Bernini and the crossing of Saint Peter's fx719m772

Citation preview

XVII Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts

Sponsored by The Archaeological Institute of America and

The College Art Association of America

Monographs Editor, Bates Lowry

‘The publication of this Monograph

has been aided by a grant from

- ‘The Samuel H. Kress Foundation

@@ee9

Bernini and the Crossing of Saint Peter’s Irving Lavin New York University

1968 Published for The College Art Association of America

by New York University Press New York, N.Y.

Copyeditor: Miriam R. Koren

Designer: Malcolm Grear

. Typesetter: Connecticut Printers, Inc.

Printer: Eastern Press, Inc. . : Copyright © 1968 by ‘The College Art Association of America

. All rights reserved | Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 68-22570

To My Father . |

Preface I am conscious of a special debt to the work of Hans Kauffmann, who in a series of studies of Bernini’s sources has virtually opened a new approach to his art. Several of the conclusions reached here have their origin in observations made by Kauffmann (in “Berninis Tabernakel,” Miinch]Jb, 6, 1955, 366-374, and “Berninis Hl. Longinus,” in Miscellaneae Bibliothecae Herizianae, Munich, 1961, 222242), and I am glad to add this general acknowledgment to the individual ones given in the footnotes. I have also profited greatly, for the period preceding Urban VIII, from the survey of the decoration of Saint Peter’s by Herbert Siebenhiiner (“Umrisse zur Geschichte der Ausstattung von St. Peter,” in Festschrift fiir Hans Sedlmayr, Munich, 1962, 229-320). Howard Hibbard read the manuscript and made a number of valuable suggestions, as did Bates Lowry, editor of The Art Bulletin. No attempt will be made here to deal with every aspect of the decoration of the crossing; for Borromini’s contribution in particular the reader is referred to the forthcoming publication of his drawings by Heinrich Thelen. I should like to express my gratitude to Ingegnere Francesco Vacchini of the Reverenda Fabbrica di San Pietro, and to his assistant Sig. Mario Pirolli for many favors granted in connection with this study. The research was facilitated by the ready cooperation and assistance of D. Cipriano Maria dott. Cipriani, archivist of the Fabbrica. A large part of the work was carried out while I was the

holder of a Fellowship of the American Council of Learned Societies, for which I am most grateful. The manuscript was completed in June, 1966, except for some minor bibliographical additions. A number of items that appeared or came to my attention after the manuscript was set in type are noted in the Addenda. A study by H. Thelen dealing with the history of the high altar and baldachin (Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Hochaliar-Architekiur von St. Peter in Rom, Berlin, 1967) became available too late to be taken into account. ROME, JUNE, 1968

vu

Contents

Introduction. ... 2. cc ccc ce ct en ee ee ee ee be ee ee ee ene eet nee ee nee nee eee ene ee ens 1

I The Crossing Before Bernini THE PIERS... ccc ccc ce cc ce cc ee ee ee ee ta teen en eee eee nee eee eee ene eee ne ee ee eee eens 3 THE TOMB AND THE HIGH ALTAR .....c cece cece cece ccc cee ne cee eet eee eee eee eee nee 4

II Bernini’s First Project for the Baldachin.............. 0. cece eee eee ee eee rece eee 10 Ill The Decoration of the Pier Niches...........0..cc cece cece eee ec ees ee ee ence teeeraees IQ IV Changes During Execution THE CROWN OF THE BALDACHIN.....- cc cece cece cece eee e cence ence eee eee e eee ee ee eeeee OD

THE PLACEMENT OF THE NICHE STATUES ........ ccc eee c cree cece ane e cence eee neces eeee 24

V_ The Sources and Significance of the Statues ST. ANDREW AND THE FIRST VERSION OF ST. LONGINUS .. oc cc cece cee cece eee ene eneaee 2G

ST. VERONICA AND ST. HELEN 2... cc cw ccc cee cee eae ne ee cence ee wee eee asseaceezesss 32 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONGINUS ...cccccccc cc ccc ccc asec cen aec cane eenevececeseee DF

VI Conclusion 2.0... ccc ccc ce ccc ee ce ee en een ee ee eee eee eee tence eee eee eee eee 38 Appendix I CHECKLIST OF PROJECTS .... 0... ccc cece ete eee eee eee eee ect eeteees 40 Appendix II MARTINO FERRABOSCO’S PROJECT. 1... 0.00 cece eee eee etter etter AD Addenda -:-e ce cc cece ccc e eee eee eee eee tee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee e eect eee eee AF Tllustrations .. 0. cc ccc cc ce ce ee eee eee nee teen een eee n eee nee e ne eeenceeeseseaee OL

Bibliography of Frequently Cited Sources... 1... 2... 6.0 cece ee eee eee ee eee eee OF List of Abbreviations. .... 0. cc cc cc ee ce ce ee eee eee ee eee cee ete cece cece wee eee GS List of Credits .... cc ccc cc ce cee ce eee ec eee tenn eee eee cence ee eee nee ce ee eceee 95

Text Figure Disposition of the Relics in the Crossing (detail from plan of Saint Peter’s from C. Fontana, Templum vaticanum et ipsius origo, Rome, 1694, pl. following p. 380):

A. Under Paul V B. First arrangement under Urban VIII (1629ff.)

, c. Decree of April 26, 1638

D. Decree of July 5, 1638 (final) ..... 0. eee eee e eee 24 a

Introduction In the present essay “the crossing of Saint Peter’s” refers to the grandiose plan by which, during the reign of Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644) under Bernini’s direction, a visually and conceptually unified focus was created at the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles (Fig. 1).1 The scheme consisted essentially of grouping four of the major relics of early Christianity, previously dispersed, about the altar above the tomb.? My chief purpose here is to define the way in which the arrangement was given meaning and expressive form in the baldachin above the altar and in the decorations of the four piers supporting the dome of the basilica. It will be necessary to consider also the earlier contributions, which conditioned the final solution, and the changes introduced in the course of execution, as a result of which much of the original unity was lost. Chapters I-IV trace the broad outlines of the history of the crossing through the period in question, with emphasis on the sources and meaning of the baldachin. Chapter V analyzes the role of the colossal statues in the lower niches of the piers. The Conclusion (Chapter VI) is a schematic and tentative effort to understand the significance of the crossing in Bernini’s development. he Appendices offer an annotated list of projects submitted before and in competition with Bernini.

1. A tradition universally accepted since the Middle Ages held that the bodies of both St. Peter and St. Paul had been divided; half of each had been deposited at Saint Peter’s, the other two halves at Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls (cf. E. Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St. Peter & St. Paul, London, 1959, 209ff.). For effects of the legend on planning for the crossing see nn.48, 111, 171 below. 2. For the holy days and special occasions on which the Passion relics are shown, see Moroni, Dizionario, ciu, 101f. In 1964 the head of St. Andrew was returned to Patras in Greece, whence it had come to Rome under Pius II in 1462 (L’ Osservatore Romano, anno 104, No. 218, Sept. 20, 1964, 4, and subsequent issues; see now R. O. Rubenstein, “Pius II’s Piazza §. Pietro and St. Andrew’s Head,” in Essays in the History of Architecture Presenied to Rudolf

Wittkhower, London, 1967, 22ff.). See also end of n.125 below. 1

I. The Crossing Before Bernini THE PIERS The first steps toward the new disposition of the relics may be said to have been taken under Pope Paul V (1605-1621). In 1606, with the destruction of the nave of the old basilica, Paul transferred the three chief relics that had long been in Saint Peter's to the two piers flanking the apse of the new building:3 the Holy Face (Volto Santo) and the Lance of St. Longinus were moved to the southwest pier, the head of St. Andrew to the northwest (Text Fig. a; see p. 24).4 The relics were kept in the upper niches, which were separated from the larger niches below by balconies with balustrades (Figs. 2—4).5 ‘The arrangement thus retained, without altars below, that of the two-story free-standing tabernacles which had been among the most prominent monuments in Old Saint Peter’s (Figs. 7-9).6 Until Bernini’s time, the lower niche of the southeast pier contained the tomb of Paul III (1534-1549), while before the northeast pier stood the famous Colonna Santa, the spiral column against which Christ was believed to have leaned in the Temple at Jerusalem (Text Fig. a).? The permanent decoration of the niches seems to have been undistinguished. In engravings showing the crossing during the great quintuple canonization of 1622, however, the upper reliquary niches contain hangings (Figs. 5, 6).8 These are doubtless the same as two paintings—one with Sts. Peter and Paul holding aloft the Volto Santo, the other showing St. Andrew with his cross—which had been given to the basilica a decade before.® The use of the paintings in the niches is of consid3. Evidently there was an earlier plan, not carried out, to reorganize the display of the relics in the new church: “Si tratta di fare nel fenestrone principale della gran tribuna del nuovo San Pietro un nuovo pulpito balaustrato con finiss.* pietre, reliquie del volto santo et lancia di nostro Sig.te . . .”’ (Avviso of Aug. 18, 1598) Cited by Orbaan, Documenti, 46f. n., whose transcription I have checked against the original. Siebenhiiner, “‘Umrisse,’”’ 301, gratuitously interpolates a phrase into this passage, and interprets it as referring to the west window of the drum of the cupola. 4. The fundamental source for the transferral of the relics is Grimaldi, Instrumenta autentica ... 1619 (on Grimaldi, see Pastor, History of the Popes, xxvi, 382; henceforth cited as Pastor). Grimaldi also devoted a special treatise to the Volto Santo and the Lance, Opusculum de sacrosancto Veronicae Sudario ..., 1618. All three relics were moved on Jan. 25, 1606, to the capitulary archive while the Veronica niche was being readied (ibid., fols. 82ff.); they were moved thither on March 21 (ibid., fols. 87ff.). This transferral is reported in an Avviso of March 25 (Orbaan, ‘Der Abbruch Alt-Sankt Peters 1605-1615,” 48—henceforth references to Orbaan are

to this work unless otherwise stated; and Orbaan, Documenti, 71). The head of St. Andrew was shifted to the northwest pier on Nov. 29, 1612 (Grimaldi, Opusculum, fols. 90v £.). 5. Cf. Appendix I Nos. 5f., 10, 14f. See also Ferrabosco, Architetiura, pls. XIV, XXII.

Payments during 1605-6 for work on the stairways within the piers, the balustrades, etc., are published by Pollak, ““Ausgewahlte Akten,”’ 116, and Orbaan, 36ff.

6. Kauffmann was the first to note the relevance of the earlier tabernacles (‘“Berninis Tabernakel,” 229f.). According to Braun, Der christliche Altar, u, 259ff., tabernacles of this kind were characteristically Roman. The tabernacles occupied prominent positions in the old basilica. That of Saint Andrew, originally erected by Pius II (1458-64), stood just inside the facade in the southernmost aisle (cf. Alfarano, De basilicae vaticanae, 86f., No. 85 on the plan, pl. 1). The Volto Santo tabernacle, dating from the twelfth century, stood in the corresponding position in the northernmost aisle (ibid., 107f., No. 115 on the plan). The tabernacle of the Lance, built by Innocent VIII (1484-92) together with his famous tomb, was at the far end of the central nave at the south crossing pier (ibid., 57ff., No. 38 on the plan). The Saint Andrew and Volto Santo tabernacles are shown in situ in another drawing in Grimaldi, Instrumenta autentica (reproduced by Orbaan, 18 fig. 5). It is interesting to note that in 1507, when the building of the new basilica began under Julius II, the Lance was transferred to the tabernacle of the Volto Santo (Alfarano, De basil. vat., 58n., 108); they remained together when

Paul V moved them to the crossing.

7. Cf. Panciroli, Tesori nascosti, 531f. 8. See pp. 8f. below; Appendix I Nos. 14, 15. 9. The donations are recorded by Grimaldi: 1611. Illustrissimus R.™“# Diis Scipio Corbellutius S.R.E. Presbyter Cardinalis Sanctae Susannae tunc Vaticanae

Basilicae Canonicus pia erga Sanctissima Jesu Christi Sudarium religione motus, ante absidatG magnam fenestram, 3 unde eadem sancta facies populo ostenditur yconam imaginibus, & Apostolorum Peiri & Pauli coloribus expres-

erable interest, for it indicates that monumental representations of figures referring to the relics were part of the decoration of the piers, at least on special occasions, before Bernini began his transformation.

THE TOMB AND THE HIGH ALTAR Before discussing the contributions made under Paul V at the tomb and high altar, we may review briefly the previous history of the shrine. Modern excavations combined with other evidence have made it possible to reconstruct with rare accuracy the monument as it had been installed by Constantine when he built Saint Peter’s (Fig. 10).19 It consisted of four twisted marble columns forming a screen across the apse; in front of the two central columns were placed two more twisted columns, creating a square enclosure around the tomb.11 Two semicircular ribs intersecting diagonally rested on these four central columns. Around 4A.p. 600 drastic changes were introduced. The level of the apse floor was raised and a bench placed around it with a bishop’s throne at the back (cf. Fig. 18). Over the tomb was placed a ciborium, whose design is unknown, except for the fact that it had four columns. The six original spiral columns were now arranged in a line in front of this presbytery, and in the eighth century another set of six was added in front of them, to form a second, outer screen (Fig. 11). The shrine remained essentially in this form until construction of the new basilica began in the early sixteenth century under Bramante. Bramante removed the outer row of columns, replacing them with the wall of a protective structure that incorporated the apse and enclosed the rest of the shrine (cf. Fig. 17). This structure stood until the time of Clement VIII (1592-1605). It was then removed to permit raising the floor level again and construction of the new grotte, or crypt. The high altar was also refurbished (dedicated 1594), and over it Clement erected a provisional ciborium with a cupola of wood.12 There reverberates throughout the subsequent history of the crossing a dilemma that was a direct consequence of having erected a centrally planned church over the tomb. Ancient tradition at Saint

sam dono dedit cit tibella. (Opusculum, fols. 90r f.)

1612. Cum R.™s Dn’s Angelus Damascenus Romanus utriusque signaturae sanctissimi Domini Nostri referendarius dictae Vaticanae Basilicae Canonicus ante fenestram magnam absidatam in parastata summi Tholi, ubi ex nobiliss.° marmoreo suggestu ad sinistram arae maximae caput sancti Andreae Apostoli populo ostenderetur, yconam cum imagine sancti Andreae Crucem amplectétis ci tibella figuris & insignibus ornata pia largitione fecisset. (Ibid., fol. 90v) 10. B. M. Apollonj Ghetti, et al., Esplorazioni sotto la confessione di San Pietro in Vaticano, Vatican City, 1951, 161ff. For a summary, see J. Toynbee and J. Ward Perkins, The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations, LondonNew York, 1956, 195ff.

11. On the spiral columns, see pp. 14ff. below.

12. See Orbaan, Documenti, 47n., 48n.; a first payment for the ciborium was made in June, 1594. Documents for the removal of the ciborium are cited in Orbaan, 44. 13. Quoted n.16 below. 14. See Appendix I Nos. 24, 25. The first objection to which Papirio Bartoli replies in his treatise describing his project is that it would take up too much room in the crossing (Discorso, int. 2, fol. 1ff.). 15. Owing to the subsequent retention of the choir begun by Nicolas V (Magnuson, Roman Quattrocento Architecture, 177£.), the tomb and high altar is not in the center of the crossing, but slightly to the west. Judging from the engraved plan by Dupérac, Michelangelo had planned to shift it in the opposite direction in order to achieve true centrality (cf. Siebenhiiner, ‘‘Umrisse,” 291).

16. The character and importance of this project was first defined by Siebenhtiner, “Umrisse,” 313f. The relevant passage in the Avviso is as follows:

. . . sendosi intanto fatto levare quella cuppola di legno, che ci era in mezo della nuova chiesa sudetta sopra Valtare maggiore delli Santissimi Apostoli, quale altare anco si levara secondo il nuovo modello, dovendosi

4 trasportar pil avanti verso il capo della chiesa, ove sara i] choro per poter et Sua Santita et il Sacro Colleggio intervenire alli divini officij, sentendosi, che dove hora é il detto altare, vi si fara una balaustrata intorno con scalini per potere scendere a basso et andar a celebrar messa all’altare et corpi de detti. Santi Apostoli, senza

Peter’s, as elsewhere, required that the high altar be in close proximity to the apse, which served as a choir for the pope and the sacred college during solemn functions. No less important, however, was the traditional connection between the high altar and the tomb. Logically, only four solutions were possible, all of which were proposed or attempted at one time or another, but none of which could be wholly satisfactory. First, the high altar could be moved westward toward the apse, relinquishing its connection with the tomb. Second, the tomb might be moved along with the high altar, a course that ran the risk, as one source reports, of searching for the bodies of the apostles in vain, although it was known for sure that they were there.18 Third, the tomb and high altar might be left in situ and a choir built around them, necessitating an inconvenient encumbrance of the crossing (Figs. 12, 13).14 The fourth alternative was to leave the altar and tomb undisturbed, and relinquish the connection with the choir. Of these possibilities the first and fourth are particularly important: the last because, having evidently been preferred by Michelangelo, it was finally resolved upon by Urban VIII and executed by Bernini;15 the first because it was the one chosen at the beginning of Paul V’s reign, and the projects for it, though never carried out in permanent form, profoundly influenced the design of Bernini's baldachin. The decision in favor of the first solution is reported in an Avviso of January 18, 1606, at the time the relics were being transferred to the new church.1¢ According to this dispatch it had been determined to shift the high altar toward the main apse, where a choir would be installed. A proposal to move the tomb as well had been rejected, and instead stairs were planned to give access from the floor level down to the tomb so that mass could be said there; this was the beginning of the open “confessio” carried out later in Paul V's reign.17 The second altar was actually built, and simultaneously a baldachin was erected over the original altar and a model of the proposed ciborium over the new one.18

The baldachin over the tomb altar, built of perishable materials, broke radically with tradition. At least since the late fifteenth century the ciboria over the high altar of Saint Peter’s had conformed

to a basic type, with four columns supporting a cupola (Figs. 15-18).19 As we have noted, the tem-

moverli altrimenti, come alcuni altri volevano et é stato questo tenuto piu salutifero consiglio, per non mettersi in pericolo di cercarli indarno, sebene si sa certo, che ci sono. (Orbaan, 44; Orbaan, Documenti, 68) Cf. also an Avviso of Oct. 4, 1606, in Armellini, Le chiese di Roma, 903. 17. The Florentine painter and architect Ludovico Cigoli submitted a project that involved moving the tomb (Figs. 25, 26; see p. Gf. below and Appendix I No. 18). A project by Martino Ferrabosco for a confessio with circular balustrade and stairways is recorded, though there is no certain evidence that he was in Rome by this date (see n.176 below).

18. Payments for the new altar are recorded as early as Dec., 1605: “‘per fare l’armatura de l’altare da fare nella tribuna grande verso Santa Marta .. . per ordine di messer Carlo Maderni” (Orbaan, 40). The altar over the tomb continued to function, though one project for a ciborium over the tomb seems to contemplate its removal (Fig. 14; Appendix I No. 2). Payments for dismantling the ciborium of Clement VIII occur in Jan., 1606 (Orbaan, 44). Payments for building

the new baldachin over the tomb altar begin in Feb. (Fraschetti, I] Berninz, 55f.; Pollak, “Ausgewahlte Akten,” 110; Orbaan, 45ff.). Payments for the model of the ciborium over the new altar at the choir begin in Sept. (#b:d., 54ff.).

The designer or designers of both these structures remain anonymous, though Carlo Maderno, as architect of the basilica, is the most likely candidate. Nevertheless, the phraseology of the document quoted at the beginning of this note is inconclusive, since Maderno may have ordered work to be done even though it was not of his invention. 19. For a general survey, see Braun, Der christ. Altar, 11, 185ff. The Saint Peter’s ciborium is shown with a dome in: a medal of 1470 of Paul II celebrating his reconstruction of the tribune (Fig. 15; cf. G. Zippel, “Paolo II e l’arte,” L’Arite, 14, 1911, 184f.; Magnuson, Roman Quattrocento Architecture, 169); a reconstruction by Grimaldi of the ciborium built by Sixtus IV (1471-84), of which important relief sculptures are preserved (Fig. 16); the Donation of Constantine fresco by the Raphael school in the Sala di Costantino in the Vatican (Fig. 17); a drawing by the Swiss pilgrim Sebastian Werro, who visited Rome in 1581 (Fig. 18); E. Wymann, “Die Aufzeichnungen des Stadpfarrers Sebastian Werro von Freiburg i. Ue. tiber seinen

Kirchengeschichte, 33, 1925, 39ff. 5 Aufenthalt in Rom von 10-27. Mai 1581,” Rdmische Quartalschrift fiir christliche Altertumskunde und _ fiir

porary ciborium of Clement VIII, which this new one replaced, also had a cupola.?9 In contrast to these predecessors, Paul V’s baldachin, as recorded in many contemporary illustrations, consisted of a tasseled canopy supported on staves held by four standing angels (Figs. 2-4, 19-23);71 it reproduced, in effect, a portable canopy such as was borne above bishops (hence the pope) on formal occasions, and above the Holy Sacrament and the relics of the Passion when they were carried in procession.”2 This was the basic theme that would be retained in the two subsequent baldachins built over the tomb, including Bernini’s. The scale of the baldachin was impressive; its height has been calculated at roughly nine meters, only a meter short of Bernini’s bronze columns.23 Moreover, it was to be executed in bronze,‘ a significant innovation, since monumental altar coverings were usually of stone. The project thus foreshadows the material of Bernini's baldachin, as well as the underlying notion of translating a normally “ephemeral” type into permanent and monumental terms.

The purpose of this revolutionary design must have been largely symbolic. With the removal of the high altar the tomb itself became a kind of reliquary, for which such a canopy would be appropriate. At the same time, by alluding to the processional canopy traditionally associated with the bishop, the new design may have been intended to mark the special character of the site as the tomb of the first pope. Whatever its meaning, the baldachin offered a vivid and surely deliberate contrast to the proper ciborium that was at the same time erected over the new papal altar. It should be noted, finally, that the depictions of the baldachin during the canonization of Carlo

Y P =)

Borromeo in 1610 are of interest in showing the decorations it received for the occasion (Figs. 2, 3, 20).25 Strands of lilies are wound spirally about the supports, and above the canopy proper is a medallion with an image of the saint, held in Giovanni Maggi’s engraving by two kneeling angels (Fig. 2).26

In the Maggi engraving there also appears a partial view of the ciborium over the apse altar, jutting above the temporary arcade at the back of the enclosure (Fig. 24). It shows a polygonal structure whose dome rests on a high drum with volutes at the corners; the dome is surmounted by a lantern topped by a globe and cross. We know from other contemporary witnesses that the ciborium employed ten of the famous twisted columns that adorned the mediaeval sanctuary.” These pieces of information make it possible to link (though not identify) the model that was built with a group

20. See the Avviso of Jan. 18, 1606, quoted n.16 above, and another of Oct. 28, 1600, cited by Orbaan, Documenti, 48n.

In an Avviso of June 29, 1594, it is described as ‘‘un ornamento di tavole depinto a similitudine di catafalco” (ibid., 47n.).

21. Appendix I Nos. 4-12. Payments for the angels were nade to the sculptors Ambrogio Buonvicino and Camillo Mariani; the angels’ drapery was made of real cloth (cf. Orbaan, 47f.). 22. J. Braun, Die liturgischen Paramenle in Gegenwart und Vergangenheit, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1924, 240; Moroni, Dizionario, vi, 57£f. 93. Cf£. Sicbenhiiner, ‘“‘Umrisse,”’ 309. The height of the bronze columns is given as 45 palmi by G. P. Chattard, Nuova descrizione del Vaticano ..., Rome, 1762-67, 1, 148£. (The Roman palmo was slightly over .22m.)

24. Tota haec machina ex ligno compacta, subjecto Iconismo expressa ideam exhibebat future molis, quam ex aere, auroque excilare animo inerat Pontificis ... Nihil tamen Paulo regnante effectum est, sed postquam Urbanus VII Pontificiae Dignitatis ... (Buonanni, Numismata lempli vaticani, 127, and Numismata pontificum romanorum, WU, 573)

25. Appendix I Nos. 5-8. 26. See the comments in Appendix I No. 5. 27. In 1618 Grimaldi notes that the pair of spiral columns that had adorned the Oratory of John VII (see n.70 below) hodie cernuntur ad maiorem lempli apsidam pergulam cereorum in pontificijs solemnibus sustinentes caeteris consimilibus saniores, et pulchriores (Opusculum, fol. 119v). In 1635, in a series of notes appended to Grimaldi’s treatise, Francesco Speroni, sacristan of Saint Peter’s, men-

tions the number ten: .. . lempore d.‘ Pontificis [Paul V] decem earum inlegrae delatae fuerunt in novum Tem-

6 plum, ac positae fuerunt ad ornalum ante maiorem apsidem Templi. (Grimaldi Opusculum de SS. Veronicae ...

of closely related projects of various dates, preserved in drawings and an engraving (Figs. 25-28, 79).28 These projects are all for ciboria of the ordinary kind, with domes supported on columns. In addition, from the central element they envisage two arms extending outward to the corners of the apse walls, creating a screen-like enclosure before the choir. It is clear that, by reusing the ancient columns, and by screening the apse with an enclosure containing an altar, these designs hark back to the mediaeval arrangement in Saint Peter’s, which had remained intact (minus the outer row of columns) until only a decade before the pontificate of Paul V (Fig. 17).29 The chief difference is that now the ciborium has been fused with the colonnaded screen to form one unit; the result recalls, whether consciously or not, the earliest mediaeval form of the shrine (Fig. 10).

What all these considerations suggest is that the memory of the shrine of Old Saint Peter’s was very much alive and that the idea of recreating it in a modern idiom was in force from the time it was dismantled, or at least soon afterward. We shall find that Bernini was motivated by a similar idea. These projects further anticipate that of Bernini in their scale. They would have been some ten meters shorter than Bernini’s baldachin (28.97m), but they would have stood in the relatively low choir, not under the main dome.?9 The two huge models, standing a few meters apart on the axis of Saint Peter’s—the baldachin over the tomb and the ciborium in front of the apse—represented opposite poles of tradition; the one was inherently mobile, fragile, and informal, the other was static, permanent, and architectonic. In the development that took place during the next quarter of a century, which culminated in Bernini's baldachin, these two seemingly incompatible traditions were fused. The crucial link was provided by a third type, intermediate, almost in a literal sense, between the other two. This was the baldachin made usually of perishable materials and suspended in a fixed position above the altar.3! The type seems to have been introduced into the development of Saint Peter’s by Carlo Maderno. At least this is suggested by a rather obscure passage in a manuscript guide to Rome written during the 1660’s by Fioravante Martinelli, the friend of Borromini.3? Martinelli reports that Maderno submitted to Paul V a design that included twisted columns; he adds, however, that the canopy did not actually touch the columns or their cornices. It is difficult to imagine what sort of arrangement was intended, but it is most probable that the canopy was to be sus-

additis aliquibus praecipuis additionibus ad hoc pertinentibus a Francisco Sperono eiusdem Basilicae Sacrista an. D. 1635, Biblioteca Vaticana, Ms Vat. lat. 6439, p. 354) Concerning Speroni, see also Pollak, Die Kunsttatigheit unter Urban VIII, 635—henceforth cited as Pollak. (See Addenda and Fig. 28a.) 28. See Appendix I Nos. 18, 20, 23, 26.

29. Cf. the project for rebuilding Saint Peter’s by Bernardo Rossellino under Nicolas V in the mid-fifteenth century, as reconstructed by Grimaldi and Martino Ferrabosco (Magnuson, Roman Quattrocento Architecture, 177£., 178, fig. 22). A. Schiavo, San Pietro in Paticano (Quaderni di Storia dellarte, Ix), Rome, 1960. 11, assumes that the twelve columns surrounding the altar in the Grimaldi-Ferrabosco plan were to be the originals. We may note, further, a plan for the completion of the church as a whole, ca. 1605-6, which shows an enclosure with an altar flanked by two columns at the entrance to the apse (Fig. 29; Appendix I No. 1): two groups of four columns flank the altar in the crossing. If the ten columns were to be the originals, it would be an early precedent for Bernini’s use of spiral columns in the crossing. rather than as a screen in the choir. In the other projects it was evidently intended to supplement the preserved originals with copies (cf. Appendix I No. 19).

30. The height of these projects (about 19m) may be judged from the scale (100 palmi) on Borromini's drawing (Fig.. 28). The height of Bernini’s baldachin is given in P. E. Visconti, Metrologia vaticana, Rome, 1828, Table m. 31. Cf. Braun, Der christ. Altar, u, 262ff., pls. 187£E.

cultura europea, Rome, 1964, 96, 200. 7

32. The passage is quoted in its context below, n.538. On Borromini and Martinelli cf. P. Portoghesi, Borromini nella

pended from above. (A proposal of just this sort was made later, under Urban VIII.38) Maderno’s project may also have laid the groundwork for one of Bernini’s first solutions, in which the canopy, held aloft by angels, was also separate from the columns (cf. Fig. 31, and p. 10 below). The idea of using columns and a canopy is the first evidence of the tendency to combine elements of the traditional baldachin with those of an architectural ciborium.34 After the models were built in 1606 there is no further record of construction on the projects during Paul V’s lifetime. Effort must have been concentrated on building the nave and the confessio at the tomb; when these were finished the problem came to the fore once more, and new proposals were offered.35 Before the pope died plans were evidently made to replace the models, perhaps because they had deteriorated in the meantime. However, actual rebuilding of both models, again using temporary materials, began only under Paul V’s successor, Gregory XV (1621-1623). The final invoices, which contain detailed descriptions, date from the early years of Urban VIII's pontificate. The description of the apse ciborium given in the painter’s invoice corresponds with a project drawn by Borromini, but probably designed by Maderno, which has an inscription bearing the name of Paul V (Fig. 28).36 The phraseology shows that it was largely a remodeling of the earlier structure, the main alterations being the addition of four straight columns to the ten twisted ones and of four apostles to the cornice of the dome. Of greater importance are the changes that were introduced in the new baldachin model over the tomb. Payments for the work begin in June, 1622, but it seems possible that a kind of preview of the new model is given in engravings of the great quintuple canonization that took place on March 12 of that year (Figs. 5, 6).87 The baldachin depicted here is the same basic type as that of Paul V, a tasseled canopy resting on four supports with angels at the bases. There are notable differences, however. The angels, of whom only two are shown, kneel rather than stand, and the supports consist of rich foliate forms. ‘This baldachin may still be Paul V’s, again “dressed up” for the ceremony.38 Yet we shall see presently that the new baldachin, begun within three months after the canonization, also had elaborately carved supports and a new set of angels beside them, executed in

33. Anonymous, Modo di fare il tabernacolo, fols. 26r and v; see n.55 below.

34. It is tempting to pair Maderno’s project described by Martinelli with one recorded in a drawing by Borromini, but presumably invented by Maderno in 1605-6, for a ciborium with cupola resting on straight columns over the tomb in the crossing (Fig. 14; Appendix I Nos. 2, 17). In this case the relationship—ciborium in the crossing vs. baldachin in the choir—would have been the reverse of that of the models. This interchangeability of types is in itself a significant prelude to their fusion. 35. The nave was finished in 1615 (Pastor, xxvi, 394f.). Paul V resolved in Jan., 1611, to build the confessio, which was opened in 1617 (ibid., 401f.; cf. Appendix I No. 9). Papirio Bartoli specifically says that planning for the pontifical choir was delayed by construction of the nave and indecision about the choir’s form: “‘. . . e se bene da molti sommi Pontefici ¢ stato pensato di fare detto Coro [pontificio] . . . con tutto cid si é restato, si perche ancora non era finito il corpo della chiesa, si anco che non si concordava del modo, se bene del luogo la maggior parte concorreva, che si dovesse fare vicino all’Altare de St! Apostoli .. .’’ (Bartoli, Discorso, int. 1, fol. Ir)

Projects other than those considered in the text that can securely be dated to the latter part of Paul V’s reign are: dismountable choir for the apse recorded in Ferrabosco, Architettura (Appendix I No. 22; Appendix II); Papirio Bartoli’s proposal for a choir in the form of a navicella to be placed in the crossing and incorporate Maderno’s confessio (Fig. 12; Appendix I No. 24); a drawing in the Uffizi attributed to Maderno showing a colonnaded enclosure in the crossing behind the confessio and a choir in the apse (Fig. 18; Appendix I No. 25). 36. Appendix I Nos. 26, 27. 37. Appendix I Nos. 13-15. 38. A record of purchases of material for decorating the baldachin for the canonization is preserved: Baldachino grande

Per armesino, canne 75 .......... scudi 337.50 Frangie alte di oro et seta bianca ...... 237.30

Per oro in folio per indorare .......... 104 Per colori, tele, pitura trategi ......... 194 8

stucco by Bernini. Moreover, we shall shortly consider a later canonization print in which Bernini's original design for his bronze baldachin was previewed in just this fashion (cf. Fig. 30). In any case, the baldachin shown in the engravings provides an important link to Bernini’s ideas, in that it combines essential elements of both its predecessors. The supports are wholly organic, curvilinear in form, recalling the twisted columns of the ciborium; but they are now used to carry a canopy rather than a cupola. The fact that the angels, in kneeling, seem less actively to carry the structure also implies a significant change in dynamic: the baldachin is thought of as a more self-sufficient, quasiarchitectural unit. Two major steps remain in the transition to the final form: the introduction of true columns as supports for the canopy, and the addition of a superstructure. The new baldachin model as it was actually built is described in the carpenter’s final invoice.3® It too had a fringed canopy, and the supports seem to have incorporated into their regular design something of the ornamentation applied to the earlier structure on special occasions. The ornaments included among other things cherubs, foliage, and spiral fluting.#9 It is not likely that the supports actually had the form of columns, since they are consistently described as staves (aste), and neither capitals nor proper bases are mentioned. But their decoration must in any case have closely resembled that of the ancient spiral shafts, and they thus anticipate Bernini's idea of imitating rather than reusing the originals. It was also intended to gild the supports, which would have given them the effect of being made of metal.41 Furthermore, the supports were colossal in scale; they stood well over twelve meters high, more than two meters taller than the bronze columns by which Bernini replaced them. A final point of importance is that during the first part of 1624 Bernini himself made four stucco angels for this model; they were apparently placed at the base of the supports, as had been the case previously.42

The account book dates from 1615 to 1618, that is, at least four years before the canonization took place; nevertheless there is no hint of any intention to replace the angels. Cf. I. M. Azzolini, in Canonizzazione det santi Ignazio di Loiola, 127; the account book contains no further references to the baldachin (Rome, Casa Generalizia della Compagnia di Gest, Archivum Postulationis, Atti concernenti santi, Sez. 1, Scaff. A, Busta 16, int. 20).

39. Appendix I No. 13. 40. “Per lintaglio dele dette 4 Aste alte l’una p! 58. con cherubini festoni cartelle cartocci fogliami e scanelate a vite vasi regni mitre colarini e piedi fatto a fogliami.” (Pollak, 18 No. 35) 41. The bole and gesso were applied, but the gilding was never carried out (cf. Pollak, 309 No. 1000). 42. He was paid for them between Feb. and Aug., 1624 (Pollak, Nos. 1001ff.). The fact that there were four angels and that the columns had spiral futing are the chief differences of the model as executed from the baldachin represented in the prints of the canonization of Ignatius of Loyola, eé¢ al. (Figs. 5, 6). The possibility still remains, however, that the engravings prefigure the intended new baldachin, and that the design was modified in the course of execution (as proved to be the case with Bernini’s baldachin). It may also be that the engraver simply omitted the two angels at the back (in one engraving of the canonization of Carlo Borromeo, the rear two angels were omitted,

and in another the medallion atop the western face of the canopy was left out; cf. Figs. 2, 3). That the project for the new baldachin was developed during the preparations for the quintuple canonization is suggested by the fact that a preliminary drawing in Vienna for the 1622 prints shows the straight, smooth staves of the earlier structure (Fig. 22; Appendix I No. 11). Siebenhtiner, ‘“‘Umrisse,’”’ 317ff., offers the curious theory that the engraving by Girolamo Frezza in Buonanni,

Num, templ. vat., pl. 48, represents the present baldachin, despite the facts that it does not show the carving on the supports mentioned in the documents and that, as is clear from Buonanni’s text (p. 127), the plate is based

upon Paul V’s medal (Fig. 21; Appendix I No. 9). 9

e °9 e e ee

II. Bernini’s First Project for the Baldachin The transition from the baldachin begun under Gregory XV to Urban VIII’s enterprise is barely perceptible. The earlier model was never quite finished, and at some point—precisely when is not known—it was decided to return the high altar to its place above the tomb, thus finally reestablishing the predominance of the crossing, but relinquishing the reference to the mediaeval form of the presbytery.43 We shall see that, paradoxically, the decision may have been at least partly determined by a desire to recreate even more accurately the original form of the shrine. No formal contract with Bernini for the design and construction of a new, permanent structure has been preserved, if one ever existed; payments to him simply began, in July of 1624, while he was still being paid for the stucco angels for the earlier baldachin.44 The first elements of the new baldachin to be executed were the bronze columns; installation began in September, 1626, and they were unveiled in June of the following year.*5 A separate commission, based on a small model, provided for the superstructure, of which a full-scale model was set in place in April, 1628.46 Bernini’s first project is recorded, with certain variations, in an engraving showing the decorations he designed for the canonization of Queen Elizabeth of Portugal on March 25, 1625 (Fig. 30),47 and

in medals dated 1626 (Fig. 31) and 1629 (Fig. 32).48 All three depictions agree on the basic thought underlying the design, which consists of four spiral columns supporting semicircular ribs that intersect diagonally; from the apex, crowning the whole structure, rises a figure of the Resurrected Christ holding the bannered Cross.49 On the columns are angels who seem to carry the tasseled canopy by means of ribbons strung through loops on its top and secured to the ribs. The representations differ in one important respect. The medal of 1626 shows the canopy raised well above the level of the columns, so that it appears as a completely separate unit. In the engraving of 1625 and the medal of 1629, however, the canopy is lowered to the same height as the capitals and is joined to them by a continuous molding or cornice. This is the solution Bernini adopted in the work finally executed.°° 43, The choir was to be retained in the apse; a model for one was later designed by Bernini (Pollak, 611). Bartoli notes in 1620 (Discorso, int. 1, fol. Ir) that the choir installations in the apse were temporary and had to be set up and taken down for each occasion; the same is true today. 44, Pollak, Nos. 1053ff. 45. Cf£. Pollak, Nos. 1127, 1130.

46. Pollak, Nos. 1142f., where payments for the large model are wrongly ascribed to the small one; on the installation, see an Avviso of April 8, 1628, quoted in E. Rossi, ‘“Roma ignorata,” Roma, 15, 1937, 97.

47, Bernini’s designs for the canonization were approved by the pope shortly before Feb. 8, 1625 (Fraschetti, Bernini, 251 n.1; cf. Pastor, xxIx, 10, where the references should be corrected as follows: Bibl. Vat., Arch. Segreto, Acta Consistorialia, Camerarii, xv1, fols. 67v-68, and Bibl. Vat., ms Urb. lat. 1095, fol. 3l5r, May 28, 1625; Pollak, Nos. 125ff.). The fullest available account of the canonization is that of A. Ribeiro de Vasconcellos, Evolugao do culio de Dona Isabel de Aragao, Coimbra, 1894, 1, 439ff., 1, 190ff. An earlier version of the print (Fig. 23) is discussed in Appendix I No. 12. Bernini’s canonization installations will be discussed in a separate paper.

48. The medal bearing the date 1626 on the reverse (Fig. 31; Buonanni, Num. pont., u, 573£., No. XI) is inscribed with the fourth year of Urban’s reign on the obverse, and therefore dates betwcen Sept. 29 (the anniversary of the coronation) and Dec. 31. Both this and a medal of 1633 showing the baldachin in its final form have legends describing the tomb as that of Peter and Paul, reflecting the belief that parts of both apostles’ bodies were preserved at Saint Peter’s; see n.1 above.

The medal of 1629 (Fig. 32) honors the canonization of Andrea Corsini in April of that year, for which Bernini also designed the decorations (cf. Pastor, xxix, 9 n.3; Pollak, Nos. 136ff.). 49. In the full-scale model, Christ was to rise from a cloud (Pollak, 354).

50. The drawings by Bernini for the final form of the crown, except for the very latest, show the canopy in the raised position (Brauer-Wittkower, Zeichnungen, pls. 6ff.); but the engraving of 1625 and the medal of 1629 indicate that

10 the continuous cornice existed as an alternative solution from the outset.

It is evident that Bernini’s project owes a great debt to its predecessors, both visually and conceptually. The idea of using bronze and gilt dates from the time of Paul V, when also it was contemplated to execute a monumental baldachin, rather than a ciborium, over the tomb. The angels and

tasseled hangings had appeared in both earlier temporary baldachins. The ciboria with screens planned for the high altar before the apse had incorporated the ancient spiral columns.5! ‘The notion of imitating the marble shafts in another material may have originated in the previous ciborium and baldachin models. Maderno had thought of using spiral columns with a baldachin, rather than with a dome. The baldachin begun under Gregory XV may have suggested that spiral columns serve as actual supports for the canopy. In several of the earlier projects sculptured figures, including angels, had appeared atop the superstructure (Fig. 34; cf. Figs. 26-28).52 Finally, the stupendous scale of Bernini’s work was by no means an innovation. Despite this catalogue of precedents, Bernini blends the ingredients in a completely new way. He

combines the columns and superstructure proper to a ciborium with the tasseled canopy and supporting angels of a baldachin. His treatment of each of these elements individually, as will become apparent in the following discussion, is equally original. And in the versions that join the canopy directly to the columns he takes the final step in fusing the architectural quality of a permanent ciborium with the transitory quality of a processional baldachin. Striking confirmation that these were indeed the innovating features of Bernini’s design is found in the criticisms voiced against it by certain contemporaries. One of these came from the painter Agostino Ciampelli, and is reported in the manuscript guide to Rome by Fioravante Martinelli, mentioned earlier as the source for our knowledge of Maderno’s project.5? Ciampelli had himself supplied Bernini with a design, but he objected to Bernini's, maintaining that “baldachins are supported not by columns but by staves, and that in any case he would show it borne by angels; and he added that it was a chimera.” The objection evidently refers to the solution shown in the engraving of 1625 (Fig. 30) and the medal of 1629 (Fig. 32), in which the columns rather than the angels appear

51. The idea of an independent ciborium with only four spiral columns supporting a cupola occurs in a fresco in the Vatican Library from the time of Sixtus V (1585-90), representing the Council of Ephesus (Fig. 33; A. Taja. Descrizione del palazzo apostolico vaticano, 427£.; J. Dupront, ‘Art et contre-rétorme. Les fresques de la Bibliothéque

de Sixte-Quint,” MélRome, 48, 1931, 291). Interestingly enough, there was a tradition that the columns in Saint Peter’s had come from a temple of the Ephesian Diana in Greece (Torriggio, Sacre grotte valicane, 283).

52. Appendix I Nos. 16, 18, 26. 53. F. Martinelli, Roma ornata dallVarchitettura, pitiura, e scollura, Rome, Bibl. Casanatense, Ms 4984, p. 201: Fu pensiero di Paolo V coprire con baldacchino l’altar maggiore di S$. Pietro con ricchezza proportionata alVapertura fatta alla confessione e sepolcro dl d.° Onde Carlo Maderno gli presenté un disegno con colonne a vite; ma il baldacchino non toccava le colonne, ne i] lor cornicione: sopragionse la morte di Pauolo, e resto l’op.a sul disegno sin al ponteficato di Urbano VIII. il quale disse al d.° Carlo si contentasse, che il Bernino facesse d.* opera. Il Cavalier Celio, forse non ben informato del tutto, stampo essere inventione di Santiss.° giuditio (cioé del Papa) messo in opera dal d.° Bernino. Vincenzo Berti manoscritto appresso Mons.* Landucci Sacrista di N’ro Sig.7e Alessandro VII. e p le sue eminenti virtudi dignissimo di grado superiore, ha scritto, esser disegno del Ciampelli cognato del d.° Bernini, il che non s6 se sia vero; ma si bene non concorreva con d.° Bernini circa Vabbigliam.t! et altro; e diceva, che li Baldacchini non si sostengono con le colonne, ma con I’haste. e che in ogni modo voleva mostrare che lo reggono li Angeli: e soggiongeva che era una chimera.

The passage occurs as a marginal correction to the original text, which is canceled but can be deciphered: ‘‘Tl Ciborio con colonne di metallo istorte 4 vite dell’altar maggiore é¢ disegno del Cav. Bernino, et il getto é di Gregorio de Rossi Rom.®° Ma il Cav.t* Celio scrive essere inventione di santissimo giuditio messo in opera dal d.° Cav.te Vincenzo Berti manoscritto appresso monsig.'¢ Landucci sacrista di N. S.t¢ ha lasciato scritto esser disegno del Ciampelli cognato di d.° Bernino.” (See Addenda.)

The reference from Celio’s guidebook concerning Urban VIIT’s contribution is as follows: “L’altare maggiore con le colonne fatte a vite e suoi aderenti, il tutto di metallo indorato, Inventione di santissimo giuditio, messo in opera dal Cavalier Lorenzo Bernino.” (Memoria fatia dal Signor Gaspare Celio . . . delli nomi del?artefici delle pitture, che sono in alcune chiese .. . dt Roma, Naples, 1638, 70) The publisher of this work, Scipione Bonino, writes in the introduction (pp. 4f.) that it was based on a manuscript of Celio’s written in 1620, and that almost

all the additional information about works done since then came from Sebastiano Vannini, ‘‘Galeno di questi i]

to be the chief support of the canopy; this was a grave breach of architectural etiquette, and the result is truly a hybrid, chimerical form.54 To another, anonymous writer who submitted an alternative project of his own, the superstructure appeared unworkable. He claimed that “an open arch could not possibly support a figure, and. also hold together columns of such ereat weight.”55 This argument seems to have weighed heavily in the ultimate decision to substitute a cross and globe for the Risen Christ and to increase the number and change the shape of the ribs (see p. 23 below). From an aesthetic point of view the key to Bernini’s solution lay in the idea of discarding the ancient spiral columns themselves, and instead imitating them on a larger scale. What he achieved may

best be understood by comparing his project with the earlier ones for screen-ciboria in the choir, which were to reuse the ancient shafts (Figs. 26-28, 79). The original columns were dwarfed by the new building, and to gain height the earlier projects included both an attic and a drum between the capitals and the dome; the resulting vertical accent was safely counterbalanced by the lateral wings. For a structure in the crossing even more height was needed, but the wings were an obstruction and had to be removed.5¢ By enlarging the columns Bernini was able to omit the drum and attic, and thus create a more balanced proportion without the help of the wings. It might be said that Bernini's solution made it aesthetically possible to keep the high altar and tomb together in the crossing. It also made possible the fusion of baldachin and ciborium types, for in the absence of both drum and attic Bernini could rest the superstructure directly on the columns and cover the intervening space with a fringed canopy. The design of the crown itself serves a dual function, in keeping with the nature of the whole conception. Its domical shape suggests the cupolas with which ordinary ciboria were often covered, while its open ribs deny the sense of weight and mass that a cupola normally conveys. The perfo-

tempi.’ Vannini was the author, among other things, of two poems to Fioravante Martinelli (Bibl. Vat., ms Barb. lat. 2109, fols. 162f.). Baglione describes Celio’s book as “‘pieno d’errori” (Baglione, Vite, 381).

The source of the story is probably a passage in a manuscript dialogue by Lelio Guidiccioni (kindly brought to my attention by Cesare D’Onofrio), in which Guidiccioni (L.) and Bernini (G.L.) are the conversants. The context of the passage is an elaborate eulogy of Urban VIII's expertise in artistic matters; Bernini asks, “Di chi pensate, che sia il pensiero dell’Altar Vaticano, tale, quale sia divenuta l’opera? L. Vostro hd sempre pensato. G.L. A pen-

sarla meglio, dite di S. S.ta L. Dunque voi sete pure obietto di lode sua; la quale é@ origine della vostra . . .” (Bibl. Vat., Ms Barb. lat. 3879, fol. 53v) The dialogue is datable to Sept., 1633, since it contains a reference (fol. 5lv) to the death within the last days of Antonio Querengo (d. Sept. 1, 1633; G. Vedova, Biografia degli scrittori padovani, Padua, 1832-36, u, 134£.). It is conceivable that the phrase ‘“‘quale sia divenuta l’opera’’ refers to the decision to change the superstructure. (See now C. D’Onofrio, ‘Un dialogo-recita di Gianlorenzo Bernini,” Palatino, 10, 1966, 127ff.)

Except for two letters, dated 1660, in the Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence (c.v.90.147; c.v.97.5), I have been unable to identify the Vincenzo Berti whose manuscript is mentioned as the source of the story about Agostino Ciampelli. Ambrogio Landucci was a well-known Augustinian, a native of Siena (D. A. Perini, Bibliografia agostiniana, Florence, 1929-38, 1, 143ff.), for whom Borromini designed an altar (H. Thelen, Istituto austriaco di cultura in Roma. 70 Disegni di Francesco Borromint [Exhibition Catalogue], Rome, 1958, 24 No. 54). He died in Rome on Feb. 16, 1669, leaving his books and manuscripts to the Convent of San Martino in Siena. His testament is accompanied

by an inventory of his library which includes 121 items, but they are listed. with short titles only and none is identifiable as the one by Berti that Martinelli mentions (Rome, Arch. di Stato, Notaio Bellisarius, Busta 243, fols. 465v, 535ff.). The library of San Martino passed to the Biblioteca Comunale of Siena, whose director kindly informs me that an inventory of the convent’s library contains the following entry: Berti Quaesliones regulares. But no manuscript answering the description appears in L. lari, Indice per materie della Biblioteca Comunale di Siena, 7 vols., Siena, 1844—51.

The statement that Ciampelli and Bernini were brothers-in-law cannot be strictly true. Ciampelli—who diced not in 1642, as is commonly reported, but on April 22, 1630 (Rome, Arch. del. Vicariato, San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Liber Defunctorum 1626-1716, fol. 16r)—was married to a woman named Camilla Latina (ibid., S$. Giov. Fior., Liber Baptizatorum 1616-49, fol. 82v), who did not remarry after Ciampelli’s death, while Bernini married Caterina Tezio in 1639 (Fraschetti, Bernini, 104f.). We may note, finally, a drawing by Ciampelli with twisted columns mentioned in an inventory of Cardinal Francesco Barberini: ‘‘Una carta fattoci in penna |’Anuntiata dipinta con diverse Colori e due Colofie ritorte di mano di Agostino Ciampelli, alta p.™! uno e larga tre quarti di palmo.” (Bibl. Vat., Arch. Barberini, Arm. 155, Inventario di tutte le robbe... nel Palazzo della Cancellaria del... Card.'¢ Fran.°° Barberino, Oct., 1649, p. 68) 54, Since Ciampelli died early in 1630 (see the previous footnote) he presumably did not know the final version, which was not worked out until 1631 (sce p. 23 below).

— 12 Criticism of Bernini’s architectural “grammar” seems implicit also in Teodoro della Porta’s offer to submit a

rated superstructure recalls a common mediaeval type of ciborium, in which one or more orders of colonnettes resting on the main entablature act as a kind of drum for the dome.5? Bernini’s open ribs had been anticipated in a ciborium by Giovanni Caccini in Santo Spirito in Florence, where open metal strapwork screens the space between the thin ribs of an octagonal cupola (Fig. 36).°§ But while this tradition may have paved the way for Bernini’s general conception, his design has its most precise antecedent in the central portion of the shrine built over the apostle’s tomb by Constantine in the early fourth century (Fig. 10). There, four of the twisted columns also supported semicircular intersecting ribs. Though careful records were kept of the excavations beneath the crossing when the foundations for the bronze columns were dug, it is improbable that these could have yielded such accurate information concerning the elevation of the Constantinian shrine.5? Rather, the source of Bernini's astonishing piece of archaeological reconstruction seems to have been a unique medal, now lost, of the early Christian period (Fig. 38). On one side a tabernacle appears that has been regarded as a depiction of the shrine in Saint Peter’s.6° It consists of four twisted columns surmounted by two semicircular arches placed diagonally, exactly the form that can be reconstructed, on independent grounds, for the main feature of the early mediaeval confessio of Saint Peter’s. The similarity of Bernini’s design to that on the medal extends even to the swags of drapery hung between the columns and to the interposition of a continuous cornice between columns and open crown. Precisely how Bernini came to know the medal cannot be determined, but its history has been traced to within a decade of his project; it was given to the pope’s nephew Cardinal Francesco Barberini in March, 1636, by Claude Ménétrier, the French antiquarian living in Rome.®! Ménétrier,

project according to the good rules of architecture (Appendix I No. 288); this is perhaps to be identified with a drawing in the Albertina (Fig. 35; Appendix I No. 28c).

55. Modo di fare il tabernacolo, fol. 26r: “. . . e non puol mai un Archetto in aria sostenere ne figura ne unite le colonne di tanto gravissimo peso, come il Cavaliere ha esposto, che essendo di gettito oltre la grossa spesa non necessaria é pericolosa di motivo di gran rovina.” The project was to be executed in bronze and copper over a wooden core and use columns decorated with bees, laurel, and animals to support an architrave, upon which eight putti were placed, “fingendo di portare come per Aria il Baldachino che sara attaccato nella volta di sopra con Ingegno di poterlo levare” (ibid.); the idea seems to recall the project of Carlo Maderno, reported by Fioravante Martinelli (pp. 7f. above). 56. Ferrabosco’s project with wings was rejected by Urban VIII because it occupied too much space (see n.179 below). 57. Braun, Der christ. Aliar, u, pls. 160ff. 58. Designed by 1599, dedicated in 1608 (cf. W. and E. Paatz, Die Kirchen von Florenz, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1940-54, v, 1408.).

A few years later Bernini drew even closer to Caccini’s ciborium, in the catafalque he designed for the funeral of the pope’s brother Carlo Barberini (d. 1630), known from a workshop drawing in Windsor (Fig. 37). Here he used a proper open-ribbed dome, crowning it with a figure of death analogous to the Risen Christ on the baldachin (cf. Brauer-Wittkower, Zeichnungen, 162 n.6; A. Blunt and H. L. Cooke, The Roman Drawings of the XVII and XVIII Centuries in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor Castle, London, 1960, 25 No. 48; No. 49, Inv. No. 5612, seems to have no connection with the Barberini catafalque). The catafalque is discussed in an unpublished doctoral dissertation by O. Berendsen, “Italian Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Catafalques,” New York University, 1961, 132f., fig. 48. A ground plan study for the catafalque by Borromini is in Vienna, Albertina, Architektonische Handzeichnungen, Rom, Kirchen, No. 64; 214 x 173mm. 59. See the accounts of the excavations published in Armellini, Le chiese di Roma, n, 862ff., and H. Lietzmann, Petrus und Paulus in Rom, Berlin-Leipzig, 1927, 194ff., 304ff. An attempt under Urban VIII to reconstruct the confessio in detail from literary sources is noted below, p. 14. 60. Cf. most recently F. Castagnoli, ‘“Probabili raffigurazioni del ciborio intorno alla memoria di 5S. Pietro in due medaglie del IV secolo,” Rivista di archeologia cristiana, 29, 1953, 98ff.; A. Baird, ‘La colonna santa,’ BurlM, 24, 1913-14, 128ff. A badly oxidized lead cast of the medal was preserved in the Museo Sacro of the Vatican, the original bronze having been lost; the cast has since also disappeared, perhaps oxidized into unrecognizability. (See Addenda.) 61. See the brilliant piece of research tracing the medal’s history by G. B. De Rossi, “Le medaglie di devozione dei primi sei o sette secoli della chiesa,” B di archeologia cristiana, 7, 1869, 33ff.

‘Vous treuverez . . , un soulphre que j’ay jetté sur une petite lame de metal Corinthe de cave laquelle j’achepta ces jours passés et donna 4 Monseig.* l’Ecc. Card.!° Pat.2e, lequel tesmogna luy plaire grandement pour estre une

piéce de la primitive Eglise.” (Letter of Ménétrier to Nicolas Peiresc, March 8, 1636; ibid., 35) 13

who sent a cast of the medal to his colleague Nicolas Peiresc in Paris to get the latter’s interpretation, does not say when or where the medal was discovered, or from whom it was acquired. But he reports that it had been found together with a representation in gold glass of Sts. Peter and Paul—a circumstance that, especially in view of the legend linking the bodies of the two apostles, must have reinforced the association with Saint Peter’s suggested inevitably by the twisted columns. ‘The medal’s testimony must have been further supported by a passage in Gregory of Tours (538-594), who reports that over the tomb was a ciborium resting on four white columns; in a learned treatise on the ancient confessio, submitted to Urban VIII before Bernini’s baldachin was built, the passage is taken as an accurate description of the original monument.6? If the medal was believed to show the shrine in its pristine form—that is, as an independent structure without wings—knowledge of it may even have influenced the basic decision to return the high altar to its place over the tomb in the crossing. This clear and deliberate effort to recreate the early Christian monument while retaining essential elements from the recent predecessors may be what chiefly distinguishes Bernini’s work as a new departure. But the motivation was more than simply one of archaeological exactitude, as becomes evident when one considers the baldachin’s meaning.

Of the twelve white spiral columns that decorated the mediaeval presbytery, eleven are still preserved.63 Eight were installed by Bernini in the upper reliquary niches in the crossing piers (Figs. 53-56; see p. 21 below), one is the Colonna Santa referred to earlier (p. 3 above), and two flank the altar presently dedicated to St. Francis in the Chapel of the Holy Sacrament off the north aisle of the basilica (Fig. 39). These columns were the subject of various legends, by far the most widespread of which was that they had been brought by Constantine from the Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem. The association was so strong that twisted columns were often used by artists in representations of the Temple (Fig. 40),64 and the allusion to the Holy City is implicit in the columns of Bernini’s baldachin as well. In fact, even apart from the spiral columns, parallels between Saint Peter’s and the ‘Temple in layout, measurement, and decoration were long thought to exist.65 One in particular 62. Michele Lonigo, “Breve relatione del Sito, qualita, e forma antica della Confessione .. .” in Buonanni, Num. templ. vat., 191ff. (cf. p. 198); Buonanni says (p. 115) that Lonigo, who was papal archivist and master of ceremonies under Paul V, submitted the work to Urban VIII before the baldachin was built. The essential passage in Gregory of Tours is: Sunt ibi et columnae mirae elegantiae candore niveo quattuor numero, quae ciborium sepulchri sustinere dicuntur. (De gloria beatorum martyrum 28, PL, Lxx1, 729) 63. On the columns see especially J. B. Ward Perkins, ‘The Shrine of St. Peter and its Twelve Spiral Columns,” JRS, 42,1952, 21ff., and Alfarano, De basil. vat., 53f£.

64. Some further examples are mentioned in nn.67, 107 below.

65. The relationship was already explicit in Nicolas V’s project for rebuilding Saint Peter’s (cf. Magnuson, Roman Quattrocento Architecture, 210, 360-62), and according to L. D. Ettlinger it is reflected in the early decoration of the Sistine Chapel (The Sistine Chapel, 79£.). For the sixteenth century, see the many references in Alfarano, De basil. vat., 221, s.v. ‘““Templum Salomonis.”’

66. Haud aliter quidem Constantinus Imperator et Beatus Silvester Papa circa beati Petri Apostoli Corpus et Allare fecerunt quam Moses et Aaron fecerant circa Arcam foederis Domini tabulas legis et urnam continentem, quam Dei monitu in Tabernaculi medio intra sancta sanctorum sub cherubim alas constituerant. Et Salomon in Templo Domini idem fecerat. (Alfarano, De basil. vat., 29) The allusion is to Hebrews 9:3-5. (See Addenda.) 67. 1 Kings 7:21; m Chron. 3:17. Cf. S. Yeivin, “Jachin and Boaz,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1959, Gf.

In a painting of the Presentation of the Virgin by Domenichino in Savona (Borea, Domenichino, pl. 78) and in a miniature of the Marriage of the Virgin in the Book of Hours of Etienne Chevalier by Jean Fouquet (K. Perls, Jean Fouquet, London-Paris-New York, 1940, 53), the entrance to the Temple is actually shown flanked by a pair of the spiral columns of Saint Peter’s; in the Fouquet the columns are tinted to imitate gilt metal. I am convinced that Bernini later had in mind a dual reference to Old Saint Peter’s and Jerusalem when he included the window with the dove of the Holy Spirit above the Cathedra Petri in the west apse; Alfarano speaks of

the setting sun penetrating the rear windows of the old basilica: ad occasum lendens per posteriores Basilicae fenestras dictam Aram maximam, totamque Basilicam tirradiat sicut Arcam Foederis intra sancta sanctorum Tabernaculi Mosi et Salomonis Templi existentem per anteriores porlas ingrediens olim illustrabat. (De basil. vat., 19) It should be recalled that the orientation of Saint Peter’s is unusual in that the apse is to the west. 68. Ward Perkins, “The Shrine of St. Peter,” 26, 32, was evidently the first to observe that two of the columns had

14 been cut down, and that these in particular served as Bernini's model for the baldachin.

is important here, since it involves specifically the Temple and St. Peter’s tomb. It is stated by T1berio Alfarano (d. 1596), who was a cleric of Saint Peter’s, in his description of the old basilica: “The emperor Constantine and Pope Sylvester did no differently about the body and altar of the apostle Peter than Moses and Aaron had done about the Ark of the Covenant containing the tablets of the Law and the urn, which at God’s command they constructed in the center of the Tabernacle inside the Holy of Holies under the wings of cherubim. And Solomon did the same in the Temple of the Lord.’’66 "The cherubim mentioned here seem to find an echo in the angels who spread their wings above Bernini’s baldachin; indeed this may well have been among the reasons for shifting them from beside the supports, their position in the previous baldachins, to the top. It is even possible that the very material of the baldachin was intended to carry out this theme, recalling the famous pair of brazen columns with which Solomon had flanked the Tabernacle.®7 To be sure, the allusion to the Temple was already implicit in the reuse of the ancient columns in earlier projects. But it is important to emphasize that Bernini’s bronze columns differ from the originals in several ways. The enveloping vine tendrils of the originals have been transformed by Bernini into laurel, a Barberini device that occurs throughout the crossing along with the pope’s famous bees and sun. In making this change, an essential symbolic element of the columns—the ageold association of the vine scroll with the Christian sacrament—was lost. Yet there seems to have been an allusion to the sacrament in the form Bernini gave to the columns. He did not imitate the normal type, with alternating bands of fluting and foliage (cf. Figs. 53-56). Rather, he singled out those which, evidently as a result of having been shortened at some time, have fluting only on the lower portions.68 ‘['wo columns of precisely this form had been used by Paul III in the mid-sixteenth century to decorate the altar of the Holy Sacrament in the old nave (Fig. 41).69 Their subsequent history is uncertain, but it is surely significant that Bernini used two of the same type, perhaps the same pair, to flank the lateral altar in the Chapel of the Holy Sacrament in the new church (Fig. 39).70 The cycle of interrelationships is carried out also in the stucco scene in the vault of the chapel

69. Alfarano, De basil. vat., 55, 63£. 70. The altar, then dedicated to St. Maurice, was decorated from April, 1636 (Pollak, Nos. 890ff.). The chapel as a whole

was first intended as a sacristy; the request of the Archconfraternity of the Sacrament to have it assigned to them was approved in 1626 (Pollak, No. 872). Grimaldi in fact shows four columns of this type, two of them on the old sacrament altar (Fig. 41) and two fank-

ing the entrance to the Chapel of John VII (705-7), which was located at the Porta Santa. Grimaldi (quoted n.27 above) says that in his day the columns of the John VII monument were to be seen before the main apse, along with other similar columns, making no mention of what happened to the pair from the sacrament altar. Both Cerrati and Ward Perkins assume that the pair now in the Chapel of the Holy Sacrament came from the John VII chapel. But Ward Perkins seems to have overlooked the sacrament altar of Paul III altogether, while Cerrati (ed. of Alfarano, De basil. vat., 55, 106 n.2) seems not to have noticed that the extant pair have been altered and assumed that they were copies; except for minor restored details, they are certainly antique. The problems would be resolved if Schiiller-Piroli is right in stating (I know not on what evidence) that the same pair was simply shifted from the John VII chapel to the sacrament altar in old Saint Peter’s (2000 Jahre Sankt Peier, Olten, 1950, 629). They would subsequently have been moved to the apse of the new basilica, where Grimaldi saw them, and finally to the Chapel of the Sacrament. A drawing in Berlin attributed to Etienne Dupérac shows the Colonna Santa beside a row of four columns of the ‘sacramental’ type, without any architectural setting; M. Winner assumes that Dupérac invented two of the sacramental columns (Zeichner sehen die Antike. Europdische Handzeichnungen 1450-1800 [Exhib. Cat.], Berlin-Dahlem, 1967, 129f. No. 80, pl. 48).

There has also been considerable confusion about the fate of the missing column or columns. Cerrati believes that three columns were lost or destroyed in transport; others, accepting the pair in the sacrament chapel as originals, have theorized that one column was given away (cf. Cerrati, in Alfarano, De basil. vat., 55). A possible answer to this problem is suggested by the sacrament columns themselves. Though at some time the intermediate zone of fluting was removed, their actual height is precisely the same as the rest of the series (that is, 4.70m, as reported by Cerrati, ibid., 55; the figure 3.60m, given in the caption to Ward Perkins’ pl. v fig. 1, is erroneous). Furthermore, this pair of columns is different from all the others in several respects, notably in that the vine

scrolls are inhabited only by birds and other animals; there are no putti. What all this suggests is that the missing 15

directly above this altar (Fig. 40).71 The panel shows Solomon examining the plans of the Temple of

Jerusalem; in the background is a complex structure in course of construction, which includes four columns of this same design.72 Equally striking, the columns of the Temple support an inward curving entablature, a device that in the final version Bernini applied to the sides of the baldachin (cf. Fig. 43).

The allusion to the sacrament in Bernini’s first project for the baldachin is far more pervasive than the choice of the columns alone would suggest. Around 1600 Clement VIII had erected a great altar of the sacrament at the Lateran. This Constantinian foundation—the cathedral of Rome and the mother church of Catholicism, at whose high altar, as at Saint Peter’s, only the pope may officiate

—had been lavishly restored by Clement. He had decorated the confessio before the papal altar, which is mentioned in a document as one of the models for Paul V’s confessio at Saint Peter’s.?? Under the direction of the Cavaliere d’Arpino the upper part of the lateral transept walls had been covered with a series of frescoes illustrating the life of Constantine. On the end of the south transept wing, D’Arpino painted a grandiose fresco of the Ascension of Christ. Below this is the Altar of the Sacrament, designed by Pier Paolo Olivieri as a wall tabernacle in the form of a temple front (Fig. 42), Four colossal bronze columns support the triangular pediment, which is also of gilt metal. Here the idea of a monumental tabernacle all in bronze had actually been realized. Its relevance for the Saint Peter’s altar was more than a matter of scale and material. ‘The bronze columns of the Lateran were also the subject of various legends, among the current ones being that they too had once adorned the Temple at Jerusalem, whence they had been brought by the Empress Helen.74 They thus embodied the same allusion as the spiral columns of Saint Peter’s and provided an additional motive for using bronze. The back of the Lateran altar was ornamented with a relief of the Last Supper in solid silver, which served as a reliquary cover for a portion of cedar wood believed to have come from the table at which Christ and the disciples supped; the relief was melted

down in the eighteenth century during the French occupation of Rome (and later replaced). But the sacramental nature of the altar was also provided by another relic: the columns were supposed to be filled with earth from Mount Calvary upon which Christ shed his blood at the Crucifixion, again brought back to Rome by Helen. This lent a real, topographical basis to the allusion to Jerusalem, and we shall later consider another exactly parallel case that was directly pertinent to Saint Peter's.

twelfth column may have been of the same unusual type as the sacrament pair and that it was cut up and portions used to bring the latter two back to their original length. When these operations might have taken place is impossible to say. A payment of June, 1637, when the altar in the sacrament chapel was readied, records the addition of a piece to one of the columns (Pollak, 277 No. 897); but this probably refers to the bottom half of the lowest ring of acanthus on the left-hand column. It should be noted finally that a sixteenth century engraving of one of the sacrament columns appears in various versions of A. Lafréry’s Speculum Romanae magnificentiae (e.g., Bibl. Vat., Riserva S. 6. fol. 18, with title page dated 1587); doubtless this was the print mistakenly identified as representing the Colonna Santa in the 1572 list of Lafréry’s prints published by F. Ehrle, Roma prima di Sisto V. La pianta di Roma Du Pérac-Lafréry del 1577, Rome, 1908, 55 (cf. Cerrati, in Alfarano, De basil. vat., 55). The print seems to show the column in its shortened state.

71. Payments to Giovanni Battista Ricci for the cartoons for the narrative stucco panels in the choir began in May, 1621 (Rome, Arch. della Rev. Fabbrica di S. Pietro, 1 Piano, Ser. 1, Vol. 246, Spese 1621-23, fol. 17r); the sacristy is first mentioned in the payments in Dec., 1622 (ibid., fol. 72v). His payments ended in Dec., 1626 (Pollak, Nos. 705f£.; cf. No. 33). The areas surrounding the narratives had been designed earlier by Ferrabosco (Beltrami, ‘‘Ferabosco,’’ 30). The execution extended into the reign of Urban VIII (Pollak, Nos. 712ff., Feb., 1623-Aug., 1627).

79. These columns had often been imitated, but I would mention one instance in Rome in which the sacramental association seems evident; namely, in the Oratorio del Gonfalone, where they form the general framework of the fresco cycle (1568-84) illustrating the Passion (cf. A. Molfino, L’oratorio del Gonfalone, Rome, 1964). Here they also appear prominently in the background of Livio Agresti’s Last Supper (ibid., fig. 22). A chapel in Santo Spirito in Sassia with frescoes by Agresti (Fig. 57; see p. 22 below) seems to have provided the model for Bernini’s own

16 use of the columns in the upper niches of the piers in Saint Peter's.

The Lateran altar, in keeping with its dedication to the sacrament, has the Trinity as its overall theme (cf. Fig. 45). God the Father is depicted in the triangular opening of the pediment, while on the underside of the roof appears the dove of the Holy Ghost. Combined with the crucifix on the altar itself, these form the three elements of the traditional formula for representing the Trinity, in their usual vertical sequence. The same elements are distributed in an analogous way at Saint Peter's. The dove is also shown on the underside of the baldachin’s canopy above the altar crucifix, while God the Father appears in the lantern at the apex of the dome (Fig. 43).75 The latter figure was executed when the decoration of the dome began, also directed by the Cavaliere d’Arpino, under Clement VIII.76

A similar arrangement had occurred in the Church of Santa Maria dei Monti in Rome, designed by Giacomo della Porta and built and decorated after 1580 (Fig. 44).77 Here the high altar, with its famous miraculous image of the Virgin, also holds the tabernacle containing the Eucharist. The dove of the Holy Spirit appears in the conch of the apse above the altar (also in the stucco decoration around the base of the drum), and God the Father is depicted in the lantern of the dome. The special emphasis given to the sacrament in the Madonna dei Monti may be explained by the fact that it was the church of the Confraternity of the Catechumens, whose purpose was to instruct and assist Jews and other non-believers wishing to convert to Catholicism.78 All these considerations shed light upon what would surely have been one of the most spectacular ’ features of Bernini’s baldachin, the great figure of the Resurrected Christ at the center of the crown in the first project.7® Monumental altar ciboria are most frequently surmounted by the cross and globe (Figs. 14, 18, 24, etc.), and so eventually was Bernini's baldachin. Instead, Bernini’s use of the Risen Saviour in the first project recalls the eucharistic images—in which Christ is shown usually with a chalice and holding a cross—that often occur on tabernacles intended to hold the sacrament (Fig. 45).80 Yet Bernini’s Christ held the banner associated with the Resurrection as a narrative event rather than a symbolic type, and there was no chalice; this is exactly the sort of figure that occurs in the Lateran sacrament altar, on a small scale in bronze atop the cupola of the lavishly decorated altar tabernacle (Fig. 46), and in a life-size marble surmounting the high altar in Santa Maria dei Monti (Fig. 44).

73. “La Santita di Nostro Signore ... risolvé di far aprire sotto l’altar maggiore di San Pietro .. . in quella guisa, che stanno le cappelle sotto l’altar maggiore di San Giovanni Laterano et del Presepio in Santa Maria Maggiore.” (Avviso of Jan. 26, 1611, in Orbaan, 98) For Clement VIII’s work at the Lateran, see Pastor, xxiv, £75ff. 74. On the legends concerning the Lateran columns, cf. Panciroli, Tesori nascosti, 189f£.; Severano, Memorie sacre, 1, 506£.; C. Rasponi, De basilica et patriarchio lateranensi, Rome, 1657, 32, 47f.

75. H. Sedimayr has also emphasized the relation of the baldachin to the dome mosaics in Saint Peter’s and, though in a different way, has seen the reference to the Trinity (Epochen und Werke, Vienna, 1960, n, 23ff.). In Paul V’s baldachin, as the medal of 1617 shows (Fig. 21), the underside of the canopy was covered with stars. 76. On the chronology of the dome decorations, cf. Siebenhtiner, ‘“‘Umrisse,” 300. 77. Cf. Pastor, xx, 583. 78. See Moroni, Dizionario, xitvu, 270ff. 79. It may be relevant that images of the Resurrected Christ had appeared on coins struck during the sede vacante of 1623, the period between the death of Gregory XV and the election of Urban; the obverses bear the arms of Cardinal Ippolito Aldobrandini, nephew of Clement VIII, who was Camerlengo. But these have no known connection with the basilica. Cf. E. Martinori, dnnali della Zecca di Roma. Sede vacante 162] ..., Rome, 1919, 17ff.; Corpus nummorum italicorum, Milan, 1910ff., xvr, 269ff. 80. A. Marquand, Luca della Robbia, Princeton, 1914, 61ff., considers the door in the Peretola tabernacle to be a later insertion; in any case, the figure of Christ follows the traditional eucharistic type. Cf. also Braun, Der christ. Altar,

i, pls. $46 left, 348, 350 left. 17

Thus, the substitution of the Risen Christ for the usual cross and globe, in conjunction with the Trinity, embodies a reference to the sacrament; and the form these elements were given seems to derive specifically from two of the most recent and conspicuous altars in Rome that held the sacrament. It should be noted, finally, that reflections of the Lateran sacrament altar are found in Bernini’s work long after the baldachin was completed. The general organization of the altar at the end of the transept served as a model for his Chapel of Saint Teresa in the transept of Santa Maria della Vittoria (begun 1647). There is also evidence that the relief of the Last Supper on the altar frontal of the Teresa chapel may have been based specifically on the lost silver relief of the Lateran altar.81 Toward the end of his life he placed a figure of the Resurrected Christ without a chalice atop the cupola of the sacrament altar he himself designed for Saint Peter’s (1670’s).82

The reference to the sacrament is only part of the significance of the figure on the baldachin. The decoration of the dome of Saint Peter’s had been completed under Paul V. Around its base the twelve apostles had been depicted, with Christ enthroned and flanked by the Virgin and John the Baptist in the west side facing the nave; in the compartments above, angels hold the instruments of the Passion (Fig. 47). The scheme is familiar from depictions of the Last Judgment, and the figure atop the baldachin was certainly conceived in this context. The basic imagery of the crossing would have comprised the sacrifice at the altar and, above, Christ rising from the tomb to assume his place - in heaven as King and Judge.8? The Christ figure thus charges the physical space of the crossing with the meaning of a dramatic action; we are actually at Jerusalem and salvation is being achieved before our very eyes. The conception of the baldachin that emerges from these considerations may be summarized under three headings: historical, liturgical, and geographical. Historically, through its paraphrase of the ancient spiral columns and its basic design, it recalls the original monument in Saint Peter’s. Litur-

. gically, through the design of the columns and the figure of Christ, it refers to the Holy Sacrament. And geographically, the Risen Christ, the spiral columns, and perhaps even the use of bronze, involve a reference to Jerusalem, the site of Christian redemption. This imagery became fundamental to Bernini’s treatment of the crossing as a whole.

81. J have in preparation a monograph on the Saint Teresa chapel, in which the relations to the Lateran altar will be discussed. Bernini’s Last Supper is illustrated in E. Lavagnino, et al., Allari barocchi in Roma, Rome, 1959, .pl. on p. 83. As far as I can discover the connection is first mentioned in A. Nibby, Roma nell’anno MDCCCXXXVIII, Rome, 1838-41, Moderna, 1, 530, but there is good reason to believe it is true; in the engraving of the Lateran altar in the series by Giovanni Maggi discussed in Appendix I No. 8, the relief is shown with a composition very close to Bernini’s. A similar composition is also shown in a medal commemorating the altar (Buonanni, Num. pont., u, 457 fig. x1, but the engraving here is inaccurate; see instead A. Ciaconius, Vitae, et res gestae pontificum romanorum ..., Rome, 1677, tv, cols. 275£., No. 17; examples of the medal are preserved in the Staatliche Miinzsammlung, Munich, and in the Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris). 82. Visible in the illustration in Fraschetti, Bernini, 395. No banner is attached to the cross-staff held by Christ in the work as we know it; but it is interesting to note that a banner does appear in a drawing at Windsor with projects for adding candelabra, which Brauer and Wittkower believe was made after the altar was finished (Zeichnungen, 173, 175, pl. 195c). The Christ on the Saint Peter’s ciborium rises from a cloud, as did the figure in the first version of the baldachin (see n.49 above).

For the relationship between the Lateran sacrament altar and the crossing of Saint Peter’s as a whole, see n.164 below.

83. This theme also seems embodied in the ornaments of the upper reliquary niches of the piers; symbols of the Passion appear in the lower part of the frontispieces, symbols of salvation above (see nn.121, 164 below). An element of vertical integration involving the building itself was also present at the Lateran, with the crucifix on the altar,

18 the Resurrected Christ on the ciborium, and the Ascension of Christ on the wall above the tabernacle.

III. ‘The Decoration of the Pier Niches Planning for the four piers and their decoration began when it was still expected to execute the baldachin according to Bernini’s first project. Urban had already shown his concern for the condition of the relics when in January, 1624, he ordered a complete reconstruction of the reliquary niche for the Holy Face and the Lance; it was finished late in the following year.84 The crucial decision to redecorate the lower niches beneath the relics must have been taken shortly thereafter. This is evident from a document in the archive of the basilica reported by Baldinucci in the famous defense of Bernini's work on the piers, which he appended to his biography of the artist; the document shows that two models for altars, “uno sotto al nicchio del Volto Santo e l’altro di S. Andrea,” were in existence by June of 1626.85 During the first part of 1627 payments were made for a group of models for the Veronica niche, one of which was by Bernini himself.8¢ His project is preserved in a workshop drawing in Vienna, which is practically identical with the description given in the craftsmen’s invoices (Fig. 48).87 It establishes the basic solution that was to be retained in the final execution: a monumental statue raised on a high base, in which there are openings giving access to a stairway that leads down to an altar in the grotto below. The statue is conceived in accordance with the traditional formula for St. Veronica, which had appeared on the mediaeval tabernacle (Fig. 8) and would later also provide the point of departure for Francesco Mochi’s figure of the saint. Indeed, ~ the whole arrangement, comprising an altar below, depictions of the appropriate saint and relic, and a container for the relic above seems consciously to recreate in relief the reliquary monuments of the old basilica. Since there is no reference in the project to the Lance, which was kept together with the Holy Face, it must already have been determined to house the relics separately.

84. The documents are published by Pollak, 311ff. The inscription bearing the date 1625 placed beneath the balustrade (Forcella, Iscrizioni, vi, 148 No. 542) surely refers to the completion of this reconstruction (cf. also Hess, Kiinstlerbiographien, 109 n.1), rather than the beginning of that which followed (Brauer-Wittkower, Zeichnungen, 22 n.2).

85. “Vi son’ in essere le cimenti p 2 altari da farsi uno sotto al nicchio del Volto S.t°, et l’altro di S. And.* Parlarne con N S$.'® parria molto conveniente far li altari del Volto S.t° e S. And. in d.! luoghi, che non vi son, ne si vuole andare a celebrate ne’ luoghi, dove son collocate d.® reliquie.’’ (Minutes of the Congregation, June 3, 1626; transcribed from the original, Arch. Fabb. S. P., 1 Piano, Ser. 2, Vol. 71, Congregazioni 1571-1630, fol. 397r)

Cf. Baldinucci, Vita, 165f. Bernini was accused of having weakened the piers, causing cracks that had appeared in the dome. 86. The documents are quoted in Pollak, 465f., but are there misleadingly placed under the heading of the upper reliquary niches.

87. Apparently overlooking the correspondence with the documents, Brauer and Wittkower regarded the project as the invention of another artist (Zeichnungen, 23 n.3, pl. 195a). I quote the documents after Pollak, 24, 29f. (italics mine):

Per un'‘altro Modello sotto la Nicchia del Volto Santo con il disegnio del S* Cav? Bernino fatto amezzo ottangolo con pilastri alli angoli doppij con basamento, zoccolo con li collarino fregi cimasa tutto scorniciato fatto tutte le modinature etc. . . . con il finimento sopra fatto @ piramida con le mozzole (mensole?) nelle Cantonate alto tutto p! 32 long. di giro p! 30 etc... . A 80 Per li fusti contornati dove é dipinta la Veronica e doi angeli grandi etc. ... A 10

E pit ordine del Sigt Chavaglier Bernino si ¢ depinto un modello fatto di legniame sotto alla nichia del Volto Santo con haverlo incessato e stuchato e dato di piacha (biacca) fina e si & inbrunito da alto e passo e svenato di

marmaro con un arme del’ Papa di chiaro e scuro e quadro cartelone con le steste di carobini messe di rame battuto e unbrato di sopra et dui ferate messe di rame battuto e unbrato di sopra e una ficura di Santa Veronicha di palmi quindici con dui Angeli di palmi nove messo di rame battute e umbrato e scorniciato di dutto ... A 50

E pit per haver rifatto sopra li ideso modello se @ alzato tre palmi di piu € pisogniato restauralo e far di nuovo

et un arme del Papa messo di rame battuto umbrato di sopra e si é fatto sopra le dui porte dui ferate messe rame battute e umbrate con dui candelone di pit e dui ferate di pid fatte di color di rame scorniciato e unbrato

et haver rifatto un a(l)tra volta la figura di palme 12 e li Angeli di palmi 7 e si é rimesso di rame battuto la maggior parte e umbrato di nuovo... A 35 19

The official decision to include all four piers in the program was taken in June of 1627.88 There had been an earlier proposal to treat the four niches uniformly.89 But coming after the high altar had nearly been shifted toward the apse and after the nave had been added, the new arrangement was a reaffirmation of the centrality of the crossing. Interest still focused primarily on the Veronica and Andrew niches, however, and in April, 1628, several models (plura modula seu formae) for them were shown to the Congregazione della Fabbrica, the group of cardinals who governed the basilica.90 Remarkable insights into the whole development of the crossing are provided by the records of the meeting of the Congregation a month later, May 15, 1628, in which the choice among the projects was made. ‘There are two documents in question: one comes from the notes made by the steward (oeconomus) of the Congregation during the actual meeting, the other from the official record of the meeting as it was transcribed from these notes.91 Variations between the two versions are normally trivial, but that is not the case in the present instance. In the notes made at the meeting it is said that the design which most pleased the pope was that for the St. Andrew and that authorization was given to award the commission. In the official transcription the oeconomus specifies that the project chosen was Bernini’s. Thus it appears that Bernini’s winning design was for the St. Andrew, and it was this design that evidently provided the basis for the statue executed subsequently by Duquesnoy. The implications of this point will become evident when we consider the close similarities between Duquesnoy’s figure and Bernini’s own St. Longinus. The St. Andrew was in fact the test case for the whole program. Work was begun immediately on the niche proper; Duquesnoy received the first payment for his full-scale stucco model in May, 1629, and the final payment the following November.92

In February of 1629, following Maderno’s death, Bernini had been appointed architect of Saint Peter’s.93 The overall scheme matured in April of the same year, when the pope gave the basilica a portion of the famous relic of the True Cross, composed of fragments which he had removed from Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and Sant’Anastasia.94 The significance of this step can best be appre88. Pollak, No. 1621. 89. A document of uncertain date reads as follows: “Nelle quattro nicchie grandi che sono alli piloni della Cuppola a canto l’Altar maggiore é pensato di fare due Chori, uno per li Cantori, et l’altro per li Principi, che verranno a veder

la messa pontificale, se bene alcuni hanno opinione, che vi staranno bene quattro Altari nelli quali si potranno collocare li quattro Corpi di S. Leoni Papi, che sono nella medesima Chiesa.” (Pollak, ‘‘Ausgewahlte Akten,” 73) Siebenhiiner connects the ‘‘chori’’ mentioned here with those shown in Cigoli’s project (Figs. 25, 26; ‘‘Umrisse,” 312, where the reference should read “‘Pollak’’ in place of ““Orbaan’’). Siebenhiiner’s assumption (‘‘Umrisse,” 245, 257) that four figures of prophets made for Saint Peter’s in the 1550's

by Guglielmo della Porta were intended for the crossing piers, has been disproved by W. Gramberg (“Guglielmo della Portas verlorene Prophetenstatuen fiir San Pietro in Vaticano,” in Walter Friedlaender zum 90. Geburtstag, Berlin, 1965, 80 n.7).

90. April 10, 1628: Fuerunt exhibita plura modula seu formae capellarum construendarum in locis sublus SSm4* Reliquias Vullus

S'* et Capitis S. Andreae quae per Illmos DD. visa, et diligenter expressa, Iniunxerunt mihi ut illa Sm? D. N. deferrem, ut facilius possit ex dictis et alia, quae habet, formula, seu modula sibi magis placitus eligere et Sacr. Cong. €0 citius mentem S™* desuper executione demandare. (Pollak, No. 1622) 91. May 15, 1628:

Li disegni delli Altarini, N. Ste dice che la Cong®e veda qual pit li sodisfaccia et quello si faccia; mostra gradir il S. And(re)a. si potria deputar. qualche delli SS*! I11™! S, Sisto e Vidone. (Pollak, No. 1623) May 15, 1628:

Exhibui Ego Oeconomus plura delineamenta depicta pro forma seu modulo parvarum Cappellarum de mente Smt construendarum in loculis Nicchi nuncupatis per me de ordine eiusdem Sanct™! huic Sacrae Congregationi praesentanda ut illis per DD. visis ex eis eligerent quale perficiendum erit, ided per eos bene inspectis approbarunt

ex eis unum ab Equite Bernino delineatum, utque facilius, et citius opus absolvatur, rogaruni [limes DD. Cardinales St* Sixti, et Vidonum, ut curam huic incumbant et quatenus illis.videatur mentem eiusdem Smt desuper melius exquirant, et exequaniur. (Pollak, No. 1624) On the minutes of the meetings, see F. Ehrle, ‘Dalle carte e dai disegni di Virgilio Spada,”’ AttiPontAcc, Ser. 1, Memorie, U1, 1928, 19.

92. Pollak, Nos. 1625ff. 93. Pollak, No. 4.

94. Cf. Torriggio, Sacre grotte vaticane, 217. The new relic was at first kept with the Volto Santo and the Lance

20 (Severano, Memorie sacre, 1, 164).

ciated by considering momentarily a document of three years before, July 15, 1626, also reported by Baldinucci.°5 It records with respect to the altars then being planned that the oeconomus was directed to determine whether there were in Saint Peter’s other relics of the apostles that might accompany the head of St. Andrew; the head of St. Luke was one possibility mentioned. The thought clearly was to pair the Passion relics, the Volto Santo and the Lance, against relics of the apostles. The idea of pairing remained, as we shall see, but the procurement of the fragments of the True Cross early in 1629 shows that a general theme had emerged which required another Passion relic for its completion. In the Congregation meeting of December 10, 1629, within a month after the model of the St.

Andrew was finished, the other three artists who were to execute models of their statues were named.96 Bolgi began his model for the St. Helen on July 2, 1631, and Bernini probably began his model for the St. Longinus at the same time; Mochi began the Veronica model on September 24 of that year. He completed his model on November 29, 1631, and it was viewed by the pope on February 8, 1632; the pope saw Bernini’s completed model one week later, on February 15, and that of Bolgi on March 5.87 Considerable time elapsed before execution of the marbles began, in Duquesnoy’s case presumably because he had to wait until the other models were completed; in the other cases there was delay in acquiring suitable marbles.98 Duquesnoy was the first to begin work, in April of 1633, and the Andrew was in place by October, 1639 (Fig. 50).99 Bernini began only in June, 1635, but the Longinus was installed by June, 1638 (Fig. 51).1°0 Mochi also began in June, 1635, and his Veronica was in place by October, 1639 (Fig. 49).191 Bolgi received his first payment in January, 1635, and the Helen was finished by the end of 1639 (Fig. 52).102

The decoration of the upper niches (Figs. 53-56), carried out between 1633 and 1641, brought the program to completion.1°3 The niches were based on a design by Bernini (cf. Fig. 68), which involved reusing the ancient columns from the presbytery of Old Saint Peter’s. At first the columns were to support triangular pediments, but in the final form the pediments are segmental and the

whole frontispiece is bowed inward. Marble putti surmount the pediments, upon which stucco clouds flow down from the surface of the conch.104 Above, also in stucco, putti carry inscriptions, while inside the frontispieces are marble reliefs of angels and putti displaying images of the relics.10>

95. ‘‘Delli altari del Volto S.to e S. And. che le pareva si dovessero fare nelli Inoghi etc. et ch’io m’informassi s’in S. Pietro vi fusse reliquia insigne di apostolo per poterla accompagnare con la testa di S. And.* / parl.* a D. Bonin . . [?] / testa di S. Luca.” (Minutes of the Congregation, July 15, 1626, Arch. Fabb. S. P., 1 Piano, Ser. 2, Vol. 71, Congr. 1571-1630, fol. 417r). C£. Baldinucci, Vita, 166.

96. Pollak, No. 117. 97. The dates are given by Torriggio, Sacre grotte vaticane, 206, 219, 283. Torriggio says that the model of the Longinus was finished on July 5, 1631, but more likely this was the beginning date. All the artists received down payments of 50 scudi on Dec. 19, 1629, after which there was a delay while work on the niches proceeded. On May 5, 1631, the Congregation decreed that the models be executed (Pollak, No. 1646) and regular payments for them

began in Sept. (Longinus) and Nov. (Veronica and Helen), 1631. Final payment to Bolgi was made on March 15, ; 1632, to Bernini on April 5, to Mochi on Aug. II, of the same year. Bernini received a total of 500 scudi, Mochi 450, Bolgi 350. Cf. Pollak, 442f., 454f., 461f.

98. Pollak, Nos. 1718ff.; see end of n.174 below. 99. Pollak, Nos. 1654, 1667. G. Baglione, Le nove chiese di Roma, Rome, 1639, 38f., speaks of the Helen and Longinus

as in their places, but not yet the Andrew and Veronica. His dedication to Cardinal Francesco Barberini is dated Sept. 1, 1639. 100. Pollak, Nos. 1787, 1791. The pope had inspected it on May 1 (Fraschetti, Bernint, 76). See also n.125 below. 101. Pollak, Nos. 1735, 1747.

102. Pollak, Nos. 1820, 1752. The statue is signed and dated 1639. The document of 1649 mentioned by Fraschetti, Bernini, 74, refers to other works by Bolgi in Saint Peter's. 103. Pollak, 467ff. 104. On this device, see n.132 below.

105. With one important exception; see p. 36 below. 21

Here again, dual reference to the old church and to Jerusalem is evident. The idea for images of the relics and columns in the upper story seems to have come from the earlier reliquary tabernacles, one of which—that of the Volto Santo—actually had versions of the famous twisted columns (cf. Fig. 8).106 "The cornices, like those of the baldachin, are concave and may be related to the reconstruction of Solomon’s Temple in the vault of the sacrament chapel (cf. Fig. 40); the notion of surrounding the central altar by the Solomonic spiral columns has a precedent among versions of the Temple, in which the columns were distributed around the Holy of Holies.107 The bowed frontispieces are of particular interest, however, since hereafter they appear frequently

in Bernini’s work, in varied forms, and they become one of the stock phrases in the vocabulary of Baroque architecture. The motif has a complex genealogy, but in this instance Bernini’s direct model lay not far from Saint Peter’s, in the Church of Santo Spirito in Sassia. The side chapels of this church are, like the reliquary niches of Saint Peter’s, semicircular in plan with half-domes. In a number of cases the frames of the altarpieces are curved in adherence to the wall surface. This 1s the case in the second chapel on the right (Fig. 57), decorated at the altar and in the vault with paintings by Livio Agresti (d. ca. 1580), where the altarpiece is framed by a pair of columns that closely imitate the sacrament columns of Saint Peter’s.1°8 Here, too, are the broken pediment surmounted by figures, the flat strips that continue the entablature and bases on the wall as if to form lateral extensions of the frontispiece, and other details that appear in Bernini’s niches. His major changes were toward unifying the design, by making the horizontal entablature continuous between the columns and echoing the columns in the form of bent pilasters at the angle with the back wall. Also significant is the fact that Bernini gave the frontispiece a less pronounced curvature than the niche itself (Fig. 58);199 this, together with the continuous entablature, makes the frontispiece seem almost to project from the niche as an independent unit, rather than following its surface as in the Santo Spirito altarpiece. Perhaps most remarkable is that even in the design for these niches Bernini’s interest may have been more than simply formal. The Church of Santo Spirito, and especially the Confraternity of the Holy Spirit whose seat it was, had an ancient and intimate association with the relic of the Holy

Face, and hence with Saint Peter’s. The relic had once been kept in the church, and in the later Middle Ages, after it was transferred, the popes would carry it from Saint Peter’s to Santo Spirito and back again in annual procession. From the latter part of the fifteenth century the custom was reversed and the Confraternity went in procession to Saint Peter’s where it had the signal honor of being shown the relic.110 106. As noted by Kauffmann, “Berninis Tabernakel,” 229. In fact, it seems to have been a common type, as witness the tabernacles with spiral columns in the upper level in Santa Maria Maggiore and San Giovanni in Laterano in the series of prints by Maggi discussed in Appendix I No. 8 (the Santa Maria Maggiore print is reproduced by Armellini, Chiese di Roma, 1, 286; cf. P. De Angelis, Basilicae S. Mariae Maioris de urbe .. . Descriptio, Rome, 1621, ills. on pp. 83, 85, 87); also in Santa Maria in Campitelli (G. Ciampini, Vetera monumenta, Rome, 1690, fig. 3 on pl. xLIv opp. p. 181).

107. Cé£. the interior of the Temple in a miniature of Jean Fouquet’s Antiquités judaiques (Perls, Fouquet, 248); “‘reconstructions” of the Temple as a centrally planned structure were also common (see now S. Sinding-Larsen, “Some Functional and Iconographical Aspects of the Centralized Church in the Italian Renaissance,” Instituium Romanum Norvegiae, Acta, u, 1965, 221ff.).

108. C£. P. De Angelis, La chiesa di Santo Spirito in Santa Maria in Sassia, Rome, 1952, 10; E. Lavagnino, La chiesa di Santo Spirito in Sassia, Rome, 1962, 110.

109. The plan of the niches is from Baldinucci, Vita, pl. 11 opp. p. 176. Baldinucci’s point (pp. 162f.) is that Bernini did not weaken the piers by deepening the niches, but, on the contrary, tended to fill them in; he also notes that the space between the old and the new surface served to insulate the wall from humidity. Cf. the niche with double curvature that Bernini created during the same period for the Countess Matilda monument (Fig. 75). 110. See Moroni, Dizionario, cum, 95f. The connections between the Volto Santo and Santo Spirito are recorded exten-

22 sively by Grimaldi, Opusculum, fols. 35ff., 41, 47, 67£., 147&.

IV. Changes During Execution THE CROWN OF THE BALDACHIN During the long period of work on the statues and the niches two major changes were made, both of which radically affected the design and disposition of the crossing. The first of these occurred probably in 1631 while the models for the niche figures were being made. The two semicircular arches that Bernini had intended to place over the columns of the baldachin were discarded and were replaced instead by the familiar twelve curving volutes (four sets of three) decorated with palm fronds; and the great figure of the Resurrected Christ was replaced by the more traditional globe and cross (Fig. 59).111 It seems that these alterations were motivated at least partly by practical considerations. One of Bernini’s critics mentioned earlier, who submitted a project of his own, objected that the original arrangement would be inadequate to support the Christ figure and restrain the columns, and there would be danger of a collapse.1!* Filippo Buonanni says explicitly that it was feared the columns might give way (/axarz).113 In fact, the change increased the number of supports, and created groups of pointed arches, raising the crown and making the thrust on the columns more nearly vertical. A series of drawings shows Bernini experimenting with a variety of convex, concave, and mixed curves that would achieve this result.114¢ A small and a full-size model of the new crown were made during 1631; the work was unveiled on June 29, 1633.115 ‘The repercussions of the substitution of the cross and globe for the Christ, which served to lighten the load, will be discussed in Chapter V. lll. Cf. Brauer-Wittkower, Zeichnungen, 20f. Their dating for the change is based on a series of payments beginning in April, 1631, to Borromini for detailed drawings (Pollak, Nos. 1274ff.). Payments for models of the new superstructure also begin at the same time (Pollak, 369ff.). The original form still appears on the canonization medal of 1629 (Fig. 32), and is referred to in a poem published that year (Brauer-Wittkower, Zeichnungen, 20 n.2).

The Christ is also mentioned in C. Bracci, Rime... per il ciborio, opera di bronzo fatta tnalzare in S. Pietro ..., Arezzo, 1633, 56: Sovra quel bronzo in pit Colonne alzato Dal divo Urbano, e successor di Piero, Vedesi pur l’istesso Christo resuscitato. (Florence, Bibl. Marucelliana, Misc. 253, int. 3)

In his preface (p. 44) Bracci only notes seeing the bronze columns on a recent visit to Rome (“Non é€ molto, che trovandomi in Roma ammirando le quattro Colonne di bronzo, che fanno ciborio in S. Pietro’). It was still being planned to cast the Christ in Jan., 1633, presumably for another destination (Pollak, No. 1248).

Also unexecuted were seated figures of Peter and Paul to be placed before the balustrade in front of the baldachin, for which Giuliano Finelli made models (cf. Brauer-Wittkower, Zeichnungen, 20 n.2). A drawing in the Albertina (Arch. Hz., Rom, Kirchen, No. 768, 321 x 215mm) shows the figures seated on pedestals attached to the balustrade, flanking the entrance to the confessio.

112. Anonymous; quoted n.55 above. . 113. Buonanni, Num. templ. vat., 130: Perum cum mentem Pontificis non explerent, & nimis aerts pondere subjectas columnas laxari posse timeretur, aliam formam ... Bernini excogitavit. 114. C£. Brauer-Wittkower, Zeichnungen, pls. 6f. (See Addenda.)

115. Pollak, 869ff.; the finishing touches were not completed until two years later. 23

Apse (west)

Volto Santo Head of Volto Santo Head of Volto Santo Lance Volto Santo True Cross and Lance St. Andrew (Veronica) St. Andrew

ay ti f Fs | mars ) ee | Tomb of Colonna Lance True Cross Head of True Cross Head of Lance

Paul III Santa (Longinus) (Helen) St. Andrew St. Andrew

A. Under Paul V B. First arrangement under c. Decree of April 26, 1638 bD. Decree of July 5, 1638 (final) Urban VIII (1629ff.)

Text Figure. DISPOSITION OF THE RELICS IN THE CROSSING

THE PLACEMENT OF THE NICHE STATUES The second major change involved the distribution of the relics in the four piers, and hence also the placement of the statues and the decoration of the upper niches. ‘The point of departure for the original placement was certainly the installation of Paul V (Text Fig. A), in which the two Passion relics, the Holy Face and the Lance, had been given the place of honor in the southwest pier (im cornu evangeli), while Andrew’s head had been placed in the northwest corner, the side of lesser distinction (in cornu epistolae).116 When Urban VIII decided to treat the Lance separately and add the ‘True Cross, the same principle was applied at a lower level to the two eastern piers, that on the south being considered more important than that on the north. Thus, the descending order of precedence of the piers was: southwest; northwest; southeast; and northeast. The Volto Santo, because of its outstanding importance, retained the first place. The distribution of the other three relics depended upon the basic distinction according to which saints are classified, that is, between 116. On the directional symbolism of the Christian basilica, cf. J. Sauer, Symbolik des Kirchengebéudes, Freiburg-imBreisgau, 1924, 87ff.; J. A. Jungmann, Missarum sollemnia, Freiburg, 1958, 1, 529ff.; I. Lavin, ‘“‘The Sources of Donatello’s Pulpits in San Lorenzo,’ AB, 41, 1959, 20 n.8. The nobler side, to the right of the celebrant of the

Mass, gets its name from the fact that the lesson from the Gospel in the Mass was read from there, while the Epistle, of lesser distinction, was read from the celebrant’s left. In Saint Peter's the pope celebrates the Mass facing the congregation in the nave. Because Saint Peter’s is also ‘‘wested"’ (that is, with the apse in the west), the nobler side is to the south, as it is in normally oriented churches. 117. Breviarium romanum, Rome, 1634, Commune sanctorum, xvift. 118. The dates are given by Torriggio, Sacre grotte vaticane, 200, who also describes the frescoes in detail. An inscription in the vault of the ambulatory between the northeast and northwest chapels reads as follows: URBANUS VIII * PONTE [SiC] + MAX » NOVOS « ADITVS « APERVIT « ALTARIA + CVM « STATVIS + ER[ E |XIT PICTVRIS + ADAVXIT

ANN + DOM « M + DC + XXXI + PONT + VIII

The inscripion thus dates between Jan. | and Sept. 28, 1631 (the eve of the anniversary of the pope's coronation).

24 Payments begin in Jan., 1630 (Pollak, No. 2108), and the last invoice is Jan., 1633 (Pollak, No. 2123).

P

males and females. In the Common of the Saints, the series of prayers by which saints are collectively venerated, males have preference over females. Apostles and evangelists come before male martyrs; confessors, doctors, and abbots follow, and the female saints come last. Among the latter, saints who were neither virgins nor martyrs—which was the case with Veronica and Helen—constitute the lowest category.117 By this criterion, Andrew, as apostle and martyr, takes precedence over the male martyr Longinus, who in turn precedes Helen; this was the order in which Urban VIII originally distributed the relics (Text Fig. 8). The controlling factor, except for the Volto Santo, was the liturgical rank of the saints, male martyrs vs. female non-virgins non-martyrs. The frescoes illustrating the histories of the relics in the grotto chapels beneath the niches were actually carried out according to this original arrangement, under Bernini’s direction, mainly during 1630 and 1631.118 The liturgical rank of the saints was emphasized in the altar paintings by Andrea Sacchi in these chapels: in the case of Veronica and Helen, scenes showing their connection with the relics were chosen (the Road to Calvary and the Testing of the True Cross), while under Andrew and Longinus the altarpieces pertained to their martyrdom (Andrew worshiping the cross on which he would be crucified and the Beheading of St. Longinus).119 Another souvenir of the original disposition, in which the liturgical pairing of the saints is also indicated, is in the decorations on the bases of the statues, for which payments were made between April, 1632, and March, 1635.120 Beneath the inscriptions on the bases in the northwest (Fig. 52) and southeast (Fig. 50) niches are palm fronds, the symbol of martyrdom; they were intended respectively for Sts. Andrew and Longinus. Under Veronica’s inscription are laurel leaves (Fig. 49); no change took place here. The base on which Longinus now stands has laurel branches entwining a scepter (Fig. 51), showing that it was intended for the Empress St. Helen.121

Most important, it is evident that the statues were conceived as pairs, facing each other diagonally across the baldachin—Andrew vs. Longinus, Veronica vs. Helen (Figs. 50 vs. 51, 49 vs. 52). Changing the statues’ locations not only destroyed this deliberate opposition but profoundly affected the logic of their design (cf. Text Fig. p). The St. dndrew, simply moved diagonally across the crossing, suffered least. But the whole movement in the pose and glance of the Longinus, shifted to the opposite side of the nave, is now outward and away from the baldachin; like the St. Andrew, it would have been directed inward and up toward the Resurrected Saviour. Likewise, Helen’s glance and gesture, now outward in the direction of the transept, would have been inward toward the central axis of the basilica, corresponding to St. Veronica’s. The figures thus created a compact, centralized unity that was, in the end, largely dispersed.

119. Mosaic copies of the paintings are now on the altars (according to the final, not the original location of the relics). The paintings are now in the Treasury of Saint Peter’s. Sacchi received payments in 1633 and 1634 (Pollak, Nos. 2086ff.), and a final payment for the St. Helen scene on Sept. 5, 1650: “Al And.e# Sacchi Pitt.e Scudi 150 m.t® oltre a scudi 650 havuti sono p. intero pagam.‘° di tutti quattro li quadri che il d.° ha dipinto sotto le grotte compresoci in d.° n.° il quadro con I’hist.2 quando S.** helena trovo la Croce di N.S. Sotto a S.ts helena di marmo e quesio e in conformita di quanto ha ordinato Ja Sacra Cong.° di q.te di.” (Arch. Fabb. S.P., Ser. Arm., Vol. 179, Spese 1636-57, p. 276; cf. Ser. 8, Vol. 162, Decreta et resolutiones 1642-53, fol. 178r)

Cf. Fraschetti, Bernini, 70; H. Posse, Andrea Sacchi, Leipzig, 1925, 54ff.; A. Mezzetti, in L’ideale classico del seicento in Italia e la pittura di paesaggio (Exhibition Cat.), Bologna, 1962, 332ff. 120. Pollak, 436ff., 452, 458, 464.

121. A further remnant of the first arrangement is in the motifs that decorate the socle zone of the frontispieces of the reliquary niches; under the twisted columns in three of the niches are Passion symbols (crown of thorns and crossed reeds, gauntlets and lantern, bag of coins, scourges, hammer and tongs, nails and loincloth, ewer and basin), while under those in the northwest niche are various fish, for Andrew the fisherman, whose relic was the only one not connected with the Passion (cf. Figs. 53-56). On the north side of the north column of the northeast niche is an imperial crown with a cross, for the Empress Helen. (I have been able to visit only the eastern niches; hence I cannot identify the emblems on the inner faces of the column bases in the western niches, which are not visible

from afar.) 25

The statues were already nearing completion, and their bases and the frescoes in the grotto chapels had been executed, when, in 1638, the original plan was altered. The motivation was a bull that had been issued by Urban VIII in 1629, when he gave the relic of the True Cross to the basilica. He

had then stipulated that the three relics of the Passion be displayed in a sequence that implied an ascending order of importance, the Lance first and the Cross second, climaxing with the Holy Face.122 A compromise between the original arrangement and the import of Urban VIII’s bull was made in the first of two decrees issued by the Congregation concerning the placement of the relics: in April of 1638 the Congregation ordered a new disposition, stating explicitly that it was in accordance with the relative dignity of the relics (Text Fig. c).123 Yet the decree merely exchanged the places of the head of Andrew and the Lance of Longinus; the preferred position was given to the Lance because it is a Passion relic, but the pairing of the saints was still retained. The dificulty now was that the Lance had precedence over the True Cross. The Congregation changed its mind again and in a subsequent meeting, in July, 1638, decreed what was to be the final arrangement (Text Fig. p).124 This adheres strictly to the hierarchy of the relics, expressing it in an ascending counterclockwise order beginning with the head of St. Andrew, the only relic not related to the Passion, and ending with the Volto Santo. The pairing of the saints was abandoned completely.125 Underlying these changes was a progressive shift in emphasis in which the importance of the relics —rather than that of the saints—became the basis for the arrangement. Hierarchy was the determining factor throughout. In the beginning, however, it was focused on the human “personalities” of the saints represented, which in turn determined their liturgical status; and this is reflected in the design of the statues, which are paired visually and psychologically. Ultimately, the overriding consideration became the relics and their relative dignity; preeminence was given to the mementoes of Christ’s sacrifice.

122. ... de cetero Ferri primo, deinde Crucis, postremo Sacrae Imaginis reliquiae hujus modi ostendi debeant. (Collectionis bullarum, m1, 240 [April 9, 1629) 123. April 26, 1638: Fuit actum mandato S.D.N., de quo mihi oeconomo fidem fecit Rev.""s D. Archiep.us Amasiae super collocat.r° 4.°° plium Reliquiarum S.S. Basilicae S. Petri iuxta debilum cuigq pced.2¢ ord.em et exhibito Modulo mihi ab eodem R.™° D. Archie.po consignato et 4 D. Paulo Alaleona Mag.ro Ceremoniarum eiusd $.D.N. subscripto, in quo p.§ locus Augustissimo Vultus S. Reliquiae in loculo dexterae Parastidis, seu Pilastri subtus Cupolam versa ad Januam facie assignandam proponitur, 2.4 §.™2¢ Cruci in loculo sinistro sub.to per Diametrum respondente, 3.8 ptiosissimae Lanceae in loculo sinistro p.° loculo Vultus S.t* respondente et 4.8 Capiti Gloriosissimi A postoli S. Andreae in loculo dextero é conspectu S.™4¢ Crucis. Em.™* D.ni eodem viso et considerato mandarunt juxta ordinem ibi perscriptum easd S.S.+¢8 reliquias collocari, et modulum plum cum p.nti decr.o ad perpetuam memoriam conservari. (Arch. Fabb. S. P., 1 Piano, Ser. 3, Vol. 161, Decreta et resolut., 1636-42, fol. 36v)

124. July 5, 1638: Fuit tterum actum de collocalione Reliquiarum pn.lium sacros.'4 Basilicae §.*+ Petri, et non obst.¢ Decreto alias facto melius discusso neg.° resolutum S.™a™ Vultus $.t4 Reliquiam in eodem loculo dexterae parastidis seu Pilastri verso ad Januam facie esse collocandam, sacrosanctum Crucis lignum in sinistro eidem respondenti, Praetiosissimam Lanceam in loculo dexterae paristidis, quae invenitur ab ingressu Ecclesiae, et Caput gloriosissimi Apostolt §.t4 Andreae in sinistro huic respondenti. (Ibid., fol. 43v) The decrees are alluded to by Fraschetti, Bernini, 72.

It is evident that Duquesnoy’s cries of foul play at the change of plan, reported by Bellori, Passeri, etc., were quite unfounded (the sources are conveniently quoted in Fransolet, ‘‘Le $. André de Duquesnoy,’’ 277ff.; cf. 252). 125. The Longinus was installed in June, 1638 (Pollak, No. 1791), before the Congregation’s final decree. Presumably the final disposition was known in advance. It is just possible, however, that the statue actually was set up in the northwest pier in accordance with the first decree, and subsequently moved. A list of expenses for work done dur-

ing June, 1639, includes a payment ‘“‘per haver condutto il Bassorilievo [sic!] di S$. Longino”; this is listed in Pollak as though it were for the statue (No. 1793), though it may refer to the relief of the reliquary niche above (Nos. 1978ff.). The English sculptor Nicholas Stone notes in the diary of his visit to Rome that on Dec. 1], 1639, Bernini told him he would finish within fifteen days a statue on which he was working in Saint Peter’s; this can only refer to the Longinus (cf. W. L. Spiers, ‘“The Note-Book and Account Book of Nicholas Stone,” IValpole

26 Society, 7, 1919, 171).

The main results and implications of the discussion in the preceding two chapters may now be briefly summarized. First, the statues were planned when the baldachin was to have its original form, | with the Resurrected Christ above. Second, it seems clear that besides his own statue Bernini provided initial designs also for the Andrew and the Veronica. Presently we shall offer evidence that the same is true of Bolgi’s Helen. Each artist developed the prototype according to his own predilection; but the statues complement one another according to a unified scheme, as we shall also see, and this underlying conception can only have been Bernini’s. The significance of these observations will become apparent as we consider the sources and meaning of the figures and the overall program.

In 1637 P. Totti describes the statues (and the long inscriptions below the balconies) as if they were already in place according to the original plan, though none of the figures was completed then (Ristretto delle grandezze di

Roma, Rome, 1637, 5ff.). The next year he adds a correction, ““hoggi si sono mutati i luoghi di S. Longino e di S. Andrea” (Ritratito di Roma moderna, Rome, 1638, 530, with dedicatory letter dated Nov. 18, 1638).

Another indication of the date of the change is provided by two payments to the painter Guidobaldo Abbatini. The first was on April 23, 1637, for having painted the inscriptions on the scrolls carried by the angels in the uppermost arches of the reliquary niches (Pollak, No. 2015); the second was on July 29, 1638, for having painted the inscriptions a second time (Pollak, No. 2018). Because Torriggio states (Sacre grotte vaticane, 220, 232, 283) that the inscriptions below the balconies of the Longinus, Andrew, and Helen niches were set up in 1634, the change has been dated too early (Fransolet, ‘Le S. André de Duquesnoy,” 251 n.8; Kauffmann, “‘Berninis Hl. Longinus,” 370). Torriggio makes no mention of any discrepancy between the inscriptions and the chapels below, an anomaly he certainly would not have overlooked or failed to note in his detailed account. Either the inscriptions were not yet really installed, and Torriggio anticipated, or they were first set in place according to the original arrangement and subsequently shifted.

There is an engraved plan of the grottoes (a reworking of an earlier print showing the grottoes in their preUrban VIII form; cf. Lietzmann, Petrus u. Paulus in Rom, 193, 304, pl. 11), ordered first by Benedetto Drei, “fattore” of the basilica, with inscriptions in the chapels identifying them according to the final disposition of the relics and carrying the date 1635 (e.g. Bibl. Vat., R. G. Arte-Arch. 5.95 unnumbered). But a further inscription says the plan was brought up to date (‘“ridotta nella forma che al presente si ritrova’’) by Pietro Paolo Drei, “soprastante” of the basilica, an office to which he was appointed only in Nov., 1638 (cf. Pollak, No. 28).

The Sit. Andrew is shown in the northwest niche in a view of the interior of Saint Peter’s in the Prado, signed by Filippo Gagliardi and dated 1640 (A. E. Perez Sanchez, Pintura italiana del S. XVII en Espatia, Madrid, 1965, 279, pl. 75). The statue had been installed in Oct., 1639, after the final decree and therefore certainly in the southeast niche. Incongruously, the reliquary niche above the St. dndrew shows the relief with the cross of St. Helen.

It should be emphasized, finally, that all this had no bearing on the actual location of the relics; the Passion relics are kept in the Veronica niche and shown from there (see Moroni, Dizionario, cin, 101£.; P. Moretti, De ritu ostensionis sacrarum reliquiarum, Rome, 1721, 111), while St. Andrew’s head was reserved to the niche above St. Helen. We have a payment for the canopy over the niche of St. Helen in Nov., 1641, that is, long after the final

disposition was made, in which it is stated that the St. Andrew relic was kept there (Pollak, 492; cf. 65 No. 54). 27

V. The Sources and Significance of the Statues ST. ANDREW AND THE FIRST VERSION OF ST. LONGINUS ‘The decisive change introduced by Bernini into the two-story organization of the piers under Paul V lay in devoting the lower niches to monumental figures of the saints, and the upper niches to representations of the relics themselves. This new arrangement, already implicit in Bernini’s Veronica project early in 1627 (Fig. 48), involves a much more explicit reference than had obtained under Paul V to one in particular of the reliquary tabernacles in Old Saint Peter’s, namely that of Saint Andrew (Fig. 7). A representation of the apostle’s head held by angels decorated the upper story, and

. standing on the altar below was a colossal marble statue of the saint (Fig. 60).126 The relationship goes beyond general organization, however. The earlier statue, which was added to the fifteenthcentury tabernacle in 1570, also seems to be reflected in the figure of the saint executed by Duquesnoy (Fig. 50); the arrangement of the drapery is similar and the figure holds the cross behind him in the same distinctive way. ‘The connection clearly forms part of the pattern of deliberate reminiscences of the old basilica’s monuments in the new crossing.

Another antecedent that must be taken into account is an engraving (Fig. 61) from a series depicting the apostles by the Antwerp printmaker Adriaen Collaert (d. 1618).127 The saint is again placed in front of the cross, which consists of knotty cylindrical logs, and embraces it with his right arm; here, moreover, part of the mantle falls behind the cross at the right side, as in the marble. The link with Collaert’s engraving is of special interest because another series of prints by him—a life of St. Theresa printed first at Antwerp in 1613 and then at Rome before 1622—later served as one of Bernini’s chief sources for his Chapel of Saint Teresa in Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome (begun 1647).128

. The Duquesnoy figure is also inconceivable without still another model, by which the earlier images were brought up to date; this is Domenichino’s famous depiction of St. Andrew in Apotheosis on the vault of the choir of Sant’Andrea della Valle (Fig. 62). Domenichino had executed the fresco

late in 1624, a few years before Bernini submitted his design for the St. Andrew niche in April, 126. C. De Fabriczy, ‘‘La statua di Sant’Andrea all’ingresso della sagrestia in San Pietro,” L’Arte, 4, 1901, 67ff. 127. The similarity was first noted in print by Hess (‘‘Notes sur Duquesnoy,” 30£.), who cites R. Berliner. 128. This relationship will be explored at length in my forthcoming study of the Saint Teresa chapel.

129. The Apotheosis scene seems to have been the first of the frescoes carried out by Domenichino in the choir and pendentives of Sant’Andrea; a payment of 26 scudi in Dec., 1624, evidently refers to it. The main body of the decoration was executed during 1626-27, and the latest payment to Domenichino is in Feb., 1628. See A. Boni, La chiesa di S. Andrea della Valle (Conferenza letta all’Associazione Archeologica romana la sera dell’8 Dic. 1907), Rome, 1908, 21; Hess, Die Kiinstlerbiographien, 48 1.5; H. Hibbard, ‘‘The Date of Lanfranco’s Fresco in the Villa Borghese and Other Chronological Problems,” in Misc. Bibl. Hertz., 357£., 364; Borea, Domenichino, 184. 130. The pose, gesture, and expression for an upward soaring figure are characteristic of Domenichino and recur frequently in his work (cf. Borea, Domenichino, pls. 28, 47, 67, 81f.). The statue’s connection with Domenichino, though not with the Sant’Andrea fresco, has been noted by J. Pope-

Hennessy, Italian High Renaissance and Baroque Sculpture, London, 1963, text vol. p. 109, and Nava Cellini, ‘Duquesnoy e Poussin,” 41. Nava Cellini (pp. 40f.) revives the attribution to Duquesnoy of a terra-cotta model of St. Andrew in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, which had been rejected by Fransolet (‘‘Le S. André de Duquesnoy,” 243 n.4) and Hess (Die Ktinstlerbiographien, 110 n.1; ‘Notes sur Duquesnoy,” 31£f.). The tilt of the head in the opposite direction seems sufficient, in the present context, to exclude it as a study for the Saint Peter’s figure; indeed, the model has close analogies to the statue of the saint by Camillo Rusconi in the Lateran (cf. A. Riccoboni, Roma nell’arte. La scultura nell’evo moderno dal Quattrocento ad oggi, Rome, 1942, pl. 315). 131. Torriggio, Sacre grotte vaticane, 220.

28 132. The similarity has also been pointed out by M. Fagiolo Dell’Arco, Domenichino ovvero classicismo del primo Sei-

1628,129 While the colossal scale and details of pose and drapery come from the earlier sculpture and

the engraving, Domenichino provided the basic conception of the saint, with nude torso, head tilted

back and to the right, and arms extended upward in a gesture of helpless yearning.139 As if to ac- , knowledge his debt to Domenichino’s work, Bernini had it virtually duplicated soon thereafter on the vault of the chapel under the northwest pier, originally dedicated to St. Andrew (Fig. 63).131 Indeed, the Domenichino fresco long continued to be an important source of inspiration for Bernini. Flis vision of the saint rising on a cloud in the apse of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale (begun 1658) seems to translate Domenichino’s image into three dimensions (Fig. 64).132

The realization that Bernini was responsible for the basic conception of the St. Andrew—whose power and monumentality is without precedent or sequel in Duquesnoy’s work133—helps to clarify Its intimate relation to Bernini’s own St. Longinus (Fig. 51). They are analogous in pose, in psychological expression, and in the arrangement of their drapery.134 But it must be emphasized that the similarity is not primarily a matter of both works having been conceived by the same artist, nor did it result simply from a desire to set up a harmonious echo between the two statues. Rather, it was created in response to an anomalous situation with which Bernini was confronted when it came to the final execution of his figure. In its present form the statue represents Longinus as if standing at the foot of the Cross, at the moment when, having pierced Christ’s side, he suddenly recognizes Christ’s divinity and is converted. He looks up enraptured and thrusts his arms out as if in emphatic imitation of Christ’s pose upon the Cross.135 The fact is, however, that Bernini did not originally plan to represent St. Longinus in this fashion. We have a record of the figure he first intended to pair with St. Andrew in one of the scenes in the vault of the chapel in the grotto that was meant for Longinus (Figs. 65, 66).136 These frescoes, as we have noted, were carried out under Bernini’s direction mainly during 1630—beginning in January, almost immediately after the four statues were commissioned—and 1631, with the final payments coming in January, 1633. That the scene dates from early in the campaign is indicated by the fact that the upper niche does not yet show the decoration executed subsequently also on Bernini’s design, whereas the design for this decoration, in which the twisted columns support triangular pediments, does appear in one of the frescoes of the Veronica chapel (Figs. 67, 68). This

cento, Rome, 1963, 92.

We may note that it was probably also from Domenichino’s frescoes—the allegories in the choir in Sant’Andrea della Valle and the pendentives there and in San Carlo ai Catinari (1627-31)—that Bernini developed his famous technique of stucco spilling over the architectural frame. Bernini is usually credited with the invention of this device, which he introduced in the reliquary niches in Saint Peter’s (Figs. 53-56) and elaborated further in his Cappella Pio in Sant’Agostino (begun 1644); in fact, it has a long prior history, with which I hope to deal in my study of the Chapel of Saint Teresa. The allegory in the choir of Sant'Andrea della Valle variously identified as Hope, Chastity, or Voluntary Poverty

scems, along with the figure of Andromeda in the Galleria Farnese, to have contributed to Bernini’s figure of Truth in the Borghese Gallery (begun 1646). The painter’s influence is evident in Bernini’s work as early as the St. Bibiana (1624-26) in the Church of Santa Bibiana, which is related to the figure of St. Cecilia in Domenichino’s fresco in San Luigi dei Francesi, showing St. Cecilia before the judge (Borea, Domenichino, pl. 29).

209. 29

133. Duquesnoy's only other monumental figure, the St. Susanna in Santa Maria di Loreto, is profoundly different in conception (see p. 38 below).

134. Bernini repeated the knot of drapery at the left in the Countess Matilda (Fig. 75) and in the Christ of the Pasce Oves Meas in Saint Peter's. In light of the documentation concerning the genesis of the St. Andrew, the view of the relationship between Bernini and Duquesnoy suggested by Nava Cellini (“Duquesnoy e Poussin,” 45, 59 n.47) should be reversed. (See also n.174 below, and Addenda.)

135. Kauffmann has, in my opinion rightly, revived this interpretation of Bernini’s figure (cf. his ‘‘Berninis Tabernakel,”’ 233; ‘‘Berninis Hl. Longinus,” 369).

136. The scene anticipates the transferral of the relic to this pier, and is inscribed on the painted frame: In hoe conditorium Urbano VIII Pont. Max, iussu, solemni pompa Ferrum Lancea infertur; cf. Torriggio, Sacre grotte vaticane,

shows Bernini kneeling before the pope and presenting his drawing for the reliquary niches.187 Work on the upper niches began in 1633, shortly after the paintings were finished, and it is likely that this sketch dates from toward the end of the campaign in the grotto, that is, the late summer of 1632.

The Longinus depicted in the fresco already shows basic elements of the final solution. The figure is oriented toward its right, holding the spear in the extended right hand, head tilted to the side and upward. A huge cloak envelops the shoulders and sweeps forward across the hips. The most notable differences from the final work are the right foot raised on the helmet and the left hand placed across the breast. The figure would thus have been more self-contained and passive than the present Longinus, rather more akin in mood, though less so in pose, to the St. Andrew. Above all, it is clear that at this stage in the figure’s development there was no hint of the Crucifixion simile. In fact, at the time this version was planned to accompany the St. Andrew, the baldachin was to be topped not by a cross and globe but by the Resurrected Christ. These original relationships were evidently based upon a specific tradition in which Andrew and Longinus had long been closely linked. The tradition centered at Mantua, where in the Church of Sant’Andrea is preserved the relic of the Precious Blood of Christ, which Longinus was supposed to have collected from the wound he had made in Christ’s side with his lance.188 Longinus, who according to one tradition was a native of Mantua, and was ultimately martyred there, brought the Precious Blood with him after the revelation of Christ’s divinity at the Crucifixion.189 Andrew was associated with the relic by virtue of the fact that on two separate occasions, in 804 and 1049, when it had been hidden and its whereabouts forgotten, he had appeared miraculously to bring about its rediscovery. The two saints were also linked through the Holy Lance at Saint Peter’s which, having been hidden from the Saracens at Antioch, was recovered in 1098 upon another apparition of the apostle.140

This Mantuan tradition had given rise to numerous representations in which the two saints were paired.141 In most of these, and in images showing Longinus paired with other saints (cf. Fig. 70), the figures are depicted in relation to the relic itself. In the chapel of Sant’Andrea that belonged to the Confraternity of the Precious Blood and the Order of the Redeemer, the wooden ancona decorating the altar wall has carved figures of Sts. Andrew and Longinus in the attic zone; flanking the

137. The fresco is inscribed: Sacellum Beatae Veronicae cum tribus aliis Urbanus VIII extruendum iubet; cf. Torriggio, Sacre grotte vaticane, 200f. 138. Attention was first called to the Mantuan tradition in this context by Kauffmann, “Berninis Tabernakel,’’ 233f., and ‘‘Berninis Hl. Longinus,”’ 365; its quattrocento manifestations have been studied by M. Horster, ‘ ‘Mantuae Sanguis Preciosus,’’”’ WRJb, 25, 1963, 151ff.

139. On Longinus legends, cf. Acta sanctorum, Antwerp, 1643ff., s.v. “March 15.” The most important compilation of the Mantuan traditions is Donesmondi, Dell’istoria ecclesiastica di Mantova; the view that Longinus was Mantuan is maintained by G. Magagnati, La vita di S. Longino martire cavalier mantoano ..., Venice, 1605, preface. 140. J. Bosio, La trionfante ¢ gloriosa croce, Rome, 1610, 121; Severano, Memorie sacre, 1, 161; cf. Kauffmann, “Berninis Tabernakel,” 233. 141. Many are mentioned and reproduced in P. Pelati, La Basilica di §. Andrea, Mantua, 1952 (cf. pls. 58, 83, 87, 92, 113£.).

142, The ancona is ascribed to G. B. Viani and datable ca. 1600 (cf. E. Mariani and C. Perina, Mantova. Le arti, m1, Mantua, 1965, 179, 372, 693, and the bibliography cited there).

143. The Church of Saint Barbara in Mantua was the ducal chapel, and a portion of the Precious Blood had been transferred there (Donesmondi, Istoria ecclesiastica, 1, 354). 144, Magagnati, La vita di S. Longino; on Magagnati cf. Janus Nicius Erythraeus (G. V. Rossi), Pinacotheca, Cologne, 1645, 168£., and E. A. Cicogna, Illustri muranesi richiamati alla memoria ... , Venice, 1858, 17£. The poem describes the moment of Longinus’ conversion as follows (p. 7):

30 Onde qual suole Aquila altera, il guardo

altar niche below are twisted columns decorated with eucharistic vine scrolls (Fig. 69).142 Bernini's

general concept is foreshadowed by another work in the Mantuan tradition, which pairs Longinus with St. Barbara:148 the title page of a poetic life of St. Longinus published in 1605 (Fig. 70).144 The engraving, signed by Wolfgang Kilian, shows the two saints standing before a frontispiece with a pediment whose sides have a scroll-like curve. St. Longinus, who has thrown off his military garb, holds the lance in his right hand and extends his left; St. Barbara’s right hand is thrown across her breast. They look up worshipfully toward the reliquary of the Precious Blood, which is held by two putti. ‘The whole arrangement strikingly anticipates that at Saint Peter’s, even to the pairs of winged putti who display the papal and apostolic insignia from the horizontal entablatures between the scrolls of the baldachin (Fig. 59). Of particular interest also are certain examples that seem to reflect a great controversy of the 1460's, concerning whether the blood Christ shed at the Crucifixion was reunited to His body at the Resurrection; if it was, relics of the blood could not be venerable.145 A famous engraving by Mantegna (Fig. 71) shows Andrew and Longinus flanking the Resurrected Christ—exactly the juxtaposition originally planned for the crossing of Saint Peter’s, where the saints were to look up toward the figure of Christ on the baldachin between them.146® ‘There was good reason to refer to this Mantuan tradition beyond the simple fact that it provided precedence for linking Andrew and Longinus. Pius II had held a solemn disputation on the subject of the Precious Blood in 1462, and though no final decision was made, his sympathy was entirely with those who afhrmed its venerability.147 It was also Pius II who, in the same year, acquired the head of St. Andrew and had built for it the tabernacle at the entrance to Old Saint Peter’s. This fact is duly recorded in the inscription above St. Andrew’s niche and in the frescoes of his chapel in the grotto.148 It is also possible that the reference to Mantua was of more than religious and historical significance. With the death of Vincenzo II Gonzaga in December, 1627, and the extinction of the main Gonzaga line, the already vexed question of the succession to the Duchy of Mantua became critical. ‘The papacy was directly threatened, and this was one of Urban VIII’s most pressing concerns during the period in which the statues were being planned. He decreed two extraordinary universal jubilees in the interests of peace, in April, 1628, and October, 1629. But his conciliatory efforts were futile and events soon led to a conflict that was one of the major episodes of the ‘Thirty Years War.149

Nel Sol di Verita sicuro assisa E rapito il contempla, e homai comprende L’uom’morto vivo Dio, gia chiaro scorge Viva la vita haver la Morte estinta, Onde esclamo con voce alta e sonante Veramente di Dio questi era il Figlio. 145. Cf. Pastor, 11, 286ff.; Donesmondi, Istoria ecclesiastica, u, 11ff. On the possible repercussions of this dispute in the Sistine Chapel and Raphael’s Disputa, cf. respectively Ettlinger, The Sistine Chapel, 83f., and F. Hartt, “ ‘Lignum Vitae in Medio Paradisi.’ The Stanza d’Eliodoro and the Sistine Ceiling,” 4B, 32, 1950, 116 n.6. 146. On the engraving see G. Paccagnini, et al., Andrea Mantegna, Venice, 1961, 199. Mantegna also depicted the two

saints twice at Sant’Andrea in Mantua, in the tondo of the pediment and in the atrium; in the latter case they were shown with the Ascension of Christ above the portal (ibid., and Donesmondi, Istoria ecclesiastica, u, 49). After closing the dispute in 1462 Pius IIT had ordered that the relic be shown each year on Ascension Day (Donesmondi, Istoria ecclesiastica, 1, 16). 147. Cf. Pastor, m1, 286. 148. Pastor, mi, 258ff. For the inscription, see Forcella, Iscriziont, vi, 148 n.148. The scenes depicting Pius II’s reception of the head are described in Torriggio, Sacre grotte vaticane, 222ff. 149. See R. Quazza, Mantova e Monferrato nella politica europea alla vigilia della guerra per la successione (1624-27), Mantua, 1922 (Pubblicazioni della R. Accademia virgiliana, Ser. 11, Misc. No. 3) and La guerra per la successione di Mantova ¢ del Monferrato (1628-31), 2 vols., Mantua, 1926 (ibid., Misc. Nos. 5-6). On the pope's role, cf. Pastor,

Xxvu, 201 ff. 31

But most important, surely, was the fact that the Mantuan tradition made it possible to relate Andrew and Longinus in a meaningful way to the baldachin and altar, and to the other saints in the crossing. It introduced a distinction—the significance of which will emerge presently—between the upper part of the baldachin, where Andrew and Longinus focus their attention, and the altar below.

ST. VERONICA AND ST. HELEN Despite their obvious stylistic differences it is evident that the two female statues were also conceived

as a pair (Figs. 49, 52). This becomes especially clear when it is recalled that the Helen was to face

the Veronica from the opposite pier (cf. Text Fig. 8). Their relationship is with the lower part of the baldachin rather than its crown, and by their poses, glances, and gestures, they form a kind of contrapuntal embrace of the crossing. Both figures stride toward the baldachin in the center: Veronica’s face is turned to the worshiper approaching from the nave, while her arms extend the Volto Santo toward the area behind the altar; Helen would have displayed the Nails in the direction of the nave, while her glance was focused on the worshiper in front of the altar.150 The intensely active role of the Veronica and the noble calm of the Helen present, furthermore, a clearly calculated contrast. The Veronica was, as we have seen, preceded by an early project by Bernini (Fig. 48); but Mochi’s

highly personal interpretation seems to owe much to the depiction of Veronica by Pontormo in Santa Maria Novella in Florence (Fig. 72). Mochi was born near Florence and received his early training there under the painter Santi di Tito. His strong allegiance to his Florentine artistic heritage has been emphasized since the earliest biography.151 It is perhaps relevant that Urban VIII was also a native of Florence, where he received his early education. Mochi’s reference to Pontormo’s figure may have been considered appropriate because the painting decorated the “Chapel of the Popes” in Santa Maria Novella. It had been executed on the occasion of the visit of Leo X, another Florentine, in 1515.152 That pope had shown considerable interest in the Volto Santo, and issued bulls concerning its display.153 Indeed, the pose of Pontormo’s figure, the drawn curtains behind, and the accompanying inscriptions seem to allude specifically to the rite of displaying the relic.154 At the same time, important changes were introduced in the context at Saint Peter’s. Through the figure’s motion and expression the essentially ritualistic character of Pontormo’s image is given a dramatic immediacy which suggests that the Passion is actually in progress.

150. It will be seen that the actions of the female figures take the spectator into account, as opposed to the males’ complete absorption in the miraculous event above. This, too, reflects the relatively more mundane concerns of the non-virgins non-martyrs, as compared with the male martyrs.

The kind of contrapuntal composition seen in the Veronica and the Helen has its immediate forerunner in Bernini’s work, in the bust of Cardinal Bellarmino in the Gesu (1623-24); here the face turns with a rapt expression

to the worshiper approaching the choir, while the hands clasped in prayer are directed toward the office at the altar. ‘he space is thus charged with a dramatic implication that forms the prelude to Bernini’s conception of the crossing of Saint Peter’s. See the comments in my ‘Five New Youthful Sculptures by Gianlorenzo Bernini and a Revised Chronology of His Early Works,” to appear in AB, 50, Sept., 1968.

151. Cf. Passeri, in Hess, Die Ktinsllerbiographien, 130. The Veronica has been compared with a figure from an ancient Niobid group (A. Mufioz, ‘‘La scultura barocca e l’antico,” L’Arte, 19, 1916, 133), and with a figure from a painting by Santi di Tito in the Vatican (J. Hess, “Nuovi aspetti dell’arte di Francesco Mochi,’ Bd’Artle, 29, 1935-36, 309).

152. On the Cappella de’ Pontefici and its association with no less than four popes, cf. V. Fineschi, Memorie sopra il cimitero antico della chiesa di §. Maria Novella di Firenze, Florence, 1787, 36; for recent bibliography, J. Cox Rearick, The Drawings of Pontormo, Cambridge, Mass., 1964, 1, 106. 153. Cf. Collectionis bullarum, u, 374. Awareness in the early seventeenth century of Leo’s interest is indicated by the fact that his bulls are quoted by Grimaldi in his treatise on the Volto Santo, along with a notice from Leo’s diarist

32 of showings of the relics on Easter and Ascension Days, 1514 (Opusculuwm, fols. 69r and v).

The St. Helen by Bolgi, who was Bernini’s assistant and close follower, is undoubtedly a far more

accurate imitation of the master’s model. The presence of Bernini’s guiding mind can perhaps best be appreciated by considering the source of Bolgi’s statue: a painting of St. Helen by Rubens, his first dated work, executed in 1601-1602 while he was in Rome (Fig. 73).155 The massive proportions of the figure and its drapery, the pose and gesture with extended left arm, the huge cross projecting diagonally out of the picture space have all been transferred to the marble. The most significant difference is that the heavenward gaze of the eyes has been lowered. But a number of other changes have been introduced as well: notably, the outer swathe of drapery is now pulled to one side and joined at the hip, and the left leg, no longer moving forward, is flexed and to the rear of the right leg. Both feet are exposed and wear clog-like sandals. In part, as we shall see presently, these changes may reflect a study of ancient statuary, but the main inspiration seems again to have come from a work by Rubens: the figure of St. Domitilla in the right wing of his altarpiece in Santa Maria in Vallicella, also painted in Rome, in 1608 (Fig. 74).156 Between the time that Bolgi completed the model of the St. Helen and the time he began the final work, Bernini repeated the basic formula almost exactly in his figure of the Countess Matilda on her tomb in Saint Peter’s (begun 1633; Fig. 75);157 the similarities here include the arrangement of the drapery at the breast, the facial type, even the coiffure. In the Matilda, however, the positions of the arms have been reversed, and they are now virtually identical with those of Rubens’ St. Domitilla. As with the St. Andrew of Duquesnoy, Bolgi’s St. Helen is unique for the artist who executed it, but fits integrally into Bernini’s own development.158

Rubens’ painting of St. Helen hung until the eighteenth century in the chapel dedicated to her in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, whence Urban VIII removed the portion of the True Cross for the fourth crossing pier in Saint Peter’s. Santa Croce has the most ancient and hallowed associations with the mother of Constantine.159 It was founded in the Sessorian palace, which had belonged to her, and she was supposed to have installed the chapel that bears her name in her own chamber. The church possesses—besides three remaining fragments of the True Cross—a nail, thorns from the crown, and the Title of the Cross, which Helen was believed to have brought back from Jerusalem.169 Part of the appeal Rubens’ work held, therefore, probably lay in what might almost be called the “authenticity” of its location. ‘This may also be the explanation for the marked similarities, in figure type, pose, and drapery arrangement, between Bolgi’s St. Helen and an authentic

154. The inscriptions are transcribed in F. M. Clapp, Jacopo Carucci da Pontormo, His Life and Work, New Haven, Conn.-London, 1916, 124.

155. Now in the Hospital at Grasse, France, along with two companion pictures, The Crowning with Thorns and The Raising of the Cross. Cf, C. Ruelens, Correspondance de Rubens, Antwerp, 1887, 1, 418.; M. Rooses, L’oeuvre de Pierre-Paul Rubens, Antwerp, 1889, u, 281f.; most recently, M. De Maeyer, “Rubens in de Altaarstukken in het Hospitaal te Grasse,”’ Gentse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedenis, 14, 1953, 75ff.

156. M. Jaffé, “Peter Paul Rubens and the Oratorian Fathers," Proporziont, 4, 1963, 209ff.; G. Incisa della Rocchetta, “Documenti editi e inediti sui quadri del Rubens nella Chiesa Nuova,” AttiPontdcc, Ser. m1, Rendiconti, xxxv, 1962-63, 161 ff.

157. The relationship is so close that, as Wittkower has observed, the Matilda has even been attributed to Bolgi, though the documents show he was responsible only for secondary details (drt and Architecture in Italy 1600-1750, 2nd ed., Harmondsworth, etc., 1965, 201).

158. The St. Helen is Bolgi’s only piece of monumental religious statuary. Cf. V. Martinelli, “Contributi alla scultura del seicento. V. Andrea Bolgi a Roma e a Napoli,” Commentari, 10, 1959, 137ff.; A. Nava Cellini, ‘“‘Ritratti di Andrea Bolgi,” Paragone, 18, No. 147, 1962, 24ff.

159. R. Krautheimer, Corpus basilicarum christianarum Romae, Vatican, 1, 1937, 165ff.

sione del Signore, Rome, 1956. 33

160. Rubens includes the Crown of Thorns and Title of the Cross, Bolgi includes the Nails, and the Title appears in the relief of the reliquary niche above. On the relics in Santa Croce see B. Bedini, Le reliquie sessoriane della Pas-

classical prototype still existing in Santa Croce, over the same altar that Rubens’ painting once decorated (Fig. 76). When the painting was removed toward the middle of the eighteenth century, it was replaced by an ancient statue restored (chiefly the head and arms) to represent St. Helen in a kind of composite imitation of Rubens and Bolgi. There is good reason to identify the figure now on the altar with a statue of the Empress Helen that had been found in a mid-sixteenth century excavation in the garden behind the church.161 Still more important as a key to the relevance of Rubens’ painting for the program at Saint Peter’s are the Solomonic columns of Saint Peter's that appear in the background. ‘They are employed in such a way—under the arches of a larger building, with no sign of a superstructure and with a drape hanging from the architrave—that might easily suggest a kind of tabernacle. Their presence in the

picture is explained by a tradition current at the time the crossing of Saint Peter's was being planned, according to which it was precisely the Empress Helen who had obtained them in Jerusalem.162

Shown thus with the columns, Helen is represented as if she were actually in Jerusalem. In fact, this topographical identification is explicit in the very name of the basilica, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. The identification, moreover, was not merely metaphorical. When Helen returned to Rome,

according to the legend, her ship was loaded with the earth from under the Cross that Christ had bathed with his blood. This venerable earth she placed in the lower part of her room, and it thus underlies the pavement of the chapel dedicated to her, of which Rubens’ painting was the altarpiece. ‘The story is told in a long inscription in majolica tiles lining the passageway that leads to the chapel. It celebrates a miraculous rediscovery of the Title of the Cross in 1492, which was the occasion for a major restoration of the chapel preceding the one for which Rubens’ painting was made. The inscription explains not only the “meaning” of the chapel, but also its implication for Saint Peter’s:

This holy chapel is called Jerusalem because St. Helen, mother of Constantine the Great, returning from Jerusalem in the year of our Lord 321, having rediscovered the insignia of the Lord’s victory, constructed it in her own chamber; and having brought back in her ship holy earth of Mount Calvary upon which the blood of Christ was poured out for the the price of human redemption, and by the power of which entrance to the Heavenly Jerusalem was opened to mortals, she filled it to the lowest vault. For this reason the chapel itself and the whole basilica and all Rome deserved to be called the second Jerusalem, where the Lord for the strength of its faith wished to be crucified a second time in Peter, and where it is believed that the veneration of one

161. On the statue in Santa Croce, presumably an earlier work reused in the second quarter of the fourth century, sec my note, ‘‘An Ancient Statue of the Empress Helen Reidentified(?),” AB, 49, 1967, 58ff.

162. Panciroli, Tesori nascosti, 532. 163. SACRA VLTERIOR CAPPELLA * DICTA HIERVSALEM ¢ Q BEATA HELENA MAGNI CONSTANTINI MATER * HIEROSOLYMA REDIENS « ANNO * DOMINI * CCCXKXI: DOMINICI TROPHEI INSIGNUS REPERTIS: IN PROPRIO EAM CVBICVLO EREXERIT: TERRAQ SANCTA MONTIS CALVARIAE NAVI INDE ADVECTA SVPRA QVAM CHRISTI SANGVIS EFFVSVVS FVIT REDEMPTIONIS HVMANAE PRAECIVM: CVIVSQ VIGORE IN CELESTEM HIERVSALEM MORTALIBVS ADITVS PATVIT; AD PRIMVM VSQ INFERIOREM FORNICEM REPLEVERIT ¢ EX QVO SACELLVM IPSVM ET TOTA BASILICA AC VNIVERSA VRBS: SECVNDA HIERVSALEM MERVIT APPELLARI * APVD QAM [sic] ET DNS AD ILLIVS ROBVR FIDEI: IN PETRO ITERVM CRVCIFIGI VOLVIT ° VBIQ VNIVS DEI VENERATIO AC FIDES INDEFICIENS: ET DOMINI PRAECIBVS ET PETRI FAVORE: AD VLTIMVYM VSQ DNI IVDICANTIS ADVENTVM IN VRBE SVBLIMI ET VALENTE AC INDE VERIORE HIERVSALEM: CREDITVR PERMANSVRA *

For the rest of the inscription, cf. Forcella, Iscrizioni, vil, 187. See now I. Toesca, ‘‘A Majolica Inscription in Santa Croce in Gerusalemme,” in Essays in the History of Art Presented lo Rudolf Wittkower, London, 1967, 102ff.

164. This vertical distinction may also be reflected in the ornaments of the upper reliquary niches in the piers (Figs. 53-56).The pancls of the socle zone beneath the twisted columns contain (with certain exceptions; see n.121 above) symbols of the Passion (crown of thorns and crossed reeds, gauntlets and lantern, bag of coins, scourges,

34 hammer and tongs, nails and loincloth, ewer and basin), while above, on the frieze of the entablature, are (besides

God and the indeficient faith, by the prayers of the Lord and the favor of Peter, will remain until the last coming of the judging Lord in Rome, the sublime and mighty and therefore the truer Jerusalem,168

The process of what might be called “topographical transfusion” of Jerusalem to Rome is here clearly delineated, and it is linked specifically to the “second sacrifice” in the person of St. Peter. In imitating Rubens’ picture, and creating the same juxtaposition of St. Helen and the Solomonic columns, Bernini was continuing the topographical transfusion to Saint Peter’s itself. When we recall the passage in Tiberio Alfarano quoted near the beginning of this study (ch. II, p. 15 above), identifying the setting of the tomb and altar at Saint Peter’s with that of the Temple, the cycle of associations is closed.

From all these considerations it is evident that for Bernini the crossing of Saint Peter’s had a specific

topographical meaning. Both in a real and in a figurative sense it was Jerusalem, the place where salvation was achieved and is continually renewed. This ultimately is the meaning of the baldachin and its crown and of the figures in the piers. The women concentrate upon the Passion and sacrifice at the altar, the men upon the resurrection and redemption above, as if at the very time and place that the events occurred.164

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONGINUS When it was determined to replace the Resurrected Christ by a cross and globe, traditional symbols of the universal dominion of Christianity, this original plan for the crossing was no longer tenable. Bernini dealt with the new situation, typically, by exploiting it, finding a solution that expressed his underlying point of view even more vividly than before. He interpreted the cross not simply as an emblem of the Church, but as an allusion to a real event. The sacrifice was now represented twice, in effect, at the altar and above the baldachin, and the dndrew and Longinus were now to be related to the same theme as were the J’eronica and Helen. It happened that the Andrew might easily be understood as an analogue of the Crucifixion. Andrew was martyred by crucifixion, and one of the most familiar episodes of his legend was his having fallen to his knees to worship the cross as he was being led to his death.165 Thus, although the pose was derived from the apotheosis image of Domenichino, no change was required for the figure to carry the new meaning: that is, not enthrallment at the sight of the Resurrection, but imitation of the Crucifixion. In fact, the executed figure is identical with the full-scale model done while the baldachin was still to be crowned by the Risen

Barberini bees) paired dolphins with scallop shells, early emblems of salvation. Bernini’s interpretation of the crossing as a whole is foreshadowed by the sacrament altar of Clement VIII in the Lateran, which we have seen was also an important part of the pre-history of the baldachin (see pp. 16f. above). In

niches flanking the altar, on the back and lateral walls of the transept end (partially visible in Fig. 42). are four monumental statues of Old Testament personages who prefigure the sacrament and the priestly sacrifice (Aaron, Melchisadek, Moses, Elijah). All four figures look toward the altar as if to witness the enactment of the sacrament.

The figure on the lateral wall at the right strides toward the altar, in a motion anticipating that of Mochi’s Veronica (Fig. 42a).

Of considerable interest in this context, also, are the medals of Clement VIII struck in commemoration of the sacrament, which show the altar. In one of these (cited n.81 above) the structure is shown normally, with the silver reli-

quary relief of the Last Supper situated high on the wall aboye the ciborium. In a second medal, the scene is enlarged to fill the whole space within the altar (Buonanni, Num, pont., ul, fig. x11; examples in the Bibl. Vat. and the Bibl. Nat.). The structure of the altar itself thus serves as the “large upper room” (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12), with the Last Supper actually taking place inside.

165. A survey of St. Andrew iconography will be found in H. Martin, Saint dndré, Paris, 1928: H. Aurenhammer,

Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, Vienna, 1959., 132ff. 35

Christ.166 The only difficulty presented by St. Andrew was the relic. St. Andrew’s head, alone among the relics involved, had no reference to the Passion. This may explain one of the most remarkable of

all the anomalies presented by the crossing: in the reliquary niche above Duquesnoy’s statue is represented not the head of St. Andrew, but his cross (Fig. 54).167 Seen in this light, the motivation for the change in the Longinus becomes clear. The original pose, in contrast to Andrew’s, could not be interpreted as referring to the Passion, and a radical reworking of the figure was necessary. This process must have taken place within a relatively short period between the execution of the fresco in the grotto chapel, probably in the first half of 1630, and the

beginning of the full-scale model in the summer of 1631. Two intermediate stages have been preserved. In a bozzetto in the Fogg Museum, the figure has been brought very close to the St. Andrew (Fig. 77; cf. Fig. 50).168 Both arms are now extended, and the drapery, instead of being joined at the neck, is knotted under the left elbow, resulting in a cascade of folds at the left hip and in the diagonal sweep across the right leg. The drapery at the right side practically duplicates the corresponding portion on the St. Andrew. The right foot is lowered and straightened, resting now on the shield rather than the helmet, which has been shifted to lie beside the left foot. In some respects, however, the bozzetto is farther removed from the St. Andrew than the painted version (Fig. 66). The figure is tall, slim, wiry, and lithe. The knotting of the drapery creates taut, energetic lines of force in contrast to the loosely falling folds in the St. Andrew. The flat placement of the right foot gives the figure a second solid support, as against Andrew's tilted foot with toes barely touching the ground. The drapery at the figure’s right and the strips of the epaulettes suggest a wind-caught movement. Above all, the right arm, which in both the painted study and in the St. Andrew is relaxed, is now thrust outward vigorously. In other words, while bringing the figure closer iconographically, as it were, Bernini introduces elements of an active dynamism that contrast with the gentle receptivity of the St. Andrew. A drawing at Bassano, which seems to reflect a sketch or model by Bernini, probably represents an alternative solution at a slightly later stage (Fig. 78).169 The drapery is thrown open at the front and the agitated, broken folds intensify the idea of a sudden burst of revelation, barely suggested in

166. An engraving after Duquesnoy’s model, dated 1629, is reproduced by Fransolet, “Le S. André de Duquesnoy,” pl. IV opp. p, 247.

167. Perhaps this is also the explanation for the fact that the altarpiece in the grotto chapel represents Andrew worshiping the cross rather than his actual martyrdom, as in the case of St. Longinus. 168. Height 52.7cm; Acq. No. 1937.51. First published by R. Norton, Bernini and Other Studies, New York, 1914, 46 No. 2, pl. xu; acquired by the Fogg Art Museum in 1937. The bozzetto was analyzed by Kauffmann, “Berninis HI. Longinus,” 369ff. The gilding may be original; the full-scale model of the Longinus was colored (Pollak, No. 1774), but evidently the models of the other figures were not. 169. The drawing was first published as an original by C. Ragghianti, ‘‘Notizie e letture,’’ Critica d’Arte, 4, 1939, xvi fig. 5; and later by L. Magagnato, ed., Catalogo della Mostra di disegni del Museo Civico di Bassano da Carpaccio

a Ganova, Venice, 1956, 40 No. 35. The view that it follows a Bernini study is here adopted from Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque, 2nd ed., London, 1966, 197. 170. It is perhaps significant that whereas the sources for the other figures were in more or less isolated representations of the saints, the closest parallels for Longinus are in scenes of the Crucifixion (cf. those by Giulio Romano and Lorenzo Lotto cited by Kauffmann, “‘Berninis HI. Longinus,” 367). Wittkower has observed a similarity between Longinus’ head and that of the Borghese Centaur in the Louvre (Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 37).

171. Symptomatic of this “active’’ interpretation of the crossing are the inscriptions ‘in the books held, along with swords, as the attributes of St. Paul by pairs of putti on the north and south sides of the baldachin (cf. Fig. 59). (Putti on the east and west sides hold the tiara and keys of St. Peter. These groups, in effect, replace the statues of the two apostles—parts of both of whose bodies were supposed to be preserved at Saint Peter’s—that were intended to adorn the balustrade of the confessio; see n.111 above.) The books are open and each contains an inscriplion on four pages, only partially visible from the floor. On an occasion when the baldachin was being dusted one

36 readings):

of the workmen transcribed the inscriptions for me as follows (the portions I was able to decipher confirm his

the bozzetto. The shield has been removed, and certain details of the arrangement of the drapery at the figure’s right and the long, billowing edges of folds at the left are retained in the final work. The executed statue (Fig. 51) unites elements from both these antecedents. Bernini returns to the mass of drapery knotted in front of the body as in the terra cotta. But instead of being pulled into thin lines of tension, the drapery is crumpled into violent disarray, recalling but going far beyond the sketch. The right foot is fat on the ground while the martyr’s helmet and the hilt of his sword are at his left. Perhaps most important is a new element: the hipshot pose of all the earlier studies is straightened and stiffened, greatly augmenting the effect of electric excitement. It may be said that whereas in the original version the saint would have played a passive role in the Resurrection, he

now plays an active role in the Passion. In this way, while creating a near counterpart of the St. Andrew, Bernini depicts through Longinus a contrasting religious experience. Though implying participation in Christ's sacrifice rather than mourning over it, the contrast is analogous to that between Veronica and Helen.

In sum, the substitution of the cross and globe for the Resurrected Christ atop the baldachin had no effect on three of the figures, but it led Bernini to interpret St. Longinus in a new way. The figure, though isolated and free-standing, is portrayed in its traditional narrative context.17° This very fact indicates, however, that Bernini’s attitude toward the crossing as a whole remained unchanged: he still conceived of it as if it were the site of a dramatic action, a second Jerusalem in fact, with Christ really present at its center.171

North: FRA ATI LECT ROMA TRE EX+E EPIST NOS IVST DEP Be PAVLI | FRA

IFIC CEM AD EXI

South: FRA SUM ¢ LECTIO ROMA EXI DIGNA EPLAE NOS

QU B+ PAVLI | FRA:

NO APLI A TRES (partially visible in Fig. 59) Though fragmentary and garbled, the inscriptions clearly refer to two passages in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Tustificati ergo ex fide pacem habeamus per Dominum nostrum Iesum Ghristum (5:1); Existimo enim quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobts (8:18).

The appropriateness in this context of selections from the message to the Romans is evident. It is remarkable, however, that the texts are not quoted alone, but are accompanied by the prefatory phrase Lectio epistolae beati Pauli apostoli ad Romanos. Fratres:, which occurs in the missal, as if the liturgy were actually in progress. Both passages are quoted in succession in the Roman missal as alternate readings for the Common of the Martyrs (Missale romanum, Rome, 1635, Commune sanciorum, xvf.). The content of the passages also bears witness to the basic conception of the crossing that we have described, referring on the one hand to justification by faith, on the other to the sufferings (pPasstones) of- this world. This distinction seems to echo that between the theological and temporal

realms implicit in the references to the unity of the faith and the unity of the priesthood in the inscriptions on the friezes below the four pendentives: southwest, HINC VNA FIDES; northwest, MVNDO REFVLGIT; northeast, HINC SACERDOTII; southeast, VNITAS EXORITVR. These inscriptions, in turn, are subsumed beneath the inscription carried out under Paul V on the base of the dome, referring to the foundation of the church: TV ES PETRI... (Matthew 16:18-19). See Figs. 1, 53, 54, 59. (For documents for the dome inscription see Orbaan, ‘‘Abbruch,” 34, 35, 42, 45; [am uncertain of the date of the pendentive inscriptions, but presumably they were added

after the time of Urban VIII.) 37

VI. Conclusion We have spoken repeatedly of a “program” for the crossing of Saint Peter's. It has by now become obvious that this term is at best an approximation for an evolutionary process that took place over a considerable period and that was never fully realized. There is no evidence to suppose that all the details of the crossing were worked out in advance as a general scheme. The first steps in the reorganization of the relics were taken early in 1624, at the time the new baldachin was begun. Thereafter the two major elements of the plan, the baldachin and the decoration of the piers, developed pari passu, each undergoing basic changes long after work began. Even before the models were finished early in 1632, the form of the crown of the baldachin was being altered. And by the time the statues themselves were nearing completion later in the decade, ideas had so changed that they were not even installed in the positions for which they were intended. Nevertheless, the crucial period for the gestation of a plan that encompassed the entire crossing was probably between June of 1627, when it was decided to decorate all four niches, and December of 1629, when, the relic of the True Cross having been acquired, models of the four statues were ordered. It was then, or shortly thereafter, that Bernini must have supplied the participating artists with their instructions.172 A crucial question, to which no very precise answer can be given, is how detailed these instructions were. Mochi (1580-1654) was much older than Bernini (1598-1680), a fully matured artist with a long series of monumental works to his credit. The Veronica is so deeply imbued with his personality that one can imagine his having received no more (but also no less) than a general orientation concerning the pattern of relationships to be portrayed.17 The case with Duquesnoy (1594-1643) and Bolgi (1605-1656) was different. Both had worked under Bernini on details of the baldachin, but Duquesnoy had theretofore produced only a single life-size work,174 Bolgi none. One may suppose that Bernini gave them much more explicit advice. The assumption that their figures are more or less accurate reflections of Bernini’s ideas is confirmed by the documentary and stylistic evidence presented earlier, and by the fact that, as we have also pointed out, the Saint Peter’s statues are in many respects quite untypical of their work as a whole. Once it is recognized that the basic conception of the figures must have been Bernini’s, what becomes striking is their diversity of mood, psychological as well as stylistic. It is tempting to explain these variations on the basis of chronology. Certainly the Si. Andrew reached its definitive form first, when the model was finished in November, 1629. But with the acquisition of the True Cross in April, 1629 (a month before Duquesnoy began work on his model), all the constituents of the program were known, and it would be naive to presume that Bernini did not begin thinking of them 172. We know that under Clement VIII, Cardinal Baronio supplied the subjects for the altarpieces in Saint Peter’s (Baglione, Vite, 110£.), but there is no evidence for such an adviser for the work under Urban VIII. The documents indicate that the pope himself played an active part in the planning. 173. Bernini seems to have agreed with those who criticized the movement of Mochi’s figure as improper; at least, he made clever use of the criticism in his crushing answer to Mochi, who had joined the chorus blaming Bernini for the cracks that had appeared in the dome: Bernini felt extremely compassionate toward the forced and belabored agitation of the Veronica, since the defect was caused by the wind coming from the cracks in the dome, not the inadequacy of the sculptor (L. Pascoli, Vite de’ pittori, scultori, ed architelli moderni, Ist ed. Rome, 1730-36; facsimile ed. Rome, 1933, 1, 416). 174. A Venus and Cupid, now lost (M. Fransolct, ‘‘Frangois du Quesnoy sculpteur d’Urbain VIII 1597-1643," Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des Beaux-arts, Mémoires, Ser. U1, 1x, 1942, 99f.).

The problem of the relative chronology of Duquesnoy’s St. Andrew and St. Susanna (see recently D. Mahon,

38 “Poussiniana. Afterthoughts Arising from the Exhibition,” GBA, 60, 1962, 66ff.; K. Noehles, “Francesco Duques-

in relation to one another. He must have had a good idea of what he wanted by the time the commissions were awarded at the end of that year. Except for the changes in the Longinus necessitated by the substitution of the cross and globe for the Risen Christ, whatever subsequent development took place at the hands of the individual artists must have started from a nucleus provided then. Thus, while an evolutionary process undoubtedly took place, the essential differences among the statues cannot be explained simply on this basis. Instead, they bear witness to Bernini’s capacity to adapt his expressive means to a particular interpretation of the figure. In each case, as we have seen, that interpretation was conditioned partly by a specific tradition or traditions, partly by the role the figure was to play in the overall program of the crossing. The figure of St. Helen is classical in form and shows emotion with noble restraint, not primarily because it was designed at a certain moment, nor because it was executed by Bolgi, but because it represents the empress mother of Constantine contemplating Christ’s Passion.

Apart from the appearance of many motives and devices that recur later in Bernini’s work, much of the chronological significance of the crossing in his development lies precisely in this expressive range. Psychological drama had been one of Bernini’s chief interests from the beginning, but this had generally taken the form of relatively simple and strident contrasts. Here, the contrasts remain, but the variations are richer and subtler. These observations have a corollary in the realm of style, and help to explain a phenomenon such as the appearance, on the one hand, of violently broken drapery in the Longinus, and, on the other, of a pronounced “‘classicism’” in the Helen. These apparently contradictory innovations are in fact enrichments of Bernini’s formal vocabulary, just as the emotions the figures display are enrichments of his expressive range. The crossing of Saint Peter’s marks a vast widening, or, better, maturing, of Bernini’s vision. In the last analysis, however, the chronological importance of the crossing may lie less in the diversity of the individual elements than in the common bond by which they are related. In Saint Peter's, for the first time, Bernini treats a volume of real space as the site of a dramatic action, in which the observer is involved physically as well as psychologically. The drama takes place in an environment that is not an extension of the real world, but is coextensive with it. And because the statues act as witnesses, the observer is associated with them and hence, inevitably, becomes a participant in the event. In this way, Bernini charged the space with a conceptual and visual unity so powerful that it overcomes every change in plan and disparity of style.

noy: un busto ignoto e la cronologia delle sue opere,” ddniMod, No. 25, 1964, 91; Nava Cellini, ‘Duquesnoy e Poussin,” 46ff.) is greatly facilitated by the knowledge that the design of the St. dndrew approved by the Congregation in June, 1628, was Bernini’s, not Duquesnoy’s (see p. 20 above). All the early biographies of Duquesnoy state

that he owed the commission for the St. dndrew to the success of the $t. Susanna. However, the first document mentioning him in connection with the latter work is a payment for marble in Dec., 1629 (execution of the figure did not come until 1631-33), whereas he had begun the full-scale model of the St. Andrew by May, 1629 (p. 20 above). If the biographers’ story is true, the success of the St. Susanna must have been based on a model of some sort. But this need not have been made before 1628, as has been maintained, but only before May, 1629.

Duquesnoy claimed, according to Sandrart, that the St. dndrew was delayed because marble was deliberately withheld (by Bernini); cf. A. R. Peltzer, ed., Joachim von Sandraris Academie der Bau-, Bild- und MahlereyKiinste von 1675, Munich, 1925, 233. The documents show that only Bolgi, Mochi, and Bernini himself were af-

working long before the others (p. 21 above). 39 fected by delays in the delivery of marbles (Pollak, Nos. 1722f.); Duquesnoy in fact received his marble and began

Appendix I redrawing may have been made at the end of Paul V’s reign, when we know the question was reopened. It would thus be contemporary with another drawing by Borromini (Fig. 28;

CHECKLIST OF PROJECTS FOR No. 26 below) of a project under Paul V, also presumably BALDACHINS, CIBORIA, AND CHOIRS IN Maderno’s, for a ciborium in the apse, of which a model was THE APSE OF SAINT PETER’S UNDER actually built. It is conceivable, however, that the present PAUL V AND GREGORY XV (1605-162 3) redrawing was made a few years later when, in competition with Bernini, it seems another idea of Maderno’s was revived (see

As far as possible the entries pertaining to structures over the n.55 above). tomb are given first (Nos. I-15), to those in the choir second Barring the unlikely possibility that, in the original scheme, (Nos. 16-27). Within this division the order is roughly chrono- Maderno contemplated having ciboria with cupolas both over logical, except that entries related to the same project are listed the tomb and in the choir, it is reasonable to associate this together. No. 28 includes projects submitted under Urban VIII project with the one reported by Fioravante Martinelli, in which

in competition with Bernini. Maderno would have decorated the high altar with spiral

1. Project for a tabernacle in the crossing and a choir screen in the columns and a canopy (see pp. 7f. and n.53 above). apse, anonymous drawing. Bibl. Vat., Arch. Cap. S. P., “Album,” Finally, it should be noted that the design closely anticipates pl. 4 (Alfarano, De basil. vat., ed. Cerrati, 25n., fig. 3 opp. p. Borromini’s later projects for the ciborium and confessio in the 48; W. Lotz, “Die ovalen Kirchenraiime des Cinquecento,” Lateran (cf. Portoghesi, Borromini nella cultura europea, figs.

RéomJbK, 7, 1955, 72ff., 73 fig. 47; J. Wasserman, Ottaviano 263ff.). Mascarino and His Drawings in the Accademia Nazionale di San 3. Model of baldachin over the tomb, 1606. Cf. pp. 5f. above.

Luca, Rome, 1966, 66 No. 234) (Fig. 29) 4. Canonization of Francesca Romana, 1608, fresco. Bibl. Vat., Plan for the completion of Saint Peter’s with an oval atrium. Galleria di Paolo V (Taja, Descrizione, 456; Siebenhiiner, Shows a screen with an altar flanked by two columns at the “Umnrisse,” 309 n.224) (Fig. 19) entrance to the apse; two groups of four columns, each group From a series carried out under Paul V. Shows the baldachin supporting a cross groin, flank the altar in the crossing. The of Paul V essentially as in No. 7, though without temporary

total of ten columns suggests that the ancient spiral columns decorations. were intended (cf. n.27 above). Cerrati associates the plan with 5. Canonization of Carlo Borromeo, 1610, engraving by Giovanni

a manuscript project by the architect Fausto Rughesi, a con- Maggi. Bibl. Vat., Coll. Stampe (Figs. 2, 24) nection that has rightly been rejected by Lotz. Lotz attributes The apparatus for the canonization was designed by Girolamo the drawing to Ottaviano Mascarino and dates it before 1606. Rainaldi, and is described in M. A. Grattarola, Successi maraThe attribution to Mascarino is rejected by Wasserman. A date vigliosi della veneratione di S. Carlo, Milan, 1614, 218ff. (A at the beginning of Paul V’s reign—that is, 1605/1606—seems payment to Rainaldi for designs, probably for the canonization, probable, since, as far as we know, the idea of a tabernacle over is recorded in September, 1610; Pollak, “Ausgewadhlte Akten,” 79 the tomb and a choir screen with altar in the apse did not No. 40—not Deceniber as given in Orbaan, 79). The strands of

appear before that time. lilies wound around the staves are mentioned by Grattarola (p.

2. Project for a ciborium in the crossing, ca. 1620, drawing by 229), who notes that medallions with images of the saint were Borromini. Vienna, Albertina, Arch. Hz., Rom, Kirchen, No. placed above both the east and the west faces of the baldachin.

1443 (Fig. 14) The medallions appear only on the east face here and in the

The drawing proposes a ciborium with a polygonal cupola anonymous engraving of the event (No. 6); they are not shown supported by straight columns over the tomb, to which a portal in the Vatican fresco (No. 7). Grattarola does not mention the below gives entrance. Four allegories of virtues stand on the angels flanking the medallions in Maggi’s. print, and they are

attic. The absence of lateral wings shows that it was intended not shown in No. 6. for the crossing. The absence of an altar indicates that the high 6. Canonizalion of Carlo Borromeo, 1610, anonymous engraving

altar was to be located in the apse, where presumably the (Fig. 3)

ancient spiral columns would be used. Differs from No. 5 in that the kneeling angels flanking the The project seems certainly to date from early in Paul’s reign, medallion atop the baldachin are omitted here. Also, this print since the confessio built during the middle years is not taken shows tasseled canopies above the upper reliquary niches in the into account. In that case the sheet would be a copy by Borro- western piers, which are omitted by Maggi. ‘This view corrects mini of an earlier project (omitting the portion beneath the the misleading impression given by Maggi that the placards pavement), devised perhaps at the time the arrangements for the with standing figures of the saint were hung in the upper niches; tomb and high altar were first being debated, that is, 1605-1606. in fact, they were suspended from the crown-shaped chandeliers. The author of the project was doubtless Carlo Maderno, Finally, this engraving omits the dome of the ciborium in the architect of Saint Peter’s and Borromini’s early mentor. The choir, which Maggi includes.

- 40

7. Canonization of Carlo Borromeo, 1610, fresco. Bibl. Vat., The design shown here cannot be identified with any other Galleria di Paolo V (Taja, Descrizione, 460; Siebenhtiner, ciborium project known to me.

“Umrisse,” 309) (Fig. 20) 11. Canonization of Ignatius of Loyola, et al., 1622, drawing. Vienna, Shows the baldachin of Paul V with strands of lilies wound Albertina, Arch. Hz., Rom, Kirchen, No. 780 (Fig. 22)

around the staves. Unfinished. Details of the temporary installation are virtually 8. Interior of Saint Peler’s, ca. 1610, engraving by Giovanni Maggi the same as in Nos. 14 and 15, for which it is evidently a Shows the baldachin of Paul V with the four angels, essentially preparatory drawing. The main difference from our point of

as in Nos. 5 and 6. The supports are decorated with spiral view is that the baldachin still appears to be that of Paul V; the windings which, although there are no lilies, suggest a con- staves are shown straight and unadorned. No angels are depicted

nection with the canonization of Carlo Borromeo. at the base.

This is one of a series of ten prints by Maggi illustrating 12. Canonization of Elizabeth of Portugal, 1624, anonymous enmajor Roman churches. The first state of these engravings is graving. Bibl. Vat., Arch. Cap. S. P. (Fig. 23) known only from a set of modern post cards of very poor quality, Inserted in a manuscript diary of Saint Peter’s by Francesco published by a Roman antiquarian bookshop, now defunct. Speroni (Diarium Vaticanum Anni Iubilaei MDCXXYP, 1626, Subsequent printings of the engravings are known, though with Ms D 14, kept in the Chapter Archive in the new sacristy; cf. some lacunae and various alterations (Rome, Bibl. Vitt. Em., Pollak, 96, 635). The print is a variant of Fig. 30 (see p. 10 18.4.c.23, dated 1651; Rome, Bibl. Palazzo Venezia, Roma. above). The differences are minor, except that the present x1.132, dated 1681); in these sets the old baldachin and back- version shows the baldachin of Paul V, rather than Bernini's ground have been canceled and replaced by Bernini’s baldachin early project. This is particularly odd in view of the fact that in its final form. The Santa Maria Maggiore print has been the baldachin begun under Gregory XV had been built by published (see n.106 above), as has that of San Lorenzo fuori le October, 1624 (No. 13). The anomaly is perhaps to be explained mura (A. Mufioz, La basilica di S. Lorenzo fuori le mura, by assuming that the engraving was done, in anticipation of Rome, 1944, ill. on p. 71). The engravings were discussed by the canonization, before the latter baldachin was actually G. Incisa della Rocchetta (“Due quadri di Jacopo Zucchi per erected and before Bernini had fixed the design of his project. Santa Maria Maggiore,” Strenna det Romanisti, 10, 1949, 2908. In fact, the day of the canonization was evidently not yet n.2), to whom I am most grateful for lending me his set of the determined, since in the inscription below, a blank space ap-

precious post cards. pears where “22” is added in Fig. 30; the latter also adds various

9. Medal of Paul V, 1617. Bibl. Vat., Medagliere (Buonanni, decorative details that are absent here.

Num, pont., 1, 506£.) (Fig. 21) 13. New model for a baldachin, built 1622-1624 The obverse of the medal is inscribed with the thirteenth Discussed above, pp. 8f. A payment on June 22, 1622, to the year of Paul's reign (which began on May 29, 1617, the woodworker G. B. Soria is quoted by Pollak (“Ausgewdhite anniversary of his coronation); it was doubtless struck to Akten,” 107), who reports the latest payments, the last on commemorate the opening of the confessio (Pastor, October 11, 1624 (Pollak, Nos. 35, 984ff.). The payments in fact xxvi, 402; cf. Siebenhtiner, ‘‘Umrisse,” 308). ‘Torriggio, Sacre form a continuous series beginning June 18, 1622 (Arch. Fabb. grolle vaticane, 37, records that several of the medals were S. P., 1 Piano, Ser. 1, Vol. 236, Spese 1621-23, and Vol. 240, Spese inserted alongside the commemorative inscription in the con- 1623-24). Hence there can be no question that the same work fessio, which is dated 1617 (Forcella, Iscriziont, vi, 144 No. 529). was involved. ‘The payments are authorized by Carlo Maderno.

The elaborate engraving after the medal usually reproduced The baldachin is described in a document published by Pol(Buonanni, Num. templ. vat., pl. 48), apart from other changes, lak, No. 35. This account carries the date 1621, which has been

shifts the viewpoint and places special emphasis on the interpreted as an error for 1624, when the final payment was

baldachin. made (Pollak, 17 n.l). The date probably indicates, however, that

10. Longitudinal section of Saint Peter’s, 1618, vignette on the it was intended to begin construction in 1621 (cf. Siebenhiiner, engraved map of Rome by Matthaus Greuter (Fig. 4) “Umirisse,’”’ 318), though payments do not actually start until Gives a view of the baldachin of Paul V, and a sketchy plan June, 1622. The work may well have been put off until after the of a ciborium and screen in the choir. ‘The ciborium is partially quintuple canonization in March, 1622. It seems likely, in any cut off at the bottom of the poorly preserved map of 1618 in the event, that the plan to rebuild the model dates from before the Bibl. Vitt. Em., Rome (reproduced in A. P. Frutaz, Le piante di end of Paul V's reign (d. January 28, 1621); this was certainly

Roma, Rome, 1962, u, pl. 286), but appears complete in the the case with its counterpart, the ciborium in the choir, for

1625 reprint in the British Museum. which also the final accounting was made only under Urban The visible north wing of the screen is represented in the VIII (No. 27). plan as though it were a straight, uninterrupted wall. The This baldachin is described by Buonanni (Num. templ. vat., ciborium has fourteen columns arranged in pairs roughly ina 127) as follows: Nihil tamen Paulo regnante effectum est, sed circle, except that four columns form a straight line at the front. postquam Urbanus VIII. Pontificiae Dignitatus Thiaram accepit

41

anno 1623, umbellam firmis hastis sustentatam decoravit, quas Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura, No. 1, 1953, 7 nn.4, 6.

Hieronymus Romanus suo scalpro foliato opere exornavit, & Cigoli envisaged an octagonal, domed ciborium placed slightly anno 1625, Simeon Obenaccius Florentinus auro circumtexit. in front of the apse, supported by ten spiral columns, two pairs 14. Canonization of Ignatius of Loyola, et al., March 12, 1622, at the front corners, three at each of the rear corners; a engraving by Matthaus Greuter. Rome, Archive of Santa Maria balustraded screen would have extended back in concave arcs

in Vallicella (Fig. 5) to the corners of the apse. Siebenhtiner (p. 316) assumed that

P. Tacchi-Venturi, in Canonizzazione dei santi Ignazio di Cigoli’s ciborium was the one of which a model was actually Loiola, 62 n.3, first called attention to this poorly preserved built. But the gratings in the base and the floor around the print, of which our Fig. 5 is a detail. Practically identical with ciborium show that Cigoli favored shifting the tomb along with No. 15, except that this is inscribed Superiorum permissu the high altar, a proposal that was rejected (see the Avviso Romae 1622 Matthae’ Greuter exc. cum Privilegio in the frame quoted n.16 above). of the cartouche with the inscription below the central panel. 19. Model of ciborium over the high altar in the choir, 1606 Also, the canopies above the reliquary niches appear more Discussed pp. 5ff. above. Enough of the superstructure of clearly here, and the rectangular edges of the figural representa- the centerpiece appears in Maggi’s engraving (Figs. 2, 24) to tions in the niches are indicated. According to the inscription, show that it was polygonal. Probably there were pairs of the decorations for the canonization were designed by Paolo columns at the corners, and the centerpiece was flanked by Guidotti. A preparatory drawing is in Vienna (Fig. 22; No. 11). wings with others. We know that this ciborium used spiral 15. Canonization of Ignatius of Loyola, et al., 1622, anonymous columns, and in 1635 we are told that there were ten of them

engraving (Fig. 6) (see the quotations n.27 above). The reconstructed model of

Reproduced initially, without a source, by C. Clair, La vie de 1622-1624 (cf. No. 27) had ten spiral and four additional Saint-Ignace de Loyola, Paris, 1890, pl. following p. 422; after straight columns. Two very similar projects are known (Fig. 27, him by P. Tacchi-Venturi, in Canonizzazione, pl. opp. p. 56 No. 20; Fig. 79, No. 23; Appendix II) in which all the columns

(cf. pp. 62ff.), and Male, Concile, fig. 57 (cf. p. 100). are spiral, some of them evidently imitations of the originals. I have been unable to find a copy of this print, which is It is possible that the 1635 reference is to the reconstructed

evidently a variant of No. 14. model of 1622-1624 (cf. No. 27), which certainly had ten spiral 16. Project for a choir screen with an altar, anonymous drawing. columns, rather than the original of 1606, which may thus have

Windsor Castle, No. 5590 (Fig. 34) had more. Nevertheless, for independent reasons neither No. 20 Kindly brought to my attention by Howard Hibbard. A nor No. 23 can be identified with the model of 1606, though transverse section of Saint Peter’s through the transept. Shows they may well reflect it. The centerpiece also seems to be echoed

a screen across the apse in the form of a triumphal arch with in No. 28c (Fig. 35). (See Addenda and Fig. 28.) three openings. Two allegorical figures recline in a segmental 20. Project for a ciborium, anonymous. Vienna, Albertina, Arch. pediment above the central arch, which contains an altar. Four Hz., Rom, Kirchen, No. 767 (Fig. 27) angels holding candelabra stand on an attic above the main The centerpiece recalls that in the model actually built (Fig. entablature; these provide precedence for the standing angels 24; No. 19), though the details of the dome are different. The on Bernini’s baldachin and on No. 28c. The use of a flat screen project is also extremely close to that of Ferrabosco (Fig. 79; No. without a domical ciborium over the altar parallels the Uffizi 23; Appendix II), and shows what the latter must have been like project attributed to Maderno (No. 25). Probably dates from the before the alterations made under the influence of Bernini’s first

beginning of Paul V’s reign. project. Two figures, evidently Peter and Paul, stand on the

17. Project for a baldachin with spiral columns, by Carlo Maderno attic. Described by Fioravante Martinelli; cf. above, pp. 7f. and n.53. 21. Model for a choir stall in the apse, 1618

Martinelli notes that this project was intended for the high Adi 20 8bre 1618. Conto delli lavori fatti per servitio della altar. It was probably to be placed in the choir, since spiral R:a Fabrica di S. Pietro fatti da mé Gio: Battista Soria. columns are included, as in Nos. 18, 19, 20, etc. The baldachin Lee may well have been meant to accompany Maderno’s project for Per haver fatto il Modello, per il Choro da farsi in S. Pietro, a ciborium with straight columns over the tomb where no altar fatto d’Albuccio scorniciato di noce, fatto a tré ordini per li was envisaged (Fig. 14; No. 2); if so, it would date ca. 1605-1606. Canonici et Beneficiati, et Chierici et in pezzi da disfar’ tutto,

18. Drawings by Ludovico Cigoli for a ciborium in the choir, con il Baldacchino fatto con grand.ma diligenza

1605-1606. Uffizi, A2635 (680 x 475mm), 2639r and v (Figs. 25, mta———___—_—___—_—] 5

26) (Arch. Fabb. S. P., 1 Piano, Ser. 1, Vol. 14, Materie diverse, fols. Discussion of these drawings (two plans and an elevation) was 232r, 233v) an important contribution by Siebenhiiner, ““Umrisse,” 310ff.; The woodworker G. B. Soria built a model for a choir stall of cf. V. Fasolo, “Un pittore architetto: Il Cigoli,” Quaderni dell’- three levels, with a baldachin, presumably for the papal throne;

42

the stall was designed to be dismountable, which indicates that Bartoli’s Discorso, richly illustrated, is known in various it was intended for the main apse. The model is probably to manuscript copies in Rome: Bibl. Vitt. Em., Ms Fondi Minori be identified with the project for a choir, also dismountable and 3808 (to which our citations refer), and Bibl. Vat., ms Barb. lat. with three levels, by Martino Ferrabosco, recorded in his book 4512, fols. 16-43. Bartoli proposed constructing a pontifical choir on Saint Peter’s (No. 22), The model is probably further to be in the crossing, immediately behind and including the confessio identified with one mentioned in an invoice submitted by Soria and high altar, in the form of a navicella, or boat. In the apse early in Urban VIII's reign: ‘Per il primo modello fatto per he contemplated a coro de’ canonici. The tabernacle over the le sedie del coro che si diceva fare nela Tribuna —~————— A 20” high altar was to be a ship’s mast with billowing sail, executed

(Pollak, 18 No. 35; on the date of the document see above, No. in bronze and decorated with reliefs of the Passion “a foggia

13). della Colonna Traiana” (Discorso, int. 1, fol. 5r). The seats in

22, Project for a choir stall in the apse, by Martino Ferrabosco the pontifical choir were to be collapsible, to permit a view into (Ferrabosco, Architettura di S. Pietro, pls. Xxvill, XxIx; cf. the navicella when it was not in use.

Appendix IT) The date of the project, 1620, is provided by a passage in

The plan and elevation show three rows of seats, the per- which Bartoli estimates that it could be completed in four years, spective view only two. The caption explains that the project in time for the jubilee of 1625 (ibid., fol. 23r). The illustrations, was intended to permit shifting the sacristy from its place on the engraved by Matthaus Greuter, were completed only in 1623, north side of Maderno’s nave, where it proved unsuitable, to by Bartoli’s nephew. In one of these (ibid., fol. 88), the Barberini the place intended for the canon’s choir on the south. The stalls coat of arms was added to the ship’s rudder, doubtless with a were to be dismountable; the reason given for this varies slightly view to submitting the project to Urban VIII in competition between the manuscript version of the caption—“. . . accid with Bernini; the case thus closely parallels that of Martino potessero [le sedie] servire per le funtioni Pontificie nelli giorni Ferrabosco’s project (Appendix II). solenni, et ordinariam.te p il Clero ...” (Bibl. Vat., ms lat. 25. Project for choirs in the crossing and apse, attributed to Carlo 10742, fol. 384r)—and the printed version—“. . . accioché l’istesso Maderno. Florence, Uffizi, Gab. dei disegni, 2654 (Fig. 13)

luogo potesse servire ancore per le Funzioni Pontificie nelle Shows a choir installation with two altars in the apse; a flat Festivita piu solenne .. .”" The project is probably to be screen in front includes ten (spiral?) columns. In the crossing identified with a model for a dismountable choir with three immediately behind the confessio (shown in its final form) is

rows of seats built in 1618 (No. 21). a rectangular, colonnaded enclosure, presumably also a choir. Though Ferrabosco’s project was never carried out, it is still The altar at the tomb inside the enclosure is shown underthe practice in Saint Peter’s to erect a temporary choir in the ground, and no tabernacle appears above. The project may be

apse when necessary (see n.43 above). dated after the completion of the confessio in 1617 (n.35 above); 23. Project for a ciborium, 1618-1620, by Martino Ferrabosco (cf. the scheme as a whole is closely analogous to that devised by

Figs. 79, 80) Papirio Bartoli in 1620 (No. 24).

Ferrabosco’s project is discussed in Appendix II. A likely 26. Project for a ctborium, ca. 1620, drawing by Borromini. Vienna, assumption is that it was initially prepared to accompany his Albertina, Arch. Hz., Rom, Kirchen, No. 766 (Fig. 28) scheme for a choir in the main apse, which can be dated with Can be identified with the model painted by G. B. Ricci, who good reason to about 1618 (see No. 21). A terminus ante quem submitted his account early in the reign of Urban VIII (No. 27). of 1620 is provided by the intended publication date of Ferra- ‘The drawing shows ten twisted columns and four additional bosco’s volume on Saint Peter’s. Discounting the alterations straight columns (omitting the surface decoration on all of made to the design later in imitation of Bernini’s project, it is them). The inscription on the frieze shows that the project was very close to the anonymous study in the Albertina, Vienna designed before Paul V’s death (January 28, 1621). The exact (Fig. 27; No. 20), which may be taken as a general guide to time of Borromini’s arrival in Rome is not certain. Heretofore, Ferrabosco’s original intentions. Both projects probably reflect his presence in the city has not been attested before March, the model of 1606 (Fig. 24; No. 19). The main difference, apart 1621, when he appears in the documents of Sant’Andrea cella from details of decoration, is Ferrabosco's addition of an attic Valle (N. Caflisch, Carlo Maderno, Munich, 1934, 141 n.102).

story on the wings. Howard Hibbard recently found his name listed among the

24, Project for choirs in the crossing and apse, 1620, by Papirio workmen at Saint Peter’s toward the end of 1619 (November Bartoli (S. Scaccia Scarafoni, “Un progetto di sistemazione della 23—December 6) well before Paul V's death; Arch. Fabb. S. P., confessione di San Pietro in Vaticano antecedente al Bernini,” 1 Piano, Ser. I, Vol. 218, Siracciafogli 1616-22, fol. 57v. We may Accademie e biblioteche d’Italia, 1, 1927-28, No. 3, pp. 15ff.; cf. also note that the scarpellino Leone Garua, with whom Baldimost recently H. Hibbard and I. Jaffe, “Bernini's Barcaccia,” nucci reports that Borromini lived when he came to Rome, was BurlM, 106, 1964, 164 n.21, and the bibliography cited there) killed in a fall at Saint Peter’s on August 12, 1620: Die 12

(Fig. 12) Augustt [1620] Mx Leo Garovius de Bisone longobardus Car43

pentarius cecidit ex fabrica Sti Petri di metiretur et statim obijt I tentatively identify a drawing in Vienna (Fig. 35; No. 28c)

sed prius recepit extrema untioné eius corpus fuit sepultus in with Della Porta’s project. hac nra eccl.4 (Rome, Arch. Vicariato, S. Giov. Fior., Liber c. Project for a ciborium, 1623-1624. Vienna, Albertina, Arch. Hz.,

Defunct. 1600-26, fol. 61v) Rom, Kirchen, x-15 (H. Egger, Architektonische Handzeich. Though Borromini’s authorship of the drawing is unques- nungen alter Meister, 1, Vienna-Leipzig, 1910, 12 pl. 29, with tionable, it is not likely, if only because of his extreme youth attribution to M. Ferrabosco) (Fig. 35) and subordinate position, that he was responsible for the project. A domed ciborium resting on spiral columns, closely similar Most probably, the drawing, like No. 2 (Fig. 14), was made for to the centerpieces in Nos. 18-20, 23, 26 (Figs. 26-28, 79). The Carlo Maderno who, as architect of Saint Peter’s, signed Ricci’s main differences from the other designs are that the lateral

invoice for work on the model. wings are absent here, as is also the drum between the attic and

27. Reconstructed model for a ciborium in the choir, ca. 1622-1624 the cupola. Angels are shown standing on the attic above the

Described in an account of work by the painter G. B. Ricci, columns. undated but submitted in the reign of Urban VIII (Pollak, p. I suspect that the drawing is a kind of pastiche based on the 12). The document makes it clear that this model was a recon- earlier projects and incorporating certain of Bernini’s ideas. struction of the earlier one (No. 19); it included a lantern, an The absence of the lateral wings shows that it was intended as octagonal cupola (‘‘fatta a scaglione con 8 cartellini scorniciato’’, a free-standing structure in the crossing, doubtless for the high four apostles on the cornice, four frontispieces with the papal altar. But only under Urban VIII was Paul V’s decision to move

arms, an inscription with the pope’s name in the frieze, four the high altar to the apse rescinded. The project must therefore oval windows, figurative decorations in the triangles of the four date either from the very beginning of Paul’s reign, before the arches. In addition, Ricci says he made four columns with decision was made, or from that of Urban. That the latter is the fluting and floral decorations, and fourteen pedestals. case is strongly suggested by the design itself. The absence of Candelabra stood on the architrave above the columns, and the drum above the attic creates a considerably lower there was a balustrade around the altar. From another source proportion than in any of the other known projects for ciboria, we know the model had ten of the original spiral columns (see whereas in the crossing even more height was needed. The most

n.27 above). likely assumption is that the spiral columns shown were not to

The model is recorded in the drawing by Borromini in Vienna be the originals but imitations of them on a bigger scale; (Fig. 28; No. 26). This bears Paul V’s name in the frieze, which enlargement of the whole structure permitted elimination of shows that it was designed before his death in January, 1621. the drum to achieve the lower proportion required when the Execution was delayed, as in the case of the new baldachin counterbalancing effect of the wings was lost. The design thus model over the tomb (No. 13), and probably for the same deals with the same aesthetic problem, by similar means, as does reasons. The account containing the description includes other Bernini’s baldachin (see above, p. 12), but in the form of a work by Ricci begun much earlier; payments to him for cartoons conventional domed ciborium. A further point is that the of the choir stuccos occur as early as May, 1621 (cf. n.71 above). angels on the superstructure serve no function whatever (not

28. Projects made in competition with Bernini, ca. 1624 even to hold candelabra, as in No. 16), as if they were taken over A. Anonymous project for a baldachin. From Modo di fare il from Bernini’s project and deprived of their raison d’étre.

tabernacolo If the argument presented here is correct the attribution to See n.55 above. Ferrabosco falls, since he died before Urban VIII was elected

B. Project by Teodoro della Porta (Beltrami, “Ferabosco,” 24). A possible alternative candidate is Two months before payments to Bernini begin, ‘Teodoro Teodoro della Porta, who early in 1624 complained of Bernini's della Porta, the son of Guglielmo, in a letter to the Congregation project and offered to design a baldachin ‘according to the good

dated May 12, 1624, says that he will make a “disegno e rules of the art of architecture without obstruction or impedimodello del Baldachino e suo sostentamento per |’Altar ment to the view of the service” (see No. 288). Interestingly magg(io)re di S. Pietro che havera la simetria, e decoro che enough, the lantern has an onion-shaped crown which suggests conviene secondo le bone regole dell’arte dell’Architettura senza the curvature of the final crown of Bernini's baldachin. far ingombro et impedimento alla veduta della celebratione” vD. Project by Agostino Ciampelli (Pollak, No. 1052). In a letter dating before January 1, 1624, he Mentioned by Fioravante Martinelli; cf. p. 11 and n.53 above.

complains bitterly against provisional works in Saint Peter's, E. Project by Martino Ferrabosco “et in particolare nell’Altare magg(io)re che é stato fatto e Revised version of the original project; cf. No, 23 and

rifatto quattro volte diversam(en)te con molta spesa sempre Appendix IT. buttata via per modo di provisione come hora segue medema- F. Project by Papirio Bartolt

m(en)te” (Pollak, 71 No. 60). Originally planned in 1620; cf. No. 24.

44

APP endix II crowning figuresays of the Risen Christ. Thedesign captionwas to the plate in the 1684 volume explicitly that the FerraMARTINO FERRABOSCO’S ENGRAVED bosco’s, that it was shown to Urban VIII before he built the

E - . SAINT PETER’S bronze baldachin, and that comparison with the latter shows it othe, RtUM. OR TH A P influenced Bernini’s design.178 Filippo Buonanni in 1696

ORT reproduces the project, and adds that the pope rejected it

I have omitted from consideration in the body of this paper a because it occupied too much space.179

project for the Saint Peter’s ciborium that has played an There is no reason to doubt that a design by Ferrabosco important role in discussions of the history of the monument existed and that it was shown after his death to Urban VIII. since the late seventeenth century. This is a design (Fig. 79) Bernini had other competition as well.180 But no copy of the recorded in a volume of engravings, plans, elevations, and 1620 edition of the Architettura has ever been found.181 In fact, projects for Saint Peter’s by Martino Ferrabosco, published in there was no 1620 edition, at least not in the form of a pub1684 by Giovanni Battista Costaguti.175 The title page of the lished book. This is evident from a draft for the preface and 1684 edition says that the work was first issued in 1620, and captions to the Architettura preserved in a manuscript of

although the engraving of the ciborium bears the arms of materials by and pertaining to one Carlo Ferrante Gianfattori Urban VIII (elected August 6, 1623) 1620 has been taken as the (alias Ferrante Carli), whom Paul V had appointed to write terminus ante quem. Ferrabosco’s activity in Rome is docu- a history of the basilica to accompany Ferrabosco’s engravmented with certainty from February, 1613.176 He was buried ings.182 This draft is in a uniform hand, but it is clear from

on August 3, 1623, during the conclave that elected Urban the phraseology that the preface was written first by Ferrabosco

VIIL.177 himself, after Paul V’s death (January 28, 1621).183 Appended Knowledge of designs such as Cigoli’s and the model of the to the preface is the following statement: “Quest’opera fu ciborium in the apse (Figs. 2, 24, 26) makes it clear that the lasciata da Martino Ferrabosco imperfetta ridotta a fine a spese engraved project is not nearly so original as had been thought. di Mons. Costaguti con disegno d’Andrea Carone."184 Ina The domed central feature, the projecting colonnaded wings, passage elsewhere Gianfattori says of Ferrabosco: tamque untthe spiral columns are all derived from earlier sources. But the versum opus per vices et intervalla distractum ad umbilicum engraving also shows certain elements that closely parallel fere perduxerat, cum brevi morbo terris eripitur.185 Bernini's first baldachin. The spiral columns in the engraving It is therefore certain that no 1620 edition was actually are specifically of the “sacrament” type; on the underside of published, and that the work was not altogether complete when the dome, clouds with rays that may emanate from a dove of the Ferrabosco died. Since the engraving of the ciborium bears Holy Spirit are visible; the lantern of the dome is covered by Urban VIII's arms it may well have belonged to the unfinished a pergola-like cupola with open ribs, and this supports a portion.186 The captions in the manuscript draft are similar to,

175. Ferrabosco, Archtlettura, pl. xxvu. 182. Bibl. Vat., Ms lat. 10742, fols. 370ff. The preface was published in part 176. Information H. Hibbard. Cf. Beltrami, ‘‘Ferabosco,” 23; U. Donati, (and with some errors in transcription) by H. Egger, “Der Ubrturm

EE gtetes ood . ver , ; Pauls V,” Mededeelingen van het nederlandsch historisch Instituut te

Artisti ticinesi a Roma, Bellinzona, 1942, 405ff. The plan of a wooden R 9. 1929. O4f. CE also th lev mca oe 3 tpt bi

model for a circular confessio projected by Ferrabosco is reproduced in moh e Pa ‘ae Vv by CG. is “A _ att the vam en " Coatuentt whine, Buonanni, Num. templ. vat., pl. 45; cf. Beltrami, ‘‘Ferabosco,” 28 fig. nee tn 4 yp , yu? 499 agutl the elder in the Costaguth archive,

4. Assuming the attribution is correct, Ferrabosco must have been in pudasiec oy tas OF XXVI, oe oo

Rome at least by 1611, when Maderno’s confessio was begun (cf. n.35 183. “Ho final.te p gra del S.° Dio tiratala 4 fine, e distribuite le tavole in

above). piu parti ... havendo fatte vedere alc.e delle piiti tavole alla S.M. di

177. Beltrami, “Ferabosco,”’ 24. Paolo V° le qli erano commando in sua vita finite, gli piacquero in modo, che si attendesse al fine, e volse che fossero vestite d’historia da 178. Ibid., 27: ‘““Disegno di Ferrabosco. Questo ornamento é stato fatto da persona giudicata p lettere, e p guid.° habile a tanto carico, fl FerUrbano VIII ... al quale prima di far l’opera fu fatto vedere il pre- rante Carlo.” (Bibl. Vat., ms lat. 10742, fol. 370v) pene easegn o, in qualche parte imitato, come dall'opera medesima si 184. Ibid. I have been unable to identify Andrea Carone. 185. Beltrami, ‘‘Ferabosco,” 28 n.6.

179. Fuerai etiam Pontefici oblata alia ornamenti idea, in qua collocabantur 2a T me OSE» en . ; ;

columnae vitineae, quibus olim Divi Petri Confessio extrinsecus orna- 186. There is mm the Bibliotheca Hertziana in Rome a volume, acquired after

baniur ... sed cum Templi Aream nimis in longum protensa inutiliter Schudt’s publication (Le guide di Roma, 1930), with a frontispiece occuparet, ineptam extimavit. (Buonanni, Num. templ. vai., 130) identical to that of the 1684 edition but bearing the following inscrip-

180. Se . _, ; nA x I 98 tion: “Alla S.t8 di N.S. P P Paulo Quinto. Libro de lVarchitettura DI . See the competing projects listed in Appendix I No. 28. SAN PIETRO nel Vaticano FINITO Col disegno di Michel Angelo 181. Cf. L. Schudt, Le guide di Roma, Vienna-Augsburg, 1930, 155; but see BONAROTO ET d’Altri Architetti espressa in piu Tavole Da Martino

n.186 below. Ferabosco. In Roma L’anno 1620 NEL VATICANO. Con licenza, e

45

but not identical with those in the 1684 edition. The draft of essential elements are virtually identical with those in the the caption for a tabernacle that would have been included as engraving.191 Yet it differs from the print, apart from the plate xxix shows that it was produced during the early stages of absence of the attic on the wings, in that precisely the major work on Bernini's baldachin; this it praises, and lays no claim details which the engraving has in common with Bernini's design to an influence on Bernini: “... hoggi dalla S. di N.S.P.P. —the “sacramental” columns, the open ribbed pergola, the Risen Urbano 8° si arricchisce di un baldacchino sostentato da 4 Christ, the Holy Spirit in the dome—are missing. Secondly, the colonne di metallo.’”187 A probable terminus ante quem for the columns in the print are of the “sacramental” type, implying addition of the papal arms is the death of Mons. Costaguti, Sr. that all but two were to be newly made. It seems more reason(uncle of the Mons. G. B. Costaguti, Jr., who finally published able to assume that Ferrabosco’s original intention, as Buonanni the work in 1684) on September 3, 1625.188 By this time, as the specifically states,192 was to reuse the original columns, and

engraving of Elizabeth of Portugal’s canonization in March that their decoration in the engraving was either added (if the indicates (Fig. 30; see above, p. 10), Bernini’s project was public print was unfinished), or changed. Finally, and most significant,

knowledge. the engraving itself shows a crucial reworking: between the

This is precisely the period when Gianfattori was working on central buttresses of the lantern traces of a globe supported on his history of the basilica, which he also left unfinished. It a tapering base are clearly visible (Fig. 80). Thus, the lantern, has been shown that his work on the basilica is an outright the pergola, and the Risen Christ were all an afterthought. plagiarism of Jacopo Grimaldi.189 A few years later it was I would suggest that the engraving was initially a project by reported that Gianfattori was the author of attacks against Ferrabosco for a ciborium-screen, perhaps in conjunction with Bernini concerning the dome of Saint Peter’s, and had a mortal his project for the choir in the main apse,193 intended to be

hatred of the artist.190 placed at the entrance to the apse. When Urban was elected and Suspicion that besides the addition of Urban’s arms the plans for a permanent structure over the tomb altar in the engraving may have been altered in imitation of Bernini’s crossing were developing, the engraving was submitted,194 after project receives strong support from three considerations. A having been finished or altered to accommodate the same drawing in the Albertina (Fig. 27) shows a project in which the symbolism as Bernini’s baldachin.

Privilegio.”” The volume contains the same plates as the 1684 edition, d. Jan., 1668; ibid., 23). including the ciborium project with the arms of Urban VIII! The dif- 187. Bibl. Vat., ms lat. 10742, fol. 375v. ferences from. the 1684 ction. “he that there are no ditt ms wate 188. Moroni, Dizionario, xx, 263; Pastor, xxviI, 482 n.2, adds some further some of the plates are arranged Ciiterently, there Is an adcitiona’ plate information on the elder Costaguti. The second G. B. Costaguti later

(elevation of one of the little domes and the attic), and two plates that became cardinal.

have coats of arms in the 1684 edition are without them here. The vol- vena us . . as .

ume also contains at the end various other engravings of the sixteenth 189. See Ch. Heulsen, “Il cir co di Nerone al Vaticano,” in Miscellanea Ce-

and later seventeenth centuries pertaining to Saint Peter’s. The binding "elt Milan, 1910, 464. On Oto cf. aise A. Bore L Assunta

is stamped with the arms of Cardinal Francesco Nerli (elevated Nov. el Lanfranco in S$. Andrea della Valle giudicata da Ferrante Carlt, 29, 1669, d. Nov. 6, 1670; cf. P. Gauchat, Hierarchia catholica medii et Naples, 1910.

recentiores aevi, Regensburg, 1913ff., v, 5). 190. Fraschetti, Bernini, 71 n.1: ‘Le scritture che si vedono intorno alla Ferrabosco’s engravings, including the frontispiece, are here clearly Cupola di San Pietro derivano da Ferrante Carli, ch’ nemico del Cava-

in their original proof state, ready for publication. The fact that even liere Bernino et che vorrebbe vederlo esterminato.” (Letter of the - here the ciborium bears the arms of Urban suggests that the plate in Mantuan ambassador, Jan. 3, 1637)

its first, pre-Barberini state was unfinished. 191. Appendix I No. 20. The coats of arms in other plates in the 1684 edition were added 192. Quoted n.179 above. later, but before the publication: on pl. Iv, the atrium of Old Saint .

Peter’s, the arms of Card. Vincenzo Costaguti (elevated July, 1643, d. 193. See Appendix I Nos. 21ff. Dec., 1660; Gauchat, Hierarchia catholica, iv, 26); on pl. v, interior of 194. And rejected because the wings were an obstruction in the midst of the Old Saint Peter’s, the arms of Card. G. B. Pallotta (elevated Nov., 1629, crossing (cf. n.179 above).

46

Addenda basilicarum (cited n.159 above), u, 1, p.4.n.1. The doubt expressed by Franchi de’ Cavalieri concerning the authenticity of

1. Ton.27 and Appendix I No. 19 the medal may be dismissed. ‘The question had been raised in In the first volume of his catalogue of the drawings of Bor- De Rossi's time, and the main import of his study was that the romini, which has now been published (Francesco Borromini. medal, far from being unusual as a type, belonged to a large Die Zeichnungen, Graz, 1967, 14, col. 1, n.3), H. Thelen refers class of such votive pendants. The famous ivory casket from to a drawing of the ciborium model built in 1606 in the choir of Pola, discovered subsequently, on which the reconstruction of Saint Peter’s. The drawing (Fig. 28a) is part of an album dated the Constantinian ciborium depends 1n part, confirms the . 1613-1616 and attributed to the French Jesuit architect Francois validity of the structure depicted on the medal, if not also its Derand (J. Guiffrey and P. Marcel, Inventaire général des des- connection with Saint Peter’s. (On the Pola casket, see most sins du Musée du Louvre et du Musée de Versailles. Ecole recently T. Buddensieg, “Le coffret en ivoire de Pola, Saintfrancaise, Vv, Paris, 1910, 15, No. 3598; it should be noted that Pierre et le Latran,” CahArch, 10, 1959, 157ff.) The notion that the attribution to Derand has been challenged by H. von Gey- the medal was found only in 1636 8 based on a misreading of muller, Die Baukunst der Renaissance in Frankreich, Stuttgart, Menetrier’s letter, and the possibility that it came from the 1, 1901, 309f., followed by P. Moisy, “L’architecte Francois Verano catacomb was offered by De Rossi purely as a hypotheDerand, Jésuite lorrain,” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, sis, suggested by the representation of the martyrdom of St. 36, 1950, 150ff.). The drawing shows the elevation and plan of Lawrence that appears on the reverse. the centerpiece, and bears the inscription, “plan et elevation de 4. To n.66 la chapelle quon a fait a St pierre sur le grand autel ou ilja According to the calculations of T. C. Bannister, the Constanhuit coulonnes torse et a chaque coulonne un tel piedestal.” tinian shrine at Saint Peter’s itself reproduced “exactly the size

9 To n.b3 and shape given in The First Book of Kings for the “Holy of

Thelen (Borromini Zeichnungen, 98f.) and his collaborators Holies’ of Solomon’s Temple” (“The Constantinian Basilica determined that the marginal corrections in Fioravante Marti- of Saint Peter at Rome,” JSAH, 27, 1968, 29). nelli’s manuscript guidebook were originally written by Bor- 5. Ton.114 romini himself, whose penciled handwriting, subsequently In a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the College Art erased but faintly visible, they were able to decipher beneath Association of America, January, 1968, Professor Olga Berendthe transcript in ink. In transcribing the original comment on sen pointed out an intriguing precedent for the final version the passage concerning the baldachin, Martinelli inadvertently of the crown of the baldachin, in a catafalque erected in 1621 omitted from the last sentence, recording Ciampelli’s criticism, in Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Venice, for the obsequies of Cosimo a phrase which explicitly confirms the view (pp. I1f. above) II de’ Medici, of which the crown consisted of similarly curved that the fusion of the canopy with the cornices of the columns ribs surmounted at the apex by a regal diadem (Orazione di was part of a deliberate effort to create a hybrid form—‘“gra- Giulio Strozzt recttata da lui in Venetia nell’esequie del Serentss. matically” execrable—comprising both a baldachin and a D. Cosimo II. Quarto G. Duca di Toscana. Fatte dalla Natione ciborium. Borromini’s original sentence ran as follows (italics Fiorentina tl di 25. dt Maggio 1621, Venice, 1621, ills. opp. pp. mine): “‘... diceua che le baldacchini non si sostiengono con 4,5, 19). Dr. Berendsen plans to enlarge upon the analogy ina le colone ma con le haste, et che i/ baldacchino non ricor(r)a separate article. asiemeé con la cornice dele colone, et in ogni modo uoleua che 6. Ton134

lo regessero li angeli.” Besides Nava Cellini, see Mezzetti, in L’ideale classico (cited

3. To n.60 n.119 above), 363, and J. Hess, Kunstgeschichtliche Studien zu On the Successa medal (Fig. 38) see also Krautheimer, Corpus Renaissance und Barock, Rome, 1967, 137.

47

Illustrations

©£¢*;

oe eS we > ‘4 Ca = how j . 4 .4ae ~~ ail~~ a wa />::~f-r :r¢ %/ :;: '-) is. _~ _— panna el4aoe ~ ' ~~ - —Re ;AF xYJ ‘-OL

q , : a ; — = ’ e . ££ é 7 i . , > Jf / | = - f ee ; = = é See¥ce on —attisiennirenan tees Aa,LAG UF / i;1a7. tt- feenn iigee .=: St. =es i (ii1ie.n =en : ay Ts sat: ] . FTe

RRR i’ /, QR rg oe re . \“E pe 4 a

7 SS Ae ad / S| | ie ‘i hy Ph SS

Eee ee f: SeER eg ag “SBT + Fy c t we 2 ‘ .SE — roa eee BAY ——e| {> , i >| "i PONS SO eg aeINN (32 Cad Ga Taree 7, He SN mat aWE' :Ne cae at G eS wonwow so BH i 4 eipe 1A We TURIN neTari Th RAY? ‘ . >‘ — 04,ee) EOifore : j : > : . t east ITs peer tlmewe = neem auaren WSselest Sy

CN PRS Be AE B90 Gy I rH BS | is

Ni eee (Ee eer? | ae Ta RUN RORY ai i a SR 8

We \!) Hf QO eae: yvonne font a NO NTA 0 A § Pe aa ti * * A Wate 3, X +); f ‘ i

aBhaep Nt SN ee@% se,; A Sabryme ; a- lap" (“4 oat et qesa" WA & eT A A ly 5 SE ya Fi be ¢ae ay=) ani' 1- TL bed (of F| Y 4

URN Mie 2 Ge GE RT 9 ries YF r\ 5 aes : sod So de ee ae ky 3 a . wet” oa

Fa ONY 1 By Sah a petit |||} Seer e SRNL Sammy fe A be ‘a “ — : aE gh - ns ae te eee Ma — roe PE " “ro Bele ey ee tf 2K th a ANN | gees tess caus’ sese tensa © oneself enee* sees seve nae)’ All

“eek bh Aaa : Bs ee WaaSee ed Fe tN | OY Wace eerxeeRosie eee smi apelhe anee§A‘ae

booetAm ee WeaeyAALS io ffy;! e a: ine. 4 US)x. tisha ae \) SatS ayeed “hkby _ i1) ; ‘ Ne os Py aari4) ¢ tee oY StVath Shy’i ae Lan Il) en>Pet ARN ;, byerie a

te A peeeuany || be eres ¢!ee se Pi Cae pai OW eee. eSeee }me eerie eR 4 San. oe Came Dae x. dict: tes eee ef ~8! 4 eeee o> NO, boop SiA oocpames Fea ct ob VARYGSE PR PRAYON tet ae eee Rats?Nee AS ws SEL wacoNs RRERS SS i ro. Fe BR eeeas> oFae Ms ee oe JS eee 2S 2 = Ss>) rs 5 Say perry SRY fF q ON Tiwenee " ems 4 & ateeee hee NEES : oie PEK 5, Re eh ae 2 z ea. © ? Ses iNe / oe fe ee. oF Rey Sk a, ote —— ~ ere ue ee a“ {8 Ph Ae ee alll > = ve As rf: v . ¥ = Wis ast ee G. ¥y (te x — fl’ "Pe “es Th Le ‘eS. loan 7s : wees =e €', mS = : a. o > Bay oa og tf . r ry \ b | J ‘tn Mae in PA. a“ RE - - & . ¢ = ‘ aS ® 5 — Wen

MES TSek+55, yl cl eee A &RE GE get ; Nyaucitie 2 Sah ay of ieee S | en Fane BigTU) ifs ne Re wa 8CRN § Bee: ue : a Bc? = = . “a * -r5hepaeaad aSiars oeReh 4 o.”_:u»aee-* ‘ *” < .* 3-.

‘‘¢¥a, % 5~ ieSs eyrar ‘on |»% | y+. ; £% F, ne 52a :; ng a, -a.: .;‘.:eek a7 ifER es er ;~s

Fin eee, {ee ‘om ~, a -* oF f lreee Ate oy > 4, . Fy *y : wee r4 © e i _ ” P * poF : 44 : < ‘ . “4 4 ue

:« 4.\ :eee Sa NCES @ ad > a ' -™ P S, *.

em © ted ne , =pt” -A iePs bsP4 re. = f my —_— ~~ ‘>2 -eAg 4> »' 3:7¢re *— oy - corte ;— F‘ , sla ? >

i ee PS % a I

i ia ; g— h Sy ‘liaa =2 et‘2«J ia”. ’Tr. ey e.sz' .7. e. “at we “ne ’imo te >“3 1="- i}‘€ &> os oe Ey, fy ;~;ha~ng eal —~ _ ; : * ~ Me 7 2 5 ee -~~ ~ > f a 3 “4~eS

6 rs P: >a ee oe es £: ( r . ul \ % ee By th Seat 2 - s Brey Sees. S

Saas, ee4)Hee) AY ;~; _é :eee . a,a Bes; an‘as Tehag ‘ Qg f ~ ———— teae :oO “ ee warsoo aces a.aE ne 5aay , . . . _— ae — “ = vn — 1 ©, rir i “Ky wdee ae) Oe :i,4 ste ey eyes iP as ae*5;, Xe es Bie geet oe= -Pan otis ea Pk 77: Sees ” , =.CL % + > re a *. ed . i ba if nw tien em se —_s 2 i Ss ¥ ar \-— 5 "I athe « By re | > , = a«= od |?ao, % SsMee = a aaa 2 as ——-~ .=e . ‘> .J ;‘3Pate a . -? :* z:—| rs + t - o4 ,iT - é ;=) Lut —"> ~a ‘ e My i =z é eA . tw *e se Son ;ieAE bite :ceaei Soe tso>¥Sed - be eee et Zz aa 0) =5 bay ee~~ ? ee :,3. aeyA i!ee — oe Ta! RS —e_€£! ~— iTtos. WeiBa hi, \ Sa -§ ager es id : .; = a ;' *9: — =f 44h r hi %}Diii AS ani + ; ty _ aiai “Rey ee? % ”i "si ;¥ *atte Ps;oe ; An |S. — eSie ta: -- ¢ nad = 7 5 be Py ~ vad sh ee =, ire, ‘.eee | Ag Ee Ma Sle “Bd fia « »- ’. .ae i - 2ist—— > eo be s°Pe : ‘ =we bePP. -) é xx 2} t: ;amm Dik rdTad .A, ~ALT aude¢ahtS . ee rae Wb) ee Oe ie ee ee ae ‘es aie:“as Ce ea 1c |=+:+B 10) 3~| ~hae eee°: *3ieee , ‘: Dl ; RS zh ve. *=4ee a'r J f es eo Ok e “=e Jig $ . ‘Sty “s er Sees ay led ‘~o#.ave aTt ©ae ore eeé "va\. "tete 3 +S ran’ ,‘MF »' ¥ee 34a ,et..>— 7AN hich, ~E ‘— i) sb} 4 : ee ifn Ro! ag git a A . / al ~ / q 4 oper i ~~» ak L. ae | i r ~< 3, a+ PAIN BN ie. poa.“ t.is.

*| A : aSASt ‘ er s4cy) "2 ty aA,isPsiS “A,caked, . . 2i,Ves eat ~; PAD BONA ON X|Saas ae 2a ho sy ft.7: ¢ eae. is te. a 8;ee ee +. :-t ts>«" % aa bs -i “ey -~Ee2at- “as“ 4 Ie : a] NG os . ‘ pee . . x hI wie ri2a Pit) co iEeeee \.UFes > Bare. & 4)ae ’ Fi sa M b : ee a fati2 = eer sew? BRET t0Re FSSU SET BIT Se itn ape — map . _ Bee < rl: Tet mai . a Sa am : & a. ~~ & & : ? a ’ S\. ie EM ; “ —_~is MSL_PS A ‘3 British Mus ee se spa Ses £ P. gai y/ Aim BSS STE Se 4a 2m Y ta) AL ay aed Ge | Ss

|= my ee ee ee:em :eee ~~ RPA *,eeRR iii} ra a SS Sy Oe.’ eeeeves cian Gg SN: Th SST SSIS. SS >a 7es eySitewecs -:—— Sil UF esi Re ad Gta, »yi NS SS __.be SSS SS Ss :: kee x: es; z Ns oe ) 4 i ae RN es 7 oS SRN arco Se CE i ae mn AES SS B =..‘SA ia “QUAN —- He ae SE Sar |BINS Hee i seaa ae a A,ayo | iRin@ag SSSSs Ss =

a J) AS |eeAEs oN ISP A | EA od UT WSS SSS Fe} St ||2-5pod ait Ta =a7WSs 3S SN ies . oa < Samad eh Pa sie tiris A 2h OF Her ae Wey 2 ‘a ‘ie fi — f Hal 5 fe “4 NSS ~Y SS

— a Ee Sl ae Bees’ y Wire oF: ge 1] . eee 1 Oe NSS: ; 2) >

oe ray yesSes Ne57:2 = Be een SOM eS | | Hip Sis S =ae4 | Gis.TRA ifBA) ~ Wik = 5iCSET ’Yar + ———— nyWEG 5 Mh | | iF| ‘AS SAL iain | BAN Nie ‘| 4pe eae Cena SESS

nia)=ear he AV ah Weapons GHIR i7 =pigeee PECANS PAULL ay,thine raatS|Mate ae VERN ST Stay ee 6oc’ IAP Ggaaa Ne yeWeer gt! 4\tee ee: #| Ny it) =YB) eS SS iy -wa 5 A®ley* — ; i \i a ays: esNeale aa a hs => Hy So : ill; y. ig -; Are aan gS ORR Ae

Avante Agee Regis ae oo Ne ee i a ss. V2, J WY: ne =" SSS ee ee == . ~ PAY Yeast _ SS i aa saress I, ; Ky Pele ssoANY ee GARE =S5 [ae ee: Dee | LD PAY RN ets Masel} an. eS a ee ae eae a) ee ake 1) . ——— See: 2 git es a \h aad = 3 = Hy wo Ra = be —— 77, iia, : \} Te BP ne ise pee }}— —— eee ft as ea eeegtSaSaE Jay|:We # a isa ts ; ‘HAH h. ig Toa sea Ly x [22 Ban ee ee ¢ Yi 4 5a Tame a! iTisisers Sa ee = = i |= . by * Bg ti ve, 8

ata etnies hier A ed 0Geh ae Wj INA = WwSittin 4a = a=eM INH SAANaihe PREY i 8S raf 2) eS) ebads 8Myke Rae se 93 28 iM, YASNe fh tae SASS by Fae 3AAAS 4 AAS ca. ||FY EUR Ale rs 7 j bs a pets = Seat - ecm: ° t=, aed 2 Spies ee ee "i re = H it ti: Bes gta > a Py se > ~~

|ii haar &' ,(fi ey iLA ait, —— Ma — Ns ~Ti= s,gtf =— Pete ik ?scepececaa ie iH es fi eS 1iSE AUR | RR ie \\|jie4, aali\-seems ry PS HI! N,|=Ava| :1g :1” 023_|fetsotBe. Feb ity ‘dott

Ig oleg|Hii, =| Ee ' feba1., Ra, eto(decorations 7 :al., by Paoloby Guidotti), rye Taal. 1622 : Wy 4| Ih .| Loyola, et DAN ization of Ignatius of Lo Jallicella (517 x 366mm) - Canon Zeofaria in Vallice 5. engraving Matthaus Greuter, hive Santa Maria in Vz Je : detail). ( Rome, Arc

a e *~ =, ” 9> 4.ime rit gAYoa ¢.Feng .be4SS7S y “tae© “4 ¥.be a xaCT 7 . J N ’ ~~ \ " nen es x a sf ' | — ce Nee ; 4iy Pe _2= See pe Ne 4:os4> p** ‘4 14 } ee oe ~ \ \ oei me) a ,—— 7atee ee , oa ae F - ee. = =.Gee eS } ~~ ce ‘4 4 ‘DS 1s ee : ~™

Pe | gees ee ie ee oe ee a sGoy ES ES i oe: eer . ees Geen Ree esi= ~~ ws»? | aos 4 ,a. a. | _ Sean : Ess. a SB i a Mobig foe ‘Fe = =' steJ te ee eee | cs 7: ——— es: Le Ss tS 4 _ | tT es - sac 4 > | a Rie RAE. 2 det OS eR) et eS Raed | ahead —}

; 4 .ES — I hs§ ‘MP ") >ti ee “ESeyaaees ws 4ita ’ Ps me4) a |is i 1=e) Bd. a.€a :| eeig or ee arig Bt ee 2 Vet me 2S. ee Ww, eeTah G~ ep \ >ByPol eH | aaSSWy, = eet ‘taeee heLt Pet Sy ete SY “| Ate SS fBe = eaeeee ; =ao iyhe aeiter Es =) ‘et ides) OS

bE a ie ey ea ee +S SA

;9. £ ie° es >4hvi =~) Sat “ iP a6:2areriayn. “fy ie gs8|> PS LSS! , 2 en > * ert aes ek 2° s8oeSe eal FO ee : i "Ska Eebee ; all . - *Wale, rf ~ é Voice 2mea fos 2 as ~eirzeged J % =88 a ye {ors St . Gaon BF: FELneo Mie ATPCS too ee ize ++; 2MGs ~ é(eS ae oa S22 * ‘i ‘ : esite SS

cl eyo S AGES | ARE ES 2 a _—s * “SS ee Ad = c= a ae bil + a i! ; is~ el sd a “4 ae ; f ,3 to *: a3& u=: ii?=«iCit 3 i ma eaahd (rs a = a a = ; iN eel \ - athe ne \e . 5 Sa , Bw Ne ests pees se Pre A We ee te

.. BEE y— .: — is a x ee 8 a y “ae 7 sae

rps: fi ae Teal et fe... Se Ee

if Py ' ,.—— ered} & jt at a.es teyoT wd =BA 'Ty, | ; |:2S I.2)— eFL j =_ oe -' .ivas 'i i. -ah 3aae { +e | f & ac 4 ay i> be * . Nee ; DR fog SE. iese? , Ms Wren ee aN a: RY ota 2 _« = V 4 | ABN EN os GS) SO ee = tis iy \ Se aN ~} ew + gua Ss en iee ego aa h Se SY Coes NO? recap ee) ceea=a IS oS enere =a ee ee = 2 =>SS here Qt ee Tae? er f~ ae” . ceed! 5 7 a eee yay a Sete what a} B= eSNips Fw ‘Weer = ” % ‘ PraaS, =. 4 ¥Meee 7) te ale er Ve ete matt} 3‘ Py 77 Sy :” A % > “> # \ dies RRS \ & 7 = + os oP iF . yo Ale = ae 4 St ~| EN 6a, cin as ’ .ce| ay geo P- 3:io, ~had y My “ Pg! ion 2mt hefe-Fa, —=po, : ig we ‘2 i im! ~~. , *. = ;:t ¥rn 3 mS lee 4 = : : es ian . Se 7 ate sa 2) ks af eS .rf|P , Se Ss =i!er YSSe a(Sao eA \?3." .Sa4 _. eee as | ees, _———..

Bn eee C8 eS oe eS SL

g z "» . Sa 7 ="

bE PESRSS Aaa See 0 LS eee |) aes | LAE AESjME ickooSeg IEee |

SNES Rese 3) MES Cee

OEE SE ae a) AMON EMEA SEAT A & DOES

& ;, : ;

hate RM Se eas errs Bo as pa ge oe tice EONS AI ot :

: M7ry ) 7> ioN ; —— — we :it & 4:=w. :‘P ,°— —~ i e| Fit :.HEATRY IN ECCLESIA »>.PETRI IN VATICANO f Poe a o/t/s pee _ Theatr Jaclu 2a mila rtia Cawifatts . Watinte tr. tecfo Paulo Curdoits | & ieee | 222905 }0 Louie etyictore pares inuehomd, et pictunsdict vie et | ee ; i ‘3 miracuicrum VidorDectore ornati, et /limimecaren decore ti, fa adcherrims folennitat® Canonrzahenis

aa "7 ST eee, on See

Be Sancti in gae wna cadem adie aly guatuor in Sanctor alum relate fuere 12 Marty > © 2 2

© Bs y é q oa a | shih) " 4 ir iu a _— ;

6. Canonization of Ignatius of Loyola, et al., 1622, engraving (detail). (From Male, Concile, fig. 57)

~

2

eee Se CR eeeoee eeNem corny tesee aie mtSsra; POR Seite Se Rigs eo ee oe eae ae Paysaap SE cgne ee ee

ie: ee ee anes ec >. 4 : Ses

€: Pe , Se eer ee ie er ES : Soha xe es ask, x - : a é

E ae as

a « eee. RE SS aot Eu ie Pes attr gh neat ey Ho a Seley nie ait wi se, ec 7 oe

PROBS SMag a *St CS 4 Rs»EN s Bes aL wsFy: the .% j _-

: ’ 4 redbs an : |. ty:oe7! eetdb .z , at A = Os, . a ¥ : eS Es *t,, * Seca : = ~~ : ’ - he ¥

Fisaes CTH swanuals 4. “ine. eee ee erDinmmnNatowy, ‘frino. ‘ ee ee ae ; : ‘TE we hii re . 4 Pe ; eee ;aaa os eepe ¥ », —2 Dee Ne2nest pA cee Bes ecer se ae’ eifieee a=‘as——< Pg es~-4—sor “os eWiden F _—ee_-——™t ELAS ne ae as ” ditienen te CR ~ ra 8 47 > ~~ 2 " + pate ‘a , ae, s " = ry Bestiary paar ., .: ‘ * ay 3 ey y te $ > “ -" ~ oe” peeoni, . .stfs oo Sh =a,oo eee ;es cS ¢ ; eei imi tis:‘egies ‘ i.. > “3 oe ye, fe=z 5=4 Pe+g" 4—"5ms oa ; a7a-.-n.5) =4)7»Oe: : ee

be en ne ae - NET SE TOP it ME ATED a A ER IO RES LL FeLE A hn RS “eee ; es eS ? NNA AT REBATE RETRY OPIitAntTAG EPO I 8 Bev 2k— aensz

eo‘awa hedsrail sarFag dt vibe &SN 5 _—_— 4 —— > =5BOISE : 4| aa = = gio ow? Te rike, “ % Z a" pi ‘epacseess 7 ea 3 —7)aes miTra 48 3eCas, FS ee? “Bae asc C502) Camel |@. a een Ce) 2 ne Lt ls na ety

bioe- as ‘ r aspt |este 7aude S =* ny£FF;X=ss.“S: RE. ee $. wr ak*&be-_ oi =-%, «;% re " a ie 6 ETS * 4cs Zeaa - Ut P x_atSats Seas2Aton #3

.eee i eee aS,. mm ea Ae = Fe + AN 7a 5 3*— = is Es Bm fa |= ee Soe —_ 3 &S mn =F ae SRS >- TE hee oo colt it 4 — oe + + Ne ie Biuimeyi 6). | ec ino Soe aa ae ed a AeEE SSS

wsnaie.Csrak & Ft Pe Ps bE i ‘%3 "-252, oa. ae;-,‘.4s' ”oe“es "4 pg oS q it2tho - “== bie x r=es Nene” 7V4 3 ,4— = 2? aes Sak “—— o 7: 25

PAB apaat) fheesBSG) ee — a ns (Pee I RNheel i lieee as SS oa OS al RET

ee BS I, NRA\ Paes eg eee OG . iI 5 Ne 7 Lot iy, < sana ORS Bh Se ae tae . ioe Sad area oRelgE FM Peet cayiesa SS. are:aethent ee = ie. WeySas a aiatae“9iya 2 ; a;amine eg RShSill SI iTP eee? ) _ i. Fe Fa Spears er th, US Fr | :)

x a ei’ [POON Rew el Ff “5 OD ain ee ae eS

1, Reb Ron ee . cos RATE Agee ; Z \\ ae =a _saSas SO ee papers "yt 4 I epee: 2gnc PT TAL Be Ir b, >SOS Se=3 =me 1stme: 5oO-Ee C3 Bos Saad Se0”|as ts: “;ie / 33vos ox“aeK ADos ces agA‘ ¥ " .

fe alt %, ; * alive: _ een 5 f ee | ae oS : 4 My Shoe Wak ; FP cee \ kee, Y Sees pe |tence See ‘ cate ~ eee 4 : a . {ae Pg oe a, 2 = y Tr = : a papi iene ty Bea |

= .aawer o¥ 42~~ NS .ba ceo - i2 ee x=” i‘= *— i / | y —-— — : $f

* —— = : a eee | Gy, SS 4 he ae a a's. ee Se een [en ces ~ as

: 7, Fhe . : Sa ‘ ae 7 tees q ? oe 4 eS PALS ea ee : “ee = a iic ; io . Ye ae a ; al : gat Swe Se 'zi : j } ee tpt a ae Hoes | ee : ! i 5 a 9 eae ha Feu Qo > > = >. een ee eS Stn gig abet . a for “4 as —* od 8 =~ Re ~ ° Ay

. a]»ire . [BEAU rs | J x — A -FEY . SESS ‘ VS ~." 2Ioa @ is . fg — Sa j2ck . Bs tee rae 9STAN | =oCa ————s I F7 aU8BeSXASS yaCe , , 7 ca 00 A , J | Pe1eo q< 4 oe 5 a Vs i t/ \ i ek oe, | bese / : ON wey, whim fe i 2 NEE ; mY GLHram a HARE KMHRME Log AM | ea ‘ steels AN i) |[ a > Ss >SE tem cue Tn eS / 7 gait Ue ie ee ee rj me Ee 7 ih om TI et s ) we, > a 7] gE at oS; te. Ve i on =“ ‘

Wig Az |ol| Bliss *| ie Zdiate LUNI RC ‘Piy/ >a Ne s=gh Yh - #cae hin Je‘Xi — ; eS ; I... > ee id aVo aX ens oa :4my Pf54; red -¥4i *4(atin A\ ik . ca Ah \\ a Sk Ye ~ 4

. - ~ . ) , . . SD ee \ eee Y ~

16. Ciborium of Sixtus IV (1471-1484), Old Saint Peters, ca reconstruction drawing. (From Grimaldi, /nstrumenta 18. Sebastian Werro, Ciborium of Saint Peter's, 1581, drawautentica, fol. 160r) ing. Fribourg, Bibl. Cantonale

— , i er ORI ag mr, ‘i ”

Pwy ; ae ? 22 or” % ( eee Us rayaa 4 i eer AA #3 ‘ ag.2wie a hy“a ; i Oe :.$ :

ae ic TE LET il md eee, iT Be aE, “ es “ur Es ALE a>. Rage wat oe 4 ‘ ~ 3 _ ~ » : | 4 4 * fo ou \ kei 4 v =, x co . ~~ ifws ‘We A en . vm 4 = fa SiS el a am + — 7 i a : " ¢ :: :

: : af 9 *i’- 4% . é ¥a: | :4.a‘¥ae * : ’ aes Ps 7 % BA 3

|~f

ip~?F_+isslic ii ~g “ “sweei 4*-2—AQ A F a : a 7 " : ’ af a , . f , A ger ~ x DS ad ae se ae SS a Ta ey

ee. ieee ak

»s.~~ad . ate.>2 2» LO >$ Eee#>= athe &4— eo yl : , . =( Ps by £‘aDY x ag We ma Fi-aaeI yore : a \\ . S page : foe ma sae “ed & NF a coe 8 “Whee, er bar - % p . Ps solid. . .

— a iy < ~ n : tk ‘ TtaS as Sy 2 o a aa! > J = ey p 5]a. “= © Y \'eee. 3 ie relWes, bey > =. 7S‘ >. te : "ay aug : wr Paes oe eek ESS . . Seana . b ; » >) i 2 ¢ be r 4 Mindh ; Rah it re {e a ™ ) f . \ te \ ie : oN : ) J [ee wee ee re Say) Aye ~ 5 i i DOERSS 4 Bot2:EB ; e RAS iL poseeaPY Ka ony aAeat\ :’a aS lS Le Lee EEaes | < ; ‘ \ J « i * A Ps) SP. 4 id 4 5, € BS A a inede? | ‘|

Bal a |a: ‘, ee +bsg: te Be ae a >*, AT ae DY Ve | oft aes ff a4 ieo oh a § ay i GamQye ;eS . We “iy~~NA, ‘ hash \ aes gute 7 oe e 4 ) |\) Se fa | Bn heeds2 |)i 4 ‘ 4 ee q ™ \ } ne i ~ ae “aes sie as Tt 5 ; a mee 4 ; 1)Sol, oN > | pom a ee =e ee, a “ae: ; pie 1 ON 4) | ey ee-Figg aSJ OO Spy » Sa Ke ar © Cat ¢eanaserrencicat: : SSSe a ~~ ei ae poetca, calé | etl )?NF i ~ Sa eT, a | cia a y i Pa % = 1.; ¥} ;5; ;at2 no oe=e Bek nm Peng iy Oy Ae pene»i ae Ha). ‘ Py on- aay. | tf a 2ie i,Bror=ee oeoe aoe, OE; =ie ihe 2 7» é4:ba.

O08, ») BRP SYM

PobSia q ii yy ae ~ maa ha Cee Bess i wet. ; Bc ; | |

)Fvit Be “4 a > \ Fs ee’éb{ a.“x*>deyJNg 2 + bom t i! :; ;~. © ay a)~ 4k; K4z5ati Awy a af) Ft} ie, ~ beey pt ‘. rs f Don 4 at ; ie ;¥~, 7¢ |LJ ‘ é : on}>». “a : ;

nt 4 P'S SF rth. f as a ifh ya’ EiPull) 4 -A m a* aAa 2Fi tT Be) ¥aa f " 'x EF f aya om Beye 2 | =P ; va FT A= =. 2) (7 rine wt = , et { cag hats Dy es '? a A | teiie Rie x~~ > ~ 2S iin vat egAaa a fale ag“~ |-» 2 -7iLa ‘Gl , +,* 4 o| Aa pee eee ~— y 1s OF ho f “S es— 7, éa4fBl eai de % " i —_ meen . 7 w 25 “ Nee : i ee =| FE mii : uvy.>&4 “\ 47 :‘fa* ;; || sans ~ pay) imj)a: -- aly, ‘fe: , f3NCATE , ,\\4 i és|t4:er” é eSBe ‘4 ».3:»\Ja‘e ie ed OO Me Ya. | Sarre anurans BY IE | i SRT 7 ,

19. Canonization of Francesca Romana, 1608, fresco. Bibl. Vat., Galleria di Paola V

J” i —F4 t asl Se oe XS it a +c 2 faa ~~ ae MEE ZA BEE, 1poDe a LEN Jog ’VOL A Ae ae a at eG yg ah SEMps RLTver peers i £2 ah oe -> (i> Say “ Las Lp Rea, = Sat JA: Gye > ge ae a a ORS, ee BE. am # [| lh aga SE SSS Pd -* ‘ s by, , a) . i ee a ae ; . . wae Ft J hes ee ea ane Ai: - ited ee! — 4 a vA f j eS SSS | yf y»f 4y(See, Y Cee Eee a ~of. \¥aa are a. ee“eee ‘ STi »eoRees, ia)

Bal :Le) te "}; y1Se %, a? |-B2 rz. Ss Ss 5_:ae“4 F P 33 id t ; Bo

a asta aa Tae S tas, io of rt. Se at Pad Bc 5 te, ka gi Lo we ny % bake ae, De ee > ae SaaS Miter as ah, ofa et a wy ia! Li ]7 fe i rs ews ser Bs ov r= DF Lita oo ay : wee Ye 7 ¥ * 4 4 be 4

: * ® 1 Bes ; pts ae es pf rer ns os — NT . x ‘ bs > ’ 4

4°0 |eh atl |4\S|, is ‘Vb »ealaeas ee” |j ;Biee [ TF i ‘eeMy : "oe, iy(‘3. |< ae > Ve 7 Se ee i ™ oo ~ zi) oe aw h oe : r ce 1s ; > mat) $ Bit } y Al? Fee wil ‘ all &t ie / Vj er eS | nS

ie ie ay W TayRech Ye \ PBou ~| : a)eseel #.Gy - 6 es} 1% en PeBiase NEL ee he mae 4 Bee. ¢ | Ae NY aoe UF < Ca an cay . Thn!lDUlUl} ee — = tl ie a ae SE, ¥ ow * ug gt: sumad .(pd "a| \2 BM i4° ue iBet ipt, 25" Fi fe \f ae > ae *¢ 4) te |]— GF esA . ' aca 4| Coe ; ; ae=“f éUy Pa ”4 Pa

Sep > Bee ee) BA: PY OAS oa Ef — «| es Ree y~ ah ee a ‘ =. es eS Tome eee

290. Canonization of Carlo Borromeo, 1610, fresco. Bibl. Vat., Galleria di Paolo V

: &; a= “->E — — =“ gf o* a,” /j“‘ Ww wt ; , &¢ . 7>=_

i\,.—*¥

ud r-Pa\ “y* wee + eee Peeepoor 4 a> ae-2% baw cals ce ee “-_* fur ae “2 a 7 Paste Shy =;5 OO- oe Ahk teks Af 4 :=. Tus . . , +bday =& fAgi>| ijSee oeoe> SS ti. . ify -_ ache exe ioe oa cea A a g al _¥ .‘ \ gs, a4 hese r SEPA os ya SS, 4 . a 2Fea ; “ t*ene BA Le.+oe. ‘ .~4. P¢ Ps , +? a 2¥“Se ve |ead ‘th AE Wg ogPaPsalc

hig 4 ete Bees ~) 2) aNd

>: 3< wa 3c\= i a : h. oe i ea We 5 ae 4 oy7ste> -| ": Hf, ys j — r? . , ~~ fons: ves ae e.remy Pig ae ; : E a rte&47 FS ie 3 ‘: i “ \d

h Sit- an Aeris d 1) FE Dale iy > ee

i —~ ne ao”, 4 |: 2S, ai mee mS es if pec UTE CERANI penne _ *sae 5 SY : aeGots ¥ae~~>Fa? (4 .cre J‘a+N ee 7=” Y .&r..: is ; |staeae s° ee Cae

i > Ps De - * a bs 3 . M4 a d CS aa a = . i” : r a ae a Pe > ra - < iene Te*: "abe ; le ,- he $nd 8ye AP: ORS. Ty AB - eh tat * ~~ - —_ eo .bie oe‘$35 a -r.*| 47

mY ee a, Gy IR = EPIL FORO Tn SHES 3 ~< ;=

iF orraBe Ry‘ ie vy ey — i . eS f- ; : :=e s fLe . ee * 7¥2» F |—s FF.SS .=: 7aFe: al : tes©3° x: Pa ASFe eye « _\ we > 7bTras > - ”aoS ; Be‘3% i *7‘ey ~~ “S\ teékoPRL Samos * og ‘ Voteall ae SF x ) zr FG kay\Woo x iy F ge ee. eS “a Ps PAry Ja : +‘. ’ HE Pel Ss ——. et Ss a Ag e a 4, » An he ae ie &

~~ - Ra&es

21. Medal of Paul V, 1617. Bibl. Vat., Medagliere

Ty

pe . . = Jj RSet gn Rin eo * eg ee | ee eer) h. De Ses Seat ee. ae Ca, eos 26 aE a ea og ey i Reet, oases :

odSSE ao oye PekSe Pees one ae es , Fe aS ae aah iS pa So.a?ee, 5 ee MS Bor,Gece eggs Fok: aN Soe:Ses a* gk : So we 4© ak: % 1ame ee 4STE ary rie a | Dy TARSAL ee A ~ ; vr BY | izes RaPE elleg AEE » tire, iePEt : ay A$) he 2 i 39 es Re. ; Ba ontIT Bacece ae eat| Bes. oc ee mee oe, eeeeA y ee ae FO SB Re Be RRRe. ee mee RA ouSie a oP a aTreks ? QS AA gg ae ORE eo.eeSe alee ede, Wes Bao gy et ee Soar See oe Sat =

ee ae Ge Me oO AE PT oe ae ee ee ee 1 \\ ae er ENE Plate Ee

_ee (eae sotee BEoe ta Set ane ee fj2Sei = 8See > ee ATE tb nay Merah ets iyte WlSs Aa ees °Cae ae | A et AE en oesiTfeBo =. a &2 °inl.‘ae Se pr ae Tasee aeea is Ne ’ be| ae si 17E N'- dl Be et :ae: éeae. Siem Fs pease. ae ot Aen Pe aa BZ Oe — i - 2Sih r{ an, amet eaBei * %aaDcos— = *ae2

4 feet Be ae quay Be Aeertet BEARS oe. laren : ee ae eso ee le 3 * pa,

Sas ee ee ie

6 Tk? ag! 2ST GGA ae geeaeae eeAi=oo poe SS =—NE>.RSeeaePaes “a & ARTE Nae NAT. ee :. ag Qe wk ‘ee he ke SAT. Poe fi lt SS MED Ss £4 7 Send re 2 % Se Ee Oi aac ap a” » EY Fy aa ee: Se:i .ee a eee) Ls>aeNo se el sy _&oe abtAa TANI TTdei Mi i eess otee Esee bs< le”aM == reer) 3). eee Me = i eh ere a, Ri FF Oe ER ne ce eT Tol eT “y ie Siee i ay jerORG ee 1 ee CD th ARSy iat ti] Twtee ADNE = Les7SS. | at ie eee aet 2a hd aeEs a fo te Pe eee ° Oo. RIOT gg Cr oR 9 : sania =a Sid wf Al v/, Saeed @ : -sitaittadaai os ee aaa — = . ——

S88 9, SR2.— JER \@ BR ON" UR \@) aii eee RE Le

fied 2‘ieaEpa —te "a" a. Se eS —. sSs — ate 8is™soe sal pest BON OS” eegtee ee,a ae w=

Bor ie eat “ha A peg oe Seat 5» at cg a ave c ihe le a Bs gist Rte RS Si ae Le ewe ee eee G28. etc Sco eee oe A ee Re, A ee ee eee ee > +é a

i Setiemeee See ee ge ee Sl eos | en an eee L Ci. + Soe: ose

ige Be 5 x mG ee r | ra . ed reat 2 ; s wy, pA ar Ye ~ ‘ - 3, c. a ant “i tif om ‘ F + eee *: 7 a Ts e se 2 = ‘ » ae 4 I oeSee tee OS. Sie tees, 9S aS ok2wea Serr gxage 1 tgSt eeee AL >ee x Or . fy we hod kd © =“se = ia Chet eeee . : ea: 23 * me oe ee b¥SP eR Beate. ¢2. Seas eessa."eee areOe Oseee * ef Eyee Se, NniSaeaE ar ae Se, Wamet AS eae, oe ete eeEe Cae, FS eaeae eesae Sac jo.=< ae —-— , eae y

Be ae OS, 2 ae ees ae ees. es Sh oe... >. SR ee est * ere ee ry ok ea oe

ceiPi. he Taeaaes: ee Se far aedag ag aeigetteeeea ee, : Siea=5eS OP ae 7 i Te : PNET art Raa ES. oe 9 FS oe ae Se rane Sit MS ree | es a oe A ‘a ee af “= Fes -,. “ a ener —- ~ . — -- — on . - x 3 5 gSa

bat ey : Bs - Reet ae 3 ne he ae 1 Sigg eat ha ae? TE 5 me fee = Nees ee oo «a moe | ae I “ates 2. ; ee be

' Sag. OS Pa + ak “See 4 oy fae.i25 See | = Me teedltod "“—5PS = “So, 4a a :ioe Ret lletebkty ee a te Soe n ae a a a>Tae a4 “5 & BF eit tee. eae Siig a8gh =eess awe Reo. en CE | OsSis a Pees A seaeroneraer att SPS

gees ge] em a4

22. Canonization of Ignatius of Loyola, et al., 1622, drawing. Vienna, Albertina, Arch. Hz., Rom, Kirchen, No. 780 (292 x 195mm)

R eee) ow). Stay ee Ahh Oecd ee ee ee yy) i| | i. — wast Re eh * em ea Pod A: = UT in ; oad it ) = 4 | cM. BT

a2s& aeeH vi = | ad eee eet a Bat ee ee SaaS Pf AS)“Se 7. =te === oe oeae a ee qioewo... Eee. ie eas —_— = Mick ; attit . Wi & = ne 1 i a ee5aMA “ Tay lad - Whi 5 3 ,Tpatie r :i !DL mere

—————— = eas 22 ee, a is | 4 f . . *" a st ne ee a * —

ee” res CAE GeLim ; Vy gevt==., mame iy z F< iit dh i§ _—.Wale’ | WW RT Vie— — aaiensit eo. "@ 7 6» 2 e Ite he i — RS $$ et iy 7 S iil i SS Se ea: OPER | HERG |=.ny i tT + He | sau eis ¥ f F _— i } — ae he )if a; 1th Vy +FWe a“Ahi : a|TLS ;> iaHe Ce 4f:fit ie7i -;} : ’ih ih | F ne ee 2i ;|ie |EE ee 11 ih;pase §1) akitee te ‘ce - :)‘ |;£;re ‘eri ED i a Be a] | ; id ; 7 , : A 43 j 3 ; 7 eer, “th Be u | — f e 7 “i

Seth JB Rg Gog . ) : fe Nino | Pct che Ree | mae

N ii i" oa) et ). i} i,Pe) ftHr mae st 4eee hil i i"mt .iE wy.t-;ape F eh) TF ey 3EE 2ne ii Lane a7}; } =itiieeif sh ee — |+gl Ana aByoh 4 fy, eee 2*1]bg i aane}

aea) | Fs AL AMUN bp TA \} ji9 i4S ip 5ATS . Ry B| > eee| a| TT . _ ms ‘ i;2 ; —— b aeFOR! y 7 ~[MESS 4 2 7 3\ ena

¥ Ay , q ull di [Rear he Ais Vee 3) VAN) pee ‘i ? Oke TD in| Tay

EE pee A ives Sok TD | NT Lae ; , ‘ 5 ba cae : fe: oeret teen eres : Occ tlepterect “ ¢ Val) if

i} po eS Yoeebargissete cee : Munici it jel ; i 1- ;4a,' RN ae Seth Weds wines - : ; 2h,'~saert uj } ilOi) m7 'alu

a:~“twt aeeels i ee EN ecs)oa teMULDER be 8. variety zBete aSsLr “ Bee \7 PV07 AOS SS CY ate SOE7a, Aalee GT UYE TORR IS. “oe Wee ed 1 8? | \ ff jahcryvuw yo ee Are, La ee he

CUNT TA fame ANN ARB ISG FW an NW YNa }. pe AT ARLE Pg) ||AN eeFTN PT eT lattaia 1|| OU Me) AEN y SUNT eA yy ae me LRA WATEXVRAY 6B Washi WISTS |e fen pa PLA tac) Wk Lf ee! =| Jiait : St mee! US a Thurs ct Aparan Sdrant fat lla Chisato 0 Pitre oa Vamean per Ts Cooriz atone Fama Tall Yas ANS Papa Vehors adh oe Magy thar de 7 Elvabora Regina de Peyhjal

23. Canonization of Elizabeth of Portugal, 1624 (decorations by Bernini), engraving. Bibl. Vat., Arch. Cap. S. P. (330 x 245mm)

i _—— * .< {2-7 a =... SSS = — a . 2 ’ e= —" ~~>=e ~~... .. ~~. = “peel 28. Sanenaiteon ae

Se SR Nh. SSRN Ub 1844S Gira, Ose: ——— " ae LAS

% “. { - i’ omes waea SSS SS :Atg SSNS _.. |. em . , _ o —y, eat SOE . = . ase fy ee , ases eM, eS . Pr Fi Pex | a F pe yy © 4 dey Or it. , iat inet) 5S SS lee | 4 SG : ae 4 Va\ AQ eae . , : a3 73 1 é = 2 | h » . s “a Se ke LSSX) 7 ¢3?( %ft;a. fi. Ag hay : = Peas

as ee a oe > é alt ; ae = ee 5 . a! ————— - ge tp ™ . e ; :f;2%LAOS > a hea i , [| & 2 —_ . . Sa ts ; ——e ae eo natal . oar re 3 : * Ps { ms “si pss ad Ls Saad / F gut e z 2 *, } iz ~ » * j sue a E — -——* : re *% ’ % ; ps ey , ; ™ s*% , : . P * , ee Pg SS : . . « > Se solid ae ES | eee diode [ a

if a . Y itt: . Seaite ag Beo xe , ya ? 13eh ; : > : / Ja C “ pat x Sy 2 7 i [ 3 Lj = Fj 3 He io Hae} 4 a, Se ek ad eee . ss

ee = . = mee * : = - < . * - be” —_ . => a a » a wee os ~ 26. Ludovico Cigoli, Ciborium for choir of Saint 27. Ciborium for choir of Saint Peter’s, drawing. Vienna, Albertina, Arch. Hz., Rom, Peter's, 1605-1606, drawing (detail). Florence, Kirchen, No. 767 (362 x 315mm)

Uffizi, Gab. dei disegni, A2639v (424 x 286mm )

‘ ES a ee ae Se ene age | ae i oe a SE $e ae aeoe SAE Saar ge.Rea eo “4 m PREIS? 3 : BA reeoe a

iliagar ee ac” CBee 9 eeDigit RN Lee re a OR aee Peea ERR: 5RI E> gerne te Lame reo BR ttm, Ee ig : cape Bs Nac ease Meeaehe Seaaa < ee

way wn ae — ae oes Spies 5 War ee oe eee =e : f ;

« dl s nn, na Pe -ee ~ ?‘ ba ab Bat te eme aeire CRs ae wes a2aitRen aRi awBE 4 egSee eaes eS on Sa be ae % Ca) ae : bce ae. ee ce oe eee” : oa a a Agha SSS —ete—‘_N ‘ t% 2 ‘% on Re 2 REE IE Be Eee Ge , : » PA ax e $n Bt hae — a = reat [Eee el , ‘ ae oes oa” SS Oi2eee, TO we mae 4 idl Sc% eS veges , . “‘ ies ae : : . = ci TT. ae we, 4 # > f ae aN bet ee oe ex ~ eae —_ a . he 3aaWee “f - ; Bs. ne 4aes at 2 :: or ‘5 e eC * x is (5 eee oaaa i pees Boe eG5s o> ns;Bis a2FSS. Lo Ree | Se | eea AN Sena “a ee ded ie. Be ; : GAs. OS) OF SSL D2 OE” arte Nai yrlelee ccs BG 7 SERS SR F328 ee ESS Wer =" nn, Ses “goles ne oS ge see 85 3 3 i wt a” ee atte FE i foes & a, 2 ES one teenies. SoS ope ES OO rs S“es : se = Rae ss8! es,Weegee & eee ae.eee Pe, aeFS oe 1p ho Ws eek oe ee: aay Spe oe ~y P Sy ee 4s = Pua o£ a : Cae oe ene 1e 2 “ 3 >. 2 aN ‘ ee ; ape 2io ie jiSe, Savowen (° 2ee Bees AS —— E> taPa Pag Se i cl . Sn ieee te —ee : : PaS de ata. % Se vod et amr Eee al ~ Ses 9ee“aee©bed jCP Zz; i, aoa le : “Se we at ee ae ae f a. ae Sete Siete neers * FE Beate cee gee *

7> ,4.4inal *r ee J ify eee t?cae: poesPeee eee exe % eS eee fe OST onns ee; 3batt’ * ie ST pees: Pee ohon, eo

; ~ = x CORK ed igs Py, a rks : Di, ean ee a SE et OS ees me + P ;“e 2os Oe niSees 5aae, a, by -cz eA RE peeee - om St

Bape ern ak prety ary ‘* Mi eo “7 ie Te oe bn wes 2 ak ee a aed ee at Bt) Pw Sees aan oy a * a : ee ffse eS Sars Pas my 3tee So oe ead & oer os sf- bie Seabee 4 Ree iea Ms, Tee Sot; pawn ae & ee ee ioe eeeee eS SR.ee > ae Gee. ee Oa, Secee aeaor ee : Pee eeeee a 5 meet 2 ke SS i DEE fy 2 Pte ‘ oe hse" eR Bie Oe a ees eee meee : “7 BS=Ses ieee ne 3 @ eae ok ces SS et . ie ees 3 ipkaeiet dhaess e o3" gag < cs a: en RS ga ee rz shed ea er Sh Cn ee aE ae a aes a ar se Oe ta xixe a Ee eee ea a rae

“enhBY St?we So Le a aes See = en:SSG SeesBao Beaupain te det ~e Se -SOT earRE coe9 We eaeie aan oe,

‘ ener imei =e eae Raeingen eae es Soe? Sic eee aoe hemes -; Peeee oe Oy Pe=, Sim 5“ane es ee ae ee 4:es a! woe Peo ba ee enmses ae ey =a Se. SSrus eee oo eg xaaah 5inWOOO ee nos eee OES ileee Re Patssae “ aad Soe oy aaaoar ee ae atte | eer eae ix caver ats. eg 8 4,~~ cage oe ae eebss gi % aie . at S2ek5 ee) tees. = eetetee Te aoe eanSati eet soles I os Ka a ‘

Se elienines Be =ae) REAePEO FEOS MRS 3 er Ee iretepees re si abe Shien SeRea ei 3lgaeS eeeRaa eee eee, ”ces rtPaes Se oh ge mete. 8 SR eITST) ee eC ees oo gee a aBS ee atpee Sa Rs “ee, Sceeiene ee:ooCteameee SG eecre 7. Ea ae

a ae a Sg a me YM , Cs EMS anki oy, oes Wea yon < Bay Mg gay Te coat CS OS2oe PL aes Pa PR Ta Sd, i oe abs aAagaMRR a ial aes De SS oe ate ae ones let AaNS) . ee Bg ne aNee ne3al FSET -:oie A nad GPR& onthe oe6 ere Be= Ls i‘F Me .Saat 2ini, Rr teas Cibori i ] ibuted to F is Derand, Cibori odel

28. Borromini, Ciborium for choir of Saint Peter’s, ca. 1620, draw- 28a. Attributed to Francois Derand, Ciborium m

* *.; ing, .*1613E

ing. Vienna, Albertina, Arch. Hz., Rom, Kirchen, No. 766 of 1606 in choir of Saint Peter’s, drawing, 1

(235 x 177mm) 1616. Paris, Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, Ecole franc. No. 3598 (431 x 300mm)

eRe ee See Sie C7MAE eeMirae ee a*ae ‘=oroes Boon he aOR . J ibSg Oceee feeSee eeee

;;
Osu P , . eal or tok |)Py See ee’ :)yf eet x‘.SSS L/- fi "(OV a— i a oe — ? = 4 : ; # wr ' : " a! = ls A 7’ ay > ? ~ P a eee | 4 —— Te a. 2 i Ne — b= Wa: “i a , ~ | c> 8 dls “ ¥ PY ~ =" VF og — i ed ay es ' ie , $ © , j ? a “E. a + a : e, v | . \ ———— 407 -ba .. < . ” atthe ha a ;veaf A ie ™ Po ) se |Jf . | ro § = ee . . ~ d in a fa Saal a. | | : —— aa \y ee 1 / : j P y © & ; ~ ea —_— E —_ . ’ ED * =eemo 4 # J| a. ~F y :H/ ;ayny: on alt waa ke > pe x. Be oe >,“2 ébE >@.a: =tT. ‘eei B. Bi le a° ~~ - Katie :“7 3 BS ata=es tea be tee a (ote ~ . :a}°j: ;Al 4f‘af Ey. 22 .‘ .32ai:F

Me gc ‘ ak hh er aah “ ae ~~ ‘ v. E * ¥ - 7 / ‘ < o = 4 ~~, nee ‘a ire

Se 7= sf ;ey id 7i. Pei j 4se , raips'a: oo rr oot 4 ii = 7 a : . Ree ”. taeeapm eelsakeomnct sa 3 =[fe ne OREN ap: . a , -~ a . ac)

33. Council of Ephesus, fresco. Bibl. Vat., Salone Sisto V (1585-1590)

Sine? ’ . 5

fe4 oi ay yeas Z aa eemr t 7g “als * :=2:SA .33: on ;“23BY Sy5r |See : .aseee PIPeae a et eeTe a ae ene ee “eit ian

wr Nae 2 ia TP ves sor ae LS zaee We a be Tas < ~ j 4 : “x | I ike I ’‘\ e| m &r ie .j Z \\ \\ A 2e ee

(< Ped ir NR > a A. i f; jb Shak 7, ~SY ’ \ 5 \> \\ ae y CER es = ~elt RS Wit 3 Ri Ij 4 y

V4 f PALA: \ \ 3 + Sit ne . 4 exh 8 S ee e, ie | aie i .See FS Se , rac eh 5A \e +—— noel ss) §ear aS iD. 4!¢ i= F' Ma “> —————__—_—_ eee 22a73a are" Z 4g os }B7(7d : i\sae ’\ _: oy “2 L—_* ote~ \bin ®onan atebeny : aS Jeae //,',

Be eects Aiageet - =. «AS : , tied d ‘ : xaPe Fy bee od FoR = ~ i \

a oS i_ See ae ew” z 5 4 Co 4 See pa r= i , aT ne > SE eee ot & 1h es Ee: ,

-s,*Gee Po me . »Pe .s i *? ‘2,7ae « .’ ™,$ : . wren ae‘oO br E—a, fo-2 aes \S 3a nal eee : Sa Oe ca Oe fame

aa°

' As ri — clini —— = y wiry 3 :

|, — a é OPEB 2 ~ ‘.‘4 F Fie "et |. J| ;-- ‘4 4ak3-

° ee dd ££ ony wn ; a ‘oo ee age, é lhe i aa . ,3 >:fy«we 2s ‘ 4G Foe le Pa 7 AZ.4ie;Ss zt -, >” - %. 4_ t«eSon ~ PP ot » : ‘ j _———- nae I aa mn A 0a Se oie ee eg eay = i i “eR

% cA e rt af ; ie : : : fh Sage? ‘

Ta fn || G: |e »~ > % : * if ; Ye Z ‘ ‘4 ais pe mae 1 Pe 3, = i” |’4PA hae A Posh 7 | — y“ =_~ 6 ie “ i 4 %. Vg | S ak ll > $: * f 3 H w : a . v a ee » > {oe ey : | et. , : ; eet ak . » ;aeS aA26 a is ay 2 ¢ S a at:Se i 5. ee Ar , . a ; Poo. ae ix ? ~ i] ; ES hd 4; —" Z A me

a|—| |ol ed i,woge Zee -| ; :¥CO : i: . 3—

-« ’ 7 es 3 a “aa ‘ geo x — ae —— > 3 > ee 0 a:———— 2Pe:aa gl| a¥e ee ae £rae >z ~a:3 ‘

+4 a : ai x _ > BEE ahaa SZ. namie We oe ie :Bag 4 ££ =. A eel =: pe et ;9: Fe >nat alFe a Nae. =: a, ee 7 " we i a a i ied | € is a. 2 a 7’, Se | ’ a ; o ; = : 3! « & . ee | » - “ . a] : e, a vt . “ poe ‘ " he aie » 2s x8

i, sh @ ’ ——_ + s ee ee ’ casa EE a = gl ~ f’ Sigg. . = : . xs a : ~—& 3e2 G7 _ . 5 3 2 wan he eer ee

= 7 ; aa

;: 7.-*« -Ore: ” . ys = a3 . < ee viii a es Re | = . _ : ~ AQ = ms = «a = Bu~ : z ™ ; = my Tif Ps ps | eee F , ; BUSS . . ; P . a a —, j o% a a * «* . Wn Se, =en“ a+ - -7aoWe = ": ~—_—s oS... *pe xwe Ys tenia A a— me ee ”a —_— 2 --= \ Reed oe-e P as oe tee SeLaeaSYe aw® atSRAy . aA 4 .Ses or = : ‘| , Sis & Tied : Ka gn < aa a> —— Aye 4 va | i. teen oe en mes “a ‘ ut : ak: Se St ei OS ES a re ae e @ or. Ty el a Y Vea ead a Se ee | Tee “See SRA Wa SE ——— —— | UR ras Fae SOD ; ates ee nin ee le f , Nee oS Be a4. ‘ BS) . Une d |e a ay lags ‘ . — be1| Ma) Ne"SY SA OO eej S| Zip Ng ee me a EER |. ¢ oS ehe Nell NsGEPRYG er csONEONTA eat iY °LD | y eSFRAT ) =,SE bal a beaJey 4. fjp My [7ne, ysee oa bPaces, +Pan *27. =2. >aha’ “A esae: ;~« , Y.4A‘ee sh. ng \Weres "a eeei=> #“3q . sie .N}ba |— eS. & uae err a: 1% Merle aN i Ks ane 5 ae Eo ae eae Be ee MA & er A ‘ee he ce * | y at a ete ee . eS Bo Ne Pe Seas: SS SE ya aS i> aSie Carrh Y eee BaBy 2. OU REINA A) I PPS et ESS Ch oes) EES Wea hes ia ee. fe Rey :BRA ~ ’ res WE. + BN iee “UST a.OP = a .a~See a “a bot YeeBEAN F) Ps ’ mibe a no] nol RS 3 Ae a| m red w ae ey > oe a See 4 B \ iN a ae be. ; 3 f : I . ; ( rr ah 5 / 3 LF oon ee ‘ rs Saco i v) d ad *\ a) 44 ye 4 . . ‘ en t~ Pe — SAY | FAA ~ ANY Pa Re ) RAL Za ae | Oy TK tes i\; fa i \ yy el ) , \ ie "4 gk { ¢ : ve } —______. -\f'4 te Ya “ay \ ett, uA AY > ‘(Ag 60 Ole, 3 Ss of hs

SZ EN Rg |) ZA at

Bh be ay tA) a at OCOL =" 00006

: ay J RA i. 4Si; Sa Tay 4Py. aA sy -— : > Fs} onJ=eee .. Saoe :J FLOM aL ES Se BY 2 = rat : ye tt as ae Sieg.” Mechs tat)eee Pepe BES Sfs”ros J . , yr oy we e: :AEB : —— ee A) wes

j |&,Lm i pe & i ¥¢ 4eaes;(ree -te )4% ij ; , ih =) é Pr ts‘

t1. Altar of the Holy Sacrament, Old Saint Peter's, drawing (From Grimaldi, Jnstrumenta autentica, fol. 35r)

Mes f : ee od WT get i %,* 5 .

Feie® A ——— : Ad x ‘< fA & by ae FI aa Ft — am : ry | — a RT iw ie 5 ay ‘ LE —— me . = ares ! : a 7 t #5 | ar . ( / 5 Lf a:Seeae A Si a — ah pea —— CARE £7 am ERNE Hy PLE off F > jas

se ZZ . > — Ay i y AL — SHE) } G ‘by 2 : — | SHE HF a i | oo SE COS i 4 ve Hi iN ARES I DI E a TotAne " RTP . >OSV aioeRe—_ ‘ ih H ee ALY ' , ,“- % : i tePog senate Cj. joa ENE NEO lida Me : ae ae

Ee eaenal 518)

« —— paS"o a fe : a ~ ee - ‘ i io Lu oi : 1 2 : . . @ 5 Oai — — —_— pS oth ot hae} : > of s oy . +, ||goat == AY me | aHT ar | t| ’' |Sie : | a fp Ps ‘| ies i |~2i! i:ihreiy‘te RA+ acm

a | ie ey | ) . ; 4 ‘Wes.

| ae HUME ae my!) Ws! oh ee oe a | Wi | He ia 2 at) 2 eh i ¥ » Wee) £

; RiRt Se2ii[Py f : ES “i | Lu pet eke. Ve . Fie . . Tt i;}' i;‘z| 3jm4 a| My) -|;: Ee = > -fas j “~~ 9 Kt ee Ae a? aLee ips if ‘|4rete ’ 7 IS

ifem ; eo | 4) Wa om || it | ee a ee = aa inHith'fe: ot a ~ nap i ie& = af ; ; } = ‘ex ; be Al . If a ate ; i | i ~ > ’ ; | | ) \ G y \\ j 3 \% | ith en ———-—-* te Paley 4 i fie) |r4 |i e if ae 5 die =. ane ij 4 st ii : ber Fx 4 hen > |) hi Hag it in ee oa | i AT oa ' ; ie tid ae au i :

; ay |e i} 4 y ze x — = hee ] H)) a ial q 4 Bik i wi | speed | | ee NB) | Be aha) ca.;|ale ‘BL halt \iie ==-PP, —is j iz.tk amy » a | ee h e i , ly ae AM ae a 9 ¥ it ae ; at oh oe —— — rl _ ‘ i P

y " To. tan o@ weEEE Zz ear er ‘ a"ae‘yFa] 4 “i “q4E; m, ’> psa SS ———— Ms} ot 42. Rome, San Giovanni in Laterano, Altar of the Holy Sacrament 424. Rome, San Giovanni in Laterano, Altar of the Holy Sacrament, southwest corner

mee Mee te >~ee Lti “ Ta Be ee >4 .v's | f NS J& ZB a’ " ai ” ~ "5 Zee lis o. ; iz a \ SREEF} inh ie aSo5 7~~cSEe M whet, , re . . aS Khe Some eo. ye |- Sy YA ot 3 y fo = - ss SE _ a “2 "Saat ~ “4BY "% “S,ZH : a “ /_ es WAAL a5 //ryon/ --

r\ ¥*a ‘~\f =ay Wee ie»& A‘4 eet |A A :@cae Be, \ . if to (©) ae) 4 \ ‘aa iF |) i ' % S] if onl >= QS ' i ~ A. a ePo % i o) gical se ei za i "1 al LIP > io CIA Aey Na 3: ifif are

aaa )ipreents bQiaaneh : i -a = (@) :h .ca= aa ©— Ago ieeS >f +oa oe> Fi! — 2 & Pp Be, _ jSs za geo | ° | satus " —_ — ae 7 4 . et 4 :"|P {".% 4} . 1} paroe ~ >=“ al“= a _—Ne at 4> :oti's‘ ee ban’ iP t ,.t, i~ Sie =wl atten i pits Mine fa ;— a: eeSS -eS {6} = E eft te, .:- ?\. .=“ >:1. a a $F te —-& —— es Ne [lee | = . fsJs:— & Dsx. _= 47 ”~~ Syath :, -e.aed : ‘., 7]i.mS="%,-“=&*\ ~=¥:. és “gree :A.- +—

fe a" ie PO ees ot ee = we ae & - a= . : ;

3. Saint Peter's, view of baldachin and dome

74 ii 5 ii. 2 ¢ od ?) } ; 7 y “i ~ J ‘ “ » 2 . . J £4 f Pil a a ~~ a Sts Se ea yh, y « /_= My aaa | ae, Lae LE ~*~ (a fern A OBE P27, fi i GES ‘ N

ri cet -A: SS iee. i::Ss oe\ =}| a) ES we P4] -S m10) , a}rr:F\ae, \\\4‘4 Bp 4 jTos .— vahs sn24 "6me Aan $~~ *1.‘ aey= et &, “‘ !| Deoa, — aoea18" f ~A-TeOi eeee. Geieee igi aad

a > eeeeei&.as RPG ’ i): om~~ =

a oe

> ve Po e ; 7 Ne ~ = - ;

ed i‘4 ,\ Be ee % , ../a.Z#-Pie Sy > = ——— om , = sNee ,2a, SS —— —"; EMD ss — . a aN a ee ( " -met i rs SoRe oe ae : eS: 3 \ae PSS ie eo ae Drie: a Wo) Re . be a: a oe. pA en creeds,

| 7 ~sErie Sy : a—— etn 2: |LivyVe! jdyae,* \X ae Je AEe Lie £ Ee OF fh LF es (af, a “4 “= : ae ss POU Ravan | fh rE
i* ' i7-— Wie 6iif *| aul |; ie 1‘Vee Va .|;;' ; i ; = e a a nc 2 ie \ng, se | : mare z: & . oe es tf. —SSS ; «Sie .—— SS eos é ae ~.ae — ; nae -4‘ — i+ : =: 4 Anderson) Anderson) af : * FEROSOLYMITAN* in| Ge : a. ” : vei I he {/ )

Lf i \ Py j ; rl he’, \ \ i SA if \\m, aN | =," . . |.h:+a-:}‘ae .— : au} ’3(oe ¥ ee : S oy 4 -. .: J + i .te ] 2 ~"7ee weit PP A= " : 7 = a\\ £ ill Say “iia: a = . = ~ rd s \ 3 |{af) ti ; UA Ss . “ : . i ss f al rv / ~ a. SO SC | a —_ oe | of 2 — = _ aan -_ . : :4- |Ly Pm * ° 5 | : ¢ iz ‘s ‘ 3. 7 F j A : S) Baa, ; > as . a a | Be | la, 1| a ti * a iP hw & 7 a, : \A ; { 2 \ ‘ | : ; : , «| ae os aS . , a | F 19. Francesco Mochi, St. Veronica. Rome, Saint Peter's (photo 50. Franesco Duquesnoy, Sf {ndrew. Rome, Saint Peter's (photo

.z‘-

, . PP - =< ' - - , on ; * xt : a —

- * ~ ~ — ——— a a e ; - ¥. SS -

di ; :) * —-", . ae a : r: . | — . ;

i hw & -_ne ; ~>i ,4| '‘f aSS: :’3‘, /me f ke, +\\~ «. 4yy ta \ Se a . | : | Taay tea , _ , .. = a| a\eioe 4 || (Biceyeammn ~~ via: { 4fi4 34 ‘> f onare 4 ; 4a Le ee : \‘ .me — if ia s ‘a cb wr o ; é 2 ns ' : § at . 2. , ? ‘ : ‘

||)' \4Se Pe " 1G 3 E: . \" j ni : . = hi isaisane es a ee! Sa a | 4 Te 4 me || a: ).a: tyby1 teaen || i) Ja \I_¥ e ie : "3 febo ge fs OS ; | % i)~ BI 1h y~~H @o2) : ; Het Ria }4: i \ 2 é | ie? = ae = \ Sebo r i. A : "i ae aa

Se ; ae=» thfe ‘ . a aa , ~ae P2 i =ot % aes' aeiPee ‘I oe. te

: me P ,a\ iy +4 =ax“s§-—3. : if: ,Pee F -ehaeonty jL— >. ,paOa =_a is ? ;”2) ia /_tinge — a. ini| i.ai, aer => :pa)PY: (a!

| —- v4 . Fa e erea3 ;a “7" .A Va GK & ‘ > oo % 4 ~ae es *% 3: ~.' Wa i Afik i Yim 4 vip*geF = lg tS / 7 j32 :@efhe. "©-@eeeetl as : ——_ 4 *6hatibiae 7%4 ' . " x Py as ad » \ i & Iype ~ = SS fal = E " 5 f

> =4OF ERAS ee OG 3 = S =e ah. > P| of is “a: ae :|>yaeat, ; Sie og al hme & a my) pak ss ¥ Sites + =eioe : ';a .; j Pa P; ¢ “a 7:. ~, mre oz ‘> ) it if da : Py Ste > * 7" - i =Bas ie . e : LZ 4 v ie — Ss ay i Py

| iperso esreerreen ao Sosa "aa is Paee 2. Cae }'ah1) r} Ler J peer 5 i: i ®0 iw ‘ BR ; :SAOSIN ,fi %: : nf a, t° i,4 = =Cumin e.> : a,a>H : 4a x OP fh 2RSET Aa Tine: SSeS Bir: Bie =. Fi

). Pal pow a.for fiei.‘3s pa| ,Milewiindin Soe ios Ss f¥ ; ¥# |;balcee oe FS Sa }iie Hij: a eb |it wi. ehaGiOe te SasaR TT, 4 lea. 8-~-Eo -~¥cae ee| i Iasi= ee: ew = =PAI capes ;a%

+NOES 7 eee SRR = ss lL.; he at . ee aa 4new ee ~a |i&:are 0i iy ate NN ! ea pet? §etae ie >=2wi: Bs: RRALASIY : Re NOat (ag.¥4—-> ac :-.~Nee $iVR RSELAN VRE RAA Asyilse OV dls FC ke * i A* x ye bal 55. Saint Peter's. reliquary niche of St Longinus 96. Saint Peter's, reliquary niche of St. Helen (photo: Anderson) SHOWN IN THE ARRANGEMENT ORIGINALLY INTENDED (CF. TEXT FIG. B)

arene enon can non i am i ss cis Gs

Va 06) oc Ee wee Le RTE“ PARUARRRRRARA KERR LR Ky of! Fr A)“w. , Pee i, / o£ “BEeEEE| < ‘a ij ig £ . ij ve vi i] ii ~f \ ia} ; TE y/ |OM BEEELE EL ei . Hy ]ia. j i |4a : rY < SP. }. ii . \ a a os ~HiT ""\we 9) ias ae=| aeRe ” “it )ok

== Gale) ae aa = re seaa S te ie a = ws Na Se — ¥ Ss doves wh ‘ , J 5

: c Rs “i on : Sere = CIA A Aap ete nen rT >. be ne a ne See nner =e ——

SSRNGee” A). a S| come ; | escarole af : => ee 7s -=::“ —_ f nd oe ‘77:7| i’ as fi aS 2 7 ee out , =) tel : ~% SS Se 4 e =: a Bae i] wie? hy : Ba Git ; BaF, mys er : : IFFs

> aa i & pie | ia ae ey a4. mi Mad ot

a! a: ?“BE ex ee pA i)t é1 “= ©| i; af |5,4fi} i u| wi » 4 oA Fs!Be P. :int ,. BM.

III pO ab Belt b | eI a) | by / ~ __Peet :4 " FP" }{ 1) eee mM & “ie ¢ “a Ewa | Aer sais 5 He Rt a i . —. j ie | aye oot a : iins iea FBa hie .f if Mi ff Ub Ww iw WOCCTT CS ES — ag Gee LL, —_ —v : iE es ; : eee ee oo ELAS a. | if = ae! i : | . | ~~ «~— = hs
= ,t ‘ . =" : -, -~ — ~ a ! 5 Va

> ee = 2=iei 2: —— c ante

57. Rome, Santo Spirito in Sassia, Altar of the Virgin

|

merci IST AE ae 4 a \cet =" eee fT 3 a OY af O\.. a ee 1 — i nh x PP \\ i ee Ait = Tyee “A ce ice i!=

Esmee .an .rs= af aa 2 a A Fs 3 | |Diseay7:0, f' (Ye ar ee i = Pers ee et + — i g eyaita: ; ae :1diy:unce a¢dele\. er | — 4_ SHE. Niechie Jupentor | e* is > » Fae 555 4A SiS

= =} " PL . ss 3 oda a “f AAAs : ‘ . be a en ae — i et \ = ee

aS a =5=+e [f— Sgr Ss i iene > 4 es ee © — ® Bre tg =: , Ee pre. of y EA a a ‘ 2G * ¥ ¥1- ~/Yyf - ti x a Rig aA $+ = - ~~ “¢ Seto ~* . ai>- ~~ 1 Ce BM \Ke >? —-_ * =: - 4 ‘ 7 oe : aes: et & ut ; De : 3 ~ a

ches ee :”=aseaed END RS 2$s-< ae .iaA '74;SO om ;: "ae ae ¥=._@« z~ pe a:Sa — "% NT era Le en, ce —y~.*=3 _ =«~ eS ‘a o i ea “ecg ee S e Phe : ‘ : ae a iad “ ae A ae : » ror = a - ,— , . ee ~2 fc,#5 * » _-aos a a4 ~~ a“1: } Zz33a,is —:et“i.4% - s=~-s. — > > .“~* >." ON .aah ~ 9=e eri” \ oO ‘i~~,on nM reQe. ay Dahm:fy“ evsee I > STOe oe * . aPe hag y .* -Ste : . f— ee et, eee ee eS. i XY hy a ap f. 44 ~* "o a > (4 P| > ~ ' Pf yaj *oe . iY . ifTe A2ny? 2\ky -. wt ! . J o Ys. 4“a:¥d \4.er=—aS ~ CS PPh aay. EARS é a a ui ‘ A, Mf f+ %," — om & . 2 Er ee gg Oe csi BASS +: $2Se =a ~ . J a “> ~ « ns - 7. sy, Pe =“ Oe ~~ y~Ho 4: eae . .,.* +ai ee ~f ="' 'ie :a a ¥ “a . “5? * -vy BE ~~ ie ae a — = nS Fes . 2fin ogg he baa — Abhi . a : " ; : —_Re» : Ps espe": ET 4 : eSaoe. a oe - POS og -_4 m —— : A os Satae" 4 . cP - * aa :. be iy = oe.

thr,raid 4;7ieee “s =>. aes . - we 7 ¢;im :Ge i—— “—. 2Sa.iNa.x® an — — s.y ae Fe Takes ET as ae .ins. : ne :* a~Pie *B ee Pa > ? \| 4Pe

- . , Ps a > + "> -

ae ee SE * {‘:ave a» ee. 3 : oy ms, . te, _— = . af pe \I : ’ -"y:- fey %< Poae ee =‘ — ee* \ :; p; RS a _tins. pet er 4 4 * me Ss , a“aee: i . ~oyF '9ala ’2=, Vive a?

— . | yy . ae * = ; : | i.Se Sos ew . \SE pe = sy = = Xv ite‘i 63. Saint Peter's, vault of northwest grotto chapel (originally dedicated to St. Andrew), A potheosis of St. Andrew

|

“ my BY) aa Mien, OA PAA ' ca tH;‘es aa; 4 TE ~SNSEsega: =&. ;OR ~~. |PET ;H obkis 4va : Sea : NAT ee 3342,

~=5tf re‘|BRB? '}a-| 4, 7; ery “aaa . —. Pon: =% ; ¥ ; Pa: i . , a ot 4 q & ‘ |

eee ae ae——— OESS jtinibes re iL— NE ;>" .ee.a|);™oe a ee = Rae’ ie _——« . | = ‘ — 1oe ee YS — \\4 Reh p fest — te 4gra -TS ..~~ 22 ,v a29 ie.y _ al Te e a

{ A 5 ; : * A ig 4 ; ; ‘ : - ~- 2 | . * ae g " gs a Fe 3 .

"if“adhe :*iebe.A=mee 5/ Be. ;cle t s6on 5eer ' om —_— :% : ui

th |. ae eo Ae tz / : ‘4 , 3 rs ’ ee = i, b at ee . ; ; ee24.$ | - |4.ao |. bdé: r. Saat

|raei :a es_“%Le , , a.i— rsé . 3UPSe54= seE— ae yt ;eay |~i i©” :- ;Paes Vay DLs te af vi ¥. viMs Eyae atl < We.oy ¢ . oat pees } i is ae y °,xa.\S 3x.—isa *. my oe @ ; 5 Fr hy = Pie a ff y ; ’ | :¥ Yes xateiees yt

Pes oe A : Paes Se a..% aia. >. }Ds ae we | ; 2 gee ” en . . ; § 4 : ;\ —_ iS yiN WN ae _ Uf ———— :i

|Veet i : i 5 | \ ly Fre . 5 , : ? & | A SS_3 ;“9ik £ ¥: 4Beep vt ~ gs «tian Ly u Hy

x # Ny , - ‘ ., Biss.“yy nal mn : ; 2 . “4 bay © ea Miele SEES TIEN Freee: ‘ : 4) oo ny yada het Sot re Spare Sev EYY TY — es .? x : . < ; a a. |

; Nea J . Piet :5 2ee\3 ; ~iy357rt\saints, ; \ PyVie «® i iS32i}”

;“iege~~ ba # gis p y ;ES oyPh : : w4 | “ t r. “es ; Pag“aS ts . Seow me y Phi > Be ts j ¥ ‘e Qh. an ay i at ms ee er a ion i ia ke“aEf

‘ of,VP a o eeA4 Meee +4 :ug .a)2x Ay eaN CG ~~ ‘ wi re ° t &t. :: be + in " iy:-pad ,a ‘~©aNe A . is~= 7 os ll | Ld ty ; 7a .,=.é: sit A e2i”g/) gage at ::\éSe i.. .’ 41° } J a } , = 3 : 7 r 7 | ~ \* ¢ Ree ’ i. S ; i q © j > 5 SRO. > & / { \ee14) ie2~~if \' ;>4i= 7pf ‘ \ ’' |a;' .;' f= i ee .Ere) wf {7>ry. ——— : ‘ } Fs 4 : 2/4 ‘ aA LAGE pL tet |e os “e+ ite ae tal:ul 4’ Swi: f E\ 4) se 7 ' . by‘N ~*~ ; .; :me - .| .4?+Ye 7”A‘ 74 Fe t ~~oyifl| ,‘a“3F TA > by!i 2 “ mt

—_ a' 3*aAa*.ot°4... j4Jie "7°= aas an ;» 72y oA M4 /jffq f,es A: —aieuk —_—_— ae ‘ays =; le s+ — i 7&~~ fs ;; Le Ya

) > eS Py eS ' i

.. eirf

iy— ‘ 2a3ee 3. ;:’’z:: i) a “ee . : ~st: ~~ : a> ;.ee4G .aa aene, ee ng gee oe < ee + \y . hy 7 id

is 2 i 7 / : A ® } - .>Lsie\}Py : = " ‘a $ . Afr *

2 ae Oe eee 3 oe See? BS A oe ad ba ae ve da

rf a) -$A4 6> wy} af

P\\\ fy SER DONNA LEONORA RR AEG 2-5 ERS A aw \4 eo

“i+| DE MEDIC] GONZAGA a 4 RE, tA ron H Ae(, xWN < te DVCHESSA DI MANTOA xo 4] aS, :AJ ae # Af

,) _"ocd masaw ei SED faeAge ls HY eraniN! ||| Jaa Va AX CON GLI ARGOMENTI aes eyed “| a er — ae _VP Saar fee 4 [eaREee

_f%~* DELL ECC’ sIGNorR As -Dee RTof} Je AFH P| if | rae . 2a a ; \ee ' iy;CHRISTOFORO :=. é Fy EE! ,;4,¥a: a \iM ,,ASS jo Ws *5/ ; AvAll 2, Fag FERRARI £; oe | 31 TSLEE f a sz fe cence Fae ren er oeEOE 3 "es : ‘ Ww } ns eeris a ‘| ||ryOn \" be p-LONGIN® LONGCINYS cia AEE ee “ = Sy > BARBARA - 1.pe io =j eee A \4vivs 7hage ee Yee. ee

_Isic :AaEDD PP y| jen | Olan “aeB20 Py¢ Ls =hy «©aa air)iPPeFe H zca Bl aa y SA, if |z )\ -pat). A% a5. Cgrraigees Ss] eee cian fi is ‘eles af ye tlYa iN‘ ae . Ae "a its OS as} Ge a | ieee ea! oe| iSe Ab2.*ns ?oeae. a eae A Wad €,illJf2| A ‘ ©\ :EA? esayAg ha > tAY) ta! qaif ~ ili/ Bie y NGS )ra> eee ee4aBREE weeWe She >ay A tea eee |}at te seeewy 3Way SEETNA Er? BN Pe4Wey Se tee 4 oeod. EP Be ee Ne aS Se:

a r. a : saint ail = n

ee ee aot5a sedé -eSOR a 3eeEen: 2 ox 0 aVA =| | Sle — a

/0. Wolfgang Kilian, title page of G. Magagnati, La Vita di S. 71. Mantegna, Sts. Andrew and Longinus with the Resurrected

Longino, 1605 Christ, engraving. London, Victoria and Albert Museum

“Ph z vA rr", a me S —— — 2 —— SS a oe | sl

Yaag =a‘A shake =i. ~a oe: \nNE: a aN % &. .y Y 2./ fihd14 Fy : NA See eo SN P44 = : ss hy Lig ” Lf hg i * s ~ : ‘ae ad a TZ J y ; Z Z ae Si \ \ Me Ye d x A fi J A (, (4 ‘ 4 S . %. RS . a> ia fae

|.

aS pfJfiSf itafihs ‘A eA f ‘a\Va :fa ' 'A 4}\"NO » \.GaN oR < sday ys fi NAW {a Od é Z j :NEV ‘ a ? j s co : Bey\ \Ya \¥J: /V4| Ih , Mik | fee ey aN i,; 4ti :| ey. . YT we> “a 4+Wi haa wat % |~/,© >\-5. * ASY 3; ,4VE 4”

+ Zi fo| ; She F nd a y (sja, / ; yYa \ i a 2 =>, ng aa . a | ty i Pere ee . Bo | = i = se ® pe Nera: / jTia .{ Pah & - &aa |Face 5 i ira . 7 :/ L;4 a4reei: seid ; :- if ‘ - i “=

: ed : j

Pt ——; Z- gh Pa a @ to dieaeieneptemmesss

IP

72. Pontormo, St. Veronica. Florence, Santa Maria Novella, “Chapel of the Popes”

;a

~ | hie ef rs © Ge

4_

‘s =- —F- @ , 5 E & g J 2

od —— ~~ : seg :

rr Sa;ahy ia = 4wetieC :i ee| —_@ Fe |? yO ry = “pos A =_ ss iwe he F 4;

(4 ie | A ae ee

&@ ’': Fe \ 4 o+ woe. ko a

: Po ‘er oy, :4% S7. Re 12 !>94 =sii}ssafey

:idA=‘ee ia a es ;ieee: .€==a’a: a . > |aS 4 ‘- m4 tie Mn

a‘ =“ee %:

73. Rubens. St. Helen. Grasse Hospital formerly in Rome

|“So .~4g 7 > rw See os > : Sl —. a > . é Fas tai ~~. ae eseee ee |2aiE a 3= -¢)—— =e Santa Croce in Gerusalemme

,Sie % Om y - ‘a . _ ~ = os » 3 a 7 4 3 of eel ca > iI ~ & aa |) ag aay Be

: 4, FE ef a2 ae 34 roe: # _ j [7 Vig 4G ' A: *| |\Fsag’ Lg otés w &s \h 3 r ee 4 .Wy &-:S‘cs 23 . -ars asf ; .4 ), Fe SY & 2 —— i!Nee 4 } BY ~\ ;. hae et Ps way > a ¥+ ty : ~ eRsx: ‘ 4} — > Ad ~i€ cea, y-™ Fo) | @¥ze oA 1A Se aSeay>: h sh => 4a J « ee Pag ¥. i x : ny } :reg ‘¢, ‘2.\ Py Ay e 5Ls4.: ey *Y a \ OS Ah. ae' «ee a} zioe 3. ‘. ‘ii7 om ss sf ‘Pee eras” }t. aif[ee |"4 at ae oe Win v6| ae *SSa

-* >ane > eae 2 By s . a ;oH oO cae . ee be SF : : Sy -. ee bt \Pes a =¥-ee* ./ ;#qEg Fg ot Cs +. 3: .:

>' Woes aSie: eeBY , i Be Re aeatlae Sa ee Pe man “i OR Sa ef | i} * a Ny axe ah 4. *; ie. rae Se / | pee. ox NR hg

j. :>* bF; xa, ee)1ti-5 vee dee i. ¢ a & arae 3%) :,, *Y>-7Plies ?~ ahk y/, ' ,*. ;ettfieeit. t.ON Ii? eg .-" 6 ; ay e c/ ;eS :ft)bi , ‘]’JaSa*"*} a Fy -f .ile~ ~iW :iy Se e. ay “Bis aftr -os 4. i'® ae, ; .eh>6~~

: See

es;=i€oA A* ‘:“} -' fT = a favishae 4¢

— —ee_ B ; eae #4 Fa hy ' oy ag oa } op + 4 : x a i e F..3 S ‘? — ~ ss , 4 y OF : 2 », = rs - .«. °wy

CRIES Boe -~*..vets .-:ae . os oo rs a . “. aea ;.~. .. tae : . . a i : ene Fog teres soo8e Lote , ae ses we ote as ces . “FF “ . . . . alo ry eet Mae . :1 .F.hoe w a.Kurnstsammiungen aere oles Boe .a-. oo -. ’. : . +~. -tn *oa~~eared -ERI ..~-. .Yoos.?-preussischén .:~ aye . .>eeso3ws.oo 7.aeoe“.-my “: 3 rete >wre 2B ra. Te =-. oe eS -tye :aed -’. ow : a-*. .9°} -¢. -,.:oe .-oe ACerS :of ae .‘~.e~ 1eeton. -aaTE, . x. *eae Saal .rmee .. we rae OS, * 4— 4 Se ateTIT aOD mee we > Siac . . asSibaae aleecs oe Gants .o 5 ‘e “4 -Kounstsammiungen “. . ° - ‘ .“ ’pee ~ “+ 77 .

. ys . Loe . : - . . - “ s+ -

. . : . . wes ‘ rains . . . wt ose ss - . . : . . . . > 'Be .% aos oon «2see rer ~ct— me -*:$e.2.AR yo}, :«,~yt‘ -.ey oe .wissen oe -. .ee: ‘.- ..:ne - te . . Lt¥ “oe ig .‘Méhing ~rr .ae _TE oa mee .by as an) nee ee : ..ae -os ~& car 7 ‘4 i ~ lo.» * . . i f .a agi tonie -OY ou a’ Pe afne Ce Bice to ckiis ‘wt ...‘oe =, sy .-: . .a~ ,. w Peers 3, £e€$ Gat *£3 16 Ot. hastam . ee vey twee hey Danna OO ; So::toe. see. Ee AE SST case de Rome.-..0 0 5 Pe . . Pet _ roar : we As & = ol * + ~ ‘ le . . 4 ~ ¥ al . to. ak . oe oo. ' . . . : , ~ me ee ser 8 OH wt . ‘ . Sf ne ‘le o os a, a . eo 7 . sto . . . “yee a. wr) . - wb ooew . .ek’ ot Bae’ oo£37 : . oto . aaeeg * lee, tart. as - ore ayFe BiePlea si ae 4 ATsisiohnnd DAY. +t coo oewo . : : on 4 > tea “oy aan

Journal of Roman Studi Lote, oe tt a Di ae ,+ ard ‘ are, ate 7 "oe : eae o bye ae « sos . . . . ~t . . :oe . -.,; ,ce . ~ wet * ’ 7 on + * . ’ , ~ oo . ets a “ Bw ~ oe * . . tes . be ere eee tae « . 7 te 2 ~ . F . Fa : . : . ;: . Dae + : 3 Zz oF ead 22 . ¥ Ss : . wae . , . ~ * . 0 ~ oS rT 2 teed OF THE SOCICLY GE Archiiectura Hisrorians : - Ss . ne _ -

- . . :Sa* -ars ct.‘, ey Sighs a.a:ee ne. .tas - yat aan , faetae 27 ’. 54.3—3£ -. ET oe Lae~_ Ce “ ~ , . . : . . . . ss + car !. .fh” ~eS toe ' . ‘ a4 . » rn . a ve + . ‘ ane . woe Wallraf-Richartz Jalivbuchy (3 255 os D0 ep ee Se ae Bos et -4a wee ” “ an) .a roo wat atSc a we. .x_ eet rtm nyote wot -t . -. ne : a : mo, toe . . ser 1 + -* ‘ * ra or ‘ a . . . i ~ . wo . + . ae : . 7Z + pare #, © . . vy wat “ woe ee fae 4+ a . +. o~ : > : pete GM a @ F 2. CE Sok . 3 a a4 . . Coe ‘ Lee. ‘ wot a . . aka x Veige OU ae ; prs ; we ae . : ; ay Do ta, 2 : : : Me : “< fd = * ere. * ba aA e a 41 . we 2 fet “ . . 4 : 28, . 4,. ~ ?ns :eg. .:-..‘-ean ve ae . oe . » has eo. . Pad ” -. ey . ~k . x . ee . * ~ % ha ” ot .- , .voter .5oe+~. -.~.cefo ale soe Tt +cursus Xs, te . ro oy wa". ye tt we .4o2q“-Miene, - . ~1 ~age fo.) . ». me smut eH0s? ;”“1 UP! Pairologice Serie . .4- .. -4B E*4 “T+. : -d. c-, ~.-a.a!ha oe ome cncompletus, we a*¢a. . . .oy oe setSF aeons Pte ae prose nr a ores ’ sou . - .. e“at. ra * 72 wee ww~“ok se ‘-ato . >57soe OF 7, ve 4 vet .. > a ..7of o7peJOK ‘Romische * ah: bit * K: ooaot esfat vse . vay eo?te~ose - yee veo: - . ee fly ate =. aoe ~. . . te * vr -othe pretaBates aea)"s: eae ° - Fa Snsee . weeta.ro®Nmote wee re, A, s tar * sore ad +4 _2 . 7f: 2 . Note ve we wt Ma: ~.ow eos ,~an wee toa oe wl . ~ “ye .aEo ..tee .ms .ea;~oan ‘ae : a) ae aan .lrrr-ley wee SF . -woos +wees . -.7a...ie an +rol-. nn .oa=ee 22Be .-;ve nos .c >.vs ~~ aaa we. otee ae Pe o7 ’owes -wteesyes se ao bows --._wa :ae ote a ere ee *- .*‘teLobe 4' mee . .. ._i - .an ate ee *, a a! on ene a a net Pa ee : ans soe on ‘ Lay we . an yee ee re aha . - oe . ac ate + oa Ss tou yt oe . * 2 . A Te . . - . . > oo“ et . .

. “f aw £5 aoS Feo ee sot BP“Ot Litesso. .tee pete ME. Ts .. a. .rooms 7 og? - oe . ary eeAE a =erOOP - .. ne 7 ty a-e iTpttsa ews . wt eeta atop .- a: . Aeraat “et we fe oan - al ~ oy vr x. ee ee . pees et ita tee te a~4 :wets 0 hook - oe2? cen a ;. ’ . . aM ~te. “=, woe a . . .eet f : oa owt Ta wt ae . eanen . . fF ereog es “4 ~ eo” - ~ .ee ~ sy . o~, Lth # oaths eae Do eatsaye oe . tethe te ran was ; fee unete. eo leet ons tea tate et 5 ete Corte, ee. :cae aa . .e “ aeos sr)ee we yt ~ coe a nd mrt, anon a .ets a .coer * wor ¢ na “ . eo, cy +4 a bd ¥ wy el Ue ! atts. “= _. .. 4/ aos oea0- ye . eews : tee te . “a, a “ome tO ‘Poe, . ~ -- et oot° .on oof Yow a2 .

ee wee 6 fate, Looe at Mala? “eyas - oe 4%an the : :rote? te teecr a aaeas¥. oo f . . wee.“oe nea: oo. ca re~ yet Aan gs a .we watt 2. .ee le“Aga “los we. 2zwel ot. ee oo peters -:tte, .“,aCte ,Se wy ‘ .whe woe, .mye ws -ttoe on wee .eo os“. : 7M MERE; EES. Oe aks wf. ort - aoo_— coe oo . aoee; -g o os 8yes *R44. 3 . ‘“4 . _?1964 NE . te wae a :ne oe ak , ranflea ootot, aaae ronLoe _ pe et, mek . ~osewatt ~ es .mot! ribeye oR aeon

iso;.“4“os © . *.ode 7ae y4a47 . pete ie *woe ‘ReMoe ~ ‘.“te -en2,ae“te-.fe:ey, oe 4, .oo+ess Da ..ata . nae o ae veo eee Lo tere tsssasns woe thous see . wre “~ee 4 .‘. .» coewots we Tg ad steete at bey —_ 1.ste .ES Mester oa wt . aa -a»+ asPaar ne a* : i.to or.tee DONS ee ae: Looe a Lo, . v . tk wee . . fe oes x . . v ole : te ve wets tethey wee ate “ rs etee oe .. ~" a .t.‘.. .tea 7wot atte? . . +: .-rns .+, - -.‘we oar > Ts, aoe wore > .wo ee “aCork ve 4 4 27 a oyaNy dsmy oS peg ot et tne tee 7 Nae - Foe. wee aoe” i— nn oe so ee te ywe roa? wet: “He wet .ter..¢stay *teors. ~.oar . -,Roy -vie.please ..tee - tos ~ clete . . *yee *:ttetnoo 7, otewtoe ate .a .D>aeh *” L~. *vto. .-iewn ~7ene ae , oe