyof
Modem Architecture(New Haven,
1993), esp. li, and, in a more gen-
eral sense, P. Morachiello, "The
Department of ArchitecturalHis-
tory:A Detailed Description,"
ArchitecturalDesign 59 (1985):
70-71.
14. Tafuri, Ricerca, 5ff., esp. 15, 20.
15. Ibid., 15, 20, 156, 230.
16. Tafuri, L'armoniae i conflitti,
6; cf. idem, Theoriesand Historyof
Architecture(New York, 1980),
201; translationof Teoriee storia
d'architettura(Bari, 1968).
17. Tafuri, L'architetturadel
manierismo, 15, 31; idem, L'archi-
tetetturadell'umanesimo,82, 155;
and idem, Theoriesand Historyof
Architecture,chap. 3, "Architecture
as Metalanguage,"and chap. 5, "In-
struments of Criticism." For a de-
tailed critique of this latter text and
a discussion of its place in Tafuri's
intellectual trajectory,see T.
Llorens, "ManfredoTafuri: Neo-
Avant Garde and History,"in On
the Methodologyof Architectural
43
History,ed. D. Porphyrios(London,
1981), 85ff.
18. M. Tafuri, "DiscordantHar-
mony from Alberti to Zuccari,"Ar-
chitecturalDesign 21 (1979): 36ff.
On Tafuri's reception of Wittkower,
see Connors, review of the Ricerca,
37, and the brief indications in A. A.
Payne, "Wittkowerand Architec-
tural Principles in the Age of Mod-
ernism,"Journalof the Society of
ArchitecturalHistorians 53, no. 3
(September 1994): n. 9.
19. See Tafuri, "DiscordantHar-
mony," 36, idem, Ricerca,345-46,
and idem, interviewwith Irace, 28.
24. On the synthesisof historicaland
theoretical perspectivesas historio-
graphicalideal, see A. Momigliano,
"AncientHistoryand the Antiquar-
ian," in Studies in Historiography
(London, 1966), 1-39, and idem,
"FriedrichCreuzer and Greek Histo-
riography,"in Contributoalla storia
degli studi classici e del mondoantico
(Rome, 1955), 255.
20. On risignificazione,with refer-
ence to the political valences of
architecture,see Tafuri'sacute
analysesof Cola di Rienzo's use of
inscriptionsand classical fragments,
Ricerca,37-38; see, in a different
connection (with reference to the
ephemera constructedfor the
Florentine entry of Leo X in 1515),
idem, "Raffaello,Jacopo Sansovino
e la facciata di San Lorenzo a
Firenze,"Annali di architettura2
(1990): 24.
21. M. Cacciari, Quid Turn:
Orazione funebreper Manfredo
Tafuri (Venice, 1994), 5. I would
like to thank JamesAckerman for
bringing this text to my attention.
22. See Tafuri, Ricerca, 39; e.g.,
Tafuri'sremarkson Nicholas's strat-
egy of using architecture in order
"stupireper assoggettare."
23. Ibid., 13, 20.

24. Ibid., xix. See also Tafuri's in-
terview with R. Ingersoll, Design
Book Review9 (Spring 1986): 11.
There is a sense in which the entire
project of Progettoe utopia is moti-
vated by an attempt to demystifythe
locus classicus of architecturalnos-
talgia (utopia) by tracing it back to
the collective anguish of bourgeois
existence.
25. See the mordant observations
on Tafuri'sability to project the cri-
ses of present-dayarchitecture (par-
ticularly those theorized by Rossi)
onto Borromini, in Llorens,
"ManfredoTafuri,"93 n. 2. For a
stimulating corrective to this cri-
tique, see Tafuri, interview with
Irace, 28: "Historycauses a reversal
of times . . . makes past problems
present, disruptsthem, renews
them, suddenly diminishes enor-
mous distances, or, conversely,
pulls spaces that are very close to-
gether far apart,"(translational-
tered). See idem, Theoriesand
Historyof Architecture,105 (on the
peculiar temporalityof architec-
tural experimentalism, which re-
leases effects, like those of a time
bomb, only in the future).
26. W. Benjamin, "Theses on the
Philosophy of History,"in Illumina-
tions (New York, 1968), 255. On
Benjamin's unique historicism and
its antecedents (chief among which
is Hermann Lotze), see the percep-
tive essay by H. D. Kittsteiner,
"WalterBenjamin's Historicism,"
New German Critique 39 (Fall
1986): 179ff., and C. Ginzburg,
"Killinga Chinese Mandarin:The
Moral Implications of Distance,"
Critical Inquiry21 no. 1 (Autumn
1994): 59-60.
27. Tafuri, Theoriesand Historyof
Architecture,14-16; see D. Sherer,
"The Politics of FormalAutonomy,"
Assemblage15 (1991): 100.
28. On Tafuri's interpretation
of Brunelleschi, see Lombardo,
"The Philosophy of the City," xl;
on Tafuri's interpretationof
Brunelleschi via Rossi and his links
to Casabella in the mid-1960s, see
Llorens, "ManfredoTafuri,"84 n.
11, 93 n. 12. For illuminating
critical observationson recent
Brunelleschi literatureand current
conceptions of the "first"Renais-
sance architect, see J. Ackerman,
"The First Renaissance Buildings,"
Design Book Review 34 (1994): 23-
27.
29. See Sherer, "The Politics of
Formal Autonomy," 100; Tafuri,
Theoriesand History, 15.
30. Tafuri, Ricerca,chap. 1, esp.
23.
31. Ibid., 3-4, 21-22.
32. Tafuri, Theoriesand History,
15.
33. Tafuri, Ricerca, 3-4, 22; idem,
Theoriesand History, 23.
34. Tafuri, Ricerca, 22-23, 62ff.
35. Ibid., 67.
36. See ibid., 22, where Tafuri con-
trastsAlberti and Brunelleschi, re-
markingthat "the gratuitousand
antinaturalisticcharacterof
[Brunelleschi's] ruse is decidedly
un-Albertian."
37. See M. Tafuri, "Sansovino'ver-
sus' Palladio,"Bollettino C.I.S.A. 15
(1973): 149-65, and idem, Jacopo
Sansovino e l'architetturadel '500 a
Venezia (Padua, 1972), 13; but con-
trastthe indications towarda new
reading of the relation between
these protagonistsof the Venetian
Cinquecento in idem, "Venezia e
la Roma della Rinascita. Palazzo
Dolfin a San Salvador:Un'opera
ibrida di Jacopo Sansovino,"in
Venezia e la Roma dei Papi
(Venice, 1988), 106, and, in agree-
assemblage 28
ment with this interpretation,idem,
Ricerca,chap. 7. See also ibid., 23.
38. Ibid., 8-9; see P. N. Pagliara,
"Vitruvioda testo a canone," in Me-
moria dell'antico nell'arteitaliana,
ed. S. Settis (Turin, 1986), 42-43,
and also H. Burns, "Baldassare
Peruzzi and Sixteenth-CenturyAr-
chitectural Theory," in Les Traites
d'architecturede la Renaissance, ed.
J. Guillaume (Paris, 1988), 207ff.
39. Tafuri, Ricerca,9.
40. "Questi capitelli nascono l'uno
dall'altrocome si vede qui" (ibid.,
236, referringto a drawingexecuted
in 1542, U 826A).
41. See n. 13 above; for Tafuri's re-
ception of Barthes,see Theoriesand
History, 107-8, 135, 176-67, 185,
and The Sphereand the Labyrinth,
5, 58.
42. Tafuri, Ricerca,238-40.
43. See J. Wirth, L'Image
medievale(Paris, 1989), 22, whose
characterizationof Panofsky's
method I have applied to Tafuri's
in the Ricerca.
44. Tafuri, Ricerca,9. Cf. the
devastatingcritiques, inspired by
radicallydifferent intellectual per-
spectives, of the concept of influ-
ence in M. Baxandall,Patternsof
Intention (New Haven, 1985), 58-
62, and G. Canguilhem, Etudes
d'historieet de philosophie des sci-
ences (Paris, 1983); see also idem,
Ideologieet rationalite dans les sci-
ences de la vie (Paris, 1981), 13, 19.
I thank Arnold I. Davidson for call-
ing this aspect of Canguilhem to
my attention.
45. Tafuri, Ricerca,9.
46. See E. Panofsky,Gothic Archi-
tectureand Scholasticism(Latrobe,
Penn., 1951), 21. For a brilliant
readingof Panofsky'sapproachto
the Gothic, see Tafuri, Theoriesand
44
History, 188-96; cf. idem, Ricerca,7.
Moreover,while Tafuri explicitly re-
fers to the discussion of the concept
of eidos in Panofsky'sIdea:A Concept
in Art Theory(1924), he implicitly
uses this text in his discussion of the
eidos of the Pantheon as it was under-
stood by the architectsin the San
Giovanni dei Fiorentini competition:
see Ricerca,26 n. 27, 167.
47. One frequentlycomes acrossthe
misconception that the early, Euro-
pean Panofskywas a Hegelian; in
fact, this is an unfounded claim. For
example, see the misleading discus-
sion in M. Podro, The Critical Histo-
rians of Art (New Haven, 1982), 178,
and the slightly more tempered, but
still misguided remarksin M. A.
Holly, Panofskyand the Foundations
of Art History(Ithaca, 1984), 30-35.
In reality,Panofskyrelied far more
on Kantand the KantianSchopen-
hauer than on Hegel; he even inter-
preted Riegl'sKunstwollenin a
neo-Kantiankey.
48. On the general implications of
Panofsky'sconcept of symbolic form
for a reading of the uses of repre-
sentation in the Renaissance, see
Tafuri, Ricerca, 15, 20; on Tafuri's
reception of Panofsky'sown use of
Cassirer'ssymbolic form, see
Llorens, "ManfredoTafuri,"85.
49. Tafuri, Ricerca, 166-69, esp.
168.
50. Ibid., 166-69. See Tafuri, "An-
tonio da Sangallo il Giovane e
Jacopo Sansovino: Un conflitto
professionale nella Roma Medicea,"
in Antonio da Sangallo: La vita e
lopera, ed. G. Spagnesi (Rome,
1986), 79-100; Pagliara,"Vitruvio
da testo a canone," 52; T.
Buddensieg, "Criticismand Praise
of the Pantheon in the Middle Ages
and Renaissance,"in Classical Influ-
ences on European Culture, A.D.
500-1500 (Cambridge, 1971), 265-

66, and its sequel, "Criticism of An-
cient Architecture in the Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Centuries," in
Classical Influences on European
Culture, A.D. 1500-1700 (Cam-
bridge, 1976), 342.
51. Tafuri, Ricerca,159-60, 167; see
Tafuri, "Antonioda Sangallo il
Giovane e JacopoSansovino,"79-82.
52. Tafuri, Ricerca,chap. 2, esp.
44-45, 51-62. This interpretationof
Albertiwas firstpresented to an En-
glish-speakingpublic in the pages of
the HarvardArchitectureReviewin
1987, in a translationof Tafuri's
introductionto the Italian edition
(Rome, 1984) of C. W. Westfall, In
this Most PerfectParadise:Alberti,
Nicholas V, and the Inventionof
Conscious UrbanPlanning in Rome,
1447-1455 (UniversityPark/Lon-
don, 1974); see n. 13 above. Chap. 2
of the Ricerca,an expandedversion
of Tafuri'sintroduction,extends the
political interpretationof Alberti
into new areas.On Tafuri'sap-
proach to Alberti,see L. Le Faivre,
"Leon BattistaAlberti:Some New
Facets of the Polyhedron,"Design
BookReview34 (1994): 13 (though
in general this article should be
used with caution); I have been un-
able to consult the contribution of
Charles Burroughs,which criticizes
Tafuri'snew conception of Alberti,
in Leon BattistaAlberti,ed. J.
Rykwertand A. Engel (Turin, 1994).
53. Tafuri, Ricerca,44.
54. Tafuri, "DiscordantHarmony,"
36.
55. Tafuri, Ricerca, 39; see also n.
22 above.
56. See, especially, the U. C. Berke-
ley seminar/interviewswith Fou-
cault, perhapshis most effective
genealogies of Christian morality,
in Michel Foucault:BeyondStruc-
turalismand Hermeneutics,ed. H.
L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (Chi-
cago, 1983), 230ff. See also M.
Foucault, The Care of the Self
(New York, 1986), 43, 143-44,
235-37, and, of course, idem,
"Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,"
in Language, Counter-Memory,
Practice(Ithaca, 1977), 139-64. In
1987 Tafuri expressedhis pro-
found indebtedness to the late
Foucault and his particularinter-
est in The Use of Pleasure.Need-
less to say, he had come into
extended contact with Foucault's
workmuch earlier. One should re-
call the effect on the Italian Left of
two lectures from 1976 published
in M. Foucault, Microfisicadel
potere:Interventipolitici (Turin,
1977), 163-94; an English version
can be found in M. Foucault,
Power/Knowledge: Selected Inter-
viewsand Other Writings,1972-
1977 (New York, 1977), 78-108.
Moreover,as Francesco dal Co's
interventionat the Casabella con-
ference on Tafuri held at Colum-
bia Universityin April of 1995
made clear, Tafuri was an avid
readerof Foucault in the late
sixties (as was the entire group
around Contropiano).For Tafuri's
direct reception of Nietzsche, see
the memorable pages in The
Sphereand the Labyrinth,4-7,
and his interviewwith Ingersoll,
11; for Cacciari'sreadingof Thus
SpokeZarathustra,see Cacciari,
Architectureand Nihilism, 24-26.
Foucault himself seems to have
had his firstdecisive encounter
with Nietzsche in 1954-55: see
the testimony of his close friend
Paul Veyne, in "Foucault
Sherer
revolutionne I'histoire,"in Com-
ment on ecrit l'histoire(Paris, 1978), Figure Credits
228 n. 6. 1, 2. Manfredo Tafuri et al., eds.
Giulio Romano (Milan: Electa,
57. Tafuri, Ricerca, 24.
1989).
58. Ibid., xixff., esp. xxi. 3-6. Manfredo Tafuri, Ricercadel
59. R. Klein, "Peinture moderne et Rinascimento:Principi, citta,
architetti (Turin: Einaudi, 1992).
phenomenologie," in La Formeet
l'intelligible (Paris, 1970), 413; cf.
Tafuri, Ricerca,xx. Note that Tafuri
subtly alters Klein's original expres-
sion, "l'agoniede la reference"(for
Tafuri, "l'agoniadel referente"),
thereby shifting the focus of this
process from signification to the
signified.
60. Tafuri, Ricerca, 24; cf. Ben-
jamin, "Theses on the Philosophy
of History,"256.
61. See Sherer, "Vasarias Archi-
tect," 37, and, for a different critical
perspective that derives from a dif-
ferent set of architecturalcircum-
stances, idem, "The Politics of
Formal Autonomy,"esp. 99, 101-2.
62. See C. Ginzburg, "The In-
quisitor as Anthropologist,"in
Clues, Myths, and the Historical
Method, 160-61; see also A. I.
Davidson, "Carlo Ginzburg and
the Renewal of Historiography,"in
Questions of Evidence, esp. 318-19.
63. For a good overview of
Ginzburg's aims and methods, see
again Davidson, "Carlo Ginzburg,"
Ginzburg, "Clues,"and idem, "Just
One Witness," in Probingthe Lim-
its of Representation:Nazism and
the Final Solution, ed. S. Fried-
lander (Cambridge, Mass., 1992),
82-96.
64. R. Wittkower,Architectural
Principlesin the Age of Humanism
(New York, 1988), 129.
45