Ordine et officij de casa de lo illustrissimo signor duca de Urbino,
ed. Sabine Eiche (Urbino: Accademia Raffaelo, 1999) 147 pp. + 11
plates ISBN 88-8757-03-4
The raison d’être of the book under review is the provision of a
reliable edition of the Italian text which details rules of conduct
applicable in the 1480s, for household staff in the service of
Guidobaldo da Montefeltro (1472-1508), duke of Urbino. Though not
so designated in the text – there was no need to do so – here it needs to
be stated that the rules pertain exclusively to staff of the duke’s principal
residence: the Urbino palace. In normal circumstances a prince of the
period was peripatetic within his state, certain staff accompanying him
on his journeys, while others permanently maintained his other palaces
for occupation; moreover the Montefeltro duke was a general who
commanded mercenary forces as a source of income, hence in summer
months especially was likely to be engaged upon military campaigns
beyond his state, accompanied by his personal staff. Such supportive
staff are not mentioned in the rules edited by Dr Sabine Eiche, yet
clearly existed and would have been subject to constraints of conduct; if
these rules were formally written, perhaps coevally with those of the
‘casa’ staff, they are lost.
The text concerning the ‘casa’ staff was first edited in 1932 by
Giuseppe Ermini from the unique manuscript source, which was
indicated. His printed version is faithful to its source, but without any
critical apparatus, without any explanatory notes, and without any
attempt to date it or place it in context, defects seriously impairing the
text’s usefulness. So Professor Sergio Bertelli speculated that the rules
were compiled in 1511, one knows not why.1 Again the title given to
Ermini’s edition, Ordini [sic] et officij alla corte del serenissimo signor duca
d’Urbino, belied the heading of text which he gave (p. 1): ‘Ordine et
officij de casa de lo illustrissimo signor duca de Urbino’. Without
reference to the source one could but wonder when and why in the case
of Urbino ‘casa’ was conflated with ‘corte’. The present edition makes
evident that Ermini took his book’s title – with ‘corte’ – from the title
added to the original manuscript in the late sixteenth century, and he at
the same time changed ‘Ordine’ to ‘Ordini’ (f.1v, present numbering of
the manuscript). At the same time he retained the text’s original title
with ‘casa’ (f.1a) at the head of the text he edited. I return below to the
vexed question of the relationship between ‘casa’ and ‘corte’, here
merely remarking that an edition eliminating confusions stemming from
Ermini’s publication is welcome.
1
Sergio Bertelli, Italian Renaissance Courts (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1986), p. 26.
1
Dr Eiche publishes (pp. 89-141) a reliable transcript (I have
checked the printed text against my microfilm of the manuscript) of the
Vatican Library MS Urb. lat. 1248, ff.1-72v in its entirety. It is the only
known copy and was made in the early sixteenth century from a now
lost version of the 1480s. A brief explanation in Italian is given of Dr
Eiche’s editing methods (pp. 85-7). So as to retain the language of the
source, its spelling and grammar are preserved, while to facilitate
reading, contractions are expanded and modern capitals and
punctuation introduced. Good quality black and white plates reproduce
folios of the manuscript (ff.1v, 1a, 8v, 9, 71v, 72, 72v). The original text
ended on f.72, below which another hand added ‘Fine’. Subsequently
some of the space below was used by an individual, who drafted part of
a document in chancery hand (plate X, printed in full, p. 141 n.35),
overleaf identifying himself as C (the rest of the Christian name is now
illegible) Stefani at the end of an entire letter, dated 17 November 1547
(plate XI, printed in full, p. 141 n.35). This letter refers to a ‘zia sora
[presumably suora] Felice’, who was ill. It appears to me unlikely this
person was Felice Della Rovere, the illegitimate daughter of Pope Julius
II, though she by November 1527 (sic), as the widow of Giangiordano
Ordini of Bracciano, was living in the ducal palace at Fossombrone (p.
61); the young Guidobaldo Della Rovere sought to marry her daughter,
Clarice, but bowed to his father’s adamant opposition.
Dr Eiche mentions (p. 85) that all the original folios of the
manuscript (ff.1a-72 inclusive) have a hole at their centre, and she
soundly concludes this implies the leaves had been ‘filed’ by being
spiked, probably in the ducal chancery. One can add that the drafts in
chancery hand on f.72-72v support this supposition, and hence the work
probably was already in the chancery by 1547 (seemingly not then
spiked). What is now the first folio (f.1) with the supplementary title on
its verso, which Dr Eiche correctly assigns to c. 1600 (p. 86) has no
spike hole. One can believe that the work probably was removed from
the chancery at the orders of Duke Francesco Maria II Della Rovere
(who devoted much energy to his library), for whom the added initial
folio was bound in; the manuscript was inventoried in 1632, a point
neglected by the editor. Interestingly the Della Rovere binding has
stamped on its front cover the arms of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903),
suggesting that it previously had been overlooked following its
acquisition by the Vatican Library or Archives in the seventeenth
century. The editor briefly mentions another important feature of the
manuscript. Its text is broken into sixty-four ‘capitoli’, each (save the
final two) with a short heading describing its contents. While the
headings were written immediately prior to the information below, the
‘capitoli’, progressively numbered, were inserted in close proximity to
the headings, as is testified by different ink and the cramped position of
2
‘capitolo’ and number. However, the last two ‘capitoli’ (those without
headings) were written at the head before the text below was
commenced. The numbers of the first two ‘capitoli’ were written as
‘primo’, ‘secondo’, those that follow have Roman numerals; further,
where ‘primo’ was originally written, ‘secondo’ was substituted (over
erasure) and ‘primo’ inserted above what had been the title of the text.
The editor does not examine the implications, which are that the copy
was modified shortly after transcription, or in the actual course of it,
and it follows that these modifications probably were not in the original.
Assuming this latter to be so, the original only had headings for each
section, not ‘capitoli’ and progressive numbering; the work commenced
with the heading: ‘Ordine et officij de casa de lo illustrissimo signor
duca de Urbino’. Accordingly some light is cast on the lost original
manuscript.
Information relevant for understanding the existing manuscript is
not always garnered where one expects, or even provided at all. Its
script is chancery hand and Dr Law (p. 18) reveals the hand may be that
of Pietro Tiranni of Cagli, seemingly on the basis of its similarity to the
hand of his letter dated 3 June 1528 (in Florence, State Archives,
Archivio di Urbino, C1.I, Div. G, Filza 265, f.915). This is highly
pertinent, and I would gladly exchange those plates of the ducal palace
(I-VIII) for one of this letter and for more information about Tiranni.
Dr Eiche (p. 85) states that the manuscript ‘fu compilato nei primi del
‘500’, but makes no mention of its lost source. Who drew up the
original, when and why was it necessary to copy it (perhaps with slight
modifications indicated above) in the early sixteenth century?
In 1962 Dr Luigi Michelini Tocci remarked that the original
version was likely to pre-date 1502 and he assigned authorship to
Messer Agapito, the ducal librarian mentioned in the rules (p. 132 as
‘Agapito’); he conflated this person with the ducal chancery official of
that name who lived contemporaneously. In an article published in
1964 (easily accessible in my Duchy of Urbino in the Renaissance), I
examined the handwriting of the several Agapito of the period and
suggested the conflation advanced by Dr Michelini Tocci was unsound.2
Here I add that I do not believe either a librarian or chancery official
would have had the knowledge or authority to write the original
‘Ordine’. Internal textual evidence indicates the author was familiar
with the court of Filippo Maria Visconti (duke of Milan, 1412-1446) and
he held the duke in high regard, as he did also Pope Pius II (1458-1464).
Ottaviano Ubaldini resided at the court of Filippo Maria Visconti from
1438 until the duke’s death in 1446; Ubaldini was fully aware of the
2
Cecil H. Clough, Duchy of Urbino in the Renaissance (London: Variorum Reprints,
1981), item VII, p. 168, n.39.
3
favoured treatment that Federico da Montefeltro had received as ruler
of Urbino from Pius II, and he was personally acquainted with the
pope. Federico had had such consistent testimony of Ubaldini’s loyalty
throughout his life that he deemed him most suitable following his
death (which was on September 1482) to be regent during the minority
of his son, Guidobaldo. The latter came of age on his sixteenth
birthday on 17 or 24 January 1488, and during the regency of six years
Ubaldini carried out his responsibilities impeccably in the face of
considerable political difficulties and financial stringency. There seems
to me sufficient grounds for attributing the compilation of the rules to
Ubaldini during his regency. I fail to understand why Dr Law
equivocates both as to Ubaldini’s authorship and his conduct as regent
(p. 18).
As for the date of compilation of the original rules Dr Law notes
that in 1964 I dated it to the early years of Duke Guidobaldo’s rule, that
is the regency period, but in 1988 I advanced the date 1498. I must
confess that this latter is a printing error for 1488, which I much regret.
Then I supposed the ‘Ordine’ completed probably for when
Guidobaldo came of age, and certainly about the time of his wedding
on 11 February 1488, not ‘in October 1489’ (as Dr Law, p. 18).3 Under
‘Capitolo LXIII’ (remember there is no heading) are rules of conduct
regarding the ‘famiglia de Madonna Duchessa’ (p. 139); moreover, as Dr
Eiche says (p. 139 n.33) ‘tra la fine del capitolo 63 e l’inizio del
successivo lo scriba ha lasciato uno spazio bianco equivalente a cinque
riche’. The problem (which was less obvious to me writing in 1988,
when I advanced the date 1488, or intended to) is that one cannot know
for sure if the copyist in the early sixteenth century faithfully transcribed
his source for the last two ‘capitoli’. They may have been in the original
compilation; they may have supplemented that compilation at any time
before the copy was made; alternatively, they could have been inserted
at the time of copying by the copyist acting under orders. In 1988 I
thought it unlikely that the space at the end of the penultimate ‘capitolo’
meant there was a space in the copyist’s source, which had been left
because the author of the rules intended to amplify, but never did. This
seems to me still the most probable alternative, but one cannot be sure,
and now I am cautious of the specific date of 1488. Even so, I believe
that Ubaldini had the rules originally written for all to see, and this was
intended as testimony of his efficient regency. Such initiative appears
akin to the compilation of the so-called ‘Inventario vecchio’ (Vatican
Library, MS Urb. lat. 1761) in the hand of the Agapito when librarian,
3
Cecil H. Clough, ‘Daughters and Wives of the Montefeltro: Outstanding
Bluestockings of the Quattrocento’, Renaissance Studies 10.1 (1996), pp. 31-55, p. 37.
4
which listed the ducal manuscripts (though not the printed books) over
much the same period.
Dr Law (pp. 19-20) debates whether the author of the rules was
writing a theoretical treatise, or advising on actual circumstances. Again
he equivocates with his answer, perhaps seduced by much reading of
those familiar treatises on the prince, the courtier, the cardinal, or even
by Professor Bertelli’s schematic model based on the ‘Ordine’. The
‘casa’ of Urbino was that of a modest prince and no contemporary
would have deemed it worthy of a theoretical model for princes.
Indeed there is no reason at all to suppose the work is other than what
it purports to be: rules for the conduct of servants of the Montefeltro
‘casa’, that is the Urbino palace. Probably similar rules had been
effective years before codification; Ubaldini wanted them defined in
writing so there was no misunderstanding and no presumption on the
young duke’s inexperience.
Not considered, as already mentioned, is why the rules were
copied in the early sixteenth century; the existing manuscript. Between
20 June 1502 and 28 August 1503 (apart from the uprising lasting from
8 October until 8 December 1502) the duchy of Urbino was under the
control of Cesare Borgia in his capacity as papal Gonfaloniere. During
this time property in the Urbino palace – manuscripts, tapestries,
classical sculptures, for instance – were removed by Borgia; seemingly,
too, fabric was damaged, notably some panels in the so-called
‘Tempietto delle Muse’, which following Duke Guidobaldo’s return to
authority were replaced. One can believe that some papers were likely
to have been destroyed and some damaged; perhaps in this latter
category was the original manuscript of the ‘Ordine’: damage to its last
folios is another possible explanation for those problems presented by
the last two ‘capitoli’ of the existing manuscript. In such a case one can
appreciate why duke Guidobaldo ordered transcription.
There is more to editing than printing a faithful text. The elegant
‘Introduction’ (pp. 5-11) of Professor John Larner and the following
four companion essays are in English, and some readers would have
welcomed, even expected, a parallel English translation of the ‘Ordine’.
They must make do with Dr Law’s paraphrase encapsulated in his
contribution: ‘The Ordine et officij: aspects of context and content’ (pp.
13-35); this paraphrase is supplemented as to those servants concerned
with meals by Dr Allen Grieco’s ‘Conviviality in a Renaissance court:
The Ordine et officij and the court of Urbino’ (pp. 37-44). Contrary to
what might be though from Dr Grieco’s rather slight offering,
Renaissance banquets are a booming industry, so partake freely with the
Este: A tavola con il principe, edited J. Bentini (a luxurious exhibition
catalogue with supporting essays – sad to say undocumented – including
5
G. Mantovano, ‘Il banchetto rinascimentale: arte, magnificenza, potere’,
the whole concluded with a prodigious nine-page bibliographical feast).4
Alone of the essays Dr Eiche’s ‘Behind the scenes at court’ (pp.
45-80) is based on archival sources. In an appendix she publishes
excerpts from thirty-seven letters covering 1522 to 1562, where they
touch upon household servants in actual, or potential, employ of the
Della Rovere dynasty; these letters are in Florence, State Archives,
Archivio di Urbino, Cl. I, Div. G. The interesting information
marshalled is original, and one learns that a very few servants at most
who were employed in the 1520s possibly had been decades earlier in
Montefeltro service. Yet it must be admitted the essay’s focus is on
another ruling dynasty many years after the original compilation of the
‘Ordine’, and that dynasty’s principle residence was Pesaro, not Urbino.
The quest for good servants is timeless, but their rules of conduct are
not static, rather shift according to convention and the individual whim
of a prince; this is very evident in the case of Galeazzo Sforza’s
modification of the household rules on becoming duke of Milan in
1466.5
A weakness of the essays is imprecision, and in place of details
specific to the text there are generalities about Italian courts ranging
over the first half of the sixteenth century. Furthermore, there is no
‘Commentary’ to the text identifying individuals or circumstances
mentioned, and there is no index to the book. The ‘Ordine’ is
concerned with servants of the household, and lumping them with
Castiglione’s ‘Courtiers’ is not sprezzatura so much as symptomatic of a
lack of definition and understanding. There existed, now lost, a ‘Libro
degli Uffici’ covering the years of Duke Guidobaldo’s authority,
wherein would have been entered every individual in post on the ducal
payroll; there, too, would have been indicated the terms of employment
(wage, allocation of clothes and such). It is against this payroll that the
‘Ordine’ should be seen. Now the only guide to this payroll is Susech’s
list (which covered the rule of Dukes Federico and Guidobaldo).
Nowhere is Susech’s list mentioned. The basic issue is a failure to grasp
that those servants of the ‘Ordine’ were part of the ducal ‘casa’ or
‘familia’ (which encompassed that of the duchess as well). Their
conduct, no less than their physical appearance and dress reflected on
the duke’s prestige, or ‘magnificence’, no less than did his palace and
everything that was his. These servants were to be differentiated from
his courtiers, who were of noble birth, and whose function were other;
some courtiers, of course, like Castiglione and Cesare Gonzaga were
4
A tavola con il principe, ed. J. Bentini et al (Ferrara, 1989).
Gregory Lubkin, A Renaissance Court: Milan under Galeazzo Maria Sforza (Berkeley:
University of California Press, c. 1994), pp. 29-37.
5
6
employed as men-at-arms, hence on the ducal payroll. Courtiers were
attracted to a prince by his standing and potential benefit to themselves.
So Castiglione’s transfer from the service of the marquis of Mantua to
that of duke Guidobaldo in 1504 reflected this perfectly, thereby
illustrating what made up the ‘perfect courtier’, if not as Mrs Julia
Cartwright supposed. The ‘corte’ was the entire ambience of the prince,
including palace, wife and family, courtiers, servants of the ‘casa’ and all
other servants. The title added to the manuscript in the sixteenth
century reflected a lack of precision and accuracy that ought not be
perpetuated.
Dr Cecil H. Clough, University of Liverpool
7