Maderno’s façade for St Peter’s, Rome [71–74] · ST PETER’S AND OTHER CHURCHES 245 71 71....

aspects of the Michelangelo façade, notably its detailing and its overall scansion of ten shafts with thefour central ones being the most prominent, but also depended on Maderno’s own ground-breakingdesign for S. Susanna (1597) for the superimposed planes that give the centre a dramatic emphasis.Given papal approval in September 1607, construction began, but was compromised c.1610–11 whenthe pope demanded the addition of two campanili (bell-towers), one at each end of the façade. Madernohad incorporated these into his design by September 1612, but they were never finished. When Paul Vdied in 1621, the belfries had still not been added and, although the southern one was subsequentlybuilt to a revised design by Bernini, it had to be demolished soon afterwards because of structural instability. Ultimately, both campanili were left in an unavoidably truncated state. Even below thebelfries, Maderno’s scheme was slightly altered in that his attic windows are different from those that were finally realised [Fig. 33].

Four drawings from the Paper Museum, mounted on three consecutive folios of the Stirling-MaxwellArchitecture album, belong to this penultimate phase in the evolution of St Peter’s façade. One showsthe façade proper, one the dome with its drum, and the other two the added campanili. From the waythe four drawings match up with one another so closely it is clear they once formed one single largedrawing. When all four are put together in their original positions [Fig. 34], they conform exactly to anengraving of 1613 by Matthaeus Greuter (1564/6–1638) [Fig. 35], both the reassembled drawing and theengraving measuring 675 mm in overall width. The original drawing was probably produced inMaderno’s workshop and used for the production of the engraving, perhaps cut up to assist theengraver in the production of the print, while the surface damage to the four surviving fragments maywell have resulted from the rubbing they received from the engraver’s hands and tools.

In June 1613 Maderno sent Greuter’s print (together with his other engravings of the St Peter’sscheme) to the head of the Congregation, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, later Pope Urban VIII, whoresponded with a stinging critique of the design and complained in particular that the elevation did not show how the dome would be hidden by the addition of the nave. Maderno replied carefully(Thelen 1967a, p. 27, n.61; Hibbard 1971, p. 69f., n.4), explaining that the elevation was drawn using the conventions of orthogonal projection, although his defensive stance was a courtesy rather than anecessity since he already knew that his scheme had the pope’s full backing.

The Paper Museum had two copies of the Greuter print, one in the album entitled Templa DiversaRomae (fol. 15) [Fig. 35], compiled by Cassiano in the 1630s, and another in the misnamed PopishCeremonies II (fol. 95), a later compilation by Carlo Antonio (see p. $$). The Templa Diversa Romae album,in addition, contains many other prints showing projected designs for St Peter’s from around this same period (for description, see p. $$).

bibliography : Hibbard 1971, pp. 65–75 and 155–88

N E W S T P E T E R ’ S

241240

Maderno’s façade for St Peter’s, Rome [71–74]

When Pope Paul V ascended the throne in May 1605, St Peter’s was still unfinished after nearly acentury of construction. Until then, the building had remained largely faithful to the scheme devisedby Michelangelo (from 1547), which was for a church with a centralised plan and a monumental dome. This was intended to be given, at around the time of Michelangelo’s death (1564), a façade made up of two rows of giant columns (see 4), but the design was still controversial, since it did notprovide for a benediction loggia, a time-honoured location for the pope’s traditional Easter blessingUrbi et Orbi, and so would require a change to ceremonial. This was particularly problematic in an agewhen traditional practices were being reasserted in the face of Protestant opposition. AlthoughMichelangelo’s scheme had its defenders in the shape of the Congregation of St Peter’s, who were still determined – even as late as October 1606 – to persist with it, stressing its aesthetic qualities andMichelangelo’s stature as an artist, Paul V overruled their decision late in 1606 and, intent on makinghis own mark on the design, insisted on a scheme that included a façade with a benediction loggia and also a nave behind it.

Carlo Maderno (1556–1629), then incumbent architect to the Fabbrica of St Peter’s, prepared a firstscheme by April 1607. His design (see p. $$) managed to retain much of the integrity of Michelangelo’scentralised scheme by means of an internal visual barrier but, externally, transformed the church into aLatin cross that entirely covered the consecrated ground of the previous Constantinian basilica, with a new nave that had a portico in front supporting a benediction loggia above. The latter preserved

Fig. 33. Façade of St Peter’s, Rome

10 V3 A.X Renaissance Architecture vol1 240-265_Layout 1 20/02/2013 11:30 Page 240

N E W S T P E T E R ’ S

243

A R C H I T E C T U R A L D R AW I N G S I N T Y P E B A N D O T H E R M O U N T S

242

Fig. 35. Project by Carlo Maderno for the façade of St Peter’s, Rome. Engraving, 1613. London, BL, 54.i.7, fol. 15 (PaperMuseum impression)

Fig. 34. Reconstruction (photomontage) of original form of 71–74

10 V3 A.X Renaissance Architecture vol1 240-265_Layout 1 20/02/2013 11:30 42

S T P E T E R ’ S A N D O T H E R C H U R C H E S

24571

71. Rome, St Peter’s, Maderno’s façade (1613), upper centre and dome

WORKSHOP OF CARLO MADERNO (1556–1629)

Private collection; previously sma, fol. 58

Pen and brown ink and wash over black chalk and stylus lines on buff paper

410 × 385 mm (max.). Two sheets of paper cut from a larger composite sheet and partly silhouetted; losses along edges; rubbed and stained. Watermark: circle containing ?anchor

mount sheet: type B. Watermark: fragmentary rim of circle surmounted by letter ‘V’ [cut; see 74]

[*] Once part of a single image of the wholefaçade elevation [see Fig. 34], this drawing showsthe principal drum, dome and lantern, and alsothe two minor domes to the front, all built underMichelangelo and his successors during thesecond half of the sixteenth century.

Although the drawing corresponds closely tothe relevant sector of Greuter’s engraving [seeFig. 34], it does not include the latter’s explana-tory captions, or if it did then they were locatedin a different position from those in the engrav-ing and outside the edges of the present sheet.For example, the O of the word ROMA next to thelantern’s globe on the engraving is absent in the drawing. The layout of the captions would

probably have been left to the engraver, assuggested by the varying position of the wordingon different versions of the print.

Especially obvious in this drawing and in theprint is the inaccurate representation of the maindrum and dome. Both appear significantly flatterthan they should be, which is a characteristic of drawings from Maderno’s workshop (e.g. afaçade project for S. Vincenzo, Bassano Romano,Archivio Giustiniani; Hibbard 1971, pl. 103b).

literature : Phillips cat. 1990, p. 142f., lot 339

object drawn : see above, p. $$

engraved : see 71


244



247

72

72. Rome, St Peter’s, Maderno’s façade (1613), lower centre and portico




248 × 405 mm. Losses along edges; old vertical at centre and several other old folds; old patches on verso;rubbed and stained. Watermark: anchor in circle with indistinct pendant element (?letter)

annotations: [bottom left] part of scale key in Roman palmi

mount sheet: type B

[*] Originally part of a larger drawing, cut up for engraving by Matthaeus Greuter in 1613 [seeFig. 34], to which it corresponds in all its details,even to the extent that some of the façade open-ings are shaded while others are not. The onlydifference is the scale key, which in the drawingis in units of 25 palmi and located on the platformjust above the façade steps, whereas in the printit is in units of 10 palmi and set below the steps.

Although primarily drawn in orthogonal pro-jection, as Carlo Maderno explained in his letterto Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, the openings of theportals and windows are given an individualperspective, showing the inner faces of theirjambs and the undersides of the lintels. The tech-nique was also applied to lower-storey nicheshousing statues of St Peter and St Paul, and to

the platform on which the whole building stands,presumably to introduce some relief to the image– and by extension monumentality – which itwould otherwise have lacked.

The strip showing the statuary adorning thefaçade balustrade is missing, possibly becausethis part of the drawing was damaged, or it wasremoved, so that the statuary could be includedin another part of the Paper Museum, but wasthen lost.



engraved : M. Greuter, Ritratto della famosiss.Fabrica della chiesa di S. Pietro di Roma in Vaticano …,Rome 1613 [Fig. 35]; 697 × 647 mm


246



24973

73. Rome, St Peter’s, Maderno’s façade (1613), left campanile


Private collection; previously sma, fol. 57 (i)


456 × 118 mm (max.). Losses along edges; partly silhouetted; old folds and tears; rubbed and stained

annotations: [bottom] part of scale key in Roman palmi

mount sheet: type B. Also bears 74

[*] Once part of a much larger drawing of thewhole façade, which was engraved by MatthaeusGreuter in 1613 [see Fig. 34], this shows Mad-erno’s project for the left (southern) campanile.

When adding the campanili c.1610–11,Maderno took pains to harmonise their designwith his existing façade and with the rest of the building. At their lower level the orders andwindow frames continue those of the façade’scentral section, except that each campanileaccommodates a large ground-level arch, thenorthern one to accommodate an entrance to the Vatican Palace, the southern one – the oneunder consideration here – purely in the interestsof symmetry. Above this level, the two-storey

belfries have arched openings that echo those of the smaller domes behind them, whilst theircanopied lanterns have concave profiles that are like those of Michelangelo’s lantern abovethem (see 72). The uppermost reaches, however,allowed a greater degree of freedom for experi-ment, and the stretched octagonal windows of the lanterns are different from all others in thedesign.


object drawn : see above, p. $$. For thecampanili in particular, see Hibbard 1971, p. 161f.;McPhee 2003, pp. 11–35

engraved : see 71


248

74. Rome, St Peter’s, Maderno’s façade (1613), right campanile


Private collection; previously sma, fol. 57 (ii)


465 × 120 mm (max.). Two sheets of paper, partly silhouetted; losses along edges; old tears and skinning;rubbed and stained

mount sheet: type B. Also bears 73. Watermark: fleur de lys in double circle surmounted by letter ‘V’

[*] The mirror image of 73, this drawing repre-sents Carlo Maderno’s project for the right-hand (northern) campanile of the façade of St Peter’s.See 73 for discussion.

literature : Phillips cat. 1990, p. 142f, lot 339

object drawn : see above, p. $$, and 73

engraved : see 71

74


251

75

75. Rome, St Peter’s, façade portico: interior view

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ITALIAN

Private collection; previously sma, fol. 37 (iii)

Black chalk

146 × 195 mm. Stained. Watermark: bird on hills in circle surmounted by letter ‘P’ [cut]

mount sheet: type B. Also bears 81 and 88

[*] More a veduta than an architectural study, thissketch shows the portico that runs behind thefaçade of St Peter’s, constructed to Maderno’sdesign from 1607 (see 71–74), looking from thearea under the left (southern) bell-tower along the length of the space. It was formerly mountedin the Stirling-Maxwell Archi-tecture album, in

company with an interior view of S. MariaMaggiore by the same hand, and with the samewatermark (see 81 for further discussion). Givenits subject, the St Peter’s sketch must date fromafter 1620, but how much later is hard to say.

literature : Phillips cat. 1990, p. 134, lot 325


250

Barberini project for remodelling St John Lateran [76–79]

Four related sheets, in slight disorder in the Stirling-Maxwell Architecture album, belong to a seven-teenth-century project for the renovation of the cathedral of Rome, St John Lateran, a building datingfrom the fourth century ad, which was in a precarious state by the end of the sixteenth century. Their association with this church is established by the iconography of the statues on the rooflinecombined with the five-aisled plan. Two show slightly variant schemes for the façade (76–77), whilsttwo others, bound earlier in the album, provide sections and elevations of the interior (78–79).

The project dates from the papacy of Maffeo Barberini as Urban VIII (1623–44), whose family is signified by the giant ‘Barberini’ bees decorating the pediment of one of the façade designs (76). TwoBarberini initiatives for the renovation of the church are known to have been launched during thatperiod, neither completed, the first undertaken by the pope’s nephew Cardinal Francesco Barberini,archpriest of the Lateran from 1623 (DBI, vi (1964), p. 172 [A. Merola]). The cardinal asked GiovanniAmbrogio Mazenta (1565–1635) from Milan, who was already a trusted Barberini architect (see A.IX/2,p. 766f), to prepare a proposal, which survives in written form among the dal Pozzo papers atMontpellier (A.X/3, Appendix I, no. 1). It is not dated, but a letter of 12 May 1630 from Mazenta accompanied its dispatch to Cassiano, which makes it clear that Mazenta, who was in Pavia at the time, considered the project active (A.X/3, Appendix I, no. 2). He had left his draft design among hispapers in the convent of S. Paolo in Piazza Colonna (his Barnabite base in Rome) and was writing to ask the vicar to let Cassiano have it. Cassiano himself later annotated the letter with an account ofhow far the project had got before it was aborted when Cardinal Francesco, following an agreementconnected with the marriage of his brother Taddeo to Anna Colonna (14 October 1627), ceded theLateran office to Anna’s newly promoted cardinal brother (Girolamo Colonna became cardinal inFebruary 1628). The second known Barberini initiative is documented in January 1640, when UrbanVIII allocated 600 scudi for restoration, although precisely what the money was intended for was not specified (Pollak 1928, i, p. 143f.). Who the architect was to be on this occasion is also unknown(Mazenta had died in 1635), but nothing seems to have happened on site before Urban VIII himself diedin 1644. The idea was taken up by his successor, the Pamphilj pope Innocent X, and the commissionpassed to Francesco Borromini, who remodelled the interior (1646–50), but whose design for the façadewas never implemented. The present façade dates from a campaign begun in 1735.

Whether the four dal Pozzo drawings are directly connected with either of the two Barberini initiatives is doubtful, but their attribution to Mazenta can almost certainly be ruled out. The hand-writing of the annotations, the terminology they employ and the style of draughtsmanship are notMazenta’s, and the façade he describes, which was to incorporate the 12 columns of its predecessor,does not tally with the drawings at all.

However, a good candidate who might have been associated with Urban VIII’s initiative of 1640 isGiovanni Battista Mola (1585–1665). Mola was working for the Camera Apostolica as early as 1616 andfor the Barberini in 1630 or 1633–4, when he designed a façade for the Forte Urbano near CastelfrancoEmilia (London, V&A, d.114–1890; see also 263), followed by work at the Lateran hospital in 1636 (forhis career see Mola 1966; Curcio 1989; Antinori 1991). In architectural style, the Forte Urbano façade (seecomp. fig. 76i) closely resembles the lower storeys of the alternative Lateran façades (76–77). Moreover,the same technique employed to indicate the construction of the sectioned walling in 78 was used by Mola in a signed drawing of 1637 for the Oratorio di S. Filippo Neri in Rome (Archivio dellaCongregazione dell’Oratorio a S. Maria in Vallicella, c.ii. 8, no. 31; see Mola 1966, p. 25 and fig. 10;Connors 1980, p. 207f., no. 31). Also indicative of Mola’s style is the treatment of the scale keys in 76 and 78, which are subdivided into ten units of 10 palmi that are each individually numbered. The


Oratory drawing has an identical scale and so does Mola’s design for a monastery in Tolfa (London,SAL, Album of Prints and Drawings Collected before 1750, fol. 41). The handwriting, too, would appear to be his.

bibliography : for the Lateran, see Pollak 1928, i, p. 143f.; CBCR, v (1977); Hoffmann 1978; Roca deAmicis 1992; Freiberg 1995; Herklotz 1995

O T H E R R O M A N C H U R C H E S

253


252

76. Rome, St John Lateran, project for façade: elevation and plan

GIOVANNI BATTISTA MOLA (1585–1665)


Pen and brown ink and brown and grey wash over black chalk

240 × 329 mm. Backed onto a seventeenth-century sheet; cropped at bottom and right; water stained; lossesalong edges. Watermark: fleur de lys on hills in circle surmounted by letter ‘A’

annotations: [bottom] scale key [cut]


[*] This façade scheme for St John Lateran isdrawn in elevation and plan. It corresponds informat to the five-aisled basilica behind, that is, it has a very wide (seven-bay) lower storey and a relatively narrow (three-bay) upper one, rathersquat as well as very broad. It retains the threeportals of the original fourth-century building,giving access to the nave, but also provides additional portals to the aisles, and a porch(implied by the shading inside the arches aroundthe rectangular openings), which extends thefaçade’s full width. This approach to the renova-tion of an Early Christian building is typical of

the early seventeenth century, when architectsadopted a certain reverence for traditional formsand fabrics but modernised them in a way appro-priate to their status and sanctity (see, e.g. Hill2001).

Retaining the silhouette of the pre-existingbuilding posed a difficult design problem. Thefaçade had to reconcile the building’s excessivewidth and restricted height with a need to takeaccount of the contemporary preference fordramatic verticality. This is partly achieved bythe introduction of strong vertical accents byplacing gigantic statues above the ground

Fig. 76i. G.B. Mola,Project for the ForteUrbano, CastelfrancoEmilia, c.1630. Pen andink and brown andblue wash. London,V&A, D.114-1890(detail)

76


storey’s paired pilasters, but this creates a newproblem in that the statues are so big that theydwarf the squat upper storey and thus detractsignificantly from the façade’s monumentality.Jarringly large too are the oversized putti in thesegmental pediment over the entrance and thegigantic bees that cluster adoringly at the foot

of a cross at the façade’s apex. Many of theseproblems are resolved in the other façade project(77), which almost certainly makes this one theearlier of the two.

This design shows several hallmarks of Mola’sarchitectural style. Many of its features are foundin his drawing for the entrance to Forte Urbanonear Castelfranco Emilia (1630 or 1633–4) (comp.fig. 76i): the paired Doric pilasters, the full Doricentablature, the simple unframed arches, thesegmental pediment and the lugged panels overthe arches that include a more complex one in the central bay. Other features reappear in Mola’sproject for S. Agnese in Piazza Navona of 1652(Eimer 1970, p. 57f, fig. 21) (comp. fig. 76ii),namely, the lugged panels in the upper-storeyouter bays that are counterparts of the one abovethe central arch below; the side scrolls supportinga continuation of the upper-storey entablature;and the predilection for swags in panels, whichappear here in only the right-hand bay of the atticstorey, but were presumably intended, as in the S. Agnese scheme, for all the bays.

literature: Phillips cat. 1990, p. 137, lot 329



255


254

77

Fig. 76ii. G.B. Mola, Project for the Façade of S. Agnesein Agone, Rome, 1662. Pen and ink, 309 × 391 mm.Oxford, AM, Largest Talman Album, fol. 17 (inv. wa1944.102.17) (detail)

77. Rome, St John Lateran, project for façade



Pen and brown ink and brown and grey-blue wash over stylus lines

228 × 330 mm. Partly backed onto a seventeenth-century sheet; pricked for construction of drawing; torn at bottom right; ink stained. Watermark: fleur de lys in circle


This façade scheme for St John Lateran is a vari-ant on 76. On the lower storey, the panels abovethe aisle portals no longer have lugs; the panelsover the arches either side of the main entrancenow bear figurative decoration; and the segmen-tal pediment now contains a smaller triangularone, like that of Giacomo della Porta’s façade for

the Gesù (1571) (see p. $$). In the attic, luggedpanels have been placed beneath the statues togive them visual support, and, on the upperstorey, the giant bees in the pediment have beenreplaced by putti bearing the papal arms.

There are also various changes in scale, whichstrongly suggest that the drawing was produced

to eradicate or at least minimise the problems inthe other scheme. The statuary on top of the atticand the sculpture in the upper-storey pedimentare reduced in size, giving the design a greatercoherence and the façade an increased monu-mentality. On the lower storey the Doric order is reduced in height, while the height of its atticand that of the upper storey are increased, avoid-ing the jarring relationship in the first schemebetween a very tall Doric lower storey and a veryshort Corinthian upper one.

The proportional ideals here are inherited fromthose of the Renaissance. The lower storey has a height that is exactly one quarter the façade’soverall width, and with the attic a height that isprecisely one third.

literature : Phillips cat. 1990, p. 137, lot 329;Sotheby’s cat. 2004, p. 132, lot 97




257

78

78. Rome, St John Lateran, project: longitudinal section



Pen and brown ink over black chalk

217 × 272 mm. Partly backed onto a seventeenth-century sheet. Cropped at top, bottom and left; losses at left edge; stained. Watermark: fleur de lys in circle surmounted by crown

annotations: [upper left] Scenografia della nave di mezzo (‘view of the middle nave’); [bottom right]Profilo del Porticale (‘section through the portico’); [bottom] scale key [cut]

mount sheet: type B (part inlaid in window, part laid down). Also bears 130

This longitudinal section through St John Lateranshows the nave, the portico with the loggia aboveit, and the façade, and it is closely related to thenave elevation shown in 79 and to the two façadeschemes 76 and 77. The sectioned façade shows a Doric lower storey, a Corinthian upper one anda pediment with a cross as a crowning feature, all of which are found in the front elevations.However, it agrees more exactly with the façadein 76, in both its proportions and also in particu-lar details, such as the rosettes embellishing the necks of the Doric capitals, although it stilldiffers in some minor respects, notably the omis-sion of the lower-storey pediment. This is either a draughting error or reflects a now-lost thirdfaçade scheme.

The piers in the nave are adorned with pairedCorinthian pilasters. A minor order of Ionicpilasters on the inside of the arcades have capitals with garlands between the volutes, likethose used by Michelangelo in the Palazzo deiConservatori and by many subsequent architects.The Corinthian pilasters are continued above thelevel of the entablature as plain strips linked by a continuous horizontal band at the top, framingclerestory windows alternating with panels prob-ably intended for frescos. The elevation recallsprevious renovation schemes for Early Christianchurches in Rome, for example, S. Sebastianofuori le Mura (1609–12) and S. Crisogono(1618–26), but is especially like that by CarloLambardi for S. Francesca Romana in the years1612–15 (comp. fig. 78).

The portico is decorated with Ionic pilastersthat differ from the nave pilasters in being set ona single rather than a double plinth and do notquite reach the same height. At its far (liturgicalsouth) end a portal with a shouldered frame anda broken pediment provides access to the adja-cent palace. The hall of the loggia on the upperlevel is entirely unadorned, and even the door at its far end is without a frame, presumablybecause it was used for papal appearances andbenedictions only rarely or was not part of theproject.




256

Comp. fig. 78. Interior of S. Francesca Romana, Rome



259

79

79. Rome, St John Lateran, project: transverse half-section and nave elevation



Pen and brown ink over black chalk and stylus lines

205 × 392 mm. Cropped at right; losses at right edge; stained

annotations: [beneath section] Profilo delle due nave delle Sponde (‘section through the two side aisles’)

mount sheet: type B (part inlaid in window, part laid down)

The half-section on the left (a) differs from theelevation of the nave on the right (b) in theprofiles of the clerestory windows and in show-ing the nave pilasters with just one socle belowthem rather than two. Other than this, (a)provides information that is lacking in the elevation, revealing, for instance, that the eleva-tion would be topped by a cornice and then a flat wooden ceiling. It also shows that the aislesare of identical width and height, divided by a row of Ionic columns that match the Ionicpilasters supporting the nave arches and thepilasters overlaid on half-pilasters on thechurch’s side wall. The aisles are covered withcross vaults, the only form of vaulting that corre-sponds to both section and elevation shown here,set under a single pitched roof.

In the original fourth-century building, thenave supports were spaced further apart than the aisle colonnades, constituting two differentand unrelated rhythms running the length of thechurch, which jarred with sixteenth- and seven-teenth-century sensibilities. This new scheme

rectified this ‘problem’, and in doing so fore-shadows the solution devised by Borrominiwhen he redesigned the nave and aisles just a few years later.

The elevation (b), in its present state, showsonly three bays of the nave and the springing ofa fourth, but it may originally have extendedfurther to the right where the sheet has beencropped. It is identical to the elevation shown in 78 except in one significant respect. The nave’s minor Ionic order rises here from a doublesocle, a plinth and an attic base that are of exactlythe same height as those used for the tallerCorinthian order, giving the design some unity,but is disproportionate to the size of the Ionicorder. This problem is resolved in 78 by differen-tiating the supporting elements of the two orders,which probably suggests that the latter is a laterdrawing.




258



261

80

80. Rome, Il Gesù: longitudinal interior elevation



Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over black chalk

191 × 330 mm. Cropped on all sides; four old vertical folds 73 mm, 140 mm, 210 mm and 288 mm from leftedge; torn and stained. Watermark: six-pointed star in circle surmounted by cross


This drawing is apparently a view of the interiorof the Gesù church in Rome, the mother church ofthe Jesuit order, designed and begun for CardinalAlessandro Farnese by Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola(1507–73) in 1568 and then continued to a modi-fied design by Giacomo della Porta (1532–1602)from 1571 (see comp. fig. 80). The church shownhere is like the Gesù in having a dome on pen-dentives over the crossing, barrel vaults coveringthe nave, chancel and transepts, and domed sidechapels separated by paired pilasters carrying a full entablature and an attic, which in the Gesù was added to the original design by DellaPorta in 1571 or after (Schwager/Schlimme 2002, p. 272f.). Also like the Gesù are the form andplacement of the organ on the east side of thenorth transept, the design of the clerestorywindows and that of the balconied coretti (smallchoirs), complete with screens, over each of thenave arches. In the existing building these wereadded in 1616 (Schwager/Schlimme 2002, p. 293),and so the drawing must have been made afterthat date. It was presumably made before the1670s, since it does not show the decoration of the vault executed then by Giovanni BattistaGaulli ‘Il Baciccio’ (1639–1709).

Despite the similarities, there are some intrigu-ing anomalies in the drawing, most notably inthe treatment of the crossing, where the pilastersare fewer in number, and the bays to either sideof the dome, which are narrower and less elabo-

rate compared with those of the church as built.These final bays have pediments sitting comfort-ably underneath the impost moulding ratherthan above it and there are no window openingsin the clerestory above. Other differences includethe addition of broad bands spanning the vault(which lacked any ribs before Gaulli decorated it) and a haphazard series of projections andrecessions in the entablature and attic, whichbear no relation to the church as built and do not follow any consistent pattern in themselves.Unless the church is not the Gesù after all, whichseems most improbable, the simplest explanationis that the draughtsman made a mistake – andhaving done so then used the drawing as a vehicle for experimentation. The faint sketchingin – in a very squashed fashion – of the missingclerestory windows in the side bay to the left of the crossing may represent the point at whichhe realised his error.

The Paper Museum contained various prints of the Gesù (London, BL, 134.g.11, fol. 31; Maps3.Tab.34, fols 8–10, 15–18).

literature : Phillips cat. 1990, p. 137, lot 329;Sotheby’s cat. 2004, p. 132, lot 97

object drawn : extant. See Fokker 1933; Pecchiai1952; Lotz 1955; Ackerman 1972; Schwager 1977;Bösel 1986, i, pp. 160–79; Robertson 1992, pp. 181–96, 296–317; Schwager/Schlimme 2002


260

Comp. fig. 80. G.F. Venturini, Il Gesù, Rome.Engraving. G.G. de Rossi Insignium Romae templorum,1684, fol. 21



263

81£

81. Rome, S. Maria Maggiore, Sforza Chapel: view through portal



Black chalk

209 × 146 mm. Stained. Watermark: bird on hills in circle surmounted by letter ‘P’ [cut]

mount sheet: type B. Also bears 75 and 88

[*] Michelangelo’s Sforza Chapel in S. MariaMaggiore was begun in 1564 and consecrated in1573. It is drawn here from a vantage point in the adjacent aisle, showing the pilasters and lintelof the entrance portal, which was removed in the eighteenth century (Argan/Contardi 1990, p. 348), and a view across the chapel into one ofthe shallowly curved side altar recesses.

The hand is the same as that of 75, mounted on the same folio, and similar to some earlyperspectival sketches by Francesco Borromini(1599–1667), who was fascinated by Michelan-

gelo’s architecture. The technique of parallelcurved hatching in black chalk to suggest thecurvature of column shafts is typical of Borromini(cf. Thelen 1967a, ii, figs 68–9), but the drawing is rather too crude for a confident attribution tohis hand.


object drawn : partly extant. See Ackerman1961, ii, pp. 122–5; Argan/Contardi 1990, p. 348f.;Satzinger 2003–4


262



26582

82. Rome, S. Teodoro, project: plan

MID-SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ITALIAN


Pen and brown ink and watercolour over black chalk

384 × 256 mm. Watermark: letter ‘F’ on hills in shield

annotations: Per S.Teodoro d(ett)o Santo Todo in Campo Vacino (‘for S. Teodoro called Santo Todo in the Campo Vaccino’)

mount sheet: type B

[*] Shown here is the plan of a circular churchwith a projecting frontal block, which is situatedtowards the rear of a rectangular two-levelprecinct that is entered through a columnedportal. The annotation identifies the church as S. Teodoro in the Campo Vaccino, that is, theRoman Forum, and the plan has much incommon, in its shape and size, with that of theextant building (comp. fig. 82), although it differsin the design of the three altar chapels and thepreceding frontal block. These differences led IanCampbell to doubt the accuracy of the identify-ing annotation (A.IX/1, p. 46), but they could be explained if the drawing were a project for the church’s modernisation, and this is in factsuggested by the two tones of watercolour thatare used, a lighter one for the existing buildingand a darker one for the proposed alterations.

A date of the mid-seventeenth century can beproposed on the basis of the rather conservativedecoration of the dome (represented by means of dotted lines), which derives ultimately fromthe dome of St Peter’s, and on the basis of thesemicircular portico, which, with its pair ofcolumns, is very like that of Bernini’s S. Andrea alQuirinale (begun 1658). The handwriting wouldalso accord with a seventeenth-century dating. If the annotation is reliable and the drawingreally is for S. Teodoro, then the likely date forthis proposed modernisation would presumablybe either before the renovations to the buildingeffected by Cardinal Francesco Barberini in1642–3 (CBCR, iv, p. 280f.) or again later in 1674(Braham/Hager 1977, pp. 79–86, especially p. 80),when the mosaic in the church’s semicirculareastern apse (eradicated in the project drawing)was restored (see A.II/2, p. 322).

literature : Phillips cat. 1990, p. 138, lot 332;A.IX/1, p. 46 [I. Campbell]

object drawn : extant. For S. Teodoro, seeMatthiae 1967, pp. 143–8; CBCR, iv, pp. 279–88;Braham/Hager 1977, pp. 79–86; Finocchi Ghersi1988; Ferrara 2002


264

Comp. fig. 82. Modern plan of S. Teodoro, Rome


Maderno’s façade for St Peter’s, Rome [71–74] · ST PETER’S AND OTHER CHURCHES 245 71 71....

Documents

Transcript of Maderno’s façade for St Peter’s, Rome [71–74] · ST PETER’S AND OTHER CHURCHES 245 71 71....