Page - 440 - in Jacopo Strada and Cultural Patronage at the Imperial Court - The Antique as Innovation, Volume 1

Chapter 9440 conclusion, since we know of no other projects at that time that would fit the bill. The conclusion that Strada had made some design connected with Maxi- milian’s plans for the Neugebäude seems perfectly warranted, but it has been questioned nevertheless.16 To my mind, the passage permits the following conclusions: – Strada had earlier informed Fugger by letter that an architectural design he had made for the Emperor had been well received. – The tenor of Fugger’s letter suggests that Strada had mentioned the project to Fugger in passing at an earlier occasion, either in conversation or in cor- respondence, and now kept him informed of developments. – On this earlier occasion Fugger had received the impression that the project was planned within the city—probably Vienna—but now he understood— either from the wording of Strada’s own letter or through information received from elsewhere—that it was intended for the countryside. – Fugger was sufficiently interested to wish to know its precise location and details about its character. – The design was for a secular building of a residential character (though ‘palazzo’ can also be just ‘building’, Fugger’s reference to a ‘palazzo di pia- cere’ suggest that it was residential, not utilitarian) – It was to be built for the Emperor Maximilian ii; the reference to the site presupposes a new construction, rather than the adaptation of an existing building. – This building was planned in the countryside. All in all it is warranted to assume Strada had indeed made a design for the Neugebäude, and that it had been well received by the Emperor. But the 16 For instance in the unpleasantly biased, negative review of Lietzmann’s book by Bernt von Hagen, which is itself full of mistakes and inconsistencies (Hagen 1991, p. 167). Karl Rudolf (Rudolf 1995, p. 177, n. 131) has rightly corrected Lietzmann’s reading of the pas- sage, pointing out that Fugger is not writing about a hypothetical ‘palazzo di natura’, whatever that might be, but about a site (for a palace) which is ‘by its nature’ so well adapted to its purpose: ‘Die Stelle et essendo la piazza di natura cosi accomodata kann nur als Ort von derart passender Natur für den Palast verstanden werden und nicht als Palast in der Natur wie bei Lietzmann’. He is right that the passage seems to refer to a palace, rather than to a garden lay-out, but ignores that it is also quite clear that it refers to a pal- ace in the countryside, which presupposes the inclusion of gardens. In any case, even if Strada here  talks about a design for the building, this is no reason to assume that he may not have been asked to make designs for the gardens as well; on the contrary, it makes it all the more likely. In his otherwise illuminating article on the Neugebäude, Wolfgang Lippmann (Lippmann 2006–2007, p. 147 and note 164, notes 37–41) misreads the passage in an even more alarming way than Lietzmann, not only echoing her ‘Palast in der Natur’, but also implying that Fugger referred to another, unidentified draughtsman who was to execute the finished designs, which is not warranted by the actual text: it is clear that Fug- ger refers to (and compliments) Strada himself.