Filarete's Renovation of the Porta Argentea at Old St. Peter's

Old Saint Peter’s, Rome

Edited by rosamond mckitterick,john osborne, carol m. richardson andjoanna story

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of

education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107041646

C© The British School at Rome 2013

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place without the written

permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd. Padstow Cornwall

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Old Saint Peter’s, Rome / edited by Rosamond McKitterick, John Osborne,

Carol M. Richardson and Joanna Story.

pages cm – (British School at Rome studies)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-107-04164-6 (hardback)

1. Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano – History. 2. Vatican City – Antiquities. 3. Vatican City –

Buildings, structures, etc. 4. Church architecture – Vatican City. 5. Church history – Middle

Ages, 600–1500. I. McKitterick, Rosamond, 1949– author, editor of compilation. II. Osborne,

John, 1951– author, editor of compilation. III. Richardson, Carol M., 1969– author, editor of

compilation. IV. Story, Joanna, 1970– author, editor of compilation.

NA5620.S9O43 2013

726.50937ʹ63 – dc23 2013013112

ISBN 978-1-107-04164-6 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of

URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,

and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate

or appropriate.

18 Filarete’s renovation of the Porta Argentea

at Old Saint Peter’s

robert glass

Fig. 18.1. Location of the features mentioned in

Chapter 18.

When Old Saint Peter’s was torn down and rebuilt in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries, one of the few monuments to be preserved intact

and reinstalled in its original location in the new basilica was the set of

great bronze doors standing in the central portal. Their reuse was no doubt

a result not only of their material and artistic worth but of their symbolic

value. Commissioned by Pope Eugenius IV in 1433 and carried out by the

Florentine sculptor Antonio Averlino, called Filarete, during the follow-

ing twelve years, the doors restored in bronze the famous Porta Argentea

(Figs. 18.1 and 18.2). Doors of silver had marked the primary entrance

to Old Saint Peter’s since the time of Honorius I (625–38), but had been

despoiled repeatedly of their precious covering. Under Eugenius, the central348

Filarete’s renovation of the Porta Argentea 349

Fig. 18.2. Filarete, central doors, Saint Peter’s, Rome, including

seventeenth-century additions.

portal once again received the majestic ornamentation it required as a fron-

tispiece for the basilica and a backdrop for the rituals staged there. In

the literature on Filarete’s doors, the history of the Porta Argentea has

often been noted, but the ceremonial function of the site has hardly been

350 robert glass

considered.1 This chapter argues that this context is in fact fundamental for

understanding Filarete’s design.

The doors originally were slightly shorter than they appear today. In 1619,

when they were reinstalled in the new basilica, additional reliefs were added

to the top and bottom of each leaf in order to match the proportions of the

taller portals. Filarete’s work consists of six large panels surrounded by wide,

continuous borders. At the top, Christ and the Virgin sit enthroned; in the

middle, Paul and Peter stand with their attributes, Peter accompanied by the

kneeling Pope Eugenius, who receives his keys (Fig. 18.3, Plate 15); and in

the square panels at the bottom, the martyrdoms of the saints above are rep-

resented in Roman landscapes. The iconography of the borders is complex.

Acanthus vines originating from the bottom of each door run up around

the sides of the large panels to the top. Nestled within their tendrils are por-

traits of Roman emperors, empresses and other figures, and dozens of small

scenes drawn from ancient history, mythology and literature. Presumably

similar decoration originally filled the four horizontal sections of the bor-

ders between the main panels. Midway through the project, however, it was

decided to use these spaces to memorialize Eugenius’s achievements. This

is apparent from the fact that three of the four reliefs show events from the

Council of Ferrara–Florence, which took place between 1438 and 1442, five

to nine years after Filarete began work. Finally, the border at the top of each

leaf depicts a pair of putti holding coats of arms, those of Eugenius on the

left in a shell and those of the papacy on the right in an oak wreath.

Both stylistically and iconographically, the doors are quite different from

the sculpture produced by Filarete’s contemporaries, and their apparent

eccentricities have long posed a challenge for art historians. In the sixteenth

century, Vasari strongly condemned their style, extending his criticism to

the pope himself for his poor judgement in entrusting the work to Filarete.2

In the following centuries, the pagan iconography of the borders began to

draw censure as well.3 Today, the peculiarities of the doors more typically

are understood as the product of erudition rather than ignorance or incom-

petence. Since the rise of iconographic studies in the mid-twentieth cen-

tury, scholars have focused in particular on identifying the subject matter,

elucidating its sources and significance, and establishing the programme

1 For an overview of the literature on the doors, see BSPV, Schede 480–7, and Atlante 252–71(images).

2 G. Vasari, Le vite de’ piu eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori: nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568,R. Bettarini and P. Barocchi (eds.), 6 vols. (Florence, 1966–87), III, 243–4.

3 For example, J. Winckelmann, Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting andSculpture (La Salle, IL, 1987), 68–9, as noted by W. von Oettingen, Der Bildhauer-ArchitektAntonio Averlino genannt Filarete: eine Kunstgeschichtliche Studie (Leipzig, 1888), 5.


Fig. 18.3. Filarete, the Saint Peter panel from the central doors

showing the donor, Pope Eugenius IV (1431–47), kneeling and

receiving the keys from the apostle.

of the work. But the complexity and idiosyncrasies of Filarete’s reliefs have

defied simple solutions, and a variety of readings have been proposed.

The best known and broadest in scope has been advanced by Ursula

Nilgen.4 She reads the doors in light of the political struggles of their patron.

Pope Eugenius spent his early reign fighting to establish the authority of

4 U. Nilgen, ‘Filaretes Bronzetur von St. Peter in Rom’, Jahrbuch des Vereins fur Christliche Kunst inMunchen 17 (1988), 351–76; U. Nilgen, ‘L’eclettismo come programma nel primo Rinascimentoa Roma: la porta bronzea del Filarete a San Pietro’, in K. Bergdolt and G. Bonsanti (eds.), Operee giorni: studi su mille anni di arte europea dedicati a Max Seidel (Venice, 2001), 275–90.

352 robert glass

his office, which was still recovering from the aftermath of the Western

Schism. The Council of Basel, convened by Eugenius’s predecessor, Martin

V, shortly before his death, refused Eugenius’s order to disband and claimed

sovereignty over all Church affairs. At the same time, uprisings in Rome

and warfare in the papal states threatened Eugenius’s temporal powers,

forcing him to flee Rome in 1434. Papal forces regained control of the city

relatively quickly, but Eugenius did not return until nine years later, in

1443. Emphasizing these difficulties, Nilgen has argued that the doors were

conceived as a statement of papal primacy. In her view, the programme

‘proves in all parts to be a manifesto of the restoration policy of Eugenius IV

and a demonstration of the papal claim to power’.5 Other scholars have used

literary materials rather than political history as the basis for interpretation,

arguing, for example, that certain iconographic features reflect Eugenius’s

theological beliefs or the interests of contemporary humanists.6

Surprisingly, the significance of the doors’ site has received little atten-

tion. As the primary entrance to the basilica, the Porta Argentea naturally

served as a backdrop for the processions of the pope and other dignitaries

who had the privilege of entering through this door. But it also played a

role in one of the most celebrated ceremonies carried out in the basilica,

the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor.7 In 1433, the year the doors

are traditionally thought to have been commissioned, this venerable ritual

was in fact performed for the first time in nearly eighty years.8 Pope Euge-

nius crowned Sigismund of Luxembourg Holy Roman Emperor in Saint

Peter’s on 31 May. Filarete later depicted the event in the fourth of the

horizontal border reliefs added to the doors midway through the project

(Fig. 18.4).

In reviving the coronation ritual, Eugenius and his advisers naturally

consulted the prescriptions recorded in the liturgical books known as the

5 Nilgen, ‘Filaretes Bronzetur’ (above, n. 4), 374.6 For example, L. Gnocchi, ‘La porta del Filarete per Eugenio IV’, Artista (1999), 8–45; A.

Thielemann, ‘Altes und neues Rom: zu Filaretes Bronzetur, ein Drehbuch’,Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 63 (2002), 33–70; U. Pfisterer, ‘Filaretes historia und commentarius:uber die Anfange humanistischer Geschichtstheorie im Bild’, in V. von Rosen, K. Kruger and R.Preimesberger (eds.), Der Stumme Diskurs der Bilder: Reflexionsformen des Asthetischen in derKunst der Fruhen Neuzeit (Munich, 2003), 139–76.

7 E. Parlato, ‘Fonti e paesaggio urbano nella Crocifissione di S. Pietro dal medioevo al primoRinascimento’, in L. Lazzari and A. M. Valente Bacci (eds.), La figura di San Pietro nelle fonti delmedioevo (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001), 527–8, notes in passing that the Porta Argentea was one ofthe stations in the imperial coronation ceremony, but does not explore the topic.

8 For a list of imperial coronations celebrated in Saint Peter’s from the mid-twelfth centuryonward, see Table 19.1 in Fletcher, this volume, 381.


Fig. 18.4. Detail of Fig. 18.2, left door: Eugenius IV crowns Sigismund of Luxembourg

Holy Roman Emperor in Saint Peter’s (right) and then processes with him on

horseback to the Castel Sant’Angelo (left).

ordines romani. The rite followed a precise itinerary, with specific rituals

carried out in various parts of the basilica complex. The late medieval

ordines specified that the emperor-elect enter the Leonine city through the

Porta Collina next to the Castel Sant’Angelo and proceed to Saint Peter’s,

where the pope sat waiting with his court at the top of the stairs leading

to the atrium in front of the basilica (Fig. 18.1 and see Fig. 19.1). The

emperor kissed the pope’s foot and offered him gifts, and was in turn kissed

and embraced by the pope. They then entered the gatehouse preceding the

atrium (see Fig. 19.2) that housed a small church known as Saint Mary

‘in Turri’ (also, ‘in Turribus’ or ‘inter Turres’) on account of the tower

or towers that flanked the building at various points during its history.9

Before the altar there, the emperor swore an oath of allegiance to the pope

and Church. Afterwards the pope entered the basilica, while the emperor

remained with the canons of Saint Peter’s, who admitted him into their

brotherhood. Next the emperor was led to the Porta Argentea, where he

knelt while the cardinal bishop of Albano recited a prayer on his behalf (Fig.

18.1). The emperor then proceeded inside the church for rituals at several

other locations before finally receiving the imperial crown before the high

altar.10

As the threshold of the basilica, the Porta Argentea delineated the point at

which one passed from profane into sacred space, and it is therefore perhaps

9 For this church, see S. McPhee, Bernini and the Bell Towers: Architecture and Politics at theVatican (New Haven, 2002), 194–8.

10 This summary is based on the Ordines Coronationes Imperialis from the end of the twelfthcentury to the mid-fifteenth, transcribed by R. Elze, Die Ordines fur die Weihe und Kronung desKaisers und der Kaiserin (Hanover, 1960), 61–151. See also E. Eichmann, Die Kaiserkronung imAbendland, ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, mit besonderer Berucksichtigung desKirchlichen Rechte, der Liturgie und der Kirchenpolitik, 2 vols. (Wurzburg, 1942), I, 283–6; II,13–23; Blaauw, CD, 733–5.

354 robert glass

not surprising that the coronation itinerary acknowledged this transition.

The custom, however, may have developed also because of the large, por-

phyry disk embedded in the pavement in front of the doors (Fig. 18.1).

This formed a pair with a second, more famous porphyry disk located in

the middle of the nave, which also played a role in the coronation cere-

mony (Fig. 18.1). The well-known imperial associations of porphyry made

these disks especially appropriate sites for rituals during the crowning of

the emperor.11

Contemporary accounts of Sigismund’s coronation in 1433 demonstrate

that the ceremony was not carried out exactly as prescribed in the ordines.

Because the emperor entered Rome before the day of the coronation, the rit-

uals occurred on two separate occasions. On 21 May, Sigismund proceeded

in a magnificent procession through the Porta Collina to Saint Peter’s.

There he met the pope at the top of the stairs leading to the atrium and per-

formed the traditional actions. They then entered Saint Mary ‘in Turri’ (see

Fig. 19.2), where the emperor offered to deliver the oath, but it was decided

that this should be reserved for the coronation day. No further rituals from

the coronation ordines were performed at that point. The emperor and

pope proceeded into the basilica, where they sat side by side during a mass

performed by a cardinal. Finally, they venerated the Veil of Veronica before

leaving the building.12

The coronation took place ten days later. The ceremony did not begin,

however, in Saint Mary ‘in Turri’ where it had left off. As the chronicler

Cornelius Zantfliet described it, ‘the pope and his cardinals descended to

the first portico of Saint Peter’s dressed in their pontifical vestments, and

there the king with his crown performed an oath to the pope and church’.13

Poggio Bracciolini’s description makes clear that this in fact took place in

front of the Porta Argentea: ‘When the day of the coronation had come,

Caesar entered the inner portico of the church and gave his oath to the

Pope before what is called the silver door, according to the custom of his

11 Blaauw, CD, 614–16, 735.12 The sources for these events are collected and summarized by H. Herre (ed.), Deutsche

Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Sigmund, Vierte Abteilung, 1431–1433 (Deutsche Reichstagsakten10) (Gotha, 1906), 728–9.

13 ‘ . . . papa suique cardinals descenderunt usque ad primam porticum S. Petri, induti vestibuspontificalibus, ibique rex cum corona praestitit juramentum domino papae & ecclesiae.’ C.Zantfliet, ‘Chronicon Cornelii Zantfliet S. Jacobi Leodiensis monachi ab anno MCCXXX adMCCCCLXI’, in E. Martene and U. Durand (eds.), Veterum Scriptorum et MonumentorumHistoricorum, Dogmaticorum, Moralium, Amplissima Collectio, 9 vols. (Paris, 1724–33), V,433.


forerunners’.14 Poggio may have believed the ceremony followed tradition,

but, as we have seen, the delivery of the oath before the Porta Argentea was

a departure from the instructions in the ordines. The change was perhaps

made because the official meeting at the entrance to the atrium had already

taken place, and the spacious portico with the Porta Argentea and porphyry

disk was judged a more appropriate site for the start of the ceremony than

the altar of Saint Mary ‘in Turri’.15

Whatever the reason, the change gave the Porta Argentea a more promi-

nent role than was usual. Not only did it provide the backdrop for the

traditional prayer on the emperor’s behalf (though not mentioned by Zant-

fliet or Poggio, this was presumably read before the doors as specified in the

ordines), but it was the site of the start of the ceremony and the taking of

the oath. In preparing the portico for these events, the tattered remains of

the old silver doors were probably adorned with temporary decoration to

make them a suitable backdrop for the proceedings. It seems unlikely that

Eugenius’s decision to have new doors made in the same year is coincidental.

The planning and staging of the coronation must have generated interest

in the Porta Argentea and highlighted its poor condition. Eugenius proba-

bly decided to rectify the situation afterwards by commissioning Filarete to

renovate the monument. As is well known, a passage in Filarete’s architec-

tural treatise demonstrates that he was in Rome at the time of Sigismund’s

visit and observed the emperor’s retinue first hand.16 The splendour and

spectacle of the historic coronation and the role the Porta Argentea played

in it were likely foremost in Filarete’s mind when he set to work designing

new doors for the site.

This observation is significant in several respects. First, it provides fur-

ther support for dating the commission to 1433, which has been assumed

previously based on Vasari’s statement that the doors took twelve years to

complete and the fact that they were installed in 1445. If Eugenius only

ordered the work after the coronation took place, as seems likely, the date

14 ‘Cum dies coronationis advenisset, ingressus interiorem ecclesie porticum Caesar ante portam,que dicitur argentea, iuramentum quoddam pontifici prestitit de more superiorum . . . ’ PoggioBracciolini, Lettere, H. Harth (ed.) (Florence, 1984), 124; Herre, Deutsche Reichstagsakten(above, n. 12), 841. English translation adapted from P. W. G. Gordon (ed. and trans.), TwoRenaissance Book Hunters: the Letters of Poggius Bracciolini to Nicolaus de Niccolis (New York,1991), 180.

15 In his summary, Herre, Deutsche Reichstagsakten (above, n. 12), 732, assumes that on thecoronation day Sigismund repeated the procession from the Porta Collina and meeting withthe pope at the top of the steps leading to the atrium. This seems unlikely. As the accounts ofZantfliet and Poggio suggest, the ceremony probably began in the portico before the PortaArgentea.

16 Filarete, Trattato di architettura, A. M. Finoli and L. Grassi (eds.), 2 vols. (Milan, 1972), I. 15.

356 robert glass

can be narrowed to the second half of the year. Second, and more impor-

tantly, the role played by the Porta Argentea in the coronation ceremony

provides a new context for interpreting Filarete’s design. Many of the doors’

unusual iconographic and stylistic features can be understood as intended

to enhance this function.

At first glance, the primary subject matter of the doors may not seem

unusual enough to require special explanation. Images of Christ, the Virgin,

Paul and, of course, Peter appeared in a number of places in Old Saint Peter’s,

and the six large panels of the doors continue this tradition. But an interest

in continuity with the iconographic patrimony of the basilica does not alone

account for Filarete’s design, which in other respects is quite radical. As has

been pointed out often, all the monumental doors with figural decoration

Filarete is likely to have known, whether the two sets of doors then at the

baptistery in Florence, those at Santa Sabina and San Paolo fuori le mura

in Rome, or others elsewhere in Italy, are invariably made up of numerous

small panels. Furthermore, in most cases, these portray narrative subjects.

Filarete’s decision to depart from this tradition and use only six panels, four

of which present monumental, iconic figures, was unprecedented.

The explanation usually offered for this innovation is that Filarete was

emulating antique models: either the simple divisions of undecorated

Roman doors such as those of the Pantheon, or, less plausibly, the com-

position of Early Christian ivory diptychs.17 Iconographically, the figures

have been understood as discrete, static images and explained in symbolic

terms.18 The ceremonial role played by the Porta Argentea suggests another

approach. When imagined as a backdrop for the coronation proceedings,

the scale and subjects of the four largest panels become especially mean-

ingful. By making the images of Christ, the Virgin, Paul and Peter life-size,

Filarete gave them a real presence in the space of the portico (Fig. 18.5).

Positioned on the upper parts of the doors, they effectively appear to preside

over any gathering assembled before them.

Filarete strengthened this illusion by designing the panels as flat backdrops

in front of which the figures appear to sit or stand on a protruding plinth.

The parts highest in relief project well beyond the height of the panel frames

17 C. Seymour, Jr, ‘Some reflections on Filarete’s use of antique visual sources’, Arte Lombarda38–9 (1973), 38; Nilgen, ‘Filaretes Bronzetur’ (above, n. 4), 352–4; Nilgen, ‘L’eclettismo comeprogramma’ (above, n. 4), 277; E. Parlato, ‘Filarete a Roma’, in F. P. Fiore and A. Nesselrath(eds.), La Roma di Leon Battista Alberti (exhibition catalogue, Musei Capitolini) (Rome, 2005),302–3.

18 Nilgen, ‘Filaretes Bronzetur’ (above, n. 4), 354–65.


Fig. 18.5. The central doors of Saint Peter’s in use.

and the other reliefs on the doors. As a result, the figures appear to reside not

in an illusionistic space within the panels, but in front of them in the actual

space of the portico.19 Furthermore, in each register, Filarete portrayed one

of the two figures gazing at the other. At the top, Christ looks outward, but

the Virgin turns towards him, eyes lowered and arms crossed on her chest

19 Cf. J. Spencer, ‘Filarete’s bronze doors at Saint Peter’s: a cooperative project with complicationsof chronology and technique’, in W. Sheard and J. Paoletti (eds.), Collaboration in ItalianRenaissance Art (New Haven, 1978), 40.

358 robert glass

Fig. 18.6. Detail of Fig. 18.2, the upper pair of panels and borders.

in humility (Fig. 18.6).20 Below, both saints turn their heads towards the

centre of the doors. Peter looks outward, but Paul, his head turned further,

gazes at Peter. This subtle interaction reinforces the illusion that the figures

occupy a common space in front of the doors.

Filarete also adorned the figures in a manner consistent with the cere-

monial practices of the time. The curia, like every court in Europe, placed

great value on the display of luxury goods and material splendour as indi-

cators of status and honour, and Filarete presented Christ, the Virgin, Paul

and Peter with all the requisite pageantry. Garlands supported by winged

heads frame each figure, and fictive textiles, shown hanging from rings at

20 Based on this pose, some scholars have called the figure an Annunciate Virgin, but this makeslittle sense in this context. Her attitude, one of several often used in scenes of the Annunciation,is simply one of humility. In this case, it is directed towards Christ, as is common, for example,in depictions of the Virgin’s coronation. The confusion was probably caused in part byFilarete’s placement of the angel Gabriel’s greeting at the Annunciation on the plinthsupporting the Virgin’s throne in Latin and in her halo in Greek, but this well-known phrasealso appears as her attribute in numerous images of the Virgin in precisely these locations. Fordiscussion of the humility pose as well as other gestures commonly used in representations ofthe Annunciation, see M. Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy: aPrimer in the Social History of Pictorial Style, second edition (Oxford, 1988), 49–56.


Fig. 18.7. Detail of Fig. 18.3, right door, clothing and brooch in the Peter panel.

the top of the panels, provide regal backdrops. Christ and the Virgin sit

on thrones engulfed by flowering acanthus vines and wear expensive bro-

caded fabrics. Unusually, Filarete applied coloured enamel in selected places

to increase the impression of splendour: red in the cross in Christ’s halo

and blue inset with variously coloured dots on the Virgin’s brooch. Paul

and Peter wear enamelled brooches as well. Their clothing is less sump-

tuous than that of Christ and the Virgin above, but Filarete has gone

to great lengths to indicate its quality. Through meticulous work with

punches and chisels, he created different textures to distinguish between

the types of cloth (Fig. 18.7, Plate 15). Equal care has gone into the ren-

dering of the textiles hanging behind the figures. These imitate luxury silks

imported from the east, with pseudo-Arabic inscriptions running around

the borders. The main pattern, which repeats Eugenius’s coat of arms,

is reproduced by thousands of tiny dots painstakingly punched into the

background. Princely magnificence is expressed here in two complemen-

tary ways: figuratively, through the representation of luxury goods, them-

selves signs of costly materials and craftsmanship, and materially, through

360 robert glass

bronze and the inventive and laborious techniques Filarete used to transform

it.

The kingdom of heaven was itself thought to be a magnificent place,

and it is not uncommon to find images of Christ, the Virgin and saints in

sumptuous attire and settings. But Filarete’s remarkable efforts to convey

splendour in the reliefs, which have more in common with contemporary

courtly painting than the sculpture of the time, may have been motivated

by the spectacle of Sigismund’s coronation rather than artistic tradition.

An exceptionally detailed version of the coronation ordo, prepared in the

early sixteenth century, states that the portico and Porta Argentea were to be

decorated with ‘fabrics, foliage, and flowers’ (pannis, frondibus, et floribus).21

Filarete framed the figures in the four main panels with imaginative versions

of precisely these ornaments. The ordo also specifies that the coats of arms

of the pope and emperor should hang in the portico. Filarete included

those of Eugenius and the papacy, as we have seen, at the top of the doors.

Evidence that such elements were in fact used in the ceremonies of the papal

court in Filarete’s day can be found in the four border reliefs documenting

Eugenius’s achievements. Garlands and coats of arms appear in scenes of

the coronation (Fig. 18.4) and hanging fabric backdrops in those from the

Council of Ferrara–Florence (Fig. 18.6, lower left, Plate 15). In these reliefs,

Filarete also recorded the distinctive clothing, headgear and accessories of

the participants in minute detail. Clearly these indicators of honour and

status were as important to him as the actions being performed. When

depicting Christ, the Virgin, Paul and Peter in the four large panels, Filarete

used the same language of material display, presenting them as the celestial

counterpart of the papal and imperial courts that gathered before the Porta

Argentea during the coronation ceremony.

Presiding over the proceedings, Filarete’s figures would have lent splen-

dour, solemnity and authority to the occasion. The inclusion of the kneeling

Eugenius in the Peter panel (Fig. 18.6 and Plate 15), receiving the keys of

heaven from the saint, who had himself received them from Christ, makes

clear that the pope is heir to their authority.22 This message is well suited,

as Filarete surely intended, to the Porta Argentea’s general function as a

frontispiece for the Vatican basilica and the entrance used by the pope. But

it would have been particularly effective during the imperial coronation,

since the ceremony required the emperor-elect repeatedly to acknowledge

21 Elze, Die Ordines (above, n. 10), 180; Blaauw, CD, 735.22 For the iconography of the keys, see A. Paravicini Bagliani, Le chiavi e la tiara: immagini e

simboli del papato medievale (Rome, 1998), 20–3.


the pope’s status.23 Similarly, the messages imparted by the poses of the

Virgin and Paul, humility towards Christ and special reverence for Peter,

are generally appropriate for the primary entrance of Peter’s basilica, but

become especially meaningful in the context of the coronation ceremony. In

the traditional oath, the emperor makes his pledge in the name of God and

Peter.24 The attitudes of Filarete’s figures complement this invocation. Con-

temporary viewers would have understood readily Filarete’s kingly Christ

as the embodiment of God, and both Christ and Peter look out into the

portico, witnessing the promise being made in their names. The Virgin

and Paul, on the other hand, play supporting roles, confirming with their

gazes that attention should be focused on Christ and Peter. The Virgin’s ges-

ture of humility takes on additional meaning in relation to the prayer read

before the Porta Argentea on the emperor’s behalf. It begins, ‘God, in whose

hand are the hearts of kings, turn the ears of your mercy to our prayers

of humility’.25 The Virgin’s attitude towards Christ effectively models the

sentiment expected of the supplicants.

New insight into the other parts of the doors can be gained also by

considering them in the context of the coronation ceremony. The subjects

of the two large narrative reliefs, like those of the four panels above, are not

unexpected in the context of Saint Peter’s. In Filarete’s day, representations

of the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter were visible in several places in the

basilica.26 Filarete followed these precedents in many respects, showing,

for example, Peter crucified between several distinctive Roman monuments

(Fig. 18.8). This was common in late medieval depictions of the subject, but

Filarete approached the convention with a new interest in archaeological

accuracy. He characterized and arranged the monuments in a manner that

mirrors the actual topography of ancient Rome as it was then understood.

Filarete’s remarkable panorama has generated more scholarship than any

other aspect of the doors. This largely has been concerned with reconciling

the depiction with the various literary sources describing the location of

Peter’s crucifixion, including contradictory analyses of the problem written

23 Elze, Die Ordines (above, n. 10), 138: in addition to kissing the pope’s feet twice and pledgingto protect him, the ordines specified, for example, that at the end of the ceremony the emperorhold the stirrup of the pope’s horse as the pope mounted and then lead the horse by the bridlea short distance before mounting his own horse.

24 Elze, Die Ordines (above, n. 10), 134.25 Elze, Die Ordines (above, n. 10), 74. ‘Deus in cuius manu corda sunt regum, inclina ad preces

humilitatis nostrae aures misericordiae tuae.’26 J. M. Huskinson, ‘The crucifixion of Saint Peter: a fifteenth-century topographical problem’,

Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 32 (1969), 141–2; Parlato, ‘Fonti e paesaggiourbano’ (above, n. 7), 528, 532–4.

362 robert glass

Fig. 18.8. Detail of Fig. 18.2, right door, The Martyrdom of Peter.

by the papal humanists Flavio Biondo and Maffeo Vegio in the decade

following the completion of the doors.27 The abundance of relevant texts

makes the topic well suited to traditional iconographic analysis, which

accounts for the wealth of attention it has received. This does not necessarily

mean, however, that creating a topographically accurate representation of

Peter’s crucifixion was Filarete’s primary concern when designing the relief.

27 See, most recently, U. Nilgen, ‘Der Streit uber den Ort der Kreuzigung Petri: Filarete und diezeitgenossische Kontroverse’, in H. Hubach, B. von Orelli-Messerli and T. Tassini (eds.),Reibungspunkte: Ordnung und Umbruch in Architektur und Kunst (Petersberg, 2008), 199–208,as well as the references in the previous note.


As the scholarship has demonstrated, Filarete’s representation is not wholly

consistent with either Biondo’s or Vegio’s account.

Considering the martyrdom panels in relation to the ceremonial role

played by the doors rather than the debate surrounding the location of

Peter’s crucifixion brings other features into focus. When imagined as

a backdrop for the coronation ceremony, the presence of the Emperor

Nero in each scene immediately becomes of interest. His appearance may

seem unremarkable given his obvious narrative role as the person who

ordered the saints’ deaths. Traditionally, however, Nero was shown with

Peter and Paul only in the story of Simon Magus, not in representations

of their martyrdoms. This is the case in the earlier Peter and Paul cycles at

Saint Peter’s, as well as in other versions of the subject Filarete might have

known.28 Nero’s unconventional appearance in the door reliefs is rendered

even more striking by the prominence with which Filarete portrayed him.

In each case, the emperor appears seated in an elaborate aedicule, which,

owing to its size and lavish ornamentation, dominates the panel, threatening

to steal the focus from the martyrdom of the saint. Filarete strove to create

an image of ancient imperial splendour here with the same enthusiasm and

imagination he used when creating the ceremonial trappings of the figures

in the four panels above.

But while the lavish display of all’antica magnificence celebrates the glory

associated with the imperial title, the reputation and actions of the particular

emperor depicted sound a strong cautionary note. Nero was widely regarded

at the time as the most wicked of the ancient emperors,29 and appears here

perpetrating what from the point of view of the Church were the worst of

his crimes, the executions of Peter and Paul. Filarete probably included the

gruesome depiction of a dead horse on its back, its entrails being devoured

by a dog, below the lower right corner of Nero’s aedicule in the Peter panel, as

an allusion to Nero’s eventual downfall and suicide.30 For the emperor-elect

who appeared before the doors in the coronation ceremony, the message

would have been clear. He was expected to behave in precisely the opposite

manner, acknowledging papal authority and fulfilling his oath to protect

the pope and Church. Including Nero in the martyrdom scenes provided

Filarete with a means of both honouring the imperial office and reminding

the emperor-elect not to misuse it.

28 Nero does appear in a ninth-century Byzantine manuscript illumination depicting Peter’scrucifixion noted by Nilgen, ‘Der Streit’ (above, n. 27), 203, but it is unlikely that Filarete knewthis work.

29 A. Graf, Roma nella memoria e nelle immaginazioni del medio evo, 2 vols. (Turin, 1882–3), I,332–61.

30 Cf. Nilgen, ‘Der Streit’ (above, n. 27), 203.

364 robert glass

Fig. 18.9. Detail of Fig. 18.2, right door, upper left corner of the borders.

This dual assessment of the emperor’s ancestry, simultaneously laudatory

and admonitory, is also at the heart of Filarete’s extraordinary design for

the borders of the doors. Like the six main panels, the basic iconography

is consistent with the pictorial legacy of Old Saint Peter’s; relief sculptures

of winding, populated vines could be seen in a number of places in the

basilica.31 The borders also enhance the doors’ function as a ceremonial

backdrop. In the sections framing the Peter and Virgin panels (Figs. 18.3

and 18.6, Plate 15), Filarete engraved and punched the blank areas between

the flowering vines with patterns imitating silk fabrics, creating another

imaginative variation on the ‘fabrics, foliage, and flowers’ prescribed as

decoration in the coronation ordo (Fig. 18.9).32

31 Most similar are the ancient marble reliefs set into the walls of the oratory of John VII, as B.Sauer, ‘Die Randreliefe an Filarete’s Bronzetur von St. Peter’, Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft20 (1897), 17–18, and M. Lazzaroni and A. Munoz, Filarete: scultore e architetto del secolo XV(Rome, 1908), 91, have noted. Peopled vine scrolls also appear in the ivory friezes on theCathedra Petri and on the Solomonic columns around the tomb of Peter and in John’s oratory.

32 Filarete likely intended to apply this decoration throughout the borders, but was forced toabandon this laborious work owing to pressure to finish the project in a timely manner.


But the most striking feature of the borders is the iconography with which

Filarete populated the vines. Most prominent are the twenty-six profile

portraits found in the centre of the spirals. Here the reference to the imperial

office could hardly be more clear. The heads represent ancient emperors,

empresses and other Roman heroes.33 Many appear to have been based

on ancient coins and thus potentially can be identified, but it is unlikely

that all were meant to be.34 There is no apparent logic to the particular

selection as a whole, nor are they placed in any sort of meaningful sequence.

Consequently, they do not provide a specific genealogy for the emperor-

elect who appeared before the doors during the coronation ceremony, but

it seems likely that they were intended to celebrate and honour his imperial

lineage in a general sense.

This is apparent from the imaginative way in which Filarete used the vine

motif. Alternating with flowers and fruit, the portraits appear to sprout from

the spirals as the vines grow up the doors. A curious detail in the upper

corners of each door suggests that this process of creation is ongoing. Each

of the four vines culminates in a bunch of small, round fruit, which hangs

from the lower ankle of one of the putti holding the coats of arms (Figs. 18.9

and 18.10). Strangely, most of the spheres are pierced by holes – their

seeds have apparently fallen. Originating from the fruit at the top of each

vine, these seeds may refer to the successors of the ancient rulers produced

by the tendrils below. A few of the pieces in each bunch are still intact,

confirming that more seeds will fall in the future. The emperor-elect would

complete this narrative when he appears before the Porta Argentea during

the coronation ceremony. If this reading is correct, the vines growing up the

sides of the doors both confirm his status as heir to the ancient emperors

and commemorate the role played by the Porta Argentea and Saint Peter’s

in perpetuating his venerable office.

Another detail suggests that imperial dynasties are not the only thing

produced by the vines. At the top of the left door, the tendrils wind inward

around the putti, finally terminating in two additional bunches of fruit

33 Portraits of a few contemporaries, including Filarete himself, also appear among the ancientfigures, but these were added only midway through the project. This is evident from the factthat they all occur adjacent to the horizontal reliefs celebrating Eugenius’s achievements, andwere in fact cast as part of them. In the original programme, ancient heads almost certainlyoccupied these spaces.

34 A. Cianfarini, Luoghi Vaticani: la basilica antica e rinascimentale, la necropoli, la tomba di Pietro,l’atrio e le cinque porte della basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano (Rome, 2002), 96–9, offers acomplete list of identifications, but most scholars are dubious about the prospect of naming allthe heads.

366 robert glass

Fig. 18.10. Detail of Fig. 18.2, left door, upper right corner of the borders.

(Fig. 18.10). These are distinguished from the fruit in the corners by the

way they hang, the lack of holes, and their leaves, which are different from

the acanthus foliage everywhere else in the borders. Clearly these represent

grapes, and as an obvious Eucharistic symbol, must refer to Christ, who

appears enthroned immediately below.35 The message seems to be that the

vines, in addition to producing emperors, yielded a different kind of king.

Christ in turn produced his own prolific vine, which Filarete represented

in the acanthus covering the thrones of Christ and the Virgin (Fig. 18.6).

Notably, the tendrils surrounding Christ appear to spring directly from his

waist, whereas those around the Virgin simply envelop her.36 Finally, at the

top of the right door, Filarete alluded to the succession of popes produced

by Christ’s vine (Fig. 18.9). Appropriately, the vines in the borders yield no

additional fruit here. Filarete instead used the oak wreath surrounding the

papal coat of arms held up by the putti, representing a number of acorns

among the leaves. Some of the acorns are intact, but others consist of only

the cup-like cap, the nut itself being absent. The conceit is identical to that

35 Cf. Gnocchi, ‘La porta’ (above, n. 6), 12, 22.36 Cf. M. Winner, ‘Filarete tanzt mit seinen Schulern in den Himmel’, in H. Keller, W. Paravicini

and W. Schieder (eds.), Italia et Germania: Liber Amicorum Arnold Esch (Tubingen, 2001), 270,285.


of the pierced fruit at the top of the vines in the corners. The missing nuts

have fallen to the ground producing popes. Those that remain will fall when

future popes are elected. As with the imperial seeds, the metaphor is well

suited to the site, since the coronation of the popes also took place at Saint

Peter’s.

But if these details clarify the significance of the vines and portrait heads

in the borders, the countless small scenes and figures nestled around them

still require explanation. These are the most bewildering aspect of the doors.

They include a remarkable assortment of subjects: episodes from the leg-

endary history of early Rome, such as the sacrifice of Marcus Curtius,

Horatius Cocles defending the bridge and the Rape of the Sabines; a handful

of pastoral scenes taken from Virgil’s Eclogues; a few of Hercules’ labours, but

also his death; several of Aesop’s fables; and, most unexpectedly, numerous

stories from ancient mythology, mostly recounted in Ovid’s Metamorphoses,

such as Perseus and Medusa, Echo and Narcissus, and Leda and the Swan,

as well as generic images of satyrs, nymphs, birds, animals and insects.37 In

some cases, related subjects are grouped together or placed symmetrically,

but in others they are not. No meaningful pattern can be discerned in the

overall arrangement. The programme for this subsidiary iconography was

likely only conceived in a general sense.38

Nilgen, in support of her all-encompassing papal primacy argument,

understands the borders as representing the pagan era that preceded the

age of Christianity and prepared Rome for the advent of the Church and

papacy.39 In her view, the message is that the pope is heir not only to

the spiritual kingdom of Christ, but to the temporal legacy of the ancient

emperors. As the analysis of the vines above suggests, however, Filarete

may have been thinking primarily of the emperors who appeared before

the doors during the coronation ceremony when designing the borders.

The remarkable scenes and figures Filarete included in the marginal spaces

around the vines can also be understood as part of the emperors’ lin-

eage. They suggest that their ancestry is both venerable and flawed: the

scenes of heroic action attest to the glory of the emperors’ forerunners,

37 H. Roeder, ‘The borders of Filarete’s bronze doors to Saint Peter’s’, Journal of the Warburg andCourtauld Institutes 10 (1947), 150–3; Sauer, ‘Die Randreliefe’ (above, n. 31); Nilgen‘L’eclettismo come programma’ (above, n. 4).

38 The attempts of J. Blansdorf, ‘Petrus Berchorius und das Bildprogramm der Bronzeturen vonSt. Peter in Rom’, in H. Walter and H.-J. Horn (eds.), Rezeption der Metamorphosen des Ovid inder Neuzeit: der Antike Mythos in Text und Bild (Berlin, 1995), 12–35, and Gnocchi, ‘La porta’(above, n. 6), 10–26, to reveal a hidden programme are in my view unconvincing.

39 Nilgen, ‘Filaretes Bronzetur’ (above, n. 4), 374; Nilgen, ‘L’eclettismo come programma’(above, n. 4), 285–7.

368 robert glass

while others show the folly and failings of the ancients. Like the portrayal

of the wicked, yet magnificent Nero in the martyrdom panels, the bor-

ders depict antiquity as a place of both virtue and vice. Filarete created a

collection of ancient exempla, both positive and negative, intended to cele-

brate, inspire and admonish the emperors who came to Saint Peter’s to be

crowned.

It can be argued that such an interpretation is consistent with what is

known about Filarete’s sources for the border iconography and the use

of ancient subject matter elsewhere in his oeuvre.40 In closing, however, I

instead would like to discuss one further implication of the connection I have

posited between the doors and the coronation ceremony. This concerns the

question of who might have assisted Filarete in designing the programme.

Both Biondo and Vegio have been mentioned in this regard, but in 1433,

when the overall design was likely established, neither was among the pope’s

close associates. Vegio did not enter papal service until 1436.41 Biondo

joined the curia at the end of 1432 as a notary in the Camera Apostolica.

In early 1434, while continuing his duties as notary, he began working as

a secretary for both the camerarius and pope, and conducting diplomatic

missions on their behalf. He officially entered the papal chancery in 1436

and soon became one of Eugenius’s most important secretaries.42 Despite

this rapid rise, it seems unlikely that in the first year of Biondo’s employment

at the curia the pope would have looked to him for counsel on the doors’

project.

There was, however, another learned figure in Rome in 1433 who knew

Eugenius well and had overseen a large restoration project for him in the

past: the famous traveller and antiquarian Ciriaco d’Ancona. Ciriaco had

been on friendly terms with Eugenius since the early 1420s, when the future

pope, then Cardinal Condulmer, was legate of the province of Piceno. The

cardinal ordered that the port in Ancona, Ciriaco’s hometown, be renovated,

and Ciriaco was entrusted with the reorganization of its financial records

and accounting procedures. In 1424, when Condulmer relocated to Rome,

Ciriaco visited the city as his guest, staying in his palace for forty days.

After Condulmer was elected pope in 1431, Ciriaco returned to Rome to

see his friend, and in 1432 or 1433, when negotiations between Pope Euge-

nius and King Sigismund were underway, he went to Siena with the papal

ambassadors to meet with the emperor-elect. Ciriaco also advised the pope

40 I hope to explore these topics in a future publication.41 A. Sottili, ‘Zur Biographie Giuseppe Brivios und Maffeo Vegios’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 4

(1967), 224–6.42 R. Fubini, ‘Biondo, Flavio’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani X (Rome, 1968), 540.


in planning the official reception of Sigismund in Rome, and, after the coro-

nation, accompanied the emperor on a tour of the city’s ruins, presumably

serving as his antiquarian guide.43

As is well known, Ciriaco’s approach to the legacy of classical antiquity,

while informed by literary sources, was manifestly visual.44 During his

myriad travels, Ciriaco habitually recorded in his notebooks the ancient

inscriptions and works of art he encountered. It would come as no sur-

prise if the pope enlisted the help of such a visually minded scholar when

commissioning the doors. Given Ciriaco’s friendship with Eugenius and

involvement in the planning of the emperor’s reception and stay in Rome,

it is possible that he may have even played a role in persuading the pope to

renovate the Porta Argentea in the first place.

Ciriaco’s name has been mentioned occasionally in the literature on the

doors ever since Saxl first noticed that Filarete’s imaginative reconstruction

of the Castel Sant’Angelo in the relief with Peter’s martyrdom (Fig. 18.8) is

similar to a copy of a drawing that may have been made by Ciriaco.45 Copies

of Ciriaco’s drawings circulated widely, so it has been easy enough to assume

that Filarete obtained the design indirectly. The correspondence, however,

may instead be evidence of their collaboration. Ciriaco’s participation may

account also for the inclusion of the angel Gabriel’s greeting to the Virgin,

‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you’, in the large panel depicting

her enthroned, not only in Latin on the pedestal below her feet, but also

in Greek in her halo (Fig. 18.6). Since this relief was likely planned at the

beginning of the project, before the influx of Greeks into Italy in 1438 for

the Council of Ferrara–Florence, Ciriaco’s love of Hellenistic culture and

his knowledge of the language may be the most likely explanation for this

unexpected feature.

But perhaps the most intriguing parallel between Ciriaco’s interests and

the design of the doors is the incorporation of ancient figures and scenes

as exempla for the edification of the emperors who were crowned at Saint

Peter’s. This idea is consistent with Ciriaco’s use of the ancient material

43 These biographical details are reported by Ciriaco’s contemporary, F. Scalamonti, Vita ViriClarissimi et Famosissimi Kyriaci Anconitani, C. Mitchell and E. W. Bodnar (eds.)(Philadelphia, 1996). References to the relevant passages can be found by consulting Mitchelland Bodnar’s chronology (pp. 15–18).

44 For a recent overview, see P. F. Brown, Venice and Antiquity: the Venetian Sense of the Past (NewHaven, 1996), 81–91.

45 F. Saxl, ‘The classical inscription in Renaissance art and politics’, Journal of the Warburg andCourtauld Institutes 4 (1941), 42. Earlier, Sauer, ‘Die Randreliefe’ (above, n. 31), 12, andLazzaroni and Munoz, Filarete (above, n. 31), 111, noted in passing Ciriaco’s presence in Romein 1433, but did not believe this to be directly relevant to the Vatican doors.

370 robert glass

he collected. In fact, when Ciriaco met with Sigismund in Siena, he gave

the emperor-elect a gold coin of Trajan as ‘an exemplar of a good emperor

worthy to be imitated’.46 Ciriaco was one of the most original and eccentric

interpreters of the ancient past of his day and his participation in the design

of Filarete’s doors could go a long way towards explaining their unusual

features.

46 Scalamonti, Vita (above, n. 43), 67, 130.

Plate 15. Filarete, the Saint Peter panel from the central doors showing the donor,

Pope Eugenius IV (1431–47), kneeling and receiving the keys from the apostle.

Documents

Filarete's Renovation of the Porta Argentea at Old St. Peter's