Seite - 341 - in Jacopo Strada and Cultural Patronage at the Imperial Court - The Antique as Innovation, Band 1

34�Projects for Emperor Ferdinand i rendering of the courtyard shows a gallery of two superimposed arcades. The lower arcade is carried on Tuscan columns the height of which is difficult to de- termine; the upper story consists of wide, possibly segmental arches carried on short, squat columns topped by ionic capitals, of which in the photograph only two survive; the two orders are vertically connected by shallow pilaster strips. It is unlikely that a third story was part of the original building. This building thus conforms to the type of arcaded courtyard or Laubenhof that was, and would remain, so popular in Austria and Bohemia. Moreover it is undoubtedly a Renaissance design, with columns and capitals carrying segmental arches. Nevertheless it is not very likely that such a facade would have greatly ap- pealed to Strada’s ideas. Though the architectural ornament, in particular the columns and their capitals, are not badly designed, their application can hard- ly be called classical, witness the arches carried on columns, the odd strips prolonging the columns upward, the apparent lack of an entablature between the two levels. Principal defect, from the point of view of classical, Vitruvian architecture, is the disproportion between the two orders: the columns of the first floor are far too short in relation both to their own capitals, and to the columns of the ground floor. It is clear that if Strada protested against these defects, such protest was not heeded by his colleagues. But it can be argued that Strada may not have pro- tested very strongly—after all, the building had been designed much earlier, was largely finished, and the model for its completion was presented by the principal architect serving the Emperor in Vienna. Moreover, Strada had only just arrived and would avoid the risk to offend his new colleagues immediately. By this time he must have realized that his rash attack on Wolfgang Lazius’ an- tiquarian competence did not contribute to local good-will and did not endear him to the Emperor: in all probability he would not have risked to repeat such a blunder in the presence of his patron.3 6.1.1 Supervision: Hermes Schallautzer? In view of what we know of Strada’s character, however, it is unlikely that he would have waited long before he obtruded his expertise and his opinions. Once he had spied out how the land lay and built up a good relationship with at least some of the architects and the decision-makers at court, we can expect to see some effects of his arrival. In particular his relationship with the Emperor’s elder son, King Maximilian, would have strengthened his hand. By June 1559 he had built up a more personal relationship with the king, to whom he appealed 3 In a letter to Hans Jakob Fugger of 6 June 1559 Strada explains that he cannot respond in print to Lazius’ invective for such reasons: ‘Ma io mi bisogna molti rispetti avertire, perchè offenderei parechi in un tratto’ (DOC. 1559-06-09). On the controversy, see above, Ch. 4.2.