Frontispiece: PIRANESI. Pl. II from Prima parte di Architeteure e Prospettive, 1743, showing an imaginary mausoleum for a Roman emperorRUDOLF WITTKOWER STUDIES IN THE ITALIAN BAROQUE with 357 illustrations DO T&H ) THAMES AND HUDSON LONDONBiker den Leng © Margot Wittkower, 1975 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any ‘means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Filmset and printed by BAS Printers Limited, Wallop, Hampshire SBN 0 500 85003 8One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Bight CONTENTS FOREWORD Carlo Rainaldi and the Architecture of the High Baroque in Rome The Art Bulletin, XIX, 1937 The Third Arm of Bernini’s Piazza S. Pietro Bollettino d’arte, XXXIV, 1949 A Counter-Project to Bernini's Piazza S. Pietro Journal of the Warburg Institute, II, No, 1-2, 1939-40 The Vicissitudes of a Dynastic Monument: Bernini’s Equestrian Statue of Louis XIV De Artibus Opuscula, XL, New York University Press, 1961 The Role of Classical Models in Bernini’s and Poussin’s Preparatory Work ‘Studies in Western Art, Acts of the Twentieth Congress of the History of Art, 1963 Pietro da Cortona’s Project for Reconstructing the Temple of Palestrina Das Siebente Jahrzehne, Festschrift zum 70 Geburtstag von Adolph Goldschmidt, 1935 Santa Maria della Salute Saggi e memorie di storia dell’arte, 111, 1963 Francesco Borromini, his Character and Life Atti del Congresso promosso dall’ Accademia Nazionale i San Luca, 1, 1967 Be- 7448 53 61 83 103 115 125 153Nine Eleven Twelve Thirteen Fourteen Fifteen Guarini the Man Atti del Convegno su ‘Guarino Guarini ¢ 'internazionalita del Barocco’, 1972 A Sketchbook of Filippo Juvarra at Chatsworth Bollettino Societa Piemontese d'archeologia e di belle arti, 111, 1949 Vittone’s Domes Atti del Convegno internazionale dell'accademia delle scienze di Torino, 1972 Vittone’s Drawings in the Musée des Arts Décoratifs ‘Studies in Renaissance and Baroque Art, presented t0 Anthony Blunt, 1967 Piranesi’s Architectural Creed Journal of the Warburg Institue, 11, No. 2, 1938 Piranesi as Architect Smith College Muscum of Art, Massachusetts, 1961 Piranesi and Eighteenth-century Egyptomania Unpublished lecture given at the University Seminar on Eighteenth Century European Culture, Columbia University, 1970 Notes Photographic acknowledgments Index 177 187 211 223 247 259 274 299 300233 Portrait of Guarini from Architettura Civile Ix GUARINI THE MANGuarini the Man IN my student days, back in the early 1920s, Guarini’s name was completely unknown. At that time he was a tangible figure to hardly more than one in a hundred art historians out- side Italy. Not even Borromini’s ‘fortuna’ suffered such an eclipse. The hostility of the Neoclassical generation fell upon him with a severity that is almost without precedent. Milizia, naturally, found in his work ‘extrava- gant forms . . . and every kind of caprice’ and concluded: ‘Good luck to anyone who likes Guarini’s architecture — but count him among. the cranks.’! Even a man as moderate as Ticozzi expressed the opinion that Guarini had been appointed architect to the Duke of Savoy “because every notion of good taste had been lost in that age... [Various] cities had the misfortune rather than the luck to possess buildings by him. . .. Everything about them is arbitrary, without rule, contrived. He died, to the benefit of art, in 1683.’ Yet about half a century later a few sensitive and judicious scholars began to reverse these established values. I have in mind mainly Sandonnini’s excellent paper on Guarini published in 1888? and Gurlitt’s chapter on him in his Geschichte des Barockstiles in Italien (1887). Thereafter silence for more than a generation, in fact until after the First World War. I think, modern criticism of Guarini begins with Michel’s Histoire de Art of 1921,4 where Guarini is recognized as one of the most original and most interesting masters of the whole history of architecture who opened a new epoch. The later twenties and thirties witnessed the Guarini revival with studies by such men as Bricarelli, Chevalley, Rigotti and, above all, Oliveri, Brinckmann and Argan, Guarini’s period of generally acknowledged pre-eminence was relatively brief, that of his oblivion long, of his resurgence and recognition painfully slow. Let us recall that art and archi- tecture was not his original calling. A bird's-eye view of his life would show it divided into three major periods. Born at Modena on 17 January 178 234 GUARINI. Dome of the Chapel of the SS. Sindone, Turin 1624 he entered the Theatine Order in 1639, went to Rome the same year and returned to Modena only in 1647, where he was ordained priest, aged twenty-three. The first phase of his life, the formative years, the years of study, had come to an end. Rome had given him unlimited possibilities to delve into the many fields which attracted his insatiable intellectual curiosity; apart from theology, he studied philosophy, mathematics, astronomy and, of course, also military, civic and ecclesiastical architecture. During the next phase of his life, which lasted almost twenty years, we find him teach-235 GUARINI. View into the dome of the Chapel of the SS. Sindone, Turin. ing philosophy and mathematics at Modena and Messina, staying at Parma and Guastalla, probably travelling a good deal and finally teaching theology in Paris;? and all this time he is also engaged on architectural work. But this busy period looks now like a preparation for the last seventeen years of his life spent in Turin where Carlo Emanuele I appointed him “Ingeg- nere € Matematico Ducale’ in 1668, two years after his arrival. If he had died in 1665, at the age of forty-one, he would now hardly be recalled. ‘The last seventeen years — between his forty-second and fifty-ninth — saw an un- believable burst of energy, a release of pent-up creative powers almost unparalleled in the history of art, In quick succession we witness the design and execution of one great project after another, all those great buildings so well known to us: 8. Lorenzo, the Chapel of the SS. Sindone, the church of the Immaculate Con- ception, Palazzo Carignano, the Collegio dei Nobili (to name only the most important ones) — all buildings of a revolutionary character, each posing new and unexpected problems. And at the same time as all the great buildings in 179 234, 235,GUARIN THE MAN 236 GUARINI. S. Maria della Divina Providenza, Lisbon, section 237 GUARINI. Church of the Madonna d’Oropa, exterior and section 238 GUARINI, Sainte-Anne-la-Royale, Paris, facade 180 ‘Turin, his designs were much in demand else- where, at Casale Monferrato, Racconigi, Oropa, 237, Vicenza, Modena and, much farther afield, in Lisbon and Prague. 236 In Modena and Messina he had begun to make a name for himself as an architect of originality mainly within the sphere of his Order, and it was therefore not by chance that the Theatines of Paris invited him in 1662 to 238 come and build their church, for the erection of which Cardinal Mazarin had left a consider- able sum of money at, his death in 1661. This great church was demolished in the early nine- teenth century.® At this time Guarini’s reputa- tion was apparently still rather limited. When Bernini spent six months in Paris in 1665, his faithful guide, the Sieur de Chantelou, does not record a meeting between the prince of artists and the Theatine architect, but on 14 June Bernini inspected the church, then in course of construction, without Guarini being present, The Theatine Fathers were hanging on Bernini’s lips; they seemed to have felt uneasy about their adventurous building. He probably shared their feelings, for he only said, ‘Credo che riuscira bella’? ‘At the same moment a young English scientist, Christopher Wren, was in Paris, then aged thirty-three, Like Guarini he had come to architecture rather late and in 1665 he visited Paris to gather information about the Con- tinental architectural panorama. He tried hard to meet Bernini and study his Louvre design. When the meeting came about, it was not a239 success. Wren wrote: ‘Bernini's design of the Louvre I would have given my skin for, but the old reserved Italian gave me but a few minutes view...’ There are valid reasons to assume that Wren also inspected Guarini’s Sainte- Anne-la-Royale, but no word by him is re- corded about the church and its architect.* In the light of Guarini’s relative obscurity in 1665, his being summoned to Turin the follow- ing year with extraordinary executive powers appears all the more remarkable and prodigious. Suddenly, an aura of greatness began to sur~ round him and the enormous responsibilities he carried stimulated him to accomplish more than one intellectual tour de force. His career as a writer and playwright had started in 1660 with a moral tragicomedy entitled La Pietd trionfante."© Five years later — in 1665 — he published his next book in Paris, the Placita philosophica, an immensely learned folio, in which he defended, rather surprisingly at this late date, the geocentric universe against Copernicus and Galileo. Now, strangely enough, after he had settled in Turin, the tempo and range of his publications increased. Despite his full-time occupation as a practising architect, he managed to continue his studies in geometry, fortifications and architecture, and almost every year a new work came from the press: in 1671 T’Euclides adauctus . ..; in 1674 Del modo di misurare le fabbriche; in 1675 the Compendi della sfera celeste; in 1676 the Trattato di forti care; in 1678 the Leges temporum et planetarum; finally, in 1683, the year he died, the planetary tables Caelestis methematicae. ... His great architectural treatise, the preparation of which ‘must have taken him many years, was, however, never completed, In 1686, three years after his death, the plates without text appeared as Disegni di architettura civile ed ecclesiastica, a fact of the greatest importance for the early diffusion of Guarinesque architectural prin- ciples. Guarini’s text —at his death probably in some confusion and, I have reason to believe, not quite finished — was edited by Vittone and published together with the plates in 1737." ‘Apart from his almost unbelievable burden of work as architect and author Guarini re- mained dedicated to his calling as a priest. His standing in his Order is demonstrated by the fact that in 1655 ~ aged thirty-one — he was appointed provost to the Theatines at Modena, GUARINI THE MAN % ey LAN 4.1 Trae by Lone 239 Page from Guarini’s Caelistis mathematicae, 1683 181240 GUARINL S. Lorenzo, Turin, interior though the opposition of Duca Alfonso IV d'Este forced him to leave the city. Twenty- three years later the same honour was conferred upon him again: he was elected provost of the Theatines at Turin. In 1680, the year Guarini celebrated the first Mass in S. Lorenzo — prob- ably a unique case of the alliance of architect and priest in the same person — Emanuele Filiberto Amedeo, Principe di Carignano, ap- pointed Guarini his ‘teolago’. In the revealing document of appointment the Prince mentions the ‘ingenious and extraordinary principles’ 240 applied in S. Lorenzo, the Palazzo Carignano 242. and the Castello di Racconigi and continues that, these ‘unusual qualities are combined with the most excellent knowledge of the philosophical, moral, and theological sciences as befits a zealous and worthy member of a religious Order.’ These words seem to me to describe most aptly Guarini’s special case: the triple union of priest, scholar and artist — though perhaps not entirely unique ~ was never more fully and more harmoniously reconciled. And the recognition that he led three lives in one, being completely dedicated to each of his pursuits, helps us to understand a good deal 182 about him, his success and even the character of his architecture. The text of the Architettura civile gives us a good measure of this man. I want to comment briefly on four striking features of the treatise. First, there is its immaculate structure, to a large extent Guarini’s own and independent of architectural treatises, and throughout he dis- plays an extraordinary common sense and open-mindedness. Right at the beginning ~ ‘the architect must proceed with discretion’! — he warns against overspending and later returns to the same point: ~ ‘one must do everything with the least possible expense’.!4 When he gives eleven rules for the construction of stair~ cases he concludes: ‘I know that it is difficult to fulfil all these conditions in every staircase.""5 Reference to the demands of ‘custom’ and to the subjectivity of judgment recur throughout the treatise. ‘Architecture can modify the ancient rules and invent new ones’.!5 ‘The Romans themselves, he assures us, did not follow Vitruvius closely nor do the moderns always follow the ancients. Architecture changes with the changing habits of men.1? It is therefore obvious that — in his words ~ ‘the symmetries of architecture can be varied without causing disharmony between the parts’.!* Thisrelativity of judgment can be applied, of course, also to the classical orders of architecture. They are pleasing to the eye, but ‘it is very difficult to know how this pleasure arises — just as difficult as to understand the pleasure we get from a pretty dress. Nay, more — not only are men constantly changing their minds, and hating that as deformed which they used to admire as 241 Diagram from Guarini’s Architettura Civile showing a Gothic vaultzal 242 GUARINI, 8. Lorenzo, Turin, view into the dome beautiful, but what one whole nation likes another will dislike. In our own subject, for instance, the architecture of the Romans was despised by the Goths, just as Gothic architec ture is despised by us."!? He concludes that the architect's inventions cannot be applauded by everybody; not only are there people ‘blown up with self-esteem’, the envious and ignorant ‘who can do nothing but speak ill of them’, but there is also habit which influences our likes GUARINI THE MAN and dislikes, and there are even physical con- stitutional characteristics which condition some people to prefer excessive ornamentation to simplicity and vice versa.” While such ideas have a French rather than Italian pedigree, Ido not think that they were ever so clearly stated and they attest, in any case, that Guarini himself was broad-minded, open totypical seventeenth~ century rational argument, and that he was neither a fanatic nor an eccentric.” 183GUARINI THE MAN ‘My second point reinforces these impres- sions. The learning Guarini displays in his treatise is staggering and though he does not accept any authority as binding his criticism and controversy are reserved and temperate. He may criticize Palladio by briefly stating ‘what Palladio believes is wrong’;2? in his frequent polemics against his contemporary, the Spaniard Juan Caramuel, he likes to use a subtle form of irony. In one case, for instance, he refutes his opinion as ‘in my modest view a joke rather than a sensible instruction’, or in another case: ‘He [Caramuel] corrects one fault by making a greater one, and to get rid of one error he commits many others.’** ‘Thus Guarini appears as an agile, dexterous and spirited writer and disputant who presents his enormous learning gracefully and ap- proaches tradition with the assurance of one who has left no stone unturned in order to form his own judgment. This takes me to my third point. The same spirit of scrupulous exploration which he applied to the literary tradition, he also applied to the visual tradition. The number of monuments he uses to exemplify his points is very remarkable. To mention only his celebrated chapter on Gothic architecture: he reveals a familiarity with, and appreciation of, the cathedrals of Seville, Salamanca, Reims, Paris, Milan and Siena, among many others. Finally, he incorporated, in long chapters of his treatise, the great lesson he alone among, Italians had learned from advanced French mathematics. The theme is given in the intro- duction to Trattato IV, entitled ‘Dell ortografia gettata’, where he explains that the method is ‘absolutely necessary to the architect, even though little understood in Italian architecture, but splendidly utilized by the French on many occasions’. Large parts of his treatise are dependent on Desargues's projective geometry, — obviously causing great excitement in learned circles at the time of Guarini’s stay in Paris—and no doubt Guarini himself enriched the new doctrine by theorems of his own. As we now know, it was this new geometry that supplied the scientific basis for Guarini’s daring struc- tures, particularly of domes. He also treats the problem in other publications, especially in Modo di misurare le fabbriche, where he is concerned with the precise measurement of incommensurable surfaces, parabolas, cones, 184 spheroids and so on, and where he observes ‘the parabola and the hyperbola are scarcely, if at all, known to architects’ though they ‘could very well serve in dome construction’ 2” In any case, every section of the treatise shows that for Guarini theory and practice were two sides of the same medal and that there is the closest alliance between his treatise and his architecture. We have therefore also to trust him when he pronounces the hedonistic judg- ‘ment that ‘architecture has for its aim the pleas- ing of the senses’ or when he tells us that ‘although architecture is based on mathematics, it is nonetheless an art that delights’... so that, if the eye should be offended by the adherence to mathematical rules ~ change them, abandon them, and even contradict them."" Thave discussed certain characteristics of the treatise primarily to throw light on what kind of man Guarini was and specifically to demon- strate that a whole world separated him from Borromini, whose early work he had studied in his youth in Rome and which he had never wholly discarded from his mind. It has been said that Guarini, ‘a tormented genius who suffered from near paranoia, constantly com- plained of being mistreated, misunderstood and unappreciated.’ But I cannot find any evi- dence that he suffered from a pathological, obsessive, hypochondriac condition similar to that which led to Borromini’s suicide. On the contrary, the image of Guarini’s personality that emerges from a study of his writings as well as his life suggests equilibrium, modera- tion, constancy, broad-mindedness — qualities which seemed to have belonged to him as a gift of nature and been nurtured by his wide learn- ing and his priestly calling. Even though — as Portoghesi rightly points out in his Guarini monograph ~ the engraved portrait at the front of Architectura civile shows ‘an image of absorbed sadness’, he found in Guarini’s character ‘the strength of an exemplary open- mindedness, a capacity to adapt and to learn, which made him truly European both as a man of culture and as an architect.’ It was this very balanced man who created an architectural language so original, so fantastic and strange that, in historical perspective, he defies any. attempt at classification. ‘Methodical study and procedure, new mathe- matical insights, an exceptionally wide and 233243 GUARINI, Palazzo Carignano, Turin receptive visual experience and memory, re- ligious zeal — all these -have somehow fused within a passionate imagination to produce works of infinite variety and mysterious attraction. Upon first visiting Turin, anyone with sensibility will be impressed and excited by the encounter with Guarini’s buildings. To face the Palazzo Carignano and the Collegio dei Nobili after having seen the Piazza 8. Carlo and other serene, elegant works of the first half of the seventeenth century means stepping into a turbulent world, a world of concentrated energy, dramatic contradictions and fascinating foci, a world that forcefully engages the beholder and keeps him spell-bound. 1 think everybody will agree that Guarini’s appearance in Turin transformed an ambitious but still provincial capital into a centre of truly inter- national importance. And once Turin had, through him, gained that key position she maintained it for a hundred years. It is also revealing to see Guarini within the all-Italian situation. Significantly, he does not belong to the generation of the great Baroque masters: Bernini, Borromini, Cortona, Fanzago, Longhena were all born in the 1590s and so were Algardi, Sacchi and Duquesnoy. They all established themselves in the 1620s and those who were still alive in the 1660s, at the time of Guarini’s beginnings, were entering the last phase of their careers. Their work does not offer any definite clues to the Guarini pheno- menon. Nor does any of his central Italian con- temporaries show a development similar to his. Take the slightly younger Carlo Fontana, whose architectural career, like Guarini’s, began in the 1660s, But Fontana is explicable in terms of his own Roman experience: Fontana, not Guarini, was the legatee of the great Roman masters. His manner — learned, academically limited, classi- cizing and with a tendency towards sceno- graphic rather than dynamic solutions — is the quintessence of this age. Internationally speaking, the closest parallel to Guarini is, strangely enough, Sir Christopher ‘Wren to whom Ihave referred before. Hestarted 185(GUARINI THE MAN, his career in 1657 as Professor of Astronomy and, like Guarini, never lost interest in purely intellectual and scientific pursuits. When, in the 1660s, he turned to architecture, he — again like Guarini —applied his mathematical training and genius and his scholarly empiricism to planning; the structural principles to be found in many of his London churches built from 1670 on are new and bold and anti-authoritarian in spirit. But this is as far as the similarities with Guarini go, for Wren's repertory of architec- tural forms is conventional and the cool reserve of his manner exactly corresponds to the Baroque classicism of the second half of the seventeenth century throughout Europe. Itis against this background that we have to assess Guarini’s work. In the last quarter of the seventeenth century the international classi- cism, to a large extent imposed by the French Academy, lost its attraction. We witness, almost miraculously, a new spirit, anti-dog- matic, vigorous and enthusiastic, anew Baroque dynamism discernible in the marvellous re- surgence in Venetian painting, the birth of luxuriant Baroque decoration in Genoa and of a great architecture in southern Italy and Sicily; we witness the unexpected bloom of a German and Austrian Baroque, the turn to a virile and dramatic Baroque architecture in England and to an exuberant decorative style in Spain. Guarini is one of the fathers, and probably the most important one, of this extraordinary inter-European movement. But most of the great masters of this new revolu- tionary era were not born until the time of Guarini’s death. Endowed with an exceptionally lively and original mind and with almost superhuman stamina, each task Guarini set himself engaged the whole man: his Placita philosophica is a summa of philosophical doctrines brought into a coherent system; his Euclides adauctus was planned and written as a complete corpus of mathematical knowledge compressed into one large volume, just as his Caelestis mathematicae aims at astronomical and his Architettura civile at architectural omniscience. This searching, 186 encyclopaedic mind handled each architectural task as if he had to elucidate a bewildering maze or an infinite series of specific problems: com- parable to his literary production, every one of his buildings is like an architectural summa dictated by particular requirements. Because of this, progress at his buildings stopped without his personal supervision. Thus when the dome of the SS. Sindone was rising, Madama Reale had to request his urgent return from Modena; she wrote ‘Itis absolutely impossible to proceed without the father’s assistance, since he alone knows how to direct the work.’ Just as his various literary productions are closely related as integral parts of a great seventeenth-century encyclopaedia of know- ledge, so his architectural structures reveal ‘many common properties (despite their variety); paradoxes and seeming contradictions, deliber- ate incongruities and even dissonances belong to his architectural language; his celebrated interpenetrations of different spatial units, the placing of unrelated tiers one above the other, his operating with sections of ellipsoids and with parabolic ribs, his delight in apparent structural miracles, the juxtaposition of doughy, Mannerist ornamental forms with extremely austere crystalline shapes, the density of motifs (such as ‘the endless repetition of the star pattern in the court of the Palazzo Carignano) — all these as well as niany other characteristics recur in his work, as has often been noticed. One would very much like to understand his apparent vacillation between a hedonistic approach to architecture and the suggestion of infinity in his diaphanous domes ~ or, to put it differently, between his rationalism and mysti- cism. Let me suggest that for him intellect and emotion were not divorced. Even mathematics, the firm and solid basis of architecture, he regarded as an incredible, wonder-working science. He gave this secret away in Euclides adauctus where he writes: ‘Thaumaturga Math- ematicorum miraculorumt insigni, vereque Regali architectura coruscat™ — “The magic of won- drous mathematicians shines brightly in the marvellous and truly regal architecture.’NOTES TO PAGES 160-181 At the most crieal moment the towers tere discused in Sve. sessions of the Gongregocione generale delia Rev. Fabbrics {27"March 1685-23 February Lodo), see Ehrle (note 31), p. 22 For the negative seep ost. lara tole my text sce aldinucel, pp. 134-3 “indeed, this craftsman. [.e, Borrominl received ‘le praise for treating, the ‘master [ernin| In this certainly note too Scemly manner In addition, se the long xposiions in iainucd\'s Vita de Ca. GT Bernini, W682, pp. 24-29, and in Domenico Bernini's Life of his father (Vito ds Cav, Gio. Lorenzo Bem, Rome, 1713, eget) ipa corpo rally (Baldinuce cling tha his text was bated on documents inthe Archive of SNE Fabia) Hoth opot tht the oe reason for Barrons excessive exam twas his desire to succeed Bernini as archi tect to St Peters. Haldioucels “in the pinion of many, all thi warsing was ‘aged not so much fr lack of affection for the person of Bering. a forthe desi hat the Pope should on ths account take a dislike Yo our Craftsman, that he Should llow Boreomino, who bad been Hernino's Pupil but to say the truth, nota very grateful one to succeed him in the posluon of Architect of the great Fabric, Fecause only in the presence of the Pope. did’ he Inveigh agent him (Le Bern wih al his heart and with al ls nergy «In Domenico Bernini's words, Borromin had learned the rules of archi- tecture from Bernt, but had degenerated Into am altogether diferent manner, and at the sate time he made himself very di spreable to the Master. Because of the propitious circumstances ‘mentioned, he Fed the idea of using all his powers to sccupy Berans postion as Fist Architet to the Great Fabri of St Peters,” but did 77 Bertolott, Art. lamb. (op. cit., note 1), pat, 78 Among Bellor’s marginal notes in the copy of Baglione’s 1642 edition in the library of the Accademia del Lincei, Rome (used for the facsimile edition of Baglione’s Vite, ed. Valerio Mariani, Rome, 1935, p. 180), Baglione’s favourable mention of 8, Carlin (bella chiesetta, la quae leggiadra, capricciosa architettura di Francesco Bor. romini Lombardo’) received Bellori's com ment: ‘brutca e deforma. Gotico ignorantis- smo et corruttore del’ rchiettura,infamia del nostro secolo’ Fox the Gothic’ quality of Borromini’s architecture, see also notes 15, 34, 79 The MS is in the archive of the monas- tery of S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Vol. 71. For farther details, see Appendix 1 80 Pollak, Kanstedrigket, 1, p, 40: "But where the said Sig Francesco. showed hhimself to be the nephew of that most slful Architect Carlo Madera... was in 294 the fabric of the Church of this Convent {1 1bid, p48: Rorrmin’s rivals say in trder to ‘obscure or diminish the wich fs eto his fabrics that Bs bres are beutiful but that thy are very cntly: the fist. everyone says so, even hi Rivals, and is true’ bu the second Is false: as ean leary be son inthe fabri of ahi church pa That 8 carl the most extsordinary church “inthe ‘whole worlds proved by the people ‘of various nations who on ating in Rome Continally ask to have the design often wwe are asked - by Germans, Hemiogs, Frenchmen, ltlans, Spaniards and even Indians and the and’ Sig Francesco iscontinually pestered both by forign- crs and Halls to have this design. fra Giovani returns twice tothe sae story {not published by Pollak) once were he Says [p. 45 of MS) that al those foreigners tho come to seethe church do aothing but ize above them snd move round the ‘hole church because all ts features sre arranged in such a way that the one calls ctl the nest, "a the observes Strick by one thing im such way that he then sees. anothet”—a fine observation Which 'ctches the essence of Borrominis Innovation; and asecond tine (p85, notin Poll here a Erench Padre ake forthe design and Pra Govan answers him Wished to bave the design to send it t0 Spain.vand even though Sige francesco Borromin, the architect ofthis church is my Benefactor, and for more than sx years Ihave been ‘begging him, it has ‘been impossible to obtain this favour. 82 Ibid. p.40: Borromini ‘has always been _most generous and in his fabries and works hhe has acted in a completely disinterested ‘way; wecan vouch for many instances, But in particular we can affirm that in the case ‘of our fabric he never wished to receive a _iulio’- Tr will be recalled that this is a point also made by the biographers (see note 10); their reliability is confirmed by the present 83 Ibid., p. 41: ‘qualsivogtia persona de ‘buon sapere che vol fabricare, non si sodisfa i altro che di d? Sr Francesco’. As a proof Of this assertion there follow the passages fon the Oratory of St Philip Ner! ands. Giovanni in Laterano, 84 Ibid, p. 4B: ‘lui medesimo governa al muraior la cueciara; drisa al stuchator il cuciarino, al falegname la sega, etl searpello al scarpelino; al matonator la marveling et al ferraro la lima: Di modo che il Valor delle sue fabriche & grande; ma non la spesa come ‘ensura I suo emul 85 Hempel, p. 61 86 Further to the problem opened up by this date, see Appendix I, a-c 187 These terms appear in chapters 6,7, 11 and 26 of Opus architectonicur. 8 Opus, Architctoicam, Preface tothe Reader oliver ie me on fun kee i te dls ft sh tardi’. a a 89 The reader will noice that thi state tats wel seeping ng a Se nent pragaphe ee atey orice wrSodlngt steps towinchletemed Zr beping fs pope 1X Guarini the Man, 1 Le vite de’ piu celebri architetti, Rome, 1768, Translated from the fourth edition, which has the title Memorie degli archiver antichi e modern, Bassano, 1785, 11, p. 199, 2 Dizionario degli archicett,scultor,pttori . Milan, 1831, 11, pp. 223-24, 3° Padre Guarino Guarini’, in Atti ‘memorie della R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le provincie modenesieparmens, 1888, pp. 483-534, 4 Vol Vii, p. 68 fT 5 Terzaghi, in Atti del X Congresso ai Storia del‘ Architettura, Rome, 1958, p.396 believes that possibly Guarini went to Lisbon between 1656 and 1659 to carry out his project for the church of . Maria della Divina Providenza, 6 On Sainte-Anne-la-Royale see David R. Coffin, in Journal of the Socery of Architec- tural Historians, XW, ii, 1956, pp. 3-11 7 Sieur de Chantelou, Journal du voyage du Cavalier Bernin en France, ed. L. Lalanne, Paris, 1885, p.33, 8 All the material concerning Wren's tay in Paris was published by Margaret Whin- ney, in Gazete des Beaux Arts, LI, 1958, pp. 229-42. It is interesting that’ Ween gives alist of architects in Paris, mention- ing Bernini, Mansart, Le Vau, Le Pautreand even the minor Jean Gobert, but not Guarini, Ina memorandum of 1 May 1666 ‘Wren speaks of the buildings he had seen in Pars, “while they were in rising, con- ducted ‘by the best artists, French and Iialian ...’. It is probable that he was referring to Sainte-Anne-la-Royale. See the interesting analysis by Portoghesi in Critica Arte, 1957, note 20, p. 114 fr 9 For Guarini’s literary career see E Olivero, ‘Gli sertti del Padre Guarino Guarini’, in 11 Duomo di Torino, I, 1928, 10. 6 pp. 5-9. 10 See Andreina Griseri, Le metamorfost del Barocco, Turin, 1967, p. 211, note 2 11 See the masterly edition of Archivetara civile, Milan, 1968, provided by Nino Carboneri, with an ample introduction, complete bibliography and copious notes See also Daria De Bernardi Ferrero, “Disegni darchitetturacivile et ecclesiastica™ i Guarino Guarini e Parte del Maestro, ‘Turin, 1966, which contains many pene- trating remarks and is important for its discussion of the controversy between Guarini and Caramuel. The same author 4thas published the only modern work on Caramuel, in Palladio, 1965, pp. 91-110. 12 E, Olivero, ‘Il Padre Guarino Guarini teologo del Principe di Carignano’, in 11 Duomiodi Torina, 11, 1928, note, pp. 22-24, 13 Archiveteura civile, Trateato I, Capo I, Oss. 3. 14 Tratt, 1, Capo TH, Oss. 11 15 Tratt. 1, Capo VIL, Oss. 9. 16 Tratt. I, Capo TI, Oss. 6. 17 Ibid, 18 rats, I, Capo IL, Oss. 9 19 Tratt. 11, Capo I. 20 Tratt. 11, Capo IIL, Oss, 21 Guarini himself always stresses the ‘supreme importance of reason, free from all ppassions, See also Carboneri's note 1 to p. 17 of his edition of the Treatise. 22 Tratt. I, Capo Vil, Oss. 5. 23 Tratt, 1, Capo Vill, Oss. 1 24 Trate. IH, Capo XXV, Oss. 1 25 Trate. IH, Capo XII, Oss. 1 26 Tratt. IV, Introduction. There is a splendid article by Werner Miller on the ‘mathematies of Trareato IV: ‘The Authen- ticity of Guarinl’s ‘Stereotomy in his Architettura civile’ in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XXVIL, 1968, pp. 203-8. 27 P. 165. 28 Tratt. 1, Capo IIL, Oss. 7 29 Tratt, 1, Capo TH, Introduction. 30 Tratt, 1, Capo 11, Oss. 3 31 Henry Millon, Baroque and Rococo Architeciure, New York, 1961, p. 20. 32 Paolo Portoghest, Guarino Guarini, Mil- an, 1956 33 Sandonnini, op. cit, p. 505. 34 In the dedication of Buclides. X ASketchbook of Filippo Juvarra at Chatsworth 1 T wish to thank His Grace the Duke of Devonshire and his librarian and curator, my friend Francis Thompson, for per~ mission to publish in the Bollettino Societa Piemontese d'Archeologia e di Belli Arti this new contribution to the knowledge of Suvarra’s works. 2 Albertina, Vienna. Rovere-Viale-Brinck- mann, Filippo Juvarra, Milan, published for the City of Turin, 1937, VoL p.116, pl. 6. 3 Ibid, p. 158 and pls. 7,9 4 Turin, Museo Civico, Vol. I pp. 21-23, 26, 28-30, 63, 64, 67, 68. Rovere-Viale~ Brinckmann, 9p. ‘cit, pls. 18-23, ‘The dimensions of these drawings correspond ‘with those at Chatsworth (approx. 22°5 cm 335 cm); however, the dimensions of four of them (pp. 63, 64, 67,68) areslightly different (22°3 em x 34-7 cm). 5 Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, pp. 117, 162 and pls. 24-30. One drawing dated 1730 proves that the series, at least in part, had been executed before 1732, 6 See also Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, op, cit, pl 27, 7 Of. for example the lighthouse of Alex- andiia, in the engraving by Martin de Vos, in his’ series The Seven Wonders of the World. ‘8 Well known from the many editions of Palladio’s Quattro Libri 9 Vol. VI, no. 49, 10 Reproduced in Rovere-Viale-Brinck- ‘mann, pl. 28. 11 Also in the Dresden sketchbook Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, op. et p27 12 For example in the editions of the Deserisione di Roma antica. On f 26 there is large monument. with a. gryphon. Slavara used alo the Dresden volume, ‘no. 37; and, less prominently, in no, 15 of the Chatsworth afbum, Te seems to derive from classical monuments such asthe fileze ofthe Trajan Forum with facing pryphons and candelabra. Cue 13 The same group was used in other drawings: Turin, Museo Civico, Vol. p. 58 and Dresden, no. 5. 14 The she-wolf is also in Dresden, no. 29. {A similar architectural arrangement is in Dresden, no, 21 15 The Dioscurl seen from bebind appear in Dresden, no. 21 16 Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, p. 117 and pl.23. 17 Archie. cv. especially p. 133. 18 A. E. Brinckmann, Theatrum Novum Pedemontii, Dusseldorf, 1931, 19 Burlington wasthe great-grand-nephew of the famous scientist Robert Boyle who died in 1691. 20 Chatsworth, MS 75A. 21 Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, op. cit, p. 56. 22 Ibid, p. 56. 23 On the subject of Juvarea’s stay in Rome see the note published in the Boller tina Societa Piemontese d’Archeologia e di Belli Arti, IH, 1949, p. 153. 24 He signed sketches for an altar ‘Rome, 24 Feb. 1715, and later a detail of the dome fof the Pantheon ‘27 March 1715". See Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, op. cit, p. 59 and pl. 104 25 See on Kent: M. Jourdain, William Kent, London, 1948 and R. Wittkower, in The Archaeological Journal, Vol. 102, 1947, NOTES TO PAGES 181-212 pp, 151-64. [Reprinted in R, Wittkower, Philactio and English Palladianism, 1974 Bd] 26 Leoni was born in Venice. As a young ‘man he went to the Palatinate court and in about 1713 went to England where he ‘remained until his death in 1746. 27 For fuller information on Campbell and the whole Burlington circle, see the article referred to in note 25. 28 Rovere-Visle-Brinckmann, 0p. tt 70. ° , 29 These drawings, mostly unpublished, fe now at the RIBA in Landon 30 Fabbriche Antichedisegnate da. Andrea Polladio" Vieontina -e-date in Lace de Riccardo Contd Burlington, Landon, 1730, 31 Cicognare, Catalogo reionato dei libri Gortee antcit, Bsa, 1821, Vo. 90 S87. cicognars confirms my theory that “this ist edition was presented. By the publisher to the men of letters of his ay” 32 Vita di Benvenuto Celli. dediata aieccelienza di Mylord. Riccardo Boye Conte dt Burlington, Cologne, Petro Ma feo, 1728 38 Chatsworth, 600, W. Larchitettra di Leonbotista Alberti Florence, 1530. Chatsworth, 81C 35 Letter at Chatsworth 36 Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, op. cit. p. 30 37 Turin, National Library, Vol. VI, nos. 4.49. 38 See Wren Society, Vol. XIX, p. 138 MT 39 No. 49, 40 It cannot be ruled out however that both Hawksmoor and Javarra might have found the prototype in the Hypnerozoma~ ‘hia Poliphil by Francesco Colonna (Venice, 1499), 41 See for example the drawings of non- European architecture in Fischer von Er- lach, Emtwurffeinerhistorischon Architektur, 1725, a book which would certainly have ‘been Known to Juvatra. 42 All the documents concerning this ‘mausoleum were published by G. Webb, in ‘Walpole Society, Vol. XIX, p. 111 ff XI Vittone’s Domes 1 Paolo Portughest, Bernardo Vittone, Rome, 1966. 2 trefer here tothe very extensive inven- tory compiled by sever lnwyers now in the Turn Archi Stato (Se vo WoL, pe aed ft) fist excerpted. by Engenio “Oliver, Le apere a Bernands fantom Viti, Turn, 1920, p. 30, and ‘ow hally published by Paolo Rortoghest Upc 297 sex parcsaey 3, Fie 295