Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
-
Upload
herodoteanfan -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 2/17
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
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 3/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 4/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 5/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 6/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 7/17
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-
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 8/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 9/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 10/17
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
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 11/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 12/17
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
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 13/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 14/17
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
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 15/17
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.
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 16/17
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
This content downloaded from 89.180.70.132 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:33:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Roman Tradition and the Aedicular Façade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roman-tradition-and-the-aedicular-facade 17/17
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.