This dissertation concerns itself with the space of Florence.
Why Florence?, one may query. And what of its space? Florence, per se, is of perverse irrelevance in this dissertation. It offers a backdrop for an event to occur, and a scenario to be set. It also gives the author, and the reader, a useful grasp of reality, when the language of space takes command of this work, and confuses ones taste for clarity. However, a backdrop it remains.
To begin, the language of space being examined is that of Nicollo Machiavelli’s The Prince, and the mechanisms under which it was manifested. Perhaps by attempting to understand this text, we will be provided with the foothold needed to grasp a sense of spatial realty within Machiavelli’s abstract world.
“In the early 15th century the Florentines, never slow in self-congratulation, had much to be proud of.”(1)
It was indeed a great time to be a Florentine. In the ‘Golden Age of Florence’(2), its wealth was legendary. This was an era and time in which literary and scholarly luminaries such as Boccacino, Salutati, Bracciolini, Niccoli and Bruni congregated among Masacio’s frescoes in the church of the Carmine [1425-28], Donatello’s S.George [1418], Ghiberti’s baptistery doors [completed in 1424] and Brunelleschi’s hospital [begun c.1421]. These intellectuals were shaping the future to come, dragging the disciplines of writing, art and architecture from its medieval foundations onto a highway towards a Renaissance Florence. The amalgamation of Florentine wealth, both economically and culturally, made Florence the equivalent of Athens in classical antiquity. Underlining this seat of European learning and residence of Renaissance citizens was Florentine’s proudest tradition; Republicanism. However, all was not what it seemed and a comparison with ancient Byzantine Constantinople, where the “poets could climb to the roof tops and marvel at their city beneath”(3) would in this case be truly a naïve exercise. Hidden beneath the distracting imagery of the city parapets, arches and vaults lay Florence’s lesser-known twin standing in opposition and union with its more famous brother, the ‘Beautiful Florence’; ‘the ‘Florence Corrupt’.
A century’s long practice, the Florentine constitution was spread politically among some of its most learned and responsible citizens. This powerful position was bolstered by decrees which made it very difficult to form political parties in opposition. Florence always claimed to be a democratic republic and in most cases it was, or was more so than its neighbouring Italian states. This seems a rather perilous situation to be placed in, considering the political climate of Italy in the late 15th century. “Italians first of all fear sudden and violent death…. [a]nd restless people are always ready to flare up unexpectedly like hot coals under the ashes. Italy is a blood stained country. Almost everyday of the year jealous husbands kill their adulterous wives and their lovers; about as many wives kill their adulterous husbands and their mistresses.”(4) Violence was always undergoing or imminent.(5)
However, against a background of plot, violence and corruption, there emerged the powerful Medici family of Florence, [Appendix I]. Against all odds and staunch Florentine republicanism, Cosimo de Medici in 1434 took lead role in an act unthinkable at the time, even maybe for the middle-aged banker returning to a triumphant welcome from Venice, Florence’s rival city.
The Medici family(6) came into power with Cosimo in Florence in 1434 with great aplomb and a history of providing great and seemingly humanitarian candidates to serve the state. As head of the Medici’s and victor over the most powerful families in Florence, Cosimo slowly ebbed away at the now waning democratic system to introduce his own candidates into the council, [Signory], to further secure the Medici’s stronghold over Florence.
It is with the Medici family that Machiavelli is most associated throughout his career. Born in 1469, the year that Lorenzo de Medici ‘the Magnificent’(7) assumed power, Machiavelli’s political career, and life, spanned that of the Medici’s rule.(8) Belonging to a wealthy family, Machiavelli, himself the son of an educated humanist and practising lawyer, received the best humanist education of his day.
“Of middle height, slender figure, sparkling eyes, dark hair, rather a small head, a slightly equine none, a tightly closed mouth; all about him bore the impress of a very astute observer and thinker… He could not easily rid himself of the sarcastic expression playing round his mouth and flashing from his eyes…”(9)
At the centre of his education, that eventually culminated through attendance at the University of Florence, was the ideological humanist notion that with intellectual skill, effort and wisdom the world could be changed. ‘Virtu Vince Fortuna’, ability wins over fortune. A key point to be made is that not only was the humanist movement an intellectual society at the turn of the 16th century, many prominent Humanists held positions in the Florentine government. Though these connections Machiavelli, at the age of 29, was elected to the post of second chancellor by the Great Council in 1498.
“As Florentines became increasingly imbued with humanist morals, they began to call on their leading Humanists to fill the most prestigious positions in the city government.”(10) Humanism infiltrated society throughout the 14th-16th century causing great ramifications manifesting through the intellectual society of the Renaissance movement. Thought and written of as more of a religion than a movement, practitioners of Humanism were seen to be intellectually and spiritually superior to all other men and could “raise man to divine status”.(11) A liberal sub-culture with staunch undertones, Humanism seemed a typically bourgeois class driven domain. Indeed, the ‘Humanists’ were a truly international movement amongst Renaissance Europe, and to all intents and purposes actively established and inbred into society, albeit in only one strata of the populace of Italy. However, aristocratic status could be earned, as well as inherited, with Humanism as a vehicle to advance one’s social standing. As a parallel to Masonic activity, but without untoward ritual, Humanists were the pride at any Florentine gathering, and especially at the court of the ruling class, the Medici’s. Florentines, or in general citizens from Italy, Germany, France, England and Spain, could educate themselves and conform to humanist behaviour and intellect to graft themselves onto the elitist body of Humanists which were influential throughout Europe. This led the Humanists to not a homogenous way of living but a homogenous way of thinking which would undoubtedly bring about a tainted representation of place and space. Of course, the production of space was one of the prime objectives and outlays of this band of Humanists.
The notion of a Humanist is aptly quantified by Marsilio Ficino, a renowned neo-Platonist and friend of the Medici’s, in his Theologia Platonica:
“ …the humanist spans the heavens and the earth; he plumbs the depths of Tartarus; nor are the heavens too high for him, nor the centre of the earth too deep. He has mapped the heavens and knows the powers that move them; he knows their destinies and their effects; he has measured their span. Who can deny, therefore, that he is of almost equal genius to the author of these heavenly bodies and that he himself might also be able to create them? Man wants of no superior, wants of no equal. He will not tolerate the existence of an empire above this which excludes him. He seeks to dominate all things everywhere and demands praise for his works. His predominance is everywhere and is God’s. He demands immortality, as does God.”(12)
Humanists distinguished themselves further with the use of the languages they spoke; Greek and Latin. The movement, at stated above, informed its practitioners thinking and also being. This could be physically seen in the production of space. For example, Michelangelo’s frescoes in the Sistine Chapel were constructed using influences from both Christian and Platonic beliefs. It would be foolish to assume that Niccolo Machiavelli also, with his strict humanist education, father’s and peers’ influence and company of colleagues, was not in the same way influenced by this elitist and segregated thought process.
“And if Your Magnificence will turn your eyes at some time from the summit of your high position towards these lowlands, you will realise to what degree I unjustly suffer a great and continuos malevolence of fortune.”(13)
What we receive from The Prince is a deeply political text, but with architectural ramifications. Written at the age of 44 in seclusion, in 1513, the motives and conditions under which The Prince was conceived and realised were many. For the want of Machiavelli in this year was great. As confessed to a close friend at this difficult period, Machiavelli was prepared to accept any post at the Medici court “even if they started me off by rolling stones.”(14)
An almost perverse longing and passion to please the Medici and to fulfil his role as not only a human, but also a humanist, pushes and tugs at the Machiavellian mind, the mind to produce The Prince. Coupled with his personal sentiments, the political climate expressed at the time further moulded the mind and presented Machiavelli with not a blank canvas, but a hugely tainted fresco. Thus, purity and impartiality in Machiavelli’s theories are questionable, and the text itself fundamentally narcissist and self-obsessed. Machiavelli is dealing with pure abstract space, however his proposal for the reform and deformation of this space is particularly impure. Machiavelli may be theorising about ‘true space’, “applied to such practical problems as those of bureaucracy and power, rent and profit, and so on, so creating the illusion of a less chaotic reality”(15), but this was conceived from a hugely chaotic foundation. Machiavelli, and so The Prince, cannot be pure. He has his own intentions. He is in a battle of his own and, of course, fights for victory.
In what perspective does he speak of Right and Truth? Machiavelli’s representation of Florence, his ‘space’, is bound by his tools of deployment, namely his writing implements and paper manifested in the production of The Prince, but also his self-representation; his demeanour, appearance, portraits and dialogue with the Medici family. Surely, none of his public characteristics would have been left to chance for such an accomplished politician and diplomat. However, it should be noted that any conceived space brought to fruition is done so by those who believe it to be true. Cerebral internecine warfare at the heart of The Prince makes Machiavelli’s representation of space seemingly biased.
It is at the most telling of times, almost when one has to fight for one’s life against adversity that great thinkers produce their most inspired and brilliant work. It is at such times that man wishes to prove himself, at the jaws of death, and produce something, anything, of worth to be remembered by. A fear of unfulfilment as Machiavelli glimpsed death was great motivation.
In the month of September, 1512, the republican city of Florence was overthrown. Its small militia stood no chance against Spanish infantry under the reign of King Ferdinand. The fledgling republic was dissolved in a way fitting to the time, and the Medici, under Guilliano II, were reinstated by the Spanish in 1513.(16) As the downfall of republicanism was confirmed, so was that of Machiavelli’s position in the Chancery. In February of 1513, Machiavelli was tried and falsely accused of conspiracy. He was imprisoned for 22 days in which he was tortured for information and subjected to 6 drops of the strappado, [a device in which its victims were raised by their arms behind their back and suddenly released]. Demoralised and humiliated, Machiavelli retired to his small family farm at Sant ‘Andrea, 7 miles south of Florence. This predicament, however, was as good as imprisonment. Machiavelli longed for a seat at the Medici court, and a position of influence in affairs of the state. The fact that he could almost smell his beloved affairs of politics, which were no doubt being tackled in earnest in Florence, made the situation no easier for Machiavelli.
However, it is not the case that Machiavelli plays the role of a puppet, only wishing employment with the Medici family; his own ambitions, seemingly egotistical and reassuringly political for such an accomplished diplomat, should be realised and extrapolated. Necessarily bourgeois, but written with child-like purity, Machiavelli outlines a doctrine of princely rule and [social]order narrated in the 16th century. With Marx and Engels positing theories on the organisation of production and of planning(17), with large references to state economy, over three and a half centuries later, Machiavelli introduces a comparatively practical as opposed to theoretical handbook in the production of social space.
“…any space implies, contains and dissimulates social relationships – and this despite the fact that a space is not a thing but rather a set of relations between things[objects and products](18).
If one cannot separate social practice from architecture, The Prince opens a discourse on the city as a political tool and a social ordering device which draws comparison with contemporary manifestos with a similar, if more architectural, goal.
Foucault states that only towards the end of the 16th century architecture becomes political, is avidly discussed amongst members of a government and is included in the chapters of government papers. Machiavelli, however, is theorising about the production, representation and definition of space. Although it can be stated that The Prince was written as a private discourse in an attempt to forge Machiavelli’s way back into government at a time when he was idle, the generating force behind the text is not strictly governmental, but Humanist.
“…those states that are acquired are used to living by their own laws and in freedom, there are three methods of holding on to them : the first is to destroy them; the second is to go there in person to live; the third is to allow them to live with their own laws…”(19)
“Let us consider a very simple act, like that of lifting the arm. Where would we be if we had to imagine beforehand all the elementary conditions and tensions this act involves. Or even to perceive them, one by one, as they are accomplished? But the mind is carried immediately to the end…”(20)
As Bergson states, it is to act that we think, forever focussing on the end result more than the means. Therefore, to think of the production of social space is to pre-empt action, also social and all encumbering. And is Machiavelli dealing with extremes? Preventing war in front of a background of peace, or upholding peace in a background of war? Machiavelli is essentially positing an architectural manifesto to curb man’s habitual necessity for warfare, for it is war which is the “permanent basis of all the institutions of power” and “…it was war that presided over the birth of states: not the ideal war imagined by the philosophers of the state but real war and actual battles.”(21) Is Machiavelli, then, theorising with his palette of tools into a canvas of war or peace? The answer to this dilemma has already been realised in the previous chapters; this was a period of conflict and upheaval in 16th century Florence, Italy and Europe.
However, are all social doctrines also written in a background of war? Is the responsibility of architectural manifestos partially to curb man’s habitual need for conflict and social upheaval? “The function of the intellect is to preside over actions”(22), and in his own manner, Machiavelli acts to counter Florentine unrest, existing and/or potential, with The Prince. Within The Prince, his language is that of action, of physical manoeuvres and gestures, and the outcome that of ‘glory’ and ‘esteem’.(23) Machiavelli deeply understands that within power structures, it is war that “continues to rage within the mechanisms of power – or at least, to constitute the secret driving force of institutions, laws and order.(24) In order to theorise with reference to the city, one must first understand the mechanisms under which the city operates. Machiavelli, and Foucault, both clearly believe that conflict holds the vitality of the city in the palm of its hand.
Thus, as stipulated earlier, Machiavelli cannot assume the role of anonymity in authorship and universality. War and conflict separates and divides. Machiavelli fights not only for personal victory, that of humility and honour, but also for political and public victory. But war and conflict also binds and produces. With conflict, opinions are formed and issues are raised. However, by conflict I do not purely mean that of physical violence and social disorder, but that of the conflict of ideas, theories and spaces. “By ‘violence’, I do not mean the physical or emotional integrity but a metaphor for the intensity of a relationship between individuals and their surrounding spaces.”(25) Can it be stated that conflict is needed for social interventions, for architectural interventions?
However, this conflict of space/s needs to be fully explained and expanded upon with reference to [abstract]Florence and [physical]Florence, along with its mechanisms.
Machiavelli’s Florence is dealt with in an abstracted form. It is seen as a staunch hierarchical power base which, in 16th century Europe, it certainly was. [The Medici’s of Florence did, after all, provide a pope in the form of Leo X, formally Giovanni de Medici]. Machiavelli weaves together a tapestry of abstracted form, always referring to historico-political examples which, in turn, could also been seen to be ‘impure’. On more than one occasion, and throughout The Prince, Machiavelli recalls distant Popes, Dukes, Emperors and other such protobourgeois figures from the past and present, from his memory to justify his hypothetical political manoeuvres.
“And I shall cite the province of Greece as an example: the Romans kept the Achaens and the Aetolians in check; the Macedonian kingdom was put down; Antiochus was driven out; nor were they ever persuaded by the merits of the Achaens or the Aetolians to allow them any gain of territory; nor did the persuasion of Philip of Macedonia ever convince them to make him their friend…”(26)
These historical and textural pawns Machiavelli used reinforced any one of his theories on the reformation of space. However, these elements alone should not be seen in isolation and compared to those used by other such informers/reformers of space; elements such as the façade, square, colonnade, void, etc, for Machiavelli utilises other elements of social and space reformation such as fortresses, civil principalities, Princes, Kings and advisers. These are his facades and routes. These are his voids and perspectives.
Machiavelli’s elements mould his abstract space, that of Florence or any state, into a controllable entity. One which is whole, for that is in essence what The Prince as an architectural manifesto is trying to achieve. We have, however, strayed slightly from the mark. Just as terms such as routes and voids find their domain in practical space, or ‘real’ habitable space, and are not used to describe, or belong to, abstract space, Machiavelli, whilst theorising about abstract space, uses language more apt to his cause. Fear, Hatred, Fortune, Trust, Wickedness, Strength, Citizen, Arms, Generosity, Esteem, Flattery and Mercy. These are his Disjunctions, Perceptions, Relations, Contradictions and Complexities. Using these tools to define and then impart a level of control onto Florence is the ultimate goal of Machiavelli. Defining Florence as an entity, or as a collection of entities, is the measure of the state as a power base. “As part of the protracted decline of the Roman state-city-Empire, the city gradually ceased to be.”(27) The quantifying of space is key under the lens of a political and economic analysis. To recognise the notion of Florence as space, albeit abstracted with Machiavelli, is to appreciate it and to judge it, and to keep it alive and characteristically Florentine in nature.
Machiavelli’s theories on social space remain abstract and ‘innocent’. As social space cannot be judged by perceiving blueprints of public squares, gardens, boulevards, etc. or even by the representation of these forms in a constructed format, so the same notion should be applied to The Prince and its manifesto in abstract space. A threshold needs to be penetrated to enter habitual space, and almost chaos, to truly perceive Machiavellian space.
However, an absolute perception of space by a Florentine in the mode of an appropriate medium of the time, of commodity, of capacity, of the capitalist mode of production, can only be garnered with a ‘total’ recognition of space and representation. Just as food cannot be fully perceived through taste alone, but in conglomeration with smell, texture, and appearance also, so the total perception of Florentine space in this era cannot be fully perceived without all of its attributes, including the form, manner and representation of the theoretician and informer of abstract space, Machiavelli, and the ruling class and informers of physical space, the Medici family.
Down its corridors of conflict, in and amongst the streets and alleys of Florence to the space produced from a fruition of politics and representation, there lies space beyond politics which is not purely abstract but inhabited.
“The violence that is inherent in space enters into conflict with knowledge, which is equally inherent in that space. Power – which is to say violence – divides, then keeps what it has divided in a state of separation; inversely, it reunites – yet keeps what it wants in a state of confusion.”(28)
The ‘arena’ in question is utilitarian, [used by both proletariat and bourgeois], its control strictly bourgeois, but its conflict dual in nature. The conflict in space, of physical violence, from the marauding Spanish and Italian armies to the treacherous housewives and adulterous husbands, is constituted within space and held together on the stage which is Florence. But conflicting space, that of representations of space, of buildings images, portraits, statues and other such ‘products of politics’, collectively constitute a space. That of Florence.
As Lefebvre states, this then presupposes a conflict of knowledge. In essence, it would be foolish to state that the actual space of Florence is conflicting in any fashion at all. In the same manner in which social space is only deemed to be so with the inclusion of the [public]‘social’ denominator into its equation, thus the essence of Florentine conflicting space is not, for example, in its imagery or architecture but in the ‘violence’ and ‘conflict’ between social perception and knowledge.
“Conflict is not rare between representational spaces and the symbolic systems they encompass…”(29) The symbols and tools of representation produce a product made public, and through social habitation and usage, then produces a space. One feeds off the other which then feeds the other in a cyclic nature, forever mutually reinforcing. History reiterates itself again and again, with nothing completely disappearing and events which have passed underpinning that which follows. A recollection of memories through spatial perception of symbols, images and representations of space further brings forward a sense of related symbols, related images and related representations.
So, what of the space of 16th century Florence? What do the representations of space make up in the conflicting space of Florence? How is this food perceived? Is it heterotopian(30) in nature, whereby the space has the power of juxtaposing in a single real place different spaces and locations that are incompatible with each other? If social practice cannot operate without the notion of conflict[of spaces], surely this means that there must be at least two opposing spaces at war? And if so, what are these spaces?
The ruling class of Florence for most of the 14th-17th century were the Medici family. Their control of space, although not completely concrete, was somewhat complete. By ‘control of space’ I mean the intensity and manner in which the Medicis represented their space. Any space, of course, cannot be fully controlled to the extent that social activity is predefined and catered for. However, the ‘production of space’ is possible, as highlighted above, and social activity can be pre-empted, if not predefined. Representations of space encompass maps and plans, transport and communications systems, and images and signs(31), but the Medici’s representations of space include their urban squares and courts, commissioned buildings but more importantly their facades, and their family portraits and statues. All with political motives and intentions, the family are limited to this public display to influence private thought. If it can be said that the production of space, both conflicting and violent, pre-empts social activity, can it be further stated that the production of Medicean space pre-empts Medicean activity? If one cannot separate social practice from architecture, are the Medicis the producers of not only space, namely Medicean space, but also a form of social practice/activity, which can also be defined as being Medicean in nature?
As Foucault claimed, individual identity from birth is not a defined human characteristic. In fact, humans mould their identity, judgement and personality to the immediate events surrounding them at any given time.(32) Therefore, social identity and action, or reactions, resulting from it is directly correlated to perception. “Psychology students will be familiar with the…. 18 volunteers from the Stanford student body in the summer of 1971, that inspired endless ethical debate…after six days, the behaviour of the guards degenerated so appallingly into sadism that the experiment had to be shortened…”(33)
Florence is represented in not one, but in a multitude of mediums all overlapping, mutually strengthening, and driving towards a common goal. However, in trying to piece together a ‘true’ idea of the conflicting space of Florence, and that of Medicean space more precisely, care must be taken with regard to the different levels of representations of space. This regard is key to the argument for the production of space. For example, the Medici’s portraits and statues are the one level of representation which the family commands the most control. Adversely, their commissioned urban plazas and churches are the forms of representation of which the family control the least, for artistic licence was surely given in some measure to the architect. Together with writings and public appearances, which are sandwiched between the two pawns of portrayal highlighted above, this leads the ruling class to a medium of producing space, ‘total space’ which then all amalgamates in a heightened total perception of Florentine space. To bombard the senses with imagery and symbolism on an urban scale is all that the Medici’s can do in an effort to monopolise the space of Florence.
If the ‘common’ Florentine in the 16th century is being bombarded, what is he/she being bombarded with? And what type of social practice/activity/action is pre-empted as a result?
“The animation of the sitter himself is necessarily restrained. He appears nobly upright in bearing and decorously detached, perhaps smiling slightly as he looks out beyond the spectator…. makes the claim that this serene youth has the fierce spirit of a formidable warrior…. such a juxtaposition of beautiful youth and ferocious maturity.”(34)
As stated in the previous chapter, if a total perception of Florentine space encompasses the representations of the ruling class, the Medici’s, and that within space there must be conflict, can it further be stated that Medicean space must be in conflict with the space ‘produced’ by the spatial theoretician of the time, Machiavelli?
Part A
“The building of the Medici Palace constituted both a major political and a new form of power.”(35)
In 16th century Florence, the Humanist found life to his choosing. For Humanism was in its prime, basking under the Italian sun which had for so long been the sole reserve of Christianity alone. The ethics of Humanism worked their way through the politics of the city with great vigour and aplomb. Not only was the humanist movement an intellectual society at the turn of the 16th century, but many prominent Humanists held positions in the Florentine government. Humanism infiltrated society throughout the 14th-16th century causing great ramifications manifesting through the intellectual society of the Renaissance movement. As stated above, this led the Humanists to not a homogenous way of living but a homogenous way of thinking which undoubtedly brought about a tainted representation of place and space.
However, on closer inspection we have found discrepancies in this argument. Moving from macro to micro brings about obvious changes in scale and significance, and what is perceived to be ‘good’ on a general level is discovered to be not so when magnified. The Humanism practised within Florence was not whole, but fractured and fragmented, pushing in one way or another, constantly in opposition and rarely in co-operation with one another. Two such trends of Humanism in the 16th century could be said to be Medicean and Machiavellian. Both are informers of space, as argued in previous chapters, with Medicean practices informing actual space and Machiavellian practices informing abstract space. Thus, conflicting space in Florence is assured, perpetually carving and grafting amended representational space from representations of space. As we delve into the subject matter, that of Florentine space, our exploration shifts from scale to scale. However, we find the notion of conflict inherent in all of our studies, for conflict is evident not only in space but also in Humanism and its representations constituting space.
This study now shifts in scale again and we move our analysis from understanding the relationships between objects, to objects themselves. It is vital that a distinction is drawn between Florence as a space and Florentine space, for one is the container and one the contained. It is the objects, the representations of space, placed onto the canvas of Florence which should now be examined, and how they inform space in their immediate vicinity. In essence, the city of Florence itself is of no importance. Florence acts as a container which holds representations of space; it is the substance which the container holds which is to be analysed, and not the container and contained both as one entity. However, it is important to examine Florence with reference to these representations, for just as water emptied from a jug still leaves a residue, a reminder of its presence there, also Florence cannot be seen to be purely a vessel once it has held its objects and representations of space.
It should also be noted that objects/representations of space, and thus the case studies which are to be examined, only inform society and their surroundings if they are perceived by society. It is the conversation between the body and the image which brings about the facility to inform the multiple body, that of society, and thus space. “Here are external images, then my body, and, lastly, the changes brought about by my body in the surrounding images. I see plainly how external images influence the image that I call my body: they transmit movement to it.”(36) Without a recipient, the image has no power. But, as Bergson claims, with both an image and a body, not only does the image cause a ‘reaction’ in the body, which then informs space, as we have already argued, but also the body intern ‘converses’ with the images that it perceives, which then further reforms space. However, this shall be explored in greater depth later with reference to both bodies and objects, for as now we have definite bodies, the Florentine society, but no definite objects.
Understandably, under the Medici’s, the power of patronage was immense; whereas in the past, art was used to glorify God, it was now increasingly being use to glorify the patron.
“In the fields of sculpture and painting it was the three Medici, Cosimo, Piero and Lorenzo, who, by befriending, encouraging and commissioning, enabled the traditional workshop craftsman to develop into the artist as that word is understood today.”(37)
The origins of Medici patronage can be found in antique coins, medals and vases which Cosimo began to take an interest in, in his youth. This was an important juncture in Florentine art as it paved the opportunity for the commissioning of non-religious art.
It was in this period that the relationship between patron and artist grew, and the link between the represented and representer flourished. For example, Donatello’s relationship with his patron went further than that of simply employer and employee.(38) It is here that we witness a change in the power structure within Florence; not only does the artist become an employee, a tool and a key source for propaganda for the patron, the artist also becomes a confident and friend. The circle of Humanists expands. The spaces of Florence are being overwhelmed by now not only humanist thought, but also one kind of humanist representation. “In his old age he received, [Donatello], a pension from Cosimo, the first known instance of such help to an artist…”(39) Two needy parties can be seen to be working in conglomeration; the artist feeds on commissions, they are his bread and wine, and the patron pines for a public voice, both aesthetic and, of course, political. As mutual regard grew, so did the status of the artist.
However, although the reputation of the artist was growing, their work was still controlled by their patrons. It was the patron who made the choice of the subject and the patron who supported the artist during the period of work. Ultimately, it was the patron, or at least his beliefs, being portrayed so graphically and masterly.
“At least as late as Piero de’ Medici, the patron guided the artist even in details. In 1459 ... to decorate the chapel of the Medici Palace with ‘The Procession of the Magi’, he instructed the artist to fill it with bright colours and rich, courtly dresses along the lines of Gentile da Fabriano’s ‘Adoration of the Magi.”(40)
Piero took painting out of purely the realms of the church and, although he did not press his artists into producing representations for self-glorification, objects produced still conformed to an ethic and contributed to the production of Medicean space.
Florence was the centre of the Italian Renaissance and remained the European focal point for art and sculpture until a certain Picasso started to make headlines. The city was the darling of the Renaissance culture, bearing strange and innovative fruits from the hands of Michelangelo, Donatello, Botticelli, Bronzino, and others. Moreover, this starkly showed in the actual space of Florence itself. “In Florence, sculpture perhaps more than architecture determines the character of the place, so vivid is one’s impression of an entire population of statues.”(41) In this sense, Florence can be seen as gallery space, much the same way as any space, anywhere in the world, which holds representations. However, Florentine space differs slightly in comparison, and eclipses, other examples, such as modern New York or Paris, in that the Medici’s in the 16th century introduced to the world its first public gallery. Work commissioned was on display not only within the Medici Palace, but also in the public space Florence. In essence, the palace itself was on display.
The impact of the palace alone was huge, [Appendix II]. Completed in 1440, Cosimo commissioned Michelozzo for the design after an elaborate scheme proposed by Brunelleschi was rejected.(42) What one can extrapolate from this period in time is the aspect of control, or an attempt to control. The control of space and time became important where, at the beginning of the renaissance, measurement was still vague. “The development of perspective in the painting of the late 15th and early 16th centuries is one indication of a more calculating approach to the measurement of space, which is then combined with an aesthetics of proportion.”(43) It was Lorenzo de’ Medici who used to say to his wife “Whether you are walking, standing, or sitting, try and do it with style.”(44)
The Medici’s were always in control of their work. Their portrayal of space was complete. Is it, therefore, enough for the production of [a] space to take place, just to place one’s representations of space in space? Yes, the product will surely be a space, in pure abstract terms, but as Lefebvre claims, the questions ‘Who produces?’, ‘What?’, ‘How?’, ‘Why?’ and ‘For whom?’(45) need to be answered for the concept of production to become fully concrete.
The Medici Palace could not have functioned without spectators. Like an orchestra performance with no audience, no recipient, the concept of music is not lost, only its essence, meaning and perhaps a measure of its worth. The concept of music is somewhat betrayed. Violating space holding Medicean representations of space transforms it into Medicean space. “Indeed, the presence of that odd piece of furniture, your own body, seems superfluous, an intrusion. The space offers the thought that while eyes and minds are welcome, space-occupying bodies are not.”(46) Nevertheless, space-occupying bodies are needed to perceive representations, without which the representations of space, the objects, have no power. They hold command over their space, yet have no rule. By now studying a representation of space in representational space, we can examine this concept, and others explained above, in greater detail.
Between 1439-1443, Cosimo de’ Medici commissioned Donatello for a statue of David, [Appendix III], with the head of Goliath, the boy who had “come to symbolise for Florentines their own relatively small republic triumphing over larger enemies.”(47) Cosimo wanted his friend to break with centuries of sculpting tradition and to create the boy free-standing and nude. The completed work was placed in the courtyard of the Palazzo Medici, a semi-private open space which adhered to the Medici’s love of, and the introduction of, gallery spaces.
The cortile [courtyard] of the Palazzo Medici, [Appendix IV], becomes the White Cube that holds the boy David, ready to be perceived. The cortile is gallery space, the setting scene and backdrop for drama to occur. Even without the placement of the boy, the space holds large amounts of Medicean representation, as Cosimo played an active part in Michelozzo’s design. In this study, however, we are taking David as the case study within the Medici Palace, and not either the boy nor the palace in isolation
It is this total Medicean space, as illustrated in the diagram below, which is to be examined.
To recapitulate, it has been posited that the total space of Florence, and Humanism itself, is in conflict between at least two parties, of which Medicean space and Machiavellian space have been highlighted. Moreover, Medicean space, which is currently under the microscope, is constituted of representations of space, for example David, in representational space. It is the character of this space which we wish to determine, and thus in a similar manner, the character of Machiavellian space.
The palace, deliberately intended by Cosimo to be a model of renaissance architecture, far surpassed any of the other palaces at the time in Florence, or even Italy. The entrance door led the visitor, through an arched vestibule, into our open cortile, around which the four sides of the palace were built. This space becomes the focus of the palace, and its main circulation area. With a fine marble staircase leading up from the cortile to the handsome rooms on the first floor, the space both perceives and is perceived. It is the eye of the storm.
The asymmetrical positioning of the staircase, which is “unpretentious but generous”(48) in design, further focuses the eye onto the gallery space. Working on the assumption that David stands on the main axis of the cortile, a visitor entering the palace would notice the boy first, and then the staircase. The staircase may not be noticed at all, which for so long has been a dominant feature in palace design. The boy holds centre stage, and his dominance, even among the army of columns that he holds company with, is unequivocal. He stands naked, in full view. He seems not ashamed of his act, and even the Gods are given the opportunity to behold him in the open space. The boy bestows an overwhelming feeling of nonchalance and confidence, surprisingly so considering the act that he has committed.
As we approach David, we do so without knowing. The route is extremely regimented and rigid, but with the boy barely 1½ metres tall, his presence is unknown. For this is not Michelangelo’s David, whose towering presence demands attention first and foremost, even before its fellow representations. Donatello’s David quietly approaches the visitor, as the visitor unassumingly approaches.
Understanding the representation itself more closely, we find David’s head half tipped, with a partially revealed face, covered with a wide-brimmed cloth hat, which is wreathed. His skin is smooth, and it is clear to see that his slender limbs adhere to that of a boy more than that of a man. However, his flowing locks and languid pose impart a somewhat feminine quality to our young hero. The softness of David’s skin is further accentuated by the rough, chiselled texture of his hair resting on his shoulders, and the sharp features of the wings on Goliath’s helmet leaning against the boy’s lower legs. With David’s gaze held downward, with inward authority and modesty, it is as though he is pausing for breath and is in waiting.
The representation of space stands in stasis, but the space of representation, [of this representation, David], is in motion. The boy seems barely able to hold his pose for a moment longer. The regulated columns feather the periphery, and coupled with the fidgeting boy, this leans itself to a heightened sense of time and progression. The columns actively bookmark our passage, and an indication of rhythm is their greatest virtue, from which the presence of time and distance are prevalent.
From a study of a static object producing dynamic space, [or an impression of], we move to a study of bodies in motion, again producing dynamic space, to further reinforce our argument. However, within this study, the term dynamic will need to be clarified, for would not a study of any space incorporating a body/bodies in motion result in the production of a-static space, therefore dynamic? [Is a football match not an example of dynamic space?]
Lorenzo de Medici’s marriage feast on a summer’s day in June, 1475, gave Florentines their first formal view of their new lord at home. Here, Lorenzo acts as the represented and the representer. We find “unmistakable evidence that Florentines were reconstructing…. space around the exemplary figure of young Lorenzo.”(49) At this public ritual, Lorenzo shines like a gem and introduces his ‘magnificence’ to Florentines, and to the space of Florence. This event cannot but be another example of Medicean space, with a Medicean representative being re-presented, as with David in the cortile, in the space of Florence. The representation of space is, therefore, Lorenzo, but more accurately the ritual of the Medicean festival, and the spectators are the Florentine public. As posited above, the singular components of Medicean representation and spectator in social space constitute Medicean space.
Dynamism is concurrent in this representation. After all, it is a festival. A celebration! But here we refer to visual dynamism, of movement and gesture, of physical bodies cutting through space. Yet, an element of dynamism was prevalent in the cortile, with no movement of bodies apart from the passage through the courtyard. How can this be?
The dynamism experienced in the Palazzo Medici is that of anticipation and titillation. It is the anticipation of movement which is special in this space, and not the notion of movement which is obviously associated with the term dynamic. The thought of impending movement, of David’s fidgeting pose, is pre-emptive of movement, and the act of movement is post-emptive of the thought. However, the post-emptive response never physically manifests itself, [the boy does not shift his pose], but the thought remains, with no visual outlet apart from a cerebral impression of movement. The cerebral resultant therefore acts as a ‘fill-in’, or substitute, to physical dynamism.
The point of recognition of David within the cortile, this moment of awareness and titillation starts the cycle of cerebral dynamism explained above.
“…. all that is actual in it being a single moment, gone while we try to apprehend it, of which it may ever be more timely said that it has ceased to be more that it is.”(50)
The constant knowledge of movement with the regular colonnade forever shifting and altering the visual perception of the cortile when walking through it further highlights a feeling of moment and movement. The space produced if David was placed within, for example, a blank room with no fenestration or wall articulation, or visual markers, would undoubtedly be less dynamic whilst walking through it. “Human beings do not stand before, or amidst social space,….they act and situate themselves in space as active participants.”(51)
At Lorenzo’s feast, we find the production of space manifested in a dissimilar manner to David’s, however, on closer inspection, the characteristics of this space are not so dissimilar.
Lorenzo’s control of space is complete, as is David’s, and they both take command of their respective territories; the cortile for David, the festival for Lorenzo. A bystander’s description of Lorenzo states “Everyone watches what he does…., His dress surpasses easily that of, All those of whom we’ve spoken, And well shows that he is signore.”(52) Both Lorenzo and David, the objects, are focal points, the instigators, and in essence it could be said that in both cases, space is constructed and ordered as of that in gallery space.
“Works of art are mounted, hung, scattered for study. Their ungrubby surfaces are untouched by time and its vicissitudes. Art exists in a kind of eternity of display, and though there is lots of ‘period’ [late modern], there is no time. This eternity gives the gallery a limbolike status; one has to have died to be there.”(53)
However, in Medicean space, this death is temporal and more akin to a comatose state. The term ‘death’ implies a sense of permanence and rigidity, but we have found moments of sublime titillation which highlights the spectator’s morality within their trance of perception; David’s tip of his head, his feminine pose suggesting a level of eroticism which accentuates the shock of the moment, or more acutely, its moment of anticipation.
This sensation is also felt at Lorenzo’s feast. “Everytime a company came on to the stage to dance, they took refreshments once or twice which were suitable for that time of day. First came the trumpeters, then a great silver basin, then many smaller ones full of glasses, then small silver jars full of water….then….then….”(54) Music, or more specifically, the sound of trumpets instigated a series of key events; the food being served, the processions, the instants at which important members left and entered the feast, etc. Stewards even controlled the speed of the porters in such a way that each serving going to the maiden’s table in the garden arrived at precisely the same moment as it did at all the other tables.
Every moment was preordained by the sound of trumpets. Every moment controlled and choreographed to allow for its fullest effect on the spectators. The manner in which this event took place was unique in its time. “Another means through which Cosimo created significant Medicean times was by patronising established communal festivities so lavishly that their communal character was overlaid, and confused with, a Medicean quality.”(55) So, again, the Medici family, as they did with art and sculpture, are stamping their authority, and their own characteristics, onto the production of space.
Medicean space is endlessly underlining its presence. Like a lamp flashing on and off in a dark room, an awareness of space is exaggerated in the light, but not forgotten in the dark. The momentary sensation of stillness and pre-dynamism in both case studies highlights an enormous instigator for the perception of Medicean space. The acute and heightened hyper-awareness of stillness, of the quiet, of the unchaotic and simple, just before the point of physical dynamism or, cerebral dynamism in David’s case, is our definition of the sublime momentary sensation. The past is degraded and one’s presence in the present is brought to the fore.
“To experience shock was to experience a moment. Shock could occur only in a flashing, fleeting moment; more exactly, shock framed and defined a moment as a moment.”(56)
Just as Epstein conceived film as a series of moments(57), so Medicean space is constructed as such, with peaks and troughs, therefore fragmenting one’s association with social space. Lorenzo represents himself as a representation of space within an arena of ordered time cycles and of physical symmetry, just by the way that the feast was organised masterly with regimented tables, regimented servings, and a symmetrical regiment of 4 servers violating space in a pre-ordained, pre-empted fashion. The fact that both representations of space are situated within notions of extreme order and symmetry further enforces the sublime moments occurring momentarily before inorder.
However, where is the conflict of space so vigorously argued for in previous chapters? What is Medicean space conflicting with? The answer to this question has already surfaced, so it is now that we turn our attention to a rival of Medicean space, its opposing and conflicting brother, Machiavellian space.
The exercise of understanding Machiavellian space is a peculiar one, for which great care must be taken in order for this study not to regress down a path where games of simple word play become its greatest virtue. This is a real danger, as the representation of space under examination is presented as text, and not, as in the case of Medicean space, a spatial object or entity. This should not, however, inhibit its study and spatial understanding. This chapter, then, refers to a particular code, that of The Prince, and its spatial implications.
In the case of Medicean space, its character was extrapolated using examples of existing spaces to enforce the argument. However, the examples chosen were those which were quite obviously Medicean in nature; to find a trail of evidence linking Medicean attributes to David, and even more succinctly with Lorenzo, is no difficult chore. Therefore, the challenge became not the highlighting of form of these spaces, but their characteristics and manner.(58) However, with Machiavellian space, the exercise is not so straightforward, nor linear.(59) This exercise follows the same path as that of Medicean space, although the only difference being that it flows in an opposite direction, as the characteristics of Machiavellian space will first be extrapolated, and then space labelled.
On closer inspection there is no difference in the exercise to define both Medicean and Machiavellian space. The starting point for both studies has, and will be, an examination of representations of space, [sculpture and event as examples for Medicean space, and The Prince as an example for Machiavellian space], and then progressing onto how these representations inform the space surrounding them. The key difference, if one needs to be highlighted, is a mere technicality, but it should be noted, as it will aid in the comprehension of Machiavellian space – With Medicean space, the representations already sit within space, thus creating representational space, whereas the representation of space for Machiavellian space outwardly inform no physical space. The pure text of The Prince is realised as utterance, and can be lost in the wind almost as soon as it is perceived.
For now, if we move onto the subject of perceiving The Prince, the waters become murkier still. Just as David had to be perceived by spectators to produce Medicean space, so The Prince will also need to be perceived, although in which manner, is as yet unclear.
The Prince is no object, or statue, that commands attention. Nor is it any event which co-ordinates and organises social interaction. It alone is not capable of these forms, although it does sow the seeds for social interventions. The Prince is, in essence, a recipe, and just as any recipe is a rulebook for the production of a physical entity, food, also The Prince is a rulebook for the production of space. However, it is not the food that we are interested in here. It will be devoured and forgotten. A short-term fascination. But it is the idea of food which is of importance, the Recipe itself, for that remains, again and again providing inspiration and direction after being perceived. The games played with words can certainly find their equivalent in the production of space. It is the idea of space, after perceiving The Prince, which is to be investigated, and not particularly the space itself.
The Prince perceived, through reading, remains a cerebral entity. As a hypothetical text, it has no physical anchor, and only through its ideas of physicality does it relate to social space. In no way is the text primed for one situation, or allied to a specific scene. It bears fruit in varying pastures and climates, and is by no means chastised to one period or one scenario, as David is in his cortile. There he remains, his control complete but bounded within limits. However, adversely, The Prince knows no limits, [it can be read anywhere], but its level of control is limited and, as discussed above, cerebral and largely hypothetical. But as stated earlier, this should not deter from the task of finding what characteristics of space The Prince alludes to. The idea of space is prevalent, even if the space of the idea is not.
So, if Machiavelli’s writings provide the representation of space, what has he written? The Prince was written in solitude. Alone and destitute, Machiavelli describes his working environment whilst writing The Prince, as thus:
“I return to my house and enter my study; at the door I take off the day’s clothing, covered with mud and dust, and put on garments regal and courtly; and reclothed appropriately, I enter the ancient court of men of antiquity where, affectionately received, I partake of that food which alone is mine and for which I was born, where I am not too timid to speak with them and ask them the reasons for their actions; and they in their courtesy answer to me; and for four hours of time I feed no weariness, I forget every trouble, I do not fear poverty, death does not dismay me; I give myself over entirely to them.”(60)
The predicament he is in is obvious, but if it were possible to examine beyond purely his words of despair, to the core of the writing, it would be beneficial to our cause. The words, any words, are the skin and clothing, the façade, to the body inside. It is their function to distract and detract, and also to cover the body and spirit underneath. Words can, as clothes can also, be shed and replaced, sometimes to produce the same outward effect, although the spirit or body cannot. Thus, as it would be a mistake to judge from apparel and appearances alone.(61)
In studying the passage above, it is clear that Machiavelli speaks of personal space, and when compared to a passage from The Prince, the intensity of emotion is stronger and more forthright. However, when Machiavelli writes of ancient courts of men, and then of the Carthaginiano being besieged(62), for example, do we accept that both, if studied and considered, will allude to Machiavellian space? Surely the answer to this would be ‘No’, for one refers to Machiavelli’s space and one to Machiavellian space.(63) The matter of why this small description should be used to extrapolate Machiavellian space at all, and not only The Prince, will need to be resolved. What makes The Prince different from the small passage above, that warrants it the sole benefactor of Machiavellian space? If the argument for the distinction between Machiavelli’s space and Machiavellian space is to be accepted, then, at some point we must ascertain a spatial contradiction between these two bodies. Otherwise, would the response, “Because The Prince is The Prince” be sufficient to ally it to Machiavellian space? Surely there must be more of a distinction between, for example, Machiavellian space and Proustian space, other than that of the distinction in authors. However, we may find these dilemmas answered during the course of this study, if not at its commencement. All that is known at this time is that any text written by Niccolo Machiavelli should be studied, if only to secure a foothold onto the idea of Machiavellian space. If we go back to the matter of perceiving the text, we may hopefully make inroads into the task set.
Machiavelli’s uses metaphor and simile greatly. This is obvious from his personal description, and it holds true, although in a less concentrated form, in The Prince. Reading Machiavelli’s work gives one the impression that he lives in hypothetical spaces, in dreams, where he feels he must transport himself, to abstract space, to perform his deeds of diplomacy. And with him, he takes the reader, not essentially to partake in food which alone is his(64), but to at least witness the act. If, as Bergson states, perception is “in the end, only an opportunity of recollection”(65), then it must also be the fulfilment of guesswork. Perception, with reference to text, is largely utilitarian in nature. By this I mean that we only see/read/perceive what we feel we may need/use. Else, it is disregarded.
For example, if one considers the passage: “Therefore, the Duke, above all else, should have made a Spaniard Pope; failing in that, he should have agreed to the election of Rouen and not to that of San Pietro and Vincula. And anyone who benefits that new benefits make men of high station forget old injuries is deceiving himself”(66), a number of points can be enforced. On close reading of this passage taken from the last paragraph of the chapter entitled “On New Principalities Acquired with the Arms of Others and by Fortune”(67), the order of perception can be separated as such that non-essential information be disregarded, and essential information, which the reader may feel will be needed or used, is perceived. Therefore, the words “…the Duke, above all else…”, “…a Spaniard Pope…”, and “…should have agreed to the election of Rouen and not to that of San Pietro and Vincula…” can be examined to a lesser degree or, if perceived, condemned to be ignored or ‘skimmed over’. Thus, what is left of the passage will be perceived. “…. And anyone who benefits that new benefits make men of high station forget old injuries is deceiving himself…”, will be taken into the bosom and cherished. The phenomenon of selective perception is extremely relevant and prevalent in The Prince, especially because of the fact that Machiavelli titles his chapters clearly, so allowing the reader to more accurately selectively perceive the essence of the chapter, as they already have more than an inkling to its theme.
This theory can further be enforced if we consider the following passage, taken from the same chapter:
“And because of this, he began to seek out new allies and to temporise with France during the campaign the French undertook in the Kingdom of Naples against the Spaniards who were besieging the Gaeta.”(68)
If this passage instead read “And because of this, he began to seek out new allies and to temporise with Prussia during the campaign the English undertook in the Kingdom of Rome against the Maltese who were besieging Venice…”, what would be the difference, other than the obvious, to the reader? I propose that this literary amendment is inconsequential; through selective perception, the essence, core, or idea of the passage will be perceived and understood regardless of the external references. From Nicollo Machiavelli’s The Prince, the reader ultimately wishes to garner the diplomat’s views on diplomacy, not his knowledge of political history. [That he has an in-depth knowledge and intelligent political mind, is evident.] Thus, I feel excerpts can be designated essential and non-essential, and relegated and promoted into the consciousness accordingly. Therefore, if it can be stated that the idea of Machiavellian space is gleaned from the perception of The Prince, and what we truly perceive from the text is only essential text, it is this essential text which should be of concern to us to further understand the mechanisms of this space.
A doctrine famed for its apparent simplicity, the beauty of The Prince lies in this simplicity. However, it must be stated that its apparent simplicity only takes this form after the process of simplification has occurred. No reader can assume that the overthrowing of governments, the unifying of states or the coercing of princes could ever be so simple, although beautiful. “The real world, finally, will become a fiction”(69), and it is in this fiction that Machiavelli hides its secrets, shrouding his words and keeping his emotions at bay. Excerpts taken from the charter entitled “How a Prince Should Keep His Word”(70) show how Machiavelli uses a fiction to inform a hypothetical posited fiction: “This policy was taught to princes allegorically by the ancient writers, who described how Achilles and many other ancient writers were given to Chiron the Centaur to be raised and taught under his discipline…”(71), and “…a prince must know how to make good use of the nature of the beast, he should chose from among the beasts the fox and the lion…”(72), veil the reader in dream imagery and hypothetical rhetoric. Above all, Machiavelli presents his space as universal; there remains as much merit in acquiring principalities by skill(73) than by fortune.(74) Machiavellian space seems to act like a fine cloth, or shroud, covering all spaces universally, although not impartially. This suggests that Machiavellian space is associated more with perhaps the spaces between objects, and their relationships, than objects in space themselves.
The end goal of each chapter, the ‘answer’ to each of Machiavelli’s questions, is, of course, most important to the reader who wishes to ascertain as much as he can. And just the fact that there is a goal, is of equal importance. This implants a sense of urgency within the reader, and a feeling of movement and accelerated progression. This is, however, not a feeling of time. If there is a feeling of time, it is of an extremely dislocated time. The Prince is arranged and written as a guidebook, and is presented as such. The reader is allowed the luxury to start perceiving at any point in the book, and to even omit chapters if need be.(75) On many occasions, Machiavelli starts and finishes his chapters in an abrupt manner, as if to highlight a definite starting and finishing point, and the chapter as an individual element. He commences the chapter “On Avoiding Being Despised and Hated”(76) with “I would like to discuss the others briefly in this general manner: that the prince should concentrate on avoiding these things…”(77) and finishes “Therefore, a new prince in a new principality cannot imitate the deeds of Marcus, nor yet does he need to follow those of Serevus…”(78) And again, for the chapter “On the Princes Private Advisers”(79), Machiavelli starts the with “The choice of advisers is of no little import to a prince; and they are good or not according to the wisdom of the prince…”(80) and ends “When, therefore, advisers and princes are of such a nature….the outcome will always be harmful either to one or the other.”(81)
The vivid imagery, coupled with the rapid heartbeat of the progressive chapters, or ‘mini-books’, adds to an impending sensation of closure and the constant renewal of knowledge. This stop-start cerebral action becomes concurrent, as natural as the reader’s heartbeat, and as monotonous as the low drone of large machinery - the steady hum of powerful automata, as of that in a power station, working ceaselessly but in a banal state amongst the chaos surrounding it. This overplay of fragmentation, of punctuation [of the points raised in The Prince, and not that of grammar], and of compression leave an unerring sense of monotony with in the reader.
Considering the chapter entitled “On Ecclesiastical Principles”(82)[Appendix V], which is typical of any found within the book, the theories mentioned above can be enforced. The chapter, again, starts and finishes abruptly with no inter-referenced link from the previous, or the next, chapter. The consciousness is also as abruptly aware of its commencement, however, this jab of the dagger develops into a warm embrace which, in the hyper-monotony which is to follow, becomes almost a background drone. The sharp ‘special’ occurrence becomes usual, commonplace and almost mundane. The hyper-monotony mentioned occurs as a result of the selective perception, which was posited above. This, then, for the chapter examined takes the form of the following words(83):
…for they are acquired either through ability or through fortune…
…princes have states and do not defend them…
…subjects and do not rule them…
…These principalities, then are only secure and happy ones…
…I shall not mention them…
…why is it that the Church…
…considered her temporal power as insignificant…
…two major problems…
…foreigner could enter…
…no one of them increase his territory…
…alliance necessary…
…squabbling…
…kept the papacy weak and unstable…
…consequence, the temporal powers of the Pope were little respected…
…a Pope with money and troops would succeed…
…resulted in the increase power of the Church…
…he did everything for the increased power of the church and not for any individual…
…one, the power of the Church…
…two, not having any of their own family as cardinals…
…found his papacy very powerful indeed…
The passage above highlights the jabs of the dagger into the heart of consciousness, and the lasting reminder of perceiving the representation of space.(84) Like the simple entities of still images which provide the illusion of movement so succinctly, to the point that the stills are disregarded in the mind, these jabs aforementioned also sway into a new manifestation from which the original, essential text is indiscernible, and now also completely disregarded. Again, as time is compressed with film and its components, the stills, so is a feeling of progression, or accelerated time, inherent in this representation.
With an intense pounding of the mind, there emerges a strange silence, or stillness. The notion of the impossibility of text as space. This factor adds to the universality of the perception of the representation of space, and also hints towards a universality, and monotony of space. The space being described is melodic, to the stage where it is dull and repetitive in character, and somewhat perversely poetic and lyrical. The sense of repetition also highlights the feeling of movement and progression, but again not time, which we garnered from the abruptness of Machiavelli’s starting and finishing chapter sentences.
The monotony of space rendered from the repetitiveness of sublime moments continues throughout the entirety of the book. There is no change in pace from the first to the last word, and the melancholic, melodic continuity of the chapters allows the mind to easily drift in and out of a focused state. The assured state of mind that Machiavelli allows the reader to slip into is comforting; the conscious is anaesthetised against any abrupt cerebral movement in the senses, for there are so many in number. These movements, allied with the fact that the instances of non-movement between each are short, collectively are registered as one. The consciousness, therefore, has no recollection as to the origin or termination of a movement, our dagger jab, but instead just the fact that there is one, and that it is being witnessed and perceived.
An idea of Machiavellian space now begins to form in the mind. However, is that where it is condemned to reside? As a cerebral body? Informing and reforming ones perceptions of physical space after being perceived itself?
It has been stated above that it is the idea of the space which is of importance, and not necessarily the space of the idea. However, it may now be fruitful to try to label a space Machiavellian, for although any space may not be decreed to be truly Machiavellian, a greater understanding of this, until now, cerebral entity would be welcome.
A harbour, or busy port, for example, may be labelled Machiavellian space, or at least have some Machiavellian characteristics. The initial exclamation and celebration of a large ship arriving and leaving, taking on passengers, etc., turns into a dull monotonous and melodic event, after witnessing the act several times. The core of the event, of the ships arriving, of their bright colours, the sounds of their horns blowing, may at first be shocking and stimulating, but then after time, only predictable. And in an arena where time keeping itself is so revered, with schedules and timetables, the notion of time is lost in repetitiveness.
Similarly, a production line factory could be Machiavellian space. As with a blacksmiths, an Accident and Emergency department in a hospital, an airport, or even checkout counters in a supermarket. All of these spaces hold the attributes of Machiavellian space. It seems all around us. Again, universal. So, perhaps, if this theory of labelling physical space is to be followed, it would be better, or easier, to first locate a-Machiavellian space, and then eliminate to find Machiavellian space. A-Machiavellian space: the football field, the school classroom, the coffee shop.
And if we stretch our mind back to an original statement, that of conflicting space between Medicean and Machiavellian space, we find the need to not radically change it, but to amend it somewhat. Surely, it can now be stated that the two spaces are not in conflict as such, but hold differing stances. Can we also be bold enough to posit the theory that, although individual and different, in some rare instances, both spaces which stand so proud and originate from separate representations of space, can in fact overlap? If Medicean space cannot refer to Machiavellian space, then from what we have learnt, Machiavellian space can surely refer to Medicean space.
“Only an act can hold – and hold together – such fragments in a homogenous totality. Only action can prevent dispersion, like a fist clenched around sand.”(85)
“…whatever be the inner nature of perception, we can affirm that its amplitude gives the exact measure of the indetermination of the act which is to follow. So that we can formulate this law: perception is master of space in the exact measure in which action is the master of time.”(86)
The conclusion, final chapter, closing words, or however one would refer to it, offers the opportunity to reflect and to let the work ‘breathe’. For our purposes, perhaps the word ‘conclusion’ will not serve adequate for these few words shown hereafter, as its definition suggests an end-point or ending. Although this would suffice for a summation of this dissertation, for one is needed, it would be wrong to ally this word to the notion of this dissertation. I believe we are far from its conclusion.
The process of comprehending the space of Florence could inextricably continue; in no way is one suggesting that the space of Florence consists of only two definable entities. The purpose of this dissertation has never been to solely highlight spaces, and to describe them. It has been to show that spaces do exist. Therefore, the challenge has been to understand that the conversations and exchanges between objects and places could be theorised in a method and process apt to the scenario being examined. Realising the mere existence of these spaces, and comprehending relationships within can be compared to the task of understanding the fragile connection between the flower and its petals. Now, the endless task of unravelling the spaces themselves, of which two have been highlighted already, should be akin to the plucking of petals from the flower, one by one.
There is, as always, the scope for further thought on this subject. The avenues discovered but not traversed in this dissertation amount to at least as much in number, if not more, than the ones explored. The notion of place and memory with reference to perception was severely undertreated. If Bergson’s adage that “there is no memory without perception”(87) was fully adopting into this discussion, it would have undoubtedly changed complexion.(88)
The lessons learnt about space and place apply to more than that of what we first rigidly assumed. From what was unearthed in the earlier chapters, it seemed obvious that the ‘producers of space’ within followed Humanism truly and fully. This statement is only true, however, to a certain extent, for we now know that this strain of decorum running through one strata of Florence was not consistent. Not only was the space of 16th century Florence fragmented and fractured, but also Humanism itself. Humanism, here, is not like that witnessed or practised today, as one seamless sheet, unblemished and absolute, the same complexion from any angle. Instead, it presents itself as multi-faceted and multi-dimensional. Definitely is it not linear. If we state that both the Medici family and Machiavelli were followers of Humanism, we can also state that, as producers of space, the space produced was Humanistic in nature. But, as has been discovered so with the first two petals of our flower, these two spaces offer the perceiver, or spectator, remarkably different experiences. It is with these differences that subtle changes in Humanism transpire, most probably to the ignorance of its followers and practitioners. But to the social class, for which the representations of space are on display, these nuances are ready to be witnessed and perceived. It is where these shifts of change start to occur within Humanism which could be of further interest. At which point are the humanistic values, so honourably but diversely obeyed, allowed to diversify?
If it is assured that the humanist producers of space produce in ignorance(89), it cannot be at this stage that, consciously, the notion to branch out the layers of Humanism be devised. This diversity of Humanism is conceived and manifested without knowledge, and in ignorance as to its occurrence. The complete ramifications of the acts of our producers of space are not known to the producers themselves. However, here the shifts in Humanism must occur, in the minds of the Medici and Machiavelli. A perhaps natural attempt by the two parties to add a degree of authorship has resulted in the fracturing of Humanism, and the space of humanistic thought.
And of these spaces, we can conclude the following. Both spaces, now described, are not pure, totalitarian entities. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the notion of overlapping space is not foreign to them. In fact, the juxtaposition of a Medicean representation of space placed within a Machiavellian space could cause a disjunction if the examples cited in the previous chapters are held to be true. A David stood in a supermarket? Perhaps not. But maybe using less extreme examples, for instance Lorenzo’s wedding festival held in a harbour, would add fuel to the theory that our spaces are not so much in conflict, but, as stated above, differing and can indeed overlap. They show unease at one another and veil their faces in abhorrent at the other. They are, however, still not in conflict. Neither rejects the other as a lesser, or a dissident from a majestic proto-space. The ‘on-edge’ precondition to Medicean dynamism does not, [can not?], reject the monotonous state which is achieved through the repetition of the sublime moment in Machiavellian space. However, the scent of friction is forthcoming, and catches ones breath, and a sense or mild objection between the spaces in prevalent. Here, Humanism lurks in its guises, only two of which have been named. Thus, Florence can conceivably be imagined as a layering of spaces, and so a layering of the differing strands of Humanism. A palpable reason for why certain representations of space sit together so uncomfortably could be read from the theories devised in this dissertation.
This dissertation, for which I prefer to describe as more of an exploration, stemmed from Machiavelli’s The Prince, and my assertions that it was, and is, an architectural text. Without the belief of its power to inform, reform and deform space, any investigations into the mechanisms of its realisation, to the Medici family and Lorenzo and then to Donatello and David, would not have been attempted, let alone realised. The power of the ruling class, the Medici family, to inform is obvious; its manner and characteristic less so. Adversely, the power to inform with The Prince is less acknowledged, and it is only now that we realise a sense of irony and playful danger when Machiavelli addresses Lorenzo de Medici with:
“Accept, therefore, Your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit that I send it; if you read and consider it carefully, you will discover in it my most heartfelt desire that you may attain that greatness which fortune and all your own capacities promise you.”(90)
With these humble words, and the offering of his epic text, Niccolo Machiavelli was still not granted the employment he most desired from the Medici family. This probably was a good thing, for if he had, there may have been between the two parties an acute sense of tension, of unease, and maybe even difference.
Cortile of the Medici Palace.