Antonio da Sangallo the Younger's Reactions to the Pantheon
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Antonio da Sangallo the Younger’s
Reactions to the Pantheon:
An Early Modern Case of Operative Criticism
francesco benelli
Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
R
enaissance masters integrated the past into their examination of three sheets in which Antonio studied the
works through the common practices of copying Pantheon, commented on it visually and textually, and con-
and studying antique remains—making drawings, sidered solutions for what he regarded as its most problem-
extracting their meanings, selecting key elements or patterns, atic features.3 In so doing, I demonstrate how an engaged
and imaginatively reusing them or adjusting their forms to sixteenth-century Italian architect, using his technical exper-
different contexts.1 The Pantheon in Rome, built for the tise, professional competence, and knowledge of Vitruvius’s
emperor Hadrian between ca. 118 and ca. 126 CE, was the treatise, criticized an ancient masterwork. For Antonio, the
best-preserved structure from the imperial Roman past to Pantheon was no longer an exemplum to imitate faithfully;
have survived on the Italian peninsula. Early modern archi- rather, it was a structure that would prove crucial for the crit-
tects, archaeologically driven artists, and their patrons viewed ical development of architectural theory and practice in his
the Pantheon, a pagan temple later converted to a Catholic own era.
church, as a model of architectural perfection and inspiration Antonio’s reactions to the Pantheon, as seen in his Uffizi
(Figure 1). Interest in this ancient monument resulted in at notes and sketches, relate directly to what Manfredo Tafuri,
least three interrelated outcomes: a large number of more or in 1976, called “operative criticism,” which he defined as
less accurate and detailed renderings and views of the build-
ing, a series of graphic reconstructions of what was believed an analysis of architecture (or of the arts in general) that, in-
to be its original form, and several Renaissance-era (and later) stead of an abstract survey, has as its objective the planning of
edifices inspired by it, either built or projected.2 a precise poetical tendency, anticipated in its structures and de-
rived from historical analyses programmatically distorted and
This essay looks at a small and unusual corpus of drawings
finalized. By this definition operative criticism represents the
and commentaries on the Pantheon made by the Florentine
meeting point of history and planning.4
architect Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (1484–1546) and
now housed in the Uffizi Gallery’s Gabinetto dei Disegni e
Antonio’s critical confrontations, evaluations, and assess-
Stampe in Florence. My analysis shows how Antonio recon-
ments of the Pantheon are, in effect, a sixteenth-century
sidered and understood this ancient monument within the
exemplar of Tafuri’s operative criticism. They demonstrate
context of his own modern architectural practice and through
a dialectic between built architecture and its theorization
the lens of Vitruvius’s De architectura, which became an essen-
within Vitruvian debates as these played out in Antonio’s
tial theoretical source for cultivated architects from as early as
time. The Pantheon was highly influential for Antonio’s
the end of the fifteenth century. I offer here an in-depth
architecture, but what he found most useful in it was that
which grew from his criticism of it. His drawings and an-
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 78, no. 3 (September 2019),
276–291, ISSN 0037-9808, electronic ISSN 2150-5926. © 2019 by the Society notations constitute a break from long-standing reveren-
of Architectural Historians. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for tial attitudes toward ancient Roman structures, one that
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of
ultimately has significant implications and ramifications
California Press’s Reprints and Permissions web page, https://www.ucpress
.edu/journals/reprints-permissions, or via email: jpermissions@ucpress.edu. for our understanding of the development of Renaissance
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2019.78.3.276. architecture.
276Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
Figure 1 Sebastiano Serlio, section of the Pantheon, Rome, 1540 (Il terzo
libro di Sebastiano Serlio bolognese, nel quale si figurano, e descrivono le
antiquità di Roma, e le altre che sono in Italia, e fuori de Italia [Venice,
1540], fol. IX). Figure 2 Francesco di Giorgio Martini, “La rotonda” (Pantheon), drawing,
late fifteenth century (Codex Saluzzianus 148, fol. 80r, Biblioteca Reale,
Turin).
Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Criticism, and were similarly respectful and admiring.7 Both Raphael and
Renaissance Approaches to the Pantheon Baldassarre Peruzzi were deeply interested in the monument,
Francesco di Giorgio Martini, very much interested in Roman but their drawings of it were largely analytical, rarely critical
architecture during the last quarter of the fifteenth cen- in the way of Antonio’s.8
tury, had drawn the Pantheon in detail but with distorted Among architects of his era, Antonio was of an unusually
proportions—a condition particularly evident in his views critical bent. By around 1515, he was showing his vis polemica
of the interior (Figure 2).5 Antonio da Sangallo the Younger’s in the famous memoriale—a note he wrote to criticize the
drawings of the building were, by contrast, far more eminent architects of his time, citing, for instance, ten flaws
accurate—the most accurate renderings up to his time. They in Donato Bramante’s and Raphael’s projects for Saint Peter’s
were also the first such images to critique this ancient mas- and suggesting his own “improvements.”9 Antonio’s critiques
terwork overtly from the perspective of a practicing modern of his fellows’ work point to a variety of aspects, but all build
architect.6 Before and during Antonio’s time, architects had on his knowledge of Vitruvius and reflect the growing rivalry
regarded the Pantheon in almost entirely positive terms. among architects of the post-Bramante generation.10 Not
Sebastiano Serlio, in his book on antiquities of 1540, had until Michelangelo did anyone again take such a polemical
nothing but the highest praise for the quality of its design. stance toward ancient and contemporary architecture (and,
Leon Battista Alberti before him and Andrea Palladio after interestingly enough, one of Michelangelo’s key targets was
ANTONIO DA SANGALLO THE YOUNGER’S REACTIONS TO THE PANTHEON 277Antonio).11 Antonio’s criticisms of architecture never ceased radial disposition of the freestanding columns flanking the
and were widespread: for example, in 1526, he offered sharp Pantheon’s main altar and toward the opposing pilasters
but constructive comments on Roman triumphal arches and framing the interior of the entrance (Figure 3). Both the free-
Byzantine structures such as San Vitale in Ravenna.12 It is not standing columns of the main apse and the pilasters on the
by chance that such criticism appeared in a time when theo- opposite wall beside the entrance are placed so that their axes
retical treatises—assimilating architecture as a language with are pointing toward the center of the rotunda—that is, in a
rules for proper syntax and grammar—were being published radial position and not parallel to each other. This forces
and discussed on many fronts.13 Such discourse provides a the arches they support to be projected out over the circular
context for Antonio’s critical analyses of the Pantheon. wall of the rotunda (Figures 4 and 5). According to Antonio,
Following Bramante’s death in 1514 and until his own the visual effect of this composition was a backward-leaning
in 1546, Antonio was perhaps the busiest architect in Rome arch, a solution he evidently disliked in this context, as he
and central Italy.14 Chief architect of Saint Peter’s Basilica expressed in comments such as “E no[n] arebbe disgratia
under three popes, he was also sought out by several highly come e,” “Come fanno i[n] op[er]a quale anno disgratia asai,”
influential Roman patrons and respected for his profound and “Larcho sarovescia in ditro.”20 Antonio’s opinions were
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
practical and theoretical knowledge of Vitruvius.15 His re- based on a geometrical principle that affects the perception of
flections on the Pantheon were varied, and informed by this structure: the spring points of the arch form a horizontal
Vitruvius. Antonio studied the Pantheon throughout his line that precedes the apex, owing to the round wall to which
life, often assisted by his brother Giovanni Battista, and he they belong. In geometrical terms, this means that the arch is
produced a large number of drawings, which scholars have not vertical, because its three main points determine a trian-
divided into two categories. First are those analytical stud- gular diagonal plane projected on a curved surface, the so-
ies with precise measurements; second are those drawings, called three-dimensional arch.21
often with accompanying notes, wherein Antonio criti- Antonio believed that to remedy this “flaw,” the pilasters
cized aspects of a building and proposed improvements in and the corresponding freestanding columns flanking the apse
accordance with Vitruvian-influenced, early cinquecento at the entrance would need to be reconstructed so that their
taste and architectural ideals.16 axes were no longer radial but instead parallel to each other.
Antonio’s reconstruction of the Pantheon differed from “Andare in quadro” (make it square), he wrote, implying that
Francesco di Giorgio’s earlier work because of Antonio’s the arches could be erected on a flat surface, “apiombo e di-
deeper theoretical, technical, and structural knowledge. Anto- ritto” (perpendicular and straight). Such revisions, he believed,
nio may not have been the only architect of his era to produce would also make the arches’ construction easier. Conversely,
such constructively critical drawings, but his Uffizi sheets are he was well aware that juxtaposing a vertical arch over a round
the only ones that survive, and they grant us a unique oppor- surface would allow the archivolt to stand out from the wall,
tunity to discuss an architect’s critical confrontation with the increasing its projection as it moved upward. This visual
past and his integration of it into his own present.17 For most conundrum is represented in those parts of the Pantheon’s
other architects of Antonio’s era, the Pantheon was an iconic plan at the center of Antonio’s sheet and in the section to
building celebrated for its perfect proportions and its large the right, where he represented his optical perception of the
volume based on the intersection of a sphere and a cube.18 interior and portrayed it in two-dimensional drawings.22
Antonio was disinterested in such views. Rather, he con- Although Antonio’s critique had to do with a problem of
centrated on the design and structural features of seem- perception, he was aware that a three-dimensional arch car-
ingly unrelated parts of the interior—the subjects of the ries a series of technical consequences as well. These arise
drawings discussed here. when the arch is provided with an archivolt, one presumably
made of marble or stone. In this case, each segment of the ar-
chivolt, attached to a nonplanar surface, would be different
Visual Firmitas: Uffizi 306A recto from the next, complicating the design and the carving of the
Antonio’s indifference to overall proportions might be ex- blocks—and raising the costs of construction, especially for
plained by the way in which a cultivated “Vitruvian” architect Italian stonecutters unacquainted with this sort of stereo-
such as he began a design: he proceeded according to the char- tomic practice.23 Antonio’s attitude in this regard was highly
acteristics of the site—the locus—from which the basic module pragmatic; he always attempted to simplify the processes of
of the whole building was to be generated, rather than from design and construction and thus reduce costs. Further, in
a predetermined volume intended to be set upon a site and U306A recto he also considered it correct that the columns of
divided into smaller, proportionally consistent units.19 the tabernacles be positioned radially, as they are in reality,
Antonio’s approach becomes clearer as we delve into his and that they have curved pediments on the top.24 Antonio’s
drawings. In U306A recto he is sharply critical toward the different assessment in this case seems to derive from the fact
278 JSAH | 78.3 | SEPTEMBER 2019Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020 Figure 3 Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, studies of the Pantheon, Uffizi 306A recto, ca. 1515 (Gabinetto dei Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Florence). Figure 4 Pantheon, Rome, ca. 126 CE, interior toward main altar (author’s photo).
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020 Figure 5 Pantheon, Rome, ca. 126 CE, interior toward entrance (author’s photo). Figure 6 Donato Bramante et al., Saint Peter’s Basilica, Vatican, begun 1506, interior toward Bernini’s Baldacchino (author’s photo). that the Pantheon’s tabernacles are only attached to—not inspired by the Pantheon, employed three-dimensional arches, carved from—the real structure, and therefore independent and this too likely affected Antonio’s thinking (Figure 7).27 of it; also, their dimensions are small when compared with So far as I am aware, this last structure, which Antonio knew the altar and niches belonging to the main structure (meaning well, was the only modern building to feature a cylinder that the cost of making them would have been relatively low). pierced by arched openings. The unknown architect of this A radial disposition of the columns and a curved pediment Florentine rotunda must have been indifferent to the visual would squash the tabernacles against the wall, decreasing issue that troubled Antonio, finding it appropriate to use their projection and giving them a clearly secondary impor- three-dimensional arches over the chapels and the main tance in the hierarchy of elements constituting the circular entrance. Giorgio Vasari, who attributed the project to Leon sense of the interior.25 Battista Alberti, shared Antonio’s negative opinion and Antonio’s views on the proper relationship between an criticized it for the same reasons, at times using the same arch and a central space covered by a dome were likely influ- words as Antonio, suggesting that the two may have dis- enced by a number of examples, from Filippo Brunelleschi’s cussed this issue.28 In writing about Alberti’s life, Vasari Medici Chapel at the Basilica di San Lorenzo in Florence noted that the type of arch found at the Santissima Annun- to Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, where in each case ziata “tends to draw ever backward” and that “from the the arches supporting the dome were conceived as verti- side, it appears that [the arches] are falling backward, and cal (Figure 6).26 Additionally, the unfinished rotunda of that they are clumsy, as indeed they are, although the pro- the Santissima Annunziata in Florence (1444–70s), partially portions are correct, and the difficulties of the method 280 JSAH | 78.3 | SEPTEMBER 2019
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
Figure 7 Santissima Annunziata, Florence, 1444–
70s, interior (author’s photo).
must be remembered.”29 Vasari applied the same critique curved façade for the new mint (ca. 1524–25) on Via dei Ban-
to the arch over the entrance opposite, just as Antonio had chi in Rome, his project for the Medici Chapel at the abbey of
done at the Pantheon, “for although it is very beautiful on Monte Cassino (U172A recto, ca. 1535), at Porta Santo Spi-
the outer side, on the inner side, where it has to follow the rito in Rome, and in his model for Saint Peter’s (Figure 9).
curve of the chapel, which is round, it appears to be falling Antonio sometimes deviated from his stated opinions, choos-
backward and to be extremely clumsy.”30 Vasari declared ing flexibility and efficiency over strict propriety depending
that Alberti, despite being a man of science and theory, on the situation.35
could have avoided this unfortunate solution if he had had Architectural historian Christoph Thoenes has demon-
more practical architectural experience.31 Alberti, who em- strated that in order to define the curvature of the dome of
ployed several optical refinements in the Florentine church Saint Peter’s in his wooden model (1539–46), Antonio used
of Santa Maria Novella, a project that drew some features a fourth of an ellipse, the construction of which can be ex-
from the Pantheon, had a sound understanding of Roman plained as similar to an arch traced over a cylinder.36 In Anto-
architecture, and so it seems unlikely that he failed to notice nio’s dome model, the surface is convex rather than concave,
the most prominent arch inside that ancient Roman imperial as if it were traced on the back face of the cylinder or on the
temple.32 Regardless, he never questioned the Pantheon’s same cylinder but positioned horizontally. During the years
qualities and had only enthusiastic words for it.33 His attitude of his architectural practice and theoretical studies, Antonio
confirms the unusualness of Antonio’s criticisms of Renais- evidently gained confidence in handling complex geometry
sance architecture’s ancient prototypes. and was able to recognize when a geometric construction
The issue of the three-dimensional arch was much on would be suitable for certain purposes and inappropriate for
Antonio’s mind. In U42A recto, for example—a freehand others. His taste, too, initially based largely on quattrocento
sketch of the plan of Saint Peter’s narthex and façade dat- Florentine architecture, changed and developed over time.
ing to 1538–39—he showed a curved-arched opening at In his first illustrated critique of the Pantheon, Antonio
the head of the apse (marked A in the drawing) and reiter- demonstrated his ability to analyze structure. He singled out
ated his belief (in his notes) that this solution was simply the building’s parts but missed the sense of the building as a
wrong (Figure 8).34 U42A recto shows a plan for a still whole; thus, he did not foresee how the specific modifications
unbuilt design. This suggests that Antonio was able to he suggested would affect the larger system. For example,
foresee the problematic visual effect of Saint Peter’s three- straightening the columns flanking the altar would make
dimensional arch only through his past visual experience and them overlap with the side of the adjacent tabernacle’s pedi-
geometrical analysis of the Pantheon. U306A recto pre- ments, unless the diameter of the central apse were drastically
cedes this sheet and shows how much the Pantheon’s les- decreased, an issue not taken into consideration in Antonio’s
sons contributed to unexpected parts of Antonio’s work at sketch.37 Straightening these columns, and the pilasters of
Saint Peter’s. the interior corners at the entrance and those of the two other
Yet while Antonio held a dim view of the Pantheon’s round niches, would also have increased the visual power of
three-dimensional arch, he sometimes employed the same the two cross axes. The result would have diminished the im-
device in his own practice. Such arches can be found in his pression of circularity and would have been discordant with
ANTONIO DA SANGALLO THE YOUNGER’S REACTIONS TO THE PANTHEON 281Figure 8 Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, studies
for Saint Peter’s, Uffizi 42A recto, ca. 1525
(Gabinetto dei Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi,
Florence).
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
Figure 9 Porta Santo Spirito, Rome, begun 1542
(author’s photo).
the constant curvature of the dome above; ultimately, it wide intercolumniation equal to 4 diameters of the same col-
would have undermined the impression of the Pantheon as umns (1.5 + 1.5 +1). Given that some columns behind the front
a rotunda. Both the quattrocentesque flavor of this idea and have been removed (leuate), the columns of the front portico
Antonio’s inability to foresee the effect of the single element are aligned with the niches, where one expects to see another
on the whole offer clues for dating this drawing to an early column or pilaster. Antonio considered this solution both
stage of his career.38 visually unsatisfying and structurally harmful (pernitiosa).40
He reached this conclusion by considering different as-
pects of the Pantheon’s portico. In terms of structural effi-
Vitruvius’s Theory versus the Archaeological ciency, Antonio was concerned about the danger of a wide
Evidence of Imperial Architecture: intercolumniation and the related architrave inserted in the
Uffizi 874A recto wall right over the arch of the niche—that is, over a hollow
On U874A recto, Antonio inadvertently displayed a problem space.41 In terms of visual coherency, he pointed to the incon-
inherent in criticizing an imperial Roman building from a gruity of a column lined up with a niche—a structural element
Vitruvian point of view. On the left side of this sheet, Antonio related to a void. Antonio’s terminology makes clear that his
wrote, “In lo porticho della ritonda sie un erore” (In the por- reading of the Pantheon stemmed from his understanding of
tico of the Pantheon there is a mistake): the portico imitates Vitruvius.42 In book 3, Vitruvius wrote that a temple is pseudo-
the pseudodittero or falso alato (pseudo-winged) temple, in dipteros when it meets three conditions: the two façades are oc-
which the inner colonnade is removed (Figure 10).39 He also tastyle; the sides are provided with fifteen columns, including
noted that the lack of an interior row of columns produces a those at the corners; and the projection of the side walls of the
282 JSAH | 78.3 | SEPTEMBER 2019Figure 10 Antonio da Sangallo the Younger,
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
studies of the Pantheon, Uffizi 874A recto, ca. 1515
(Gabinetto dei Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi,
Florence).
cella should contain the four central columns of the façades. to “the edifice in front of Monte Cavallo where that piece
The distance between the edge of the peristyle columns and of frontispiece is” and the ritonda, as he called the Pantheon.
the walls of the cella must be equal to two intercolumniations Yet both structures were built after Vitruvius’s death, which
plus a diameter of the same column.43 This long distance Antonio did not know, meaning that Vitruvius may have been
would allow for two rows of columns around the cella, correct after all.48
explaining Vitruvius’s use of the term dipteros (i.e., provided However, the link between the pseudodipteros temple and
with two rows of columns); in the case of the missing inner the portico of the Pantheon was made before Antonio’s time.
row, Vitruvius called it a pseudodipteros and stated that pseudo- He may have known Fabio Calvo’s translation of the Vitruvian
dipteros temples did not exist in ancient Rome.44 A few pages treatise completed under Raphael’s supervision (ca. 1514–15).
later, he explained the origin of this temple type and attributed In the margins of Calvo’s draft, one reads that the Pantheon is
its invention to Hermogenes: a pseudodipteros temple, but no additional explanation is of-
fered.49 The only clue available to Antonio for defining the
[Hermogenes] removed the inner rows of thirty-four columns portico of the Pantheon as pseudodipteros was the distance be-
appropriate to the modular system of the dipteral temple and tween the outer and inner rows of columns—equal to the two
with this procedure saved on labour and expense. He in-
intercolumniations plus the diameter of one column, and thus
geniously created a much wider space in the intermediate area
complying with the Vitruvian rule. Antonio knew from De ar-
for the walkway around the cella which did not detract in the
chitectura that this distance derived from Hermogenes’s idea of
slightest from the external appearance of the temple, but in fact
maintained the dignity of the whole structure without creating removing the inner row of columns, and on U874A recto he
any sense of loss for the superfluous columns.45 speculated, using dots to represent the missing columns, that
the architect of the Pantheon conceived the portico in the
In short, Vitruvius indicated that it was possible to maintain same way.50 If indeed the portico was designed in this manner,
the dignity of the structure while saving on labor and ex- then something went wrong in the process because the miss-
penses. For the pragmatic Antonio, this must have been in- ing row of columns is aligned with the niches, creating a harm-
spiring, revealing the pseudodipteros as an ideal compromise ful (pernitiosa) condition (Figure 11). Antonio thus criticized
between visual perfection and constructive practicality. the choice of a pseudodipteros portico at the Pantheon, suggest-
On folio 48v of his copy of Fra Giocondo’s 1513 edition of ing that he was aware—like other contemporary architects,
Vitruvius’s De architectura, Antonio sketched two plans of the including Michelangelo—that the building was the result of
front part of a pseudodipteros-eustyile temple; his annotations different construction phases, the last of which involved the
indicate that he would have designed the rotunda’s portico erection of the portico.51
as per the plan below.46 Antonio’s notation is comparable to Antonio’s concern over the problematic connection of a
one found in folio 24r of the 1524 edition of De architectura large portico with the wall behind was something he dealt
edited by Francesco Durantino, which he owned. His com- with several times, starting with his early projects for Saint
ments contradict Vitruvius’s statement about there being Peter’s. In U252A recto and U254A recto (ca. 1517), we see
no pseudodipteros temples in ancient Rome.47 Antonio refers sketches of a façade linked to a volume through a series of
ANTONIO DA SANGALLO THE YOUNGER’S REACTIONS TO THE PANTHEON 283columns (Figure 12 on the left).52 In many of Antonio’s to the wall behind. A similar approach is shown in how he
sketches for the Vatican basilica, freestanding columns and unites the freestanding columns of the ambulatory with the
walls are connected using the same criteria he devised for pillars.53 Antonio’s critique of the portico’s connection to
the Pantheon, with the front portico of the church connected the rotunda thus resulted from his structural, visual, and the-
oretical speculations. He eliminated the niche and replaced it
with a pilaster aligned with the column at the front, also plac-
ing two smaller niches at the center of the two new bays. In
this way, all of the columns were coherently aligned with the
corresponding pilasters and attached to the wall.54
Antonio next turned his attention back to the Pantheon’s
interior. Like Francesco di Giorgio before, he considered it
a mistake that the columns of the lower level, the pilasters of
the attic, and the ribs of the dome did not follow a consistent
rhythm (“no[n] so espartiti parimenti”), adding that this lay-
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
out “gives birth” to a pair of idiosyncrasies.55 The first was vi-
sual, involving a lack of vertical alignment between the
pilasters of the attic and the ribs of the dome; this was in
marked contrast with the approach that a Renaissance ar-
chitect would have used to juxtapose levels of architectural
orders following the same continuous vertical axes.56 The
second issue was structural, with the dome’s ribs (pettorali)
failing to correspond with the pilasters, being located in-
stead over the windows of the attic, and again creating a
dangerous structural condition.57
Antonio’s proposed solution began by dividing the rotunda
into forty-eight equal parts and establishing a strict vertical
correspondence between the structural elements—columns,
pilasters, and ribs—and the voids of the windows and coffers;
this he termed “elli sodi sopra li sodi ele vani sopra alli vani”
(structures over structures, voids over voids).58 He was aware
that this increased number of partitions would create very nar-
row intercolumniations, so, in order to ensure an acceptable
Figure 11 Sebastiano Serlio, plan of the Pantheon, Rome, 1540 (Il terzo
width, Antonio—in a hypothetical maneuver—concluded that
libro di Sebastiano Serlio bolognese, nel quale si figurano, e descrivono le the rotunda should have a larger diameter than it does in actu-
antiquità di Roma, e le altre che sono in Italia, e fuori de Italia [Venice, ality.59 The sketch of the interior on the same sheet shows all
1540], fol. VIIr). of Antonio’s corrections: the vertical elements are aligned, and
Figure 12 Antonio da Sangallo the Younger,
studies for a plan of Saint Peter’s, Uffizi 254A recto,
ca. 1525 (Gabinetto dei Disegni e Stampe degli
Uffizi, Florence).
284 JSAH | 78.3 | SEPTEMBER 2019Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
Figure 13 Antonio Labacco, drawing of Antonio da Sangallo the
Younger’s project for San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, section, 1552 (Libro di
Antonio Labacco appartenente a l’architettura [Rome, 1552], fol. 23).
Figure 14 Pantheon, Rome, ca. 126 CE, folded pilaster inside a niche
(author’s photo).
a pediment is substituted for the arch over the central apse in sketch—attached to the back wall; this projected out from the
order to avoid the three-dimensional arch. The result is quite edge of the pilaster at the corner of the apse, making their
different from the actual Pantheon. In Antonio’s sketch, the alignment impossible. This feature resulted from the half
fluid circularity of the rotunda wall is replaced by a rigid and pilaster on the back wall that was misaligned with the pillar
predominantly vertical structural skeleton, resembling his in the front, framing the niche. Antonio’s solution left the
project for the church of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini in folded pilaster unchanged—even if, after all, as merely an
Rome as shown by Antonio Labacco (Figure 13).60 ornament. Yet he sought to alter considerably more visible,
and significantly structural, elements, including the pilast-
ers enclosing the corners of the niches, and to double the
A Brunelleschian Legacy: Uffizi 874A verso thickness of the pilasters behind the freestanding columns.
In the last drawing discussed here, U874A verso, beside a His solution would have pushed the folded pilaster into a
sketch of a centrally planned church, Antonio dealt with an secondary position.
apparently minor problem related to the interior of the That Antonio considered this “minor” ornament immov-
Pantheon’s four rectangular niches—that is, the folded able and preferred to modify more important elements con-
pilasters at their inside corners (Figures 14 and 15). He firms his interest in this particular detail. He may have been
noted that they “project out in the intercolumnius.”61 drawn to it by his reflections on Brunelleschi’s solution for the
While criticizing this relatively minor interior detail, visible corners in the Medici Chapel in Florence (1422), a seminal
from only a few specific points and from a drawing of the early Renaissance work that the Florentine Antonio knew well
plan, Antonio remained as firm and resolute as he had been (Figure 16).62 In analyzing the Pantheon, Antonio had discov-
in his remarks on the building as a whole. What bothered ered one of Brunelleschi’s most important ancient models, and
him was the portion of the folded pilaster—marked A in his he followed Brunelleschi’s lead in trying to understand the
ANTONIO DA SANGALLO THE YOUNGER’S REACTIONS TO THE PANTHEON 285Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020 Figure 15 Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, studies of the Pantheon, Uffizi 874A verso, ca. 1515 (Gabinetto dei Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Florence). relationship between a Roman source and its subsequent Conversely, if U874A verso preceded the Serra Chapel’s modern interpretation. Antonio used the folded pilaster from project, the latter derived directly from his speculation on Brunelleschi’s Medici Chapel to frame the corners of the the Pantheon’s niche. In any event, this example shows the courtyard in the Palazzo Baldassini in Rome (ca. 1514) and the strict connection between Antonio’s critique of the Roman altar wall at Giacomo Serra’s chapel in the church of San monument and his design methods. Giacomo degli Spagnoli (ca. 1517–18). He evidently consid- For the Florentine architect, the folded pilaster of the ered it a useful and appealing device. The folded pilaster also Pantheon was an antique model that inspired Brunelleschi’s appears in the radial chapels of his project for San Giovanni dei resolution of the corner of the Medici Chapel. It would have Fiorentini, seen drawn on U199A recto and U200A recto a long afterlife.65 In studying the Pantheon, Antonio discov- (1518–19).63 At the Serra Chapel, the side of the pilaster ered not only Brunelleschi’s source but also the source for his attached to the back wall is aligned with the edge of the thick uncle Giuliano da Sangallo’s use of the same device at his pilaster of the entrance arch (Figure 17). Antonio solved Santa Maria delle Carceri in Prato (1485).66 With Antonio’s the problem in the same way in sketch C of U874A verso, a discovery we reach a pivotal moment of overlap in the trajec- solution he called perfecto and repeated in U306A recto (see tory of ancient Rome’s architectural legacy: an ancient source, Figures 3 and 15). Antonio’s U874A verso has been tentatively its modern use, and its rediscovery and analysis by Antonio. dated to 1536, whereas the project for the Serra Chapel came Here, Antonio’s modification of the corner in the Pantheon some twenty years earlier.64 If this chronology holds true, niches stems from his architectural practice and practical the folded pilaster responded to a problem that Antonio had knowledge, this time independent from Vitruvian theory. solved earlier in the context of a design process and later app- This reveals how Antonio alternated, with no apparent lied in commenting on and “correcting” the Roman Pantheon. consistency, between criticizing the Pantheon and drawing 286 JSAH | 78.3 | SEPTEMBER 2019
solutions from it to rethink and redirect his own practice.
For Antonio, the Pantheon was a palimpsest where ancient
source, Vitruvian theory, and modern interpretation were
often conflated.
Conclusion
Antonio’s annotated sketches of the Pantheon provide a re-
markable sixteenth-century graphic corpus, one that is quite
rare, if not unique. The sketches offer a fresh critical perspec-
tive on what was then a universally revered Roman monu-
ment. No other architect up to that point had dared to
question so directly the perfection of this widely admired an-
tique model. Antonio’s interpretive drawings are representa-
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
tive of this pragmatically and technically oriented architect’s
approach: through plans, sections, and elevations, they make
aesthetic and structural problems visible and propose clear
and efficient solutions to them. In other words, Antonio ana-
lyzed visual problems by breaking them down into indisput-
able graphic data points from which he then proposed to
“rebuild” the monument according to his own professional
judgment.
Modern architectural criticism was born in the Renais-
sance. For the first time, architects and architectural schol-
ars could rely on a substantial body of theoretical writings
Figure 16 Filippo Brunelleschi, Old Sacristy, Medici Chapel, Basilica di and rules—paradigms to be accepted, criticized, or refused.
San Lorenzo, Florence, begun 1419, interior (author’s photo). Antonio’s work is exemplary here. His graphic and verbal
efforts went beyond the mere analysis of buildings, aiming to
correct the errors he perceived according to his professional,
technical, and theoretical knowledge and to find solutions
useful for his own and his contemporaries’ architectural prac-
tices. Antonio’s drawings are less a systematic analysis of the
Pantheon on its own historic terms than a means of exploring
professional questions raised during his lifetime.
A scholar of ancient Roman architecture, Antonio used
history for his own contemporary purposes—purposes I
identify as his operative critical project. He was not only a
practicing architect but an expert on Vitruvian theory as
well.67 His studies of the Pantheon were based in large part
on knowledge developed by Vitruvius more than a century
before the Pantheon’s construction. Antonio was not aware of
this temporal discrepancy and focused on correcting what
was visible to his eyes, even if his proposals did not always
align with ancient imperial Roman architectural standards
and ideals.
Antonio’s emended Pantheon would, thus, have been
quite different from the actual built monument. His sketches
reimagine it as a more organic structure, in which each part
coherently connects with all the others, corresponding to a
basic module made of the column’s diameter and its multi-
Figure 17 Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Serra Chapel, San Giacomo ples, in accordance with Vitruvian prescriptions. The result
degli Spagnoli, Rome, ca. 1517–18, interior (author’s photo). contradicts the Pantheon as it stands, the Pantheon imagined
ANTONIO DA SANGALLO THE YOUNGER’S REACTIONS TO THE PANTHEON 287by its ancient builders as a structure conceived as a whole, a Marder, “Bernini and Alexander VII,” 635; Howard Burns, “ ‘Restaurator
consistently proportioned volume. In his operative criticism delle ruyne antiche’: Tradizione e studio dell’antico nell’attività di Francesco
di Giorgio,” in Francesco di Giorgio architetto, ed. Francesco P. Fiore and Man-
of the monument, Antonio moved beyond his predecessors,
fredo Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994), 151–75, esp. 167; Mark Wilson Jones,
shifting away from their reverence toward the classical tradi- Principles of Roman Architecture (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
tion and ultimately bringing architecture to a new level of 2000), 188–89; Arnold Nesselrath, “Il Pantheon,” in La Roma di Leon Battista
critical awareness. Alberti, ed. Francesco P. Fiore and Arnold Nesselrath (Milan: Skira, 2005),
190–92; Nesselrath, “Impressionen zum Pantheon,” 69.
Francesco Benelli has published on many aspects of Renaissance 6. Drawings of the Pantheon made between Francesco di Giorgio’s and An-
tonio da Sangallo’s times were either views or surveys, not critical analyses.
architecture, including the history of design, building materials
Nesselrath, “Impressionen zum Pantheon.”
and techniques, the rediscovery of antiquity, architecture in paint-
7. These architects described and sometimes drew the Pantheon, but they did
ing, and historiography. https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/f.benelli
not seek to critique it. Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro: Nel qval si figvrano, e de-
scrivono le antiqvita di Roma, e le altre che sono in Italia e fvori d’Italia (Venice:
Notes Francesco Marcolino da Forlì, 1540), fols. V–XVII; Andrea Palladio, I quattro
1. I am grateful to JSAH’s editor in chief, Keith Eggener, and the anonymous libri dell’architettura (Venice: D. De Franceschi, 1570), bk. 4, 73–82. For
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
reviewer for their comments and suggestions; these have helped me to expand Alberti’s appraisal of the Pantheon, see Anthony Grafton, Leon Battista Alberti:
this essay’s scope and correct some mistakes. Additional thanks go to Sara Master Builder of the Italian Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-
Galletti, Giancarla Periti, Fabio Barry, Mark Rakatansky, Massimo Bulgarelli, sity Press, 2000), 254–56.
and Vitale Zanchettin for discussing aspects of the article with me. 8. Raphael’s Uffizi 164A recto, a view of the Pantheon’s interior, differs from
2. The bibliography on the Pantheon is vast. On its reception and interpreta- reality largely owing to graphic economy rather than architectural criticism.
tion, as well as its influence on architecture, from medieval to baroque, see John Shearman, “Raphael, Rome, and the Codex Escurialensis,” Master
Tillman Buddensieg, “Criticism and Praise of the Pantheon in the Middle Drawings 15, no. 2 (1977), 107–46, esp. 109–17; John Shearman, “3.2.4.
Ages and the Renaissance,” in Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. Raffaello, interno e pronao del Pantheon,” in Raffaello architetto, ed. Chris-
500–1500, ed. Robert R. Bolgar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, toph L. Frommel, Stefano Ray, and Manfredo Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1984),
1971), 259–67; Tod A. Marder, “Bernini and Alexander VII: Criticism and 381–404. Peruzzi’s deviations from the real Pantheon are minor. Serlio fol-
Praise of the Pantheon in the Seventeenth Century,” Art Bulletin 71, no. 4 lowed Peruzzi’s drawing. Howard Burns, “A Peruzzi Drawing in Ferrara,”
(1989), 628–45; Susanna Pasquali, Il Pantheon: Architettura e antiquaria nel Set- Mitteilungen der Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 12, nos. 3–4 (1967),
tecento a Roma (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini Editore, 1996), 3–36; Arnold 245–70; Cristiano Tessari, Baldassarre Peruzzi: Il progetto dell’antico (Milan:
Nesselrath, “Impressionen zum Pantheon in der Renaissance,” Pegasus: Ber- Electa, 1995), 19–99; Ann Huppert, Becoming an Architect in Renaissance Italy
liner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike 10 (2008), 37–84; Erik Thunø, “The (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2015), 49–93.
Pantheon in the Middle Ages,” in The Pantheon: From Antiquity to the Present, 9. The passages in the memoriale (ca. 1516–20) regarding the basilica project
ed. Tod A. Marder and Mark Wilson Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- focus on technical and design issues. Christoph L. Frommel, “U33A recto
sity Press, 2015), 231–54; Arnold Nesselrath, “Impressions of the Pantheon in and verso,” in Frommel and Adams, The Architectural Drawings, 65–67.
the Renaissance,” in Marder and Wilson Jones, The Pantheon, 255–95. 10. Antonio remarked negatively on the proportions of Bramante’s Doric
3. Arnold Nesselrath has published and discussed Antonio’s drawings illus- pilasters in the Saint Peter’s choir exterior, which are twelve modules high
trating and commenting on the Pantheon. See Arnold Nesselrath, “U306A rather than the canonic seven suggested by Vitruvius. Frommel, “U33A recto
recto,” in The Architectural Drawings of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and His and verso,” 65. See also Manfredo Tafuri, “Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane e
Circle, vol. 2, Churches, Villas, the Pantheon, Tombs, and Ancient Inscriptions, ed. Jacopo Sansovino: Un conflitto professionale nella Roma medicea,” in Anto-
Christoph L. Frommel and Nicholas Adams (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, nio da Sangallo il Giovane: La vita e l’opera, ed. Gianfranco Spagnesi (Rome:
2000), 134–35; Arnold Nesselrath, “U874A recto,” in Frommel and Adams, Centro di Studi per la Storia dell’Architettura, 1986), 79–99.
The Architectural Drawings, 171–72; Arnold Nesselrath and Ursula Kleefisch- 11. Michelangelo found Antonio’s project for Saint Peter’s to be exceedingly
Jobst, “U874 verso,” in Frommel and Adams, The Architectural Drawings, dark in its interior, and with too many juxtaposed architectural orders and
172–73. See also Buddensieg, “Criticism and Praise of the Pantheon,” 265–67; decorations, creating a “German manner/style” (alla todescha). It was also too
Jens Niebaum, Der kirchliche Zentralbau der Renaissance in Italien (Munich: expensive. See Giorgio Vasari, La vita di Michelangelo nelle redazioni del 1550 e
Hirmer, 2016), 1:272, 2:508. Nesselrath’s analysis remains solid, yet it leaves del 1568, ed. Paola Barocchi (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1962), 1:83. Eventu-
room for further investigation. ally, Antonio was vindicated by his brother Giovanni Battista, who criticized
4. Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and History of Architecture (New York: Harper & Michelangelo’s project for the Palazzo Farnese façade’s top cornice, judging
Row, 1980), 141, translated from Teorie e storia dell’architettura (Bari: Editori it al modo barbaro (barbarian fashion) because it did not respect Vitruvius’s pro-
Laterza, 1968), 165. Tafuri quotes Antonio da Sangallo the Younger but does portions. Pier Nicola Pagliara, “Alcune minute autografe di G. Battista da
not consider his critique of the Pantheon. Sangallo,” Architettura Archivi 1 (1982), 25–50, esp. 28–29. (Unless otherwise
5. In order to put the illustration at the center of the sheet, Francesco di Gior- noted, all translations are my own.)
gio drew the perimeter of the building’s section by following the shape of the 12. Giulio Zavatta, 1526, Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane in Romagna: Rilievi di
scale traced on the opposite side of the sheet of paper. The result is a building fortificazioni e monumenti antichi romagnoli di Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane e
that is more slender than the actual one. A major feature of his reconstruction della sua cerchia al Gabinetto disegni e stampe degli Uffizi (Imola: Angelini,
is the attention he paid to lining up the pilasters of the attic with the dome’s 2008), 178–81, 216–19. On Antonio’s critique of Roman triumphal arches, see
ribs, with the exception of the first two on the right. Francesco di Giorgio Christoph Jobst, “Die kritischen Studien nach antiken Triumphbögen von
Martini, Codex Saluzzianus 148, fol. 80r, Biblioteca Reale, Turin, in Francesco Antonio da Sangallo dem Jüngeren: Das Verhä ltins von Sä ulenordnung und
di Giorgio Martini, Trattati, transcription by Livia Maltese Degrassi, ed. Cor- Mauerwerk,” Annali di Architettura 2 (1990), 45–52. Antonio was also critical
rado Maltese (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1967), 1:280–81, ill. 147. For analysis of the in respect to Vitruvius: in Uffizi 981A recto, he described Vitruvius’s design of
drawing, see Buddensieg, “Criticism and Praise of the Pantheon,” 263–65; an Ionic fireplace entablature as goffo (clumsy). Pier Nicola Pagliara, “Studi e
288 JSAH | 78.3 | SEPTEMBER 2019pratica vitruviana di Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane e di suo fratello Giovanni the arch diagonally. On Antonio’s project of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini,
Battista,” in Les traités d’architecture de la Renaissance: Actes du colloque tenu à see Manfredo Tafuri, Ricerca del Rinascimento (Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1992),
Tours du ler au 11 juillet 1981, ed. Jean Guillaume (Paris: Picard, 1988), 196. 164–68; Francesco Benelli, “Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and a Vitruvian
Furthermore, Antonio was sometimes skeptical about his own work, but only Pantheon for Leo X,” Pegasus: Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike
in his private notes; see Gustavo Giovannoni, Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane 18–19 (2018), 73–114.
(Rome: Tipografia Regionale, 1959), 1:26, 2:ill. 50. 23. Not by chance is Philibert de l’Orme, a French architect raised in a
13. Pier Nicola Pagliara argues that during the sixteenth century, as architects Gothic context who lived in Rome between 1533 and 1536, the one who
started to adhere to classical norms, so too did writers begin to follow pseudo- wrote about and illustrated the three-dimensional arch in his architectural
Aristotelian rules; books like Baldassarre Castiglione’s Cortegiano (Venice, treatise Le premier tome de l’architecture (Paris: Frédéric Morel, 1567); see
1528) and Giovanni della Casa’s Galateo (Venice, 1558) provided members of the illustration on fol. 77 and text on the following pages. In the case of
the courts with advice on manners for proper living and behavior. Pier Nicola small-scale architecture, the problem is evidently less pressing: arches
Pagliara, “Vitruvio da testo a canone,” in Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana, with archivolts in stone on curved surfaces can be found in the interior of
vol. 3, Dalla tradizione all’archeologia, ed. Salvatore Settis (Turin: Giulio Ei- Bramante’s Tempietto in San Pietro in Montorio as well as in the Caracciolo
naudi, 1986), 3–85, esp. 56. Chapel at San Giovanni Carbonara in Naples. In ancient Roman architecture,
14. See Arnaldo Bruschi, “Cordini, Antonio, detto Antonio da Sangallo il when arches are related to curved walls, they usually do not have archivolts.
Giovane,” in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 29 (Rome: Treccani, For an introduction to stereotomy, see Sara Galletti, “Stereotomy and the
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-pdf/78/3/276/186731/jsah_2019_78_3_276.pdf by guest on 04 June 2020
1983), 3–23. For a bibliographical update, see Maria Beltramini and Cristina Mediterranean: Notes toward an Architectural History,” in Mediterranea:
Conti, eds., Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane: Architettura e decorazione da Leone X International Journal on the Transfer of Knowledge 2 (2017), 73–120; Sara
a Paolo III (Milan: Officina Libraria, 2018). Galletti, “From Stone to Paper: Philibert de l’Orme, the Premier tome de
15. On Antonio’s Vitruvian studies, see Pagliara, “Vitruvio da testo a canone,” l’architecture (1567), and the Birth of Stereotomic Theory,” Aedificare 2, no. 2
46–55; Pagliara, “Studi e pratica vitruviana di Antonio da Sangallo il Gio- (2017), 143–63.
vane,” 179–206. On Antonio’s four editions of Vitruvius and his annotations, 24. “Questi starieno meglio circulare che / diritti & le Colonne / andare alce
see Francesco Benelli, “Secondo Fra Giocondo: Antonio da Sangallo il [n]tro.” Nesselrath, “U306A recto,” 134–35. It seems likely that Antonio
Giovane e l’edizione di Fra Giocondo del 1513 del Metropolitan Museum of wrongly believed that the axes of the columns were aligned.
Art di New York,” in Giovanni Giocondo: Umanista, architetto e antiquario, ed. 25. Antonio may have had in mind the flat tabernacles framing the windows
Pierre Gros and Pier Nicola Pagliara (Venice: Marsilio, 2014), 53–68. of the second level of Trajan’s Market, which was decorated with pediments
16. Most of Antonio’s drawings are held in the Uffizi’s Gabinetto dei Disegni springing from the round wall of the exedra.
e Stampe and have been published in The Architectural Drawings of Antonio da 26. Antonio witnessed and participated in the construction of Bramante’s
Sangallo the Younger and His Circle. Among these, some dimensions of the design for Saint Peter’s central structure supporting the dome. Giovannoni,
Pantheon were measured by Battista in U1373A recto and U1387A recto. See Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane, 1:115–18. During the first half of the sixteenth
Arnold Nesselrath and Sabine Eiche, “U1373A recto and verso,” in Frommel century, in all structures deriving from this influential example, the arches
and Adams, The Architectural Drawings, 246; Nesselrath, “U1387A recto,” in were projected onto a flat surface. On the Medici Chapel, see Arnaldo
Frommel and Adams, The Architectural Drawings, 247–48. Bruschi, Filippo Brunelleschi (Milan: Electa, 2006), 85–108. For other examples,
17. Archival material on Antonio is unusually extensive among Renaissance- see also Niebaum, Der kirchliche Zentralbau, vol. 2.
era architects. 27. Michelozzo is thought to have conceived the round plan of the tribune,
18. On the Pantheon’s proportions and design, see Wilson Jones, Principles of which was later modified by Antonio Manetti Ciaccheri and completed by
Roman Architecture, 182–87. Leon Battista Alberti. Scholars suggest as models Roman rotundas such as
19. The idea of the locus generating the module comes from Vitruvius, De ar- those of Santa Costanza, Minerva Medica, and Sant’Elena. To this list I would
chitectura, ed. Pierre Gros (Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1997), 1:380–81. add the so-called Calventii’s tomb, sketched by Baldassarre Peruzzi in U426A
20. “They wouldn’t be in such disgrace,” “They look very disgraceful,” and recto, the temple of Portumnus at Ostia Antica (U1414A recto), and the fif-
“The arch looks like it is turning upside down.” Nesselrath, “U306A recto,” teenth-century sanctuary at Fornò (near Forlì). All of these present interiors
134. The intradox of the arch over the entrance to the rotunda was originally with arches on round walls without archivolts. See Arturo Calzona, “La trib-
covered with an ornamental pattern of square and octagonal coffers, eventu- una della Santissima Annunziata di Firenze,” in Leon Battista Alberti e l’archi-
ally demolished but visible in a series of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century tettura, ed. Massimo Bulgarelli, Arturo Calzona, Matteo Ceriana, and
views and drawings. On these decorative details, see Carolyn Yerkes, “The Francesco P. Fiore (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana, 2006), 402–17.
Lost Octagons of the Pantheon: Images and Evidence,” Journal of the War- 28. It is likely that Vasari had seen some of Antonio’s drawings. Licia Collobi
burg and Courtauld Institutes 77 (2014), 115–43. Ragghianti, “Vasari: Libro de’ disegni—architettura,” Critica d’Arte, n.s., 127
21. The three-dimensional arch, relatively rare until the 1530s, became (1976), 3–120.
a popular element in the baroque period, when architectural surfaces and 29. “Fece detta tribuna capricciosa e difficile a guisa d’un tempio tondo, cir-
volumes were no longer strictly related to stereometric solids. The history of condato da nove cappelle, che tutte girano in arco tondo, e dentro sono a uso
the three-dimensional arch is outlined in Nikolaus Pevsner, “The Three- di nicchia: per lo che, reggendosi gli archi di dette cappelle in su i pilastri di-
Dimensional Arch from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century,” JSAH nanzi, vengono gli ornamenti dell’arco di pietra, accostandosi al muro, che,
17, no. 4 (1958), 22–24. secondo l’andare della tribuna, gira in contrario; onde quando i detti archi
22. Antonio traced both the straight line connecting the pilasters framing the delle cappelle si guardano dagli lati, par che caschino indietro, e che abbiano,
apse and the curved line of the wall. On the right side, he rendered the p[r]ofilo come hanno invero, disgrazia; sebbene la misura è retta, ed il modo di fare dif-
of the apse, where it is possible to appreciate the projection of the top of the ficile. E in vero, se Leon Batista avesse fuggito questo modo, sarebbe stato
archivolt in relation to its base. Antonio considered this projection as an op- meglio; perché, sebbene è malagevole a condursi, ha disgrazia nelle cose pic-
portunity to create a pedestal on which to place a sculpture, which might re- cole e grandi.” Giorgio Vasari, “Vita di Leon Battista Alberti,” in Le vite de’ più
semble the profile of a sitting pope with the pastoral staff and the tiara, eccellenti pittori scultori ed architettori scritte da Giorgio Vasari pittore Aretino, nelle
suggesting that he was thinking about a papal church, probably San Giovanni redazioni del 1550 e 1568, ed. Rosanna Bettarini and Paola Barocchi (Florence:
dei Fiorentini. However, he cheated in setting the profile of the wall behind Sansoni, 1971), 3:287–88.
ANTONIO DA SANGALLO THE YOUNGER’S REACTIONS TO THE PANTHEON 289You can also read
