10 V3 A.X Renaissance Architecture vol1 240-265_Layout 1 20/02/2013 11:30 Page 240 NEW ST PETER’S Maderno’s façade for St Peter’s, Rome [71–74] aspects of the Michelangelo façade, notably its detailing and its overall scansion of ten shafts with the four central ones being the most prominent, but also depended on Maderno’s own ground-breaking design for S. Susanna (1597) for the superimposed planes that give the centre a dramatic emphasis. When Pope Paul V ascended the throne in May 1605, St Peter’s was still unfinished after nearly a Given papal approval in September 1607, construction began, but was compromised c.1610–11 when century of construction. Until then, the building had remained largely faithful to the scheme devised the pope demanded the addition of two campanili (bell-towers), one at each end of the façade. Maderno by Michelangelo (from 1547), which was for a church with a centralised plan and a monumental had incorporated these into his design by September 1612, but they were never finished. When Paul V dome. This was intended to be given, at around the time of Michelangelo’s death (1564), a façade died in 1621, the belfries had still not been added and, although the southern one was subsequently made up of two rows of giant columns (see 4), but the design was still controversial, since it did not built to a revised design by Bernini, it had to be demolished soon afterwards because of structural provide for a benediction loggia, a time-honoured location for the pope’s traditional Easter blessing instability. Ultimately, both campanili were left in an unavoidably truncated state. Even below the Urbi et Orbi, and so would require a change to ceremonial. This was particularly problematic in an age belfries, Maderno’s scheme was slightly altered in that his attic windows are different from those when traditional practices were being reasserted in the face of Protestant opposition. Although that were finally realised [Fig. 33]. Michelangelo’s scheme had its defenders in the shape of the Congregation of St Peter’s, who were Four drawings from the Paper Museum, mounted on three consecutive folios of the Stirling-Maxwell still determined – even as late as October 1606 – to persist with it, stressing its aesthetic qualities and Architecture album, belong to this penultimate phase in the evolution of St Peter’s façade. One shows Michelangelo’s stature as an artist, Paul V overruled their decision late in 1606 and, intent on making the façade proper, one the dome with its drum, and the other two the added campanili. From the way his own mark on the design, insisted on a scheme that included a façade with a benediction loggia the four drawings match up with one another so closely it is clear they once formed one single large and also a nave behind it. drawing. When all four are put together in their original positions [Fig. 34], they conform exactly to an Carlo Maderno (1556–1629), then incumbent architect to the Fabbrica of St Peter’s, prepared a first engraving of 1613 by Matthaeus Greuter (1564/6–1638) [Fig. 35], both the reassembled drawing and the scheme by April 1607. His design (see p. $$) managed to retain much of the integrity of Michelangelo’s engraving measuring 675 mm in overall width. The original drawing was probably produced in centralised scheme by means of an internal visual barrier but, externally, transformed the church into a Maderno’s workshop and used for the production of the engraving, perhaps cut up to assist the Latin cross that entirely covered the consecrated ground of the previous Constantinian basilica, with engraver in the production of the print, while the surface damage to the four surviving fragments may a new nave that had a portico in front supporting a benediction loggia above. The latter preserved well have resulted from the rubbing they received from the engraver’s hands and tools. In June 1613 Maderno sent Greuter’s print (together with his other engravings of the St Peter’s scheme) to the head of the Congregation, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, later Pope Urban VIII, who responded with a stinging critique of the design and complained in particular that the elevation did not show how the dome would be hidden by the addition of the nave. Maderno replied carefully (Thelen 1967a, p. 27, n.61; Hibbard 1971, p. 69f., n.4), explaining that the elevation was drawn using the conventions of orthogonal projection, although his defensive stance was a courtesy rather than a necessity since he already knew that his scheme had the pope’s full backing. The Paper Museum had two copies of the Greuter print, one in the album entitled Templa Diversa Romae (fol. 15) [Fig. 35], compiled by Cassiano in the 1630s, and another in the misnamed Popish Ceremonies II (fol. 95), a later compilation by Carlo Antonio (see p. $$). The Templa Diversa Romae album, in addition, contains many other prints showing projected designs for St Peter’s from around this same period (for description, see p. $$). bibliography: Hibbard 1971, pp. 65–75 and 155–88 Fig. 33. Façade of St Peter’s, Rome 240 241 10 V3 A.X Renaissance Architecture vol1 240-265_Layout 1 20/02/2013 11:30 Page 242 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS IN TYPE B AND OTHER MOUNTS NEW ST PETER’S Fig. 34. Reconstruction (photomontage) of original form of 71–74 Fig. 35. Project by Carlo Maderno for the façade of St Peter’s, Rome. Engraving, 1613. London, BL, 54.i.7, fol. 15 (Paper Museum impression) 242 243 10 V3 A.X Renaissance Architecture vol1 240-265_Layout 1 20/02/2013 11:30 Page 244 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS IN TYPE B AND OTHER MOUNTS ST PETER’S AND OTHER CHURCHES 71. Rome, St Peter’s, Maderno’s façade (1613), upper centre and dome WORKSHOP OF CARLO MADERNO (1556–1629) Private collection; previously sma, fol. 58 Pen and brown ink and wash over black chalk and stylus lines on buff paper 410 × 385 mm (max.). Two sheets of paper cut from a larger composite sheet and partly silhouetted; losses along edges; rubbed and stained. Watermark: circle containing ?anchor mount sheet: type B. Watermark: fragmentary rim of circle surmounted by letter ‘V’ [cut; see 74] [*] Once part of a single image of the whole probably have been left to the engraver, as façade elevation [see Fig. 34], this drawing shows suggested by the varying position of the wording the principal drum, dome and lantern, and also on different versions of the print. the two minor domes to the front, all built under Especially obvious in this drawing and in the Michelangelo and his successors during the print is the inaccurate representation of the main second half of the sixteenth century. drum and dome. Both appear significantly flatter Although the drawing corresponds closely to than they should be, which is a characteristic the relevant sector of Greuter’s engraving [see of drawings from Maderno’s workshop (e.g. a Fig. 34], it does not include the latter’s explana- façade project for S. Vincenzo, Bassano Romano, tory captions, or if it did then they were located Archivio Giustiniani; Hibbard 1971, pl. 103b). in a different position from those in the engrav- ing and outside the edges of the present sheet. literature: Phillips cat. 1990, p. 142f., lot 339 For example, the O of the word ROMA next to the object drawn: see above, p. $$ lantern’s globe on the engraving is absent in engraved: see 71 the drawing. The layout of the captions would 71 244 245 10 V3 A.X Renaissance Architecture vol1 240-265_Layout 1 20/02/2013 11:30 Page 246 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS IN TYPE B AND OTHER MOUNTS ST PETER’S AND OTHER CHURCHES 72. Rome, St Peter’s, Maderno’s façade (1613), lower centre and portico WORKSHOP OF CARLO MADERNO (1556–1629) Private collection; previously sma, fol. 56 Pen and brown ink and wash over black chalk and stylus lines on buff paper 248 × 405 mm. Losses along edges; old vertical at centre and several other old folds; old patches on verso; rubbed and stained. Watermark: anchor in circle with indistinct pendant element (?letter) annotations: [bottom left] part of scale key in Roman palmi mount sheet: type B [*] Originally part of a larger drawing, cut up the platform on which the whole building stands, for engraving by Matthaeus Greuter in 1613 [see presumably to introduce some relief to the image Fig. 34], to which it corresponds in all its details, – and by extension monumentality – which it even to the extent that some of the façade open- would otherwise have lacked. ings are shaded while others are not. The only The strip showing the statuary adorning the difference is the scale key, which in the drawing façade balustrade is missing, possibly because is in units of 25 palmi and located on the platform this part of the drawing was damaged, or it was just above the façade steps, whereas in the print removed, so that the statuary could be included it is in units of 10 palmi and set below the steps. in another part of the Paper Museum, but was Although primarily drawn in orthogonal pro- then lost. jection, as Carlo Maderno explained in his letter to Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, the openings of the literature: Phillips cat. 1990, p. 142f., lot 339 portals and windows are given an individual object drawn: see above, p. $$ perspective, showing the inner faces of their engraved: M. Greuter, Ritratto della famosiss. jambs and the undersides of the lintels.