by Unknown
10.5. Longitudinal section of Pantheon; drawing by Baldassare Peruzzi
10.6. Elevation of Pantheon; wash drawing from Bernini workshop
10.7. Project for decorating the coffers with the arms of Alexander VII Chigi; ink and wash
10. 8. Transverse section showing proposed coffer decorations; drawing in several hands from workshop of Carlo Fontana
10.9. Project for glazing the oculus of the Pantheon; ink and wash drawing from Bernini workshop
10.10. Plan of Piazza della Rotonda with proposed changes on east border; anonymous drawing, ca. 1660
10.11. Study for the capitals and entablature to repair the east side of the Pantheon portico, with Chigi star and mounts; anonymous ink and wash drawing
10.12. Plan of Piazza della Rotonda; drawing by Felice della Greca, 1663, with handwritten additions of 1704
10.13. Sketch plan for the Pantheon and flanking streets; chalk drawing by Gianlorenzo Bernini, 1662 to early 1663
10.14. Elevation project for the facade and flanking blocks; chalk drawing by Gianlorenzo Bernini, 1662 to early 1663
10.15. Hexastyle facade project in plan, with flanking streets; pen and ink drawing, hand of Alexander VII, 1662 to early 1663
10.16. Hexastyle facade project; chalk drawing by Gianlorenzo Bernini, 1662 to early 1663
11.1. Interior of Pantheon; painting by Giovanni Paolo Pannini
11.2. Cross section as reconstructed by Carlo Fontana depicting the Pantheon under Augustus, and reconstructed cross section depicting the Pantheon during the Republic
11.3. Interior and exterior of Pantheon showing medieval high altar, its pergola, and other decorations in the apse; drawing by G. T. Vergelli, etched by P. P. Girelli
11.4. Project for Chapel of S. Giuseppe di Terrasanta in the Pantheon; drawing attributed to Alessandro Specchi
11.5. Reconstruction of altar and related components predating the restorations of Clement XI (1700–1721), and the choir as described in an anonymous drawing of 1711
11.6. Mobile scaffolding invented and realized in 1756 by Tommaso Giovanni Corsini to restore the interior of the Pantheon dome
11.7. Detail of Figure 11.1 showing traces of decoration in the interior of the dome that were added by Carlo Fontana’s workshop during the reign of Alexander VII, 1655–1667
11.8. Design proposal for Pantheon attic; drawing by Paolo Posi, ca.1757
11.9. Commemorative medal by O. Hamerani, officially represented in 1757, showing proposed attic design by Paolo Posi
11.10. Posi’s attic design
12.1. Capriccio of ancient and papal Romes, by Philippe and Felix Benoist, with the Pantheon at center
12.2. View of the official funeral of Vittorio Emanuele II in the Pantheon showing the catafalque and temporary decorations, January 17, 1878; engraving by Dante Paolocci
12.3. Exterior of the Pantheon decorated by Luigi Rosso et al. for the state exequies of Vittorio Emanuele II, February 16, 1878
12.4. Interior of the Pantheon decorated by Luigi Rosso et al. for the state exequies of Vittorio Emanuele II, February 16, 1878; engraving by Dante Paolocci
12.5. First anniversary funeral commemoration for Vittorio Emanuele II in the Pantheon, with a catafalque designed by Giuseppe Massuero, January 15, 1879
12.6. Views of the 1884 national pilgrimage to the tomb of Vittorio Emanuele II, seen in the Piazza Barberini, behind S. Maria Maggiore, at the Pantheon, at Termini train station, and in Piazza del Popolo
12.7. Giulio Monteverde, “simulacrum” of the proposed tomb of Vittorio Emanuele II in the Pantheon, seen during the national pilgrimage to the king’s tomb, January 1884; engraving by Dante Paolocci
12.8. Monument to Vittorio Emanuele II, Rome, by Giuseppe Sacconi, 1885–1911
13.1. View of the Forum Fredricianum, Berlin, with St. Hedwig’s Cathedral
13.2. Maximilian Godefroy, First Unitarian Church, Baltimore, 1818
13.3. Jacques Gondoin, anatomy amphitheater, École de Chirurgie (School of Surgery), Paris, 1769–1774
13.4. Étienne-Louis Boullée, Cenotaph to Sir Isaac Newton (project), 1784
13.5. Pierre-Adrien Pâris, tomb of Agamemnon in a crypt, set design, ca. 1783
13.6. Paul Philippe Cret, sketch from course on architectural form, University of Pennsylvania, ca. 1910
13.7. Louis I. Kahn, Philips Exeter Academy Library, 1967–1972
13.8. Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Altes Museum, Berlin, 1824–1830
13.9. Frank Lloyd Wright, “Archeseum,” September 1956, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, 1943–1959
13.10. Thomas Jefferson, Rotunda, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1818–1828
13.11. Gunnar Asplund, public library, Stockholm, 1920–1928
13.12. Gunnar Asplund, public library, Stockholm, view into the reading room
13.13. Giovanni Baptista Piranesi, imaginary ancient Temple of Vesta, 1743
13.14. Albert Speer, after Adolf Hitler, central axis with Grosse Halle (project), Berlin, ca. 1937–1941
List of Contributors
Janet DeLaineLecturer in Roman Archaeology, Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford
Richard A. EtlinDistinguished University Professor Emeritus, School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, University of Maryland
Lise M. HetlandFine Art consultant and independent scholar
Eugenio La RoccaProfessor of Archeology and History of Art, University of Rome, La Sapienza; former Superintendent of Antiquities and Fine Arts, city of Rome
Tod A. MarderDistinguished Professor, Department of Art History, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Giangiacomo MartinesFormer Regional Director of the Ministry of Heritage, Cultural Activities and Tourism, Friuli, Venezia Giulia
Arnold NesselrathDeputy to the Director for Scholarly, Conservation, and Scientific Departments, Vatican Museums; and Professor of Medieval and Modern Art History, Department of Art and Visual History, Humboldt University, Berlin
Susanna PasqualiProfessor, Faculty of Architecture, University of Rome, La Sapienza
Erik ThunøAssociate Professor, Department of Art History, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Gene WaddellArchivist Emeritus, College of Charleston
Robin B. WilliamsProfessor and Chairman, Department of Architectural History, Savannah College of Art and Design
Mark Wilson JonesAssociate Professor, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath
Acknowledgments
For support in the editing of this book we owe a huge debt of gratitude to so many colleagues and friends that the risk of omitting even one of them cautions against our making a list that would necessarily be incomplete. The book was conceived some time ago while the editors were both in Rome, where Marder was a Fellow of the American Academy. The manuscript was completed while he was a Director’s Guest at the Civitella Ranieri Foundation in Umbertide in Italy and references checked while he was Rudolf Wittkower Professor at the Bibliotheca Hertziana (Max-Planck Institut für Kunstgeschichte), Rome. For institutional support while shuttling between Bath and Rome, Wilson Jones is most grateful to the British School at Rome, where he was once a resident scholar and from 2007 to 2012 was an advisory member of the Faculty of Archaeology, History and Letters, as well as to the Soprintendenza per i Beni Architettonici e Paesaggistici for repeated access to the fabric of the Pantheon itself. Both editors wish to acknowledge material generously provided by The Bern Digital Pantheon Project, begun at the University of Bern, Switzerland, in 2006 and now kept at the Humboldt University, Berlin. Special thanks go to all of our authors, whose patience and perseverance in the enterprise surpassed any of the editors’ reasonable expectations. We wish also to acknowledge and thank Cambridge University Press and the sequence of our patient editors, from Beatrice Rehl and Asya Graf to Amanda Smith, Phyllis Berk, Janis Bolster, and for the index, Lin Maria Riotto. Finally, to our families and friends we owe those debts that only the trul
y forgiving can bear.
Note on Usage
Throughout this book “Rotunda” is used to refer to the whole building. The lowercased term “rotunda” is used to refer to the cylindrical body of that building with its domical vault.
One Introduction
Tod A. Marder and Mark Wilson Jones
Astonishing for its scale and magnificence as for its preservation, rich in history and meanings, the Pantheon exerts a perpetual fascination. Written accounts, visual representations, and architectural progeny from late antiquity to our day combine to create a presence at once unique and universal in the Western architectural tradition. The Venerable Bede declared that whoever leaves Rome without seeing the Pantheon leaves Rome a fool, and this dictum seems no less valid for our time than when it was first uttered, according to legend, in the eighth century. Visitors may marvel at its unexpected majesty even as they experience a sense of déjà vu, having already encountered its resonant reflection in buildings from other epochs on different continents. Indeed, the Pantheon straddles the history of Western architecture like a colossus, its influence perhaps more pervasive than for any other single building in history (Fig. 1.1, Plate I).1
1.1. View of Pantheon facade, piazza, and fountain. (The Bern Digital Pantheon Project, BERN BDPP0101)
I. Exterior view of the Pantheon. (Photo Roberto Lucignani)
This influence has been generous and elastic, inspiring not only copies but creative reinterpretations like Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, St. Peter’s in Rome, the Capitol in Washington, and the Parliament of Bangladesh. No less diverse are the associations that such projects exploit, which can be sacred or secular, political or religious. Simultaneously a symbol of cultural stability or revolutionary change, the Pantheon is a remarkably vigorous and mutable icon.2
The fame of the Pantheon is of course bound up with its imagery, and its imagery with its structure. It can be appreciated as much for its technical as for its aesthetic achievements, insofar as these aspects may be separately considered. In the fourth century BC, Ammianus Marcellinus likened the space embraced by the dome to a whole city district, so capacious was its visual effect (see Plate II). In the mid fifteenth century, John Capgrave thought that the dome must have been constructed over a vast mound of earth, as had been proposed for the Cathedral of Florence. In both instances, we are told, coins would have been embedded in that mound so as to ensure its removal by the greedy populace.3 A medieval tradition held the Pantheon to be a work of the devil – since it so clearly exceeded the reach of mortal capabilities, who else could have built it? From a Renaissance perspective more in tune with ancient ideals, Michelangelo arrived at the opposite conclusion: for him, the design was “angelic, not human” and thus divine. In truth, there is something about both pronouncements that makes us think of the Pantheon as if it were, sui generis, a work of nature (even divine nature) like an alpine peak or chasm, appealing as much to those with romantic or religious sensibilities as to those favoring unemotional analysis.
II. Interior of Pantheon; painting by Giovanni Paolo Pannini, 1747. (Washington, DC National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collection 1939.1.24)
The Pantheon is miraculous, too, in its state of preservation; as a totality it is the best preserved of any ancient Roman monument with a significant interior space. While it is tempting to explain its survival as a result of its Christian rededication, its compelling scale and aesthetic qualities were arguably the agents that attracted worshipful Christians in the first instance, not to mention antiquarians and architects, both dilettante and professional, throughout the ages. Thus, while countless Roman structures were pillaged for building materials with scant regard for their survival, the Pantheon enjoyed a degree of protection as much due to its intrinsic architectural values as to its ecclesiastical status.
Despite its unique stature, however, the Pantheon continues to pose enigmas in design and intention, and many of its basic historical and technical premises remain uncertain, debated, or simply unexplained. Unlike the Parthenon in Athens, San Vitale in Ravenna, Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, or St. Paul’s in London, there is relatively little to say that is absolutely certain and indisputable about the origins, chronology, and construction of the Pantheon. Even its very name and purpose are still subject to discussion; so too are formal and symbolic readings of the building.
The present volume thus addresses an enticing but daunting prospect as it seeks to make or consolidate progress over these questions, while setting out the current state of research on major aspects of the Pantheon’s fabric and its history for the benefit of a wider public. The dual focus is, accordingly, the physical structure of the monument and its reception down to the present day.
First Concerns
The building known as the Pantheon is located in the neighborhood of Rome called the Campus Martius, or in modern Italian Campo Marzio. Literally the field of the war god Mars, the place where military exercises were once held, this district was progressively urbanized in the late Republic. By the end of the first century BC, various public structures serving religious cults and secular entertainments, including temples and altars, theaters, stadia, baths, and parks, were located here. Situated in the heart of today’s historic center in the most densely inhabited part of Rome in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the Pantheon still dominates Piazza della Rotonda, whose irregular shape has been molded over the ages by the public and private forces that typically strain urban geometry. Running mostly north–south and east–west, the narrow streets leading to the piazza offer varied frontages dating from early modern times, yet preserving all the while the basic ancient urban pattern, as is apparent when superimposed on a modern plan (see Plate III).4
III. Plan of Pantheon and urban context. (Lanciani repr. 1988)
The name “Pantheon” probably derives from the Greek pantheion, a term that conveyed different but related meanings, whether a temple of all the gods, a temple of the 12 Olympian gods, or a temple in which the image of a ruler stood in the company of such divinities. For although there are textual clues, it is tradition more than anything else that explains our use of this name for a structure whose original purpose remains uncertain. In truth, we cannot even be absolutely sure that the Pantheon was a temple, as most scholars believe on account of some temple-like characteristics, most notably the great pedimented front. It is also significant that several ancient sources do refer to the building as a temple, and yet a passage from the life of Hadrian cites buildings that he restored, and it includes the Pantheon with wording that could be read to mean that it was not in the category of temples.5 Roman temples typically had altars in front of them, but no altar has ever been discovered in front of the Pantheon. In 1986, Paul Godfrey and David Hemsoll offered a series of further observations that question the temple label. The great domed interior, for example, has similarities to the halls of imperial baths and palaces, while later buildings that imitated it were often mausolea.6 Few Greek or Roman temples are circular, and those are relatively small in size; moreover, Roman temples generally honor one divinity per room, explaining why temples of multiple deities (for example, the Capitoline temple) have multiple cellae. Given its shape and size, the Pantheon can therefore be seen, at the very least, to stand outside normal temple typologies.
Part of the problem of pinning down the function of the Pantheon is bound up with that of correctly interpreting the first building constructed on the same site. This was completed in either 27 or 25 BC by Marcus Agrippa, the great consul, general, and statesman who served under the first de facto emperor, Augustus, as we can deduce from the inscription below the pediment of the present monument: “M(arcus)·AGRIPPA·L(uci)·F(ilius)·CO(n)S(ul)·TERTIVM·FECIT” (Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, thrice consul) (Fig. 1.2).7
1.2. View of the Pantheon from the front, at high level. (The Bern Digital Pantheon Project, BDPP0114)
From the beginning of the twentieth century Agrippa’s Pantheon was generally thought to be a rectangular b
uilding that faced south rather than north as does the present structure (Fig. 1.3). More recent scholarship suggests instead that the Agrippan fabric was in fact oriented toward the north, and that its plan likewise combined a round space with a portico. This being the case, the Agrippan plan, discussed in Eugenio La Rocca’s chapter, would have forecast the outline of the present building. Although it would become one of the staples of architectural typology, at the time the combination of three distinct geometric elements was relatively novel: a circular rotunda, a rectangular portico, and a fabric that mediated between them (generally known in English as the transitional or intermediate block). It is possible that this scheme developed from precedents in the Greek East; in particular, La Rocca discusses the possibility that the Tychaion, a sanctuary in Alexandria named after Fortune, may have inspired Agrippa’s building. Knowledge of it may have come to Rome in the wake of the defeat of Anthony and Cleopatra by Augustus (then called Octavian) and his admiral Agrippa at the battle of Actium in 31 BC.8 This notion would be consistent with the suggestion by Filippo Coarelli that the Pantheon was sited on the ancient palus Caprae, where according to one tradition Romulus, legendary founder of Rome, became the god Quirinus and ascended to the heavens. Agrippa would therefore have intended a programmatic connection between the founder of the city and a new Rome in the age of Augustus.9
1.3. Plan of Agrippa’s Pantheon facing south, orientation now in question. (Kähler, Der römische Tempel 1970, after Beltrami 1898)
