Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade

7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 1/17

Roman Tradition and the Aedicular FaçadeAuthor(s): Nathan T. WhitmanSource: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1970), pp.108-123Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/988645 .

Accessed: 22/04/2013 07:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sah

http://www.jstor.org/stable/988645?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/988645?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sah

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal



Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Facade

NATHAN T. WHITMAN University of Michigan

ON 2 June I57I, AlessandroCardinalFarnesedecided to

set asidethe designthathad been projectedby Vignola for

the facade of the Gesu (Fig. i) and to erect in its stead a

more dynamic version of the same type by the younger

architect,Giacomo della Porta (Fig. 2).1 As a corollaryto

this decision the Cardinalthereby provided later architec-turalhistorianswith a comparison o enticingthat few have

been able to resist ts challenge.The comparisonhas taxed

theirpowersof stylistic analysis o the utmost and has sum-

moned forth subtle visual distinctionsthat have enriched

the entirefield of architecturalhistory. After almosta cen-

tury of such dissections a certain consensushas been at-

tained: it is generally agreedthat Vignola's facade exhibits

a finely developed classicalequilibrium,whereas that by

Della Porta displaysa bolder if less subtleorganization.Inhistendencyto submerge heparts nto anorganically used

whole dominatedby a strong centralclimax, the latterar-

chitect created the first truly baroquefacade.2

Fig. 2. Rome, II Gesu exterior (photo: Gerald Carr).

Fig. I. Vignola, projected facade of I1Gesu (from T. H. Fokker,RomanBaroqueArt, London, 1938).

io8

The observations presented in this article grew directly out of a

lecture course repeated at intervals over a period of several years.Stimulus was received from many of my students, but I particularlywish to thank Mr. John L. Varriano whose various suggestions and

criticisms helped greatly to sharpen and refine my ruminations.

I. Pio Pecchiai, II Gesu di Roma (Rome, 1952), p. 43.2. The latest significant discussion of the two facades is to be found

in the perceptive remarksby Lotz inJames Ackerman and WolfgangLotz, "Vignoliana," Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann(New York,

1964), pp. 20-22.

This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions






I09

But beyond suchgeneralizations oncerningthe stylistic

categories o which these two monumentsproperlybelong,one mustalsoinvestigatethe preciseposition eachoccupiesin the subsequentevolution of this particular ype of two-

story,upwardlycontracting acadewithin thecity of Rome.

A rigorousmorphological nquiryof this nature eadsto the

conclusion hat thesetwo facades ie at thebeginning

oftwodistinctcurrentsn Roman architecturalpractice.Thesecur-

rentswere subject o more or lessseparatedevelopmentfor

approximatelyeighty years before merging in the greatfacadesof S. AndreadellaValle and S. Maria n Campitelli,the "classic"high baroquesolutions or the frontof alongi-

tudinal, counter-reformationchurch with large nave and

subsidiary hapels.They are also of coursemajorexamplesof the so-calledaedicular acade, .e., the front of a buildingunified in its majorvertical dimensionby terminalorders

supportinga pediment, and thus the investigation of the

subsequent nfluence of the Gesu faCadesultimately be-

comes involved with the vexed questionof the genesisof a

variantwhose sources have hitherto been sought largelyoutsideRome. However, while north Italian nfluencesare

indisputable, t would seem that those influences,rather

thanprovidinga totally new base,acted asa stimulusto an

essentiallyRoman school of architecture,a school that bytheearlyseventeenthcenturypossessedts own strongset of

basic forms and principles.Conceivably the facadesof S.

Andreadella Valle and S. Maria n Campitellimight have

developed into something approachingtheir present ap-

pearancewithout the northerncontacts,but theirexistence

in any form without the two prior faqadesof the Gesu isunthinkable.

While GiacomodellaPorta'sprojectwas the one realized

atthe Gesu,nonetheless heunderlyingschemeof Vignola's

rejecteddesign, readilyavailable n the engravingof 1573,for a time had the greater nfluenceandcontributedone of

the most fundamental eatures of the Roman baroquefa-

qade.Quite apart rom the new rigormanifested n the clas-

sical vocabulary of individual forms (e.g., the tabernacle

window supersedes he oculus), Vignola's facade is fash-

ioned in terms of consistentlydeveloped steppedplanesand

departsdecisivelyfrom the single planeof the prototypicalS. Spirito n Sassia(Fig. 3).3If the six nichesof the younger

Sangallo's ront revealsome degreeof mass, hey do so only

conceptuallyand indicate that Bramante'sinnovating in-

sistence on robust plasticity has degeneratedinto sterile

academicism.By means of a composition based on three

planesecheloned in depth, Vignola's design for the Gesu

introducesat least the possibilityof an intrinsicexpressionof three-dimensionalbulk. Since there is only a print to

study,it is difficult o conjecture o what extent theseplaneswould haveregisteredas masses f the fagadehad been built.

Fig. 3. Rome, S. Spirito n Sassia photo:Alinari).

Judging from other structuresby Vignola, the effectprob-

ably would have been coolly sculpturalratherthan force-

fully plastic.In architecture sin paintinga classical evival

had often to precedethe emergenceof the baroque.In any case, that possibility, sculpturalor plastic, could

not develop in the conservativeatmosphereof later six-

teenth-centuryRome. In the faCade f S. Mariaai Monti

(Fig. 4) Della Porta bowed to the prevailingsevere taste,abandonedthe intrinsically sinewy characterof his own

Gesu,and reverted to a chastely planardesign.4However,the absenceof athirdplane n the centercomesnot so much

from exploiting Vignola's model but Guido Guidetti's

3. The church was begun in 1538 by Antonio da Sangallo. The

facade is not documented, but the attribution to Sangallo appears

reasonably secure. Gustavo Giovannoni, Antonio daSangallo (Rome,

1959), pp. 246-250; MiltonJ. Lewine, "Roman Architectural Prac-

tice during Michelangelo's Maturity," Stil und Uberlieferung n der

Kunst desAbendlandes Berlin, I967), II, 22-23.

4. The building was begun in I580. Apart from some recent stud-

ies of particular monuments, the basic published information on

Giacomo della Porta still remains the notice by Werner Korte in

Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, AllgemeinesLexikon derBildenden

Kunstler, xxvni (I933), 278-280.







II0

Fig. 5. Rome, S. Caterinade' Funari photo: Alinari).

Fig. 4. Rome, S. Maria ai Monti (from Fokker, RomanBaroque

Art).

earlier acadefor S. Caterinadei Funari(Fig. 5).5 Althoughthe detail of S. Mariaai Monti does indeed derivefrom the

Gesu,the systemof two planes s that of S. Caterina. n the

earlierchurch hatsystem s stillprimitiveandundeveloped,almostaccidental,whereasat S. Maria, argelythroughthe

Michelangelesquedevice of silhouetting the second and

fifth pilasters, he outer baysareintegratedwith the center

ones, the latter seeming to form a thin layer laid over a

broad surfacevisible only at the ends. The elder Martino

Longhi's S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni exhibits the same

conservativesystem, enrichedby fluted pilastersand relief

connectivesbetween the capitals.6Both are handsomefa-

cades,one severe,one decorative,but their aestheticmerit

is in inverseproportionto their genetic importance.

By the last decade of the sixteenthcenturyRoman taste

in architectureas in paintinghad become less constricted,

and a new if sometimeshesitantwillingnessto experimentwith establishedorms becomesevident. Of fargreatermo-

ment than S. Maria ai Monti or S. Girolamo,both physi-

cally and socially, was S. Mariain Vallicella (Fig. 6), the

principalchurch of the Oratoriansn Rome, andits facade,

erectedby FaustoRughesi,was intendedto rival thatof the

Gesu.7While the two faFadesdo resembleeach other in

many respects, he threesteppedplanesderivequiteclearlyfrom Vignola's project, as does the large segmentalpedi-ment thatcrowns the center of the lower story. However,

Vignola's classicalharmonieshave been severelydisrupted

5. The church was erected with unusualrapiditybetween i560and I564. Gustavo Giovannoni, Saggi sulla architettura el Rinasci-

mento Milan,I935), p. I79.6. A good illustration f thisfacadecan be foundinJosefWein-

gartner, RomischeBarockkirchen(Munich, I930), fig. 13. It dates from

about 1589.

7. Rughesiobtained he commission n 1594,although he faCadewas not finisheduntil well along in the first decade of the seven-teenthcentury. acobHess,"Contributi llastoriadellaChiesaNu-

ova," Scrittidi storiadell' arte in onoredi Mario Salmi (Rome, 1963),

pp. 226-227. Fig.9 in this article llustratesnearlierproject or the

fagadeby the elderMartinoLonghi; t isof thesametypeas thatofS. GirolamodegliSchiavoni.







III

M I "'4. )1

Fig. 6. Rome, S. Maria in Vallicella (photo: Alinari).

Fig. 7. Rome, Santa Susanna (photo: Alinari).

by the stuntedouter panels,the overbearingsize and pro-

jection of the segmental pediment, and the lumpy orna-

ment. Seeking to revive the basic formal structureof the

engraveddesignwhile at the sametime strivingto intensifythe centralclimax and sensualimpact of the actual Gesu

facade, Rughesi failed more through timidity, through a

weaknessof aestheticjudgment which preventedhis fusingthe differentelements,thanthrough any essentialdisparityof the formal ideas in themselves.

It is of course the far abler Carlo Maderno's facade for

S. Susanna(Fig. 7) that succeedswhere that of the Ora-

torian church fails.8 At S. Susannathe formal scaffold is

again the three steppedplanes of Vignola, but here theyswell out to robust massesquite splendidlyarticulatedbythe six columnsengagedin the lower story. Rughesihardly

questionedthe planarconcept and if he too increased he

number of columns, he clusteredthem awkwardly in the

centerwherethey

serve as aslightly

redundantsupport

to

the single pediment. The resultingaediculeis an additive

adornment that all too easily could be detachedfrom its

background.Incontrast,Madernospreadhis columns over

the middle of the facadewhere they assertivelyenframe

those steppedmassesfrom which they are ultimately in-

separable.Corresponding o thenew emphasison columns,

the pilastersof the upperstoryhave lost the mannerist lat-

nessstill quiteevidenton S. Maria n Vallicella,andproject

energetically rom the surfaceof the wall. Inshort,without

any sacrificeof classicalclarity-on the contrary,the sim-

plicity of the bayunits at S. Susanna nhances hisquality-

a richly plasticbaroquefacadeis createdthrough the two

interrelateddevicesof ampleornamentationandanunmis-

takableaccentuation n depthof the severalplanesof wall.

If the former characteristics rooted in Maderno'snorth

Italianheritage, the latter is undeniablyderived from Vi-

gnola'sdesignand in fact accordswith the dominantchar-

acterof Romanarchitecture,both ancientand Renaissance.

In only one laterfaCaden Rome did Madernohave an

opportunityto develop the conceptsso brilliantlyembod-

ied at S. Susanna. n i608 he undertookthe completion of

S. Andrea della Valle (Fig. 8), and while his work on the

nave could only be a continuationof the elevation alreadybegun by Giacomo dellaPorta,9he was not so constricted

8. The two faCadesrevirtually ontemporary-thatf S. Su-sanna was begun about 1596 and completed in 1603. Nina Caflisch,

Carlo Maderno(Munich, I934), p. Io.

9. Giacomo della Porta was certainly the major creative architect,

although for diplomatic reasons the Theatine architect, Father Fran-

cesco Grimaldi was also associated with the project. The supervisingarchitect was Pietro Paolo Olivieri. The problem has been com-

pletely discussedby Howard Hibbard, "The Early History of Sant'

Andrea della Valle," Art Bulletin,XLIII I96I), 289-3II.







112

Fig. 8. Maderno,projected aqadeof S. AndreadellaValle (fromN. Caflish,CarloMaderno,Munich, I934).

in the facade. Not that he was completely free, for after the

Gesu and S. Maria in Vallicella it was inconceivable at this

periodthat the motherchurchof yet a thirdmajorcounter-

reformationorder (in this case the Theatines)could have

other than such a type of facade, fully developed in two

stories with the upper level two bays narrower than the

lower. As at S. Susanna he column is the distinguishing

baroqueornamentalfeature,but here it is doubled in the

lower story anddoublecolumnsreplacethepilasters n the

upperstory. More is not necessarilybetterand certaindif-

ficultiesarise:on the lower story the progressive ncrease n

width of bayis lost becauseof the additionalcolumn in each

of the second bays; the two columns at either side of the

entrancemust be seen as pairs in the context of the total

facade,but logically they belong to separateportionsof the

steppedunits.The dissociationof double columnsand bayunits is avoided in the upperstory by abandoning he sys-tem of gradedconcentrationaltogetherandsimply playingfour units of paired columns against a wall of only one

plane, a procedurethat reintroduces he variation in bay

width. But sucha reversionto a uniplanarwall is a pseudo-solutionthat, in effect,shattersVignola'sbasic formal con-

cept. An attemptto remedyminorcontradictionshas ed to

a major dissonancebetween the lower and upperstories.

The fagadeof S. Andrea,probably plannedabout 1623,

had been carriedup through the socle by I629,10 he yearof Maderno'sdeath. Building operations, alreadyslowed

through depletionof funds,haltedcompletely, andnothingfurtherwas done until I66I when the work was resumed

io. Caflisch,op. cit.,pp. 5I-53.

and carried to completion by Carlo Rainaldi (Fig. 9).11

Limited by the earlier foundations, Rainaldi nonetheless

recognized and found a solution to the dissonanceof his

predecessor'sproject without any sacrificeof its already

high baroqueopulence.His solution,with the simplicityof

genius, involved but three basicphysicalchanges:he con-

tinued the projectionof the centralbay through both thesecondstoryandthelargegableaboveit, cutbackthe lower

entablature etween thesecond andthird columnson either

side, and transferred he pediment from the lower to the

uppercenterwithin the field of the crowning gable. By the

first of thesechangesRainaldiof course restored he princi-

ple of massconcentrationthroughout the facade,whereas

with the second he introduced a strong sense of vertical

continuity which the upward transferenceof the central

pedimentonly served to confirm. His achievement,the re-

newal andenrichmentof afacadetype that was threateningeither to disintegrateor to stiffen andfreeze,has been fully

appreciated,12 ut the particularsources of its varied in-

gredientshave so far escapedrecognition, perhapsbecause

those ingredients hemselveshave never beenpreciselydis-

tinguished.Confusion and ambiguity might best be avoided by

keeping separate or the moment the three changes enu-

meratedabove. The firstandmost obvious involves the re-

tention of those steppedmasseswhose brief developmentfrom Vignola hasjust been traced. The second effectivelylinks the outer columns of the two stories to form a highverticalframe that supportsthe major pediment. In short

the two stories, whose previous superimposition n Ma-derno's elevation had been stressedby a lower entablature

continuous through each projecting area of wall, are in-

tegrallyunitedby a single enveloping aedicule. This is not

however, a new device in Roman architecture, or it is one

of the most distinctivecharacteristicsf Della Porta's acade

for the Gesu.

Della Porta did more thanmerely reviseVignola's proj-

Ii. Rainaldiwasalreadyassociatedwith the churchby I656, andFasolobelieves hat the designof thefacadehad beenpreparedwell

beforework actually tartedn I66I. Forthis nformation nd a fur-ther discussionof intermediate tepsbetween Maderno'selevationand Rainaldi's ial project,see FurioFasolo,"CarloRainaldie il

prospettodi S. Andreadella Valle a Roma," Palladio, (195I), 34-38. I have not thoughtit relevant or the purposeof this article todiscuss he "purifications"ntroducedby Rainaldi's ssistant t that

time, Carlo Fontana.

I2. The illuminatingconceptof the aedicular acadewas origi-nally developed by Rudolf Wittkower, "Carlo Rainaldi and theRoman Architecture f theFullBaroque,"ArtBulletin, ix (I937),

242-313. Subjectto revision and emendationas are all works of

scholarship,hisjustly famousarticlemust yet remainthe indis-

pensable oundation or all futurediscussionsf this aswell as otherideasrelating o the historyof high baroquearchitecturen Rome.







II3

Fig. 9. Rome, S. Andreadella Valle (photo:Anderson).

ect-he created an alternativeformal system within the

same generic type. If tracesof the older architect'smulti-

planarscheme still linger, its rigorous logic has been sub-

ordinated o a new objectiveof verticalcontinuity.In pur-suit of this aim Della Portahasomitted the niches between

the pilasters,pushing them together so that they registerclearlyas a single unit with two subdivisions,and has cut

back the entablaturewhere it adjoins the second pair of

pilasters.Both stories of the vast facade are indissolublybound together by the resultingarmatureof linked mem-

berswhose upwardforce breaks nto the great pedimentin

which theyfind both their resolutionand theirjustification.It is the energeticspiritof Michelangelo'sarchitecture, d-

mittedly somewhat toned down and normalized, with

which Della Porta has been able to infuse the traditional

type;in themid-sixteenthcentury only the greatFlorentine

conceivedof anarchitecturembuedwith such tautorganiclife. Although it is true thatno exact,comprehensive ource

exists in Michelangelo's work, that he in fact probablynever would have consideredusing such a conventionally

shapedfasade, the muscularunificationis nonetheless dis-

tinctive evidence of his influence.The form as well as thespiritof thosepairedpilasters hrustingupward throughthe

entablature ndinto the atticcould hardlyhave beenimag-inedwithout the presenceof the samemotif on the exterior

walls of St. Peter's.

If the heightenedemphasison a centralclimax as well as

certain details (e.g., the consoles,windows, andniches) of

Della Porta'sGesu had animmediateimpacton Romanec-

clesiastical rchitecture,ts fundamental ormal characteris-

tic of vertical inkage did not. Only one majorchurchfa-

9adeof the very late sixteenthcentury ncorporateda simi-







II4

larprinciple,thatof S. Giacomo degli Incurabili(Fig. io).The architectof this church was FrancescoCaprianida

Volterra,and sincehe was still alive in 1601, t isvery prob-able that he also designedand carriedout the facade,essen-

tially complete in 1600.13Caprianihad worked with Vi-

gnola, and at S. Giacomo he realizeda much larger and

more popularversion of the oval plan developed by theolder architect at S. Andrea in Via Flaminiaand S. Anna

dei Palafrenieri.However, the considerableheight of the

church, ts dome enclosed n a high drumand buttressedby

large consoles, renderedimpossible the single-storiedfa-

cadesusedby Vignolaon his smallbuildings.A half-centurylaterBernini would wrestle with and solve the problemof

an appropriate ront forjust suchan oval church with ex-

posed drum,but Capriani imply appliedthe conventional

-and by now very Roman-type of the Gesu,despitethe

fact that t had beenspecifically volved for a quitedifferent

sort of building.At least the levels of the facadecorrespondwith those of the church and the consolesroughly match

those around the drum, even if their juxtaposition does

form a very odd angle.14

Perhapsbecause t frontsthe narrowendof alongitudinaloval, the facade s divided nto threebays nsteadof the nor-

mativefive and the outerbaysencasedoors.The reduction

of the number of bays allows the pilasters o be doubled,and they in turn are connected to the ones above by the

ressautreatmentof the intermediaryentablature.The en-

framing aedicule of the Gesu has thus been adaptedas a

unifying device to a facade of less monumental size and

significance.However, Della Porta's energetic Michelan-

gelesque motif, while having to endure less competitionfrom other features,has been transformed n accordance

with thatacademicclassicizingmannerwhich prevailed n

late sixteenth-centuryRome. In the lower story the severe

Doric replaces he grandioseCorinthian; hischangeauto-

maticallyreducesthe proportionalheight of the pilasters,whose vertical impetus is then further curtailed by the

omission of the high podia thatplay suchan importantex-

pressiveroleat theGesu.Infact,Rossi'sprint,unconsciously

reflecting the taste of a later decade, gives a somewhat

strongeraedicularimpressionthan does the actualobliqueview of thefacade, or while the sidesare set backconsider-

ably, thereby accentuatingthe entire middle section, the

central cutback on both stories of that section is rather

slight. The higher relief of the pilasters compareS. Maria

aiMonti or the Gesuitself) andtheunmistakableprojectionof the center, alreadya massrather than a plane, indicate

that this facadeis contemporarywith that of S. Susanna,but itsmostincipientlybaroquecharacteristics stillhandled

with carefulreserve.15

Whereas at S. Giacomo degli Incurabili Della Porta's

Fig. Io. Rome, S. Giacomo degli Incurabili (from Via del Corso,Rome, 1961).

I3. There is some dispute concerning the possible role which

Carlo Maderno may have played in the erection of the facade. Zoc-

ca's argument in favor of Capriani is still persuasive,but Lotz prefersto accept Baglione's statement that Mademo completed the front of

the building. Mario Zocca, "L'Architetto di San Giacomo in Au-

gusta." Bollettinod'arte,xxix (1936), 519-530; Wolfgang Lotz, "Die

Ovalen Kirchenraume des Cinquecento," RimischesJahrbuch urKunstgeschichte, II (I955), 58-68.

14. Some informative exterior views, both photographs and

prints, can be found in the multi-authored volume, Via del Corso

(Rome, 1961), figs. 94, I07, Io8, II0-II3. Falda's engraving inac-

curately omits the doors in the side bays.15. The Roman church of S. Maria della Scala has a facade of the

same aedicular formation as S. Giacomo. Traditionally ascribed to

Capriani by Baglione and Titi, although finished by Mascherino, the

facade may not have been completed until as late as 1624. Of more

than passing interest is the fact that Carlo Rainaldi and his father

carried out commissions in this church between 1645 and 1650.Furio Fasolo, L'Opera di Hieronimoe Carlo Rainaldi (Rome, 1962),pp. 105-107, 348.







II5

Fig. ii. Rome, S. Ignazio (photo:Alinari).

aedicularmotif of superimposedpilasters as beendiscreetly

adaptedfor a three-bayedfacadeof middling dimensions,

at the laterandlargerchurchof S. Ignazio (Fig. i) it recurs

in its originalcontext on a faqade hat at firstglanceseems

to be merely an academicversion of the Gesu. Sharing he

sameimposingdimensionsandusingmany of the samede-

tails,the front of S. Ignazioappears o involve a regulariza-tion and "correction"of its prototype, particularlyon the

lower story. Now the paired pilastersshare a commonplane (theterminalpairsbreakup throughentablature nd

atticjust asdo theircompanions),theouterbayscontainthe

side doors while niches alone rule the intermediateareas,

and a single segmental pediment supported by two col-

umns supersedes he Gesh's double arrangement.Ambi-

guity vanishes,each unit standsby itself, the beat becomes

regular, crowding toward the center disappears.Fewer

changesoccuron the upper story, which is a virtualquota-tion of the Gesu; only the inner pairsof pilastersare re-

placed by singlecolumns to correspond o the storybelow.

The somewhatproblematichistoryof S. Ignaziois at the

moment still under continuing investigation.16The foun-

dation medalof 1626presumedlypreserves he originalele-

vation for the facade: t is of the same general type as the

existing one but with a narrowerupper story and a veryextended lower one. While its immediate prototype mayhave been the front of the SS. Annunziata n Genoa, the

I6. Thefirst mportant ontributionwasmadeby DagobertFrey,

"Beitrage ur Geschichte err6mischenBarockarchitektur,"Wiener

JahrbuchfurKunstgeschichte, (I924), I I-43. The most recently pub-lisheddiscussion ccurs n HeinrichThelen,Francescoorromini:ie

HandzeichnungenGraz, 967),I,partI, 39-43.My tentativeoutline

of thebuilding'shistory s taken argely rom thesetwo authorities.

One cannot but now agreewith Thelen'sattribution f the model

designto Madernoand his office(whichincluded he young Fran-

cescoBorromini),a relationship lreadysuspectedby Frey;but at

the moment I still fid it difficult o ascribe he sameoriginto the

medaldesign(illustratedn Frey, fig. 3). I am greatlyindebtedto

Prof.HowardHibbard or bringingThelen'sdiscussiono my at-

tention.







common sourcefor both was Vignola'sS. Mariadell'Orto.

Certainly he designon the medal is very antiquated,andit

probablyreflects he derivative deasof theJesuits'own ar-

chitect,FatherOrazioGrassi, ssentiallya scholarof mathe-

matics who taughtat the Collegio Romano andhadorigi-

nallycome from the regionof Genoa.However, thepatron

of the churchwas CardinalLudovicoLudovisi,andthere sincreasing vidence that t was hisarchitect,CarloMaderno,who providedthe fundamentalplansfor the building.Un-

der Grassi'ssupervisionthese planswere translatednto a

wooden model between I627 and I629. If the drawing

(Fig. I2) in the Biblioteca Chigianaat the Vaticancan be

considered o be a reflectionof thatmodel, the facadenow

consistedof two storiesequally developedin five baysand

articulatedby means of pairedpilasters n high relief.17To

conform to the new plan of one large nave flanked bylinked chapels, the side doors are relegated to the outer

bays;the entirefacade s crowned not

bya

pedimentbut

bya balustradeintermittentlyadornedby statues hatserveas

statelyconclusions to the verticalimpetus of the superim-

Fig. I2. Projected facade of S. Ignazio (from WienerJahrbuchfiirKunstgeschichte,Vol. III, 1924).

posedpilasters. n thishandsome asade,so muchfinerthanthe medal design, the characteristics f Maderno, at thattime the undisputeddeanof Roman architects,arereadilyapparent.The paired orders dispersedover an essentiallyplanarsurfacerecall the upper story of his contemporary

project for the front of S. Andreadella Valle, as does the

richdecorationwith itsdecidedtendencyto theuseofhermfigures. Indeed, from the viewpoint of consistencyit is amore successful acade hanthatplanned or S. Andrea,andin its abandonmentof arigid systemof massconcentration,it may representa significant tylisticshift n the aging mas-ter's architecturalthought. Typologically, too, Madernoand hisassociates ave brokenwith Romanconventionand

projected ora majorbasilican hurchsomethingotherthanthe system of S. Spiritoin Sassiaand the Gesu.18

Contemporarydocumentsconfirm the fact that the ac-

tualconstructionof the church,asof the model, was under

the immediate direction of FatherGrassi.It couldhardlyhave been otherwise, for Madernodied early in 1629 and

CardinalLudovisi, increasinglyat odds with the reigningpope, Urban VIII, relinquishedhis control to the Jesuits.Work on the nave and chapelsproceededslowly throughthe I63 s; thefa5adeappears o havebeenalready tarted n

1642, and by 1645 it was largely complete, although the

pedimentwasnot inplaceuntil as ateas1685.19Grassihim-

17. Frey's identification (ibid.,pp. 25-28) of this drawing as a ver-sion of the model design is still very convincing. The identity of thedome in the drawing with that in G. G. Rossi's engraving of 1684can not be

lightlydismissed.

However, the precise authorship of thedrawing and the exact stage of the planning merit further investiga-tion. Is it a direct reflection of the model or does it incorporate latermodifications by Grassi?Strictly as a drawing it appears to be more

imaginatively rendered than one would expect from a mathema-tician-amateur. The confusing situation of two architects, one the

patron's and the other the order's, is not unusual in counter-reforma-tion Rome, e.g., the early stages of S. Andrea della Valle, but it is

aggravated at S. Ignazio where the imposed architect disappearedfrom the scene so early that he could be conveniently ignored bysubsequent Jesuit chroniclers.

i8. These similaritieswere first noted by Frey, op. cit., pp. 35-38.He might have made the further observation that the manner inwhich the unbroken horizontal of the balustrade, enlivened but not

interrupted by statues, functions as the emphasized terminal of a

cubic mass which in turn supports the cylindrical drum and hemi-spherical dome, is strongly reminiscent of the distant view of thefront of St. Peter's. But the drawing only represents an ideal, for in

actuality the visitor within the square-as at St. Peter's-would nothave been able to see the dome and facade in any such neat relation-

ship.

19. Ibid., pp. 12-13, 42-43. The surprisingly late erection of the

pediment is pointed out by L. Montalto, "I1problema della cupoladi S. Ignazio da P. Orazio Grassi e Fratel Pozzo ad oggi," BollettinodelCentrodi Studiper la Storiadell'Architettura, i (1957), 37. She alsoillustrates a variant of Rossi's engraving of the church without a ped-iment. Although Montalto makes no such inference, the delay in theconstruction of this feature might constitute at least circumstantialevidence that a gable was not originally intended.

II6







self seems to have adheredbasicallyto the model design,but duringthe I64oshe was absent rom the city andin thatcrucialperiod the work was directedby an otherwise un-known Jesuitbuilder, FatherAntonio Sasso.20Comparinghis faCadewith that intendedby MadernoandGrassi ome-

what surprisinglyrevealsthat the lower story of S. Ignazio

as built conformsto the primaryorganization n the Chigi-anadrawing-surprising becausethe normalizationof cer-tain details, the omission of others, and the conventional

execution all combine to producea more restrained, lassi-cal impression than that conveyed by the drawing. But

Sasso'sclericalconservatismwent much furtherthandetail.

This was a majorJesuit church and so it was decided that

the building should have a fasade of the same type as the

Gesu. With astonishingeasethechangewas effectedlargely

by omitting the upper end bays and replacingthem with

volutes; the upper story was also made noticeably higherand of course was to be crowned with a

gable.The two

architects,Orazio Torriani and MartinoLonghi, consulted

in 1645, were virulent in their criticismof the changesin-

troduced by Sasso and advised a return to the originalmodel. Not surprisingly he churchauthoritiesdid not en-

tirely heed the advice-for whatever reason facades are

rarelyunbuilt.21

It is altogethertoo easyto follow in effectthe example of

Torriani and Longhi and to dismissthe presentfacade ofS. Ignazio as merely an academic version of that of theGesu.Forit alsoclarifiesandstrengthens ertainprogressivefeaturesof the earlierbuilding.At the GesuDella Portahad

introduced the importantnew objective of vertical conti-

20. Frey, op. cit., pp. 41-42.21. The report of 1645 by Torriani and Longhi was published by

Carlo Bricarelli, "I1 P. Orazio Grassi, architetto della chiesa di S.

Ignazio in Roma," La civiltacattolica,anno 73, II (1922), 22-24. This

document, as well as a twelve-point statement by Grassi himself,dated 5 Dec. I650 (Montalto, op. cit.,p. 37), leaves no doubt that the

existing facade, especially with regard to its typological category,is largely the work of Sasso. According to Torriani and Longhi, itwas Sasso who put up the two large volutes rather than the outer

pairs of pilastersintended by Grassi,an unequivocal assertionby twoinformed contemporaries (Torriani had been a member of the origi-nal building commission of

1626-1627)that further

strengthensFrey's identification of the Chigiana drawing as a reflection of themodel design. On some other points the document presents prob-lems of interpretation, but it would also appear that Grassi (Ma-derno?) intended the balustrade to run across the front as well as thesides of the building; certainly there is no mention of any pediment,executed or planned. Some modem references to S. Ignazio as thework of Grassihave failed to distinguish between the fasade and the

body of the church. Until very recently there was indeed little reasonto suppose that the latter was not by him, but Frey's emphatic state-ment in respect of the former still seems valid: "Die Kritik (of 1645)stimmt so genau mit der bestehenden Fassade iiberein, dass keinZweifel bestehen kann, dass dies das Werk Sassos ist." Frey, op. cit.,p. 42.

I17

nuity, but its facadefails of full expressionbecausethe ar-chitect had felt obliged to adhereto the Vitruvian dictumthatan upperordershouldbe shorterthan a lower one. AtS. Ignazio the rule is still followed, but the resultingtend-

ency to squatness s obviated by the omission of the lower

podium, the bold treatmentof the pilasters n high relief,

the inward contractionof the volutes, and the duplicationof the centralcolumns of the first story in the level above.The last featurehas the furtherhappy effect of eliminatingthat suggestion of a horizontally conceived temple front

which still exists in lingering conflict with the aedicular

concept on the Gesuupperlevel. Clarity and balancehave

replaced ndecisionandambiguity,andon thisbasis t could

be arguedthat the facadeof S. Ignazio-indeed the entire

church-deserves critical rehabilitationas a major monu-ment of a vital baroqueclassicism.Erected n the I64os it isin fact contemporary with similar developments in the

careersof such Romanpainters

as Sacchiand Poussin.22

Whereas an aesthetic evaluation of S. Ignazio's faCadewill always be at the mercy of subjectivefactors, one can

scarcelydeny thatit represents nimportanthistoricalstagein the evolution of Roman baroque architecture.Com-

mandingattentionby its sheersize, the church acesanopensquare hatallows the observera direct,unimpededview of

the entirefront. A certainmodern tastemay preferRaguz-zini's deft rococo shapingof the piazza, and it is true that

here, in contrast to the situationat S. MariadellaPace, the

setting is as importantas the facade.But the relationship s

reciprocal: f the squarecanbe enjoyedfrom the stepsof the

church, the facade can be amply contemplated from therearof the square.And a largeframingaediculeby its verynaturecan only achieve its fullest effect in a frontal view.This is true of the Gesuitself, and one of the reasonswhythe relatedfacadeof S. Giacomo degli Incurabilihas been

overlooked is preciselybecause t is on a site that rendersafrontal regard virtually impossible. At S. Ignazio DellaPorta'senframingaediculehas been restoredto its full in-

tegrity as an architecturaldevice and has even in some re-

spects been accentuatedby means of the changes alreadyenumerated.No Roman architectof the period, however

22. One of thefactorsresponsibleor the curiously ow esteem nwhich this fa:ade is held by many architectural istoriansmay bephotography.The most frequentlyreproduced iew shows it fromabove andvery close to the surfaceof the plate;by comparison othemore distant,ground-levelphotographsof the GesuandS. An-drea della Valle it therebyappears tumpy and monotonous (seeFigs. I , I, and9). In actuality he facadeof S. Ignaziotowersim-pressivelyabove the visitor,andthejutting columnsin the centralbay create a compellingand unfetteredpathway for the eye. Onerealizes hat the breadth,exaggeratedn the photograph, s deftlycounteredby an unmistakable erticallinkagethat has, however,not yet been transformed into the verticalismwhich characterizesmuchhigh baroquearchitecture.







II8

critical n otherrespects,could have ignored Sasso's ull re-

constitution of Della Porta'sbasicunifying scheme of the

Gesu.

The next stage in the history of these two variantsof a

single type is obvious: at S. Andreadella Valle Carlo Rai-

naldi fused the alternativeGesu solutions.Retaining,as he

almosthadto, the Vignola-Madero systemof massedcon-centration,he gave the facadea new dimensionof vertical

linkage,asopposedto merecorrespondence,by combiningwith it theDella Porta-Sassosystem.The resultingsynthesisis fully in accordwith the sophisticated omplexitiesof the

styleof theRomanhigh baroque.Justas s most of Bernini's

sculpture, he facadeof S. Andrea was intendedto be seen

primarily rom thefront,23and in thatview it is theaedicu-

larorganization hat dominatesand unifiesthe richlyartic-

ulated surfaceand insures t maximal comprehension.Yet

the subsidiarydiagonal view, over-stressedby Wolfflin,

cannotbe neglected,and from thatangle it is of coursethesteppedmasses hat carrythe burdenof formal unity. It is

hardly superfluous o point out again Rainaldi'sachieve-

ment, the revitalizationof a faqade ype that was threaten-

ing to disintegrate n Maderno's S. Andreaand to rigidifyat S. Ignazio.

But Rainaldididnot contenthimselfsimplywith afusion

of outer aediculeandsteppedmasses.Seekingtotalunifica-

tion he brought the centralbay into conformity with the

perimeterby giving it, too, an aedicular ormation. What

possible sources did this feature have in previous Roman

buildings?Again the two facadesfor the Gesu provide a

point of departure, or in an attemptto emphasizethe cen-

tral panel both Vignola and Della Porta had carried t upinto the terminalgable.Inthisinstance,however, Vignola's

design is more relevant thanDella Porta's;the latter,con-

centratingmost of the visual activity aroundthe entrance

portal,weakened the verticalrelationshipof the upperand

lower center,whereas the former, intent on a classicalbal-

ance of parts, repeatedthe single columns on both stories

andadroitlyechoedthe lower pedimentin the semicircular

window of the uppergable.Inseventeenth-centuryRoman

architecturethis emphatic central panel, obviously pro-

23. The destruction n the late nineteenthcenturyof the largebuilding formerlymaskingthe church'seastern lankandjuttingnorthwardbeyondthefaqade,ogetherwith therelated nlargementof the CorsoVittorioEmanuele previouslyheStradadellaValle),has given undueprominence o the diagonalview. Originallythechurchwassubmerged midnarrow treets romwhichoneabruptlyemerged nto an irregular quaredominatedon its southern idebythe great facade.Coming either from the Gesu or from the twostreets o thenorth,thevisitorwasvirtuallyobligedto contemplatethechurch roma frontalviewpoint.See,amongothers, hemapofRome publishedby GiovanniBattistaNolli in I748, reproducednAmato Pietro Frutaz, Le piante di Roma (Rome, 1963), III, pl. 4Io.

viding the necessarygeneralframework for Rainaldi'spar-ticularized motif, occurs as a standardfeature on all the

five-bayedexamplesof suchfacades,althoughthe most sig-nificantone againmaybe S.Ignazio.ThereSassohadactual-

ized in higher reliefVignola's centralarrangement-minusthe upper window-in combination with Della Porta's

outer enframement. In a sense,all that Rainaldi had to dowas to transferSasso's ower pedimentinto the field of the

upper pediment, where it replaces Vignola's semicircular

window, and he had created a fully consistent,totally en-

compassingaedicular aqade.But again t is not thatsimple.In a world of traditionand

decorum,of objectiveright andwrong, Rainaldicould not

have transferred hat pediment without encounteringtwo

problems. The first of them is the encasedpediment. No

precedentfor a pedimentwithin a pedimentexisted in an-

tiquity, and in any case the procedureviolated the classical

rule ofseparation

ofparts.Michelangelohad used a capri-cious versionof the motif on the PortaPia-perhaps not an

acceptableprecedent,for that gateway is merely a sort of

stage architecturerendered in permanent materials-and

Giacomo dellaPorta hadadmitted a more sober version to

the facadeof the Gesu. But it hadnot appeared n any other

facade discussedhere, and even Della Porta had not pro-faned the integrity of the majorpediment itself. However,in I657 that exuberantbaroquegenius, Pietro da Cortona,had employed an encasedpediment at S. Maria dellaPace,

perhapsstimulatedby the younger Martino Longhi's tri-

partiteversionat SS.Vincenzo ed Anastasio,erectedduring

the last yearsof the preceding decade.The latter facadeisone of the most astonishing n Rome, for while it is a Gesu

type, it belongs to neitherof the traditionalsystemsderived

from Vignola andDella Porta.24Rainaldi'spediment is far

removed from the splendidabandonof Longhi'sand even

by comparison o Pietro's t appearsquitetimid.ApparentlyRainaldisought not to startlethrough obvious originalitybut to adjusta questionablemotif to the orthodoxies of

establishedconventions.25

24. It may not be entirely superfluous to observe that the front of

this church is not an aedicular facade inasmuch as there is no articu-lated vertical linkage between the lower and upper triads of eche-

loned aedicules. Again it is a matter of a consonance-in this case

more apparent than real-between the two levels rather than an or-

ganic unification. Rudolf Wittkower, Art and Architecture n Italy1600-1750,p. I87.

25. There is a slight possibility that the facade of the relatively ob-

scure church ofS. Girolamo della Carita may have provided the link

between Longhi and Rainaldi. It was erected between 1652 and I660,in part at a time when Rainaldi was directing work on the high altar

planned some years previously by himself and his father. AlthoughFasolo on rather superficial stylistic grounds attributes the concep-tion of the facade to the younger Longhi, it was almost certainly

planned as well as executed by Domenico Castelli; after the latter's







The secondproblemconcerns he aggrandizementof the

mainportalby meansof an aediculewhose pedimentalter-

mination was alsopartof the entablature f the lower story.

Again thisprocedurestemsfrom both versionsof the Gesu

facadeand had become so invariable n seventeenth-century

examples of the type that G. B. Soria even added such a

one-storied aedicule to his three-bayedfacadeof S. Mariadella Vittoria, thereby obscuring the larger aedicularar-

rangementwhich he had borrowed from S. Giacomo degliIncurabili.On purely aestheticgroundsRainaldi'sremoval

of that intermediatepediment is justified by the resulting

unimpeded vertical unification of the entire central bay.But contemporariesmay have objectedto the unavoidable

devaluation of the entrance,and it is significantthat Rai-

naldi restoredthe pediment at S. Maria in Campitelli. Its

eliminationat S. Andrearemainsanisolated nstance;verti-

cal consistencyhad to give way before the traditionalde-

mands of representation.Thus a carefulanalysisof the relevantmonumentsdem-

onstrates hat all the characteristicsf the developedaedicu-

larfaCade an be found within the Roman architecturalra-

dition. Nor is it simply a matter of a new combination of

features hat hadexisted in previouslydifferentcontextsbut

of a steadytypological growth whereby the possibilities n-

herent n earlierfaCadeswere successively ealized.Far rom

being a pasticheof hithertodisparate lements,the front of

S. Andrea is the logical result of a subtlearchitecturaldia-

lectic inauguratedalmost a century earlierby Vignola and

Della Porta,proponentsrespectivelyof a preciseclassicism

and a reservedbut discerniblevitalism.This is not to say that developmentsinvolving an aedic-

ularfasadehadnot takenplaceelsewhere.Itsappearancennorth Italianarchitectures well known although, asWitt-kower hasremarked, ts exact genesis n thatregion hasnot

yet been methodically traced.26But perhaps this knottyproblem of origins might be clarifiedand some needless

controversy avoided if the term itself were more closelyexamined. As previously noted, an aedicular asade is thefront of a buildingwhich is unified in its majorverticaldi-mension by an aedicule,i.e., an enframementconsistingof

death n I658 it may have been completedby Rainaldi.The facadeis less progressivethan it appearsat first glance, for the super-imposed aediculesof the centralbay form a somewhat awkwardoverlay above the underlyingscheme of S. Caterinadei Funari.The result at the top is of course an encasedpediment.But sincethe gablewas the lastportionto be executed,probablyafterI658,didthe motif hereproceedor follow the finalplansfor the frontofS. Andrea? Fasolo, L'Opera di Hieronimo e Carlo Rainaldi,pp. 93-98.

26. Rudolf Wittkower, "CarloRainaldiand the Roman Archi-tecture of the Full Baroque," Art Bulletin, xix (I937), 294.

27. Thismotifmustbecarefullydistinguishedromatemplefrontwhere the order s not limitedto the two extremities.The aediculeis moreflexibleandadaptsbetter o thefacadeof a Christian hurch,

II9

terminalorderssupportinga pediment.27These orderscan

be superimposedor single,pilastersor columns.ThusDellaPorta'sGesuis anaedicular acadeof superimposedpilasterswhereas Carlo Lombardi's S. FrancescaRomana (Fig. 13)

displaysan aedicule of single pilasters hat run uninterrupt-edly through two stories.28Their later descendantsare S.

Ignazio on one hand andRainaldi'sGesue Maria(Fig. 14)on the other.29And of course the aedicule can also be col-

umnaras it is in the superimposedcolumns at S. Nicola da

Tolentino30or in the giant order of Passalacqua'sAnnun-

ziataa S. Spirito.31However, the facadeof S. Andreadella

Valle differsfrom all of these examples in that the outer

aediculeencloses a second aediculeconsistingof the entire

central panel topped by a second pediment. The simpleaedicular acadehas developed into what may be most ac-

curatelydesignateda compounded aedicular acade,an ar-

rangementthatgives to the front of S. Andreaa tighterand

morepervasive

verticalorderthanhad existed inany

of its

predecessors.

Keepingin mind thisessentialdistinctionbetweensim-

ple and compounded aedicularfacadesand rememberingthat thisessayis concernedwith a specifictypological cate-

gory, representedgenerically by the Gesiu acade, one is

now better equipped to approachthe general question of

north Italianorigins.Perhapsone would have to startwith

hence its popularity among non-archaeologically oriented architectsin particular and for baroque architecture in general.

28. The rebuilding of this very interesting Early Christian churchin the Forum Romanum was completed in I6I5. As the first facadeof the Gesu type in Rome to display the giant order, its history and

significance merit investigation. Adolfo Venturi, Storiadell'arte tali-

ana, xi, part II (1939), 936-939.

29. Located on the Corso the front of this church was constructedbetween 1671 and I673. Fasolo, op. cit., p. 316. Bernini's contem-

porary facade of S. Andrea al Quirinale also falls within this sub-division of aedicular facades utilizing the giant order. For the sake of

consistency Rainaldi'smore pedestrian effort was cited because it is aGesu type whereas S. Andrea is an isolated aedicule in itself, a typethat became popular for many latersmall city churches both in Romeand elsewhere. Perhaps its most imaginative offspring is the facade ofthe Asams' church of St. John Nepomuk in Munich.

30. This facade was probably erected about I655 by G. M. Ba-ratta. Not unattractive it tends toward the decorative rather than the

architectural; the columns, only loosely related to the wall and

largely freed from any significant functions as supports, resemblethose of some large retable. The eighteenth-century faqade of S.Maria in Monticelli, although its wall is curving and more open,utilizes the same columnar arrangement.

31. This example is questionable because the aedicule is not suffi-

ciently dominant to organize the entire facade. A much better in-stance of a true aedicular facade with giant columns-although out-side of Rome-is yet another project by Carlo Rainaldi, the unfin-ished front of the church of the Guardian Angel in Ascoli Piceno,constructed in 1684-1685. Fasolo, op. cit., pl. 80, pp. 372-373. But

again one must cross the Alps to find the most highly developed ex-

amples of this variant, as in the splendid faqade of J. M. Fischer's

abbey church at Zwiefalten.







120

Fig. 13. Rome, S. FrancescaRomana (photo: Alinari).

Fig. 14. Rome, Gesu e Maria (from Via del Corso).

Alessi'selevationfor the fagadeof S. Raffaele n Milan (Fig.

I5) as well as with PellegrinoTibaldi'srelated ront for the

sanctuary at Saronno (Fig. i6):32 in each case a large two-

story aediculeof vertically linked membersdominatesthe

center. Thesefagades,however, belong to the type equally

developed in both stories that stems from Michelangelo'sunexecuted

designfor S. Lorenzo in

Florence,and

onlyat

the cathedralof Brescia33-long post-dating the Gesu-is

the motif used in conjunctionwith a facadeof two stories

unequalin breadth.As in the case of the Gesu all of these

aresimpleaedicular acades,butinasmuchasthey have little

else in common beyond that very generalclassification, t

rather ooks like a matter of paralleldevelopments amongarchitects ouched n one way or anotherby the influenceof

Michelangelo.34The compounded aedicularfacade appearsfirst in As-

canioVitozzi'sprojectof 1596for the two-towered frontof

the sanctuary t Vicoforte di Mondovi (Fig. I7). The paired

giant columns of the centralbay were intended to carry a

broken pedimentwithin the field of the major pediment;but the smallerpedimentwas never built, and so in effect

the aedicularsolution was rejectedin favor of the more

conservativetemple adaptation.35At the very beginningof

32.Both are brieflydiscussedby Paolo Mezzanotte,"L'Archi-

tetturamilanesedallafine dellasignoria forzesca llameta del sei-

cento," Storiadi Milano, x (I957), 582-583, 585, 594. The date of

Alessi's drawing is uncertain, perhaps from the late I56os; the front

of the sanctuary at Saronno was begun in the year of Pellegrino Ti-

baldi's death, 1596, by his follower, Lelio Buzzi. Of course a full

consideration of the problem-my remarks on north Italian archi-

tecture are only intended to be suggestive-would also have to in-

clude the better-known Milanese facades of S. Maria presso S. Celso

and S. Fedele, likewise by Alessi and Pellegrino Tibaldi respectively.But in the one case the incipient aedicularorganization is blurred bythe obtrusive detail and in the other contradicted by the articulation

of the upper story.

33. Accepted in 1603, the designs by the very young architect,

G. B. Lantana, were strongly influenced by Binago's S. Alessandro.

Indeed Binago intervened in I611 to prevent the threatened replace-ment of Lantana'sproject with one by Ottavio Rossi. However, the

construction of the cathedral proceeded sporadically for over 300

years; the facade was not erected until the eighteenth century by G.

A. Biasio and Antonio Marchetti. A print of 1742 shows the center

of the facade crowned by a straight balustrade rather than by a ped-iment, and hence it is as much related to Michelangelo's S. Lorenzo

as it is to the Gesiu.Again the strict sense of distinct types inherent in

the Roman tradition is not characteristicof the more fluid northern

approach to architectural problems. Storia di Brescia,ed. Giovanni

Treccani degli Alfieri (Brescia, 1964), III, 340-345.

34. However, these examples do prove that northern priorityfor the use of the column in such an external aedicule, as on church

facades in general, is beyond dispute.

35. To my knowledge a compounded aedicular facade utilizingthe giant order was never actually built by anyone. Hence Vitozzi's

innovation remained abortive, and in fact, even in his design the

aedicular concept is, in typically north Italian fashion, obscured bythe highly decorative treatment of the inner pediment. Another







121

K.t

A ;1

Fig. I7. Vitozzi, projected facade for the Sanctuary at Vicoforte

di Mondovi (from N. Carboneri, Ascanio Vitozzi, Rome, 1966).

Fig. 15. Alessi, projected faqade of S. Raffaele, Milan (fromStoria di Milano, Vol. x, I957).

Fig. i6. Sanctuary at Saronno (from Storia di Milano).

project by Ercole Negro di Sanfront for the front of this same sanc-

tuary displays a facade of the Gesu type with a none too articulate

simple aedicular arrangement. Nino Carboneri, Ascanio Vitozzi

(Rome, 1966), fig. 65.

the seventeenthcenturyLorenzoBinago planneda facade,

also two-towered, for the major Milanese church of S.

Alessandro,which would have exhibited a layeredwall, an

encasedpediment, and at least to some degree-the faint

drawing is difficult to decipher-a vertical linkage of the

superimposed rdersof theupperand ower stories.36n the

samecity thefaqades f S. Giuseppeandthe OspedaleMag-

giore (Fig. 18) by Binago's younger contemporary,Fran-

cesco Ricchino, are always cited as early examplesof the

(compounded) aedicularsystem,37but in the former the

verticallinkageof the center s not repeatedby the adjoin-

ing pilasters,and in the latter there s no verticallinkagebymeansof abreak n the entablature t all. Infact,apart rom

the encasedpediment,the frontispieceof the Milanesehos-

pital shows the strong influence of Maderno'sdevice of

steppedmasses,not surprising n view of the period Ric-

chino spent studyingin Rome. Binago, too, had resided n

Rome and the drawingshe enteredin the competition for

S. Alessandrowere sent to Milan from the Holy City.38Closest of all to the compounded aedicular acadewithin

the context of the Gesutype is Girolamo Rainaldi'sdraw-

36. Mezzanotte, op. cit., p. 623.

37. Wittkower, Art andArchitecturen Italy 1600-1750, pp. 77-78.

38. Mezzanotte, op. cit., p. 625.







I22

Fig. I9. G. Rainaldi, projected facade for S. Lucia, Bologna

(from Art Bulletin,Vol. XIX, I937).

Fig. I8. Milan, Ospedale Maggiore, entrance

(from StoriadiMilano).

ing for the unexecuted front of S. Luciain Bologna (Fig.

I9), presumedlybut not necessarilyto be dated I623.39Somewhat cluttered andawkward, like much of the elder

Rainaldi'swork, with both inner and outer aedicules at-

tachedto theplaneof thefaqade ather han anorganicpartof it, the drawingmay nonethelessbe evidencefor the fact

that it was a Roman architect,born andtrained n thatcity

yet familiarwith northernexperiments,who was first able

to envision a logically coherent, compounded aedicular

facadeofsuperimposed

orders.

In architecture as in painting and sculpture, baroqueRome provided a matrix where artists,patrons,and ideas

were in constantandfruitful nteraction.The compoundedaedicular aqadeof the Gesiuype is an outstandingexampleof this process,for if certainaspectsof it may have either

39. Its importance was first recognized by Wittkower, "Carlo

Rainaldi and the Roman Architecture of the Full Baroque," Art Bul-

letin, xIx (1937), 294-295. The early dating of the drawing has re-

cently been questioned by Fasolo, L'Operadi Hieronimo e Carlo Rai-

naldi, p. 70.

first or simultaneouslyarisen n northernItaly, these scat-

teredcreations-too sporadic o be termed a development-could only have actedasa catalyst o a vigorous, contin-

ually evolving tradition n Rome that went back at least to

VignolaandDellaPorta.Only theRoman tradition'sdeeplyrootedinsistenceon thedisciplined elationshipswhich arise

from inherentconsistencyandformal coherencecouldhave

producedthe lucid intricaciesof the facade of S. Andrea

della Valle, where the diverse demands of height and

breadth,of mass and plane, perhapseven of architectureand sculpture,are effortlesslyreconciled.

The type of the compoundedaedicular acade,once its

principleshad been clearlyrealizedwithin the confinesof

the most normativelocal situation,proved extraordinarilyfertile even for so generallyrestrainedan architectas Rai-

naldi himself. If S. Andrea provides a literally definitive

statement of the type, one which subsequentarchitects

could thenvaryandexpand,the facadeof thevirtuallycon-

temporaryS. Maria n Campitelli (Fig.20) is a masterpieceof austeregrandeurwhose abrasivestarknessmade it less







Fig. 20. Rome, S. Maria in Campitelli (photo: Anderson).

susceptible o the flatteryof lateradaptations.40Devoid of

conventional harmony, unconcernedwith the niceties of

suavetransitions,barrenof sculpturaladornment, ts gaunt

40. The various stages of the planning are exhaustively discussed

by Fasolo, op. cit., Chap. x. In two details the facade of S. Maria in

Campitelli is more "normative" than that of S. Andrea della Valle:

the upper segmental pediment is not broken and-as previouslynoted-the pediment centered over the entablature of the lower

story has been retained.

I23

and craggy visage thrustspowerfully upward to a double

pediment from which all temerity has fled. Against the

steppedmassesof the Vignola-Maderno system play two

great columnaraedicules,mingling reminiscencesof Sev-

eran imperialism41with the more subtle polyphonies of

baroqueRome. No mere decoration,the columns support

and hold; those of the aediculesjut out from the wall andare in turn repeatedby the visually recessivebut structur-

ally more potent pairs set into the faqadeand under un-

brokenentablatures.This lastdevice, by which the second

and fourth bays cease to be neutralplanesand become an

integralpartof the active thrustand counter-thrustof the

controllingarmature,derives rom Michelangelo,probably

through the intermediaryof Pietro da Cortona.42Clearly

Michelangelesque, oo, are the small columns of the outer

bays, supportingstraight intelsandcontrasted o the largecolumns of the dominant order, as in the Capitoline pal-

aces.43 In short, those dynamic architectural orces thatDella Porta a century earlier had handled so hesitantly,forces thatpermeatemany of the mostvital creationsof an-

tiquityand theRenaissance, t lastfoundfull release n what

is after all a conventional facade type. But they were re-

leasedwithin a sustaining,orderedsystem of interlockingtraditions hat only the Roman setting could provide.

4I. The device of free-standing, superimposed columns played

against a wall surface appears to be a distinctive feature of Severan

architecture, e. g., the Septizonium, the Thermae of Caracalla (as

recorded by Dosio), the basilica and nymphaeum at Leptis Magna.42. But its ultimate source is that most Roman of all buildings, the

Pantheon.

43. The relationship is hardly surprising: both Rainaldi, as official

architects of the Roman people, were intermittently involved in the

work on the Capitoline from 1641 to 1663. Fasolo, op. cit.,pp. I42ff.,

354-356, 422.

Documents

Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade