The Pantheon: From Antiquity to the Present

by Unknown

  3 Karmon 2011, pp. 150 and 267, n. 23.

  4 Karmon 2011, pp. 149 and 267, n. 22. The seven steps are mentioned in Ottavio Panciroli, Tesori nascosti dell’alma città di Roma, Rome 1625, p. 47.

  5 Palazzo Venezia, Biblioteca di archeologia e storia dell’arte, Lanciani Collection, Roma XI, 22. I, 19702.

  6 Karmon (2011, pp. 155 and 268–269, nn. 40–44) cites useful Renaissance source materials and older documentary sources, such as Eugène Müntz, “Les monuments antiques de Rome au XVe siècle: Nicholas V, Pie II, Paul II, Sixte IV, et Alexandre VI,” Révue Archéologique 2, no. 32, 1876, pp. 158–175.

  7 Louise Rice, “Bernini and the Pantheon Bronze,” in Sankt Peter in Rom 1506–2006. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung vom 22–25 Februar 2006 in Bonn, ed. Georg Satzinger and Sebastian Schütze, Munich 2008a, pp. 337–352; Rice, “Urbano VIII e il dilemma del portico del Pantheon,” Bollettino d’arte 143, 2008b, pp. 93–110; Rice, “Pope Urban VIII and the Pantheon Portico,” in The Pantheon in Rome: Contributions to the Conference, Bern, November 9–12, 2006, ed. Gerd Grasshoff, Michael Heinzelmann, and Markus Wäfler, Bern 2009, 155–156. I want to thank Louise Rice for making her material available to me from the beginning of her discoveries.

  8 Rice 2008a, pp. 340–347.

  9 Rice 2008a, pp. 350–351.

  10 Heinrich Thelen, Francesco Borromini: Die Handzeichnungen, Graz, 1967, vol. 1, pp. 32–37, C25–29, for Borromini’s work on the portico. Ian Campbell (Ancient Topography and Architecture, London 2004, p. 405) points out that some of the sixteenth-century beams are drawn incorrectly. My thanks to Carolyn Yerkes for bringing Campbell’s observation to my attention. For the sixteenth-century drawings, now see Carolyn Y. Yerkes, “Drawings of the Pantheon in the Metropolitan Museum’s Goldschmidt Scrapbook,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 48, 2013, pp. 87–120.

  11 Howard Hibbard, Carlo Maderno and Roman Architecture 1580–1630, London 1971, pp. 230–231. See now Giovanna Curcio, “Maderno-Borromini-Bernini: I due progetti per i campanili del Pantheon,” Quaderni dell’ Istituto di storia dell’architettura 60–62, 2013–2014, pp. 155–168.

  12 Too many otherwise useful sources could be listed here. Instead, see Tod A. Marder, Bernini and the Art of Architecture, New York 1998, p. 225; Marder, “The Pantheon after Antiquity,” in Grasshoff, Heinzelmann, and Wäfler 2009, p. 146; and Rice 2008a, 352, n. 57; she cites Borromini documents published by Oscar Pollak in 1928–1931, Heinrich Thelen in 1967, Marcello del Piazzo in 1968, Howard Hibbard in 1971, and M. Kahn-Rossi and M. Franciolli in 1999. Yet the attribution to Bernini, totally absent from the documents, lives on.

  13 Rice 2008a, p. 337. Two lines of the tablet on the right have been altered.

  14 Rice 2008a, pp. 337, 352. Anne-Christin Batzilla, “Bronzeniet vom Pantheon,” in Barock im Vatikan 1572–1676 (exh. cat. Bonn and Berlin), Leipzig 2005, p. 142, no. 54.

  15 Rice 2008b (“Urbano VIII”), pp. 94–95; and Wilson Jones, this volume.

  16 For this and the following paragraph, I again rely entirely on Rice 2008b, pp. 96–102, 106–110, with the original transcriptions.

  17 Rice 2008b, p. 102.

  18 Tilmann Buddensieg, “Das Pantheon in der Renaissance,” Kunstgeschichtliche Gesellschaft zu Berlin. Sitzungsberichte, n. f. 13, 1964–1965, pp. 3–6; Buddensieg, “Criticism and Praise of the Pantheon in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” Classical Influences on European Culture AD 500–1500: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Kings College, Cambridge, April 1969, ed. R. R. Bolgar, Cambridge 1971, pp. 259–267; Buddensieg, “Criticism of Ancient Architecture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Classical Influences on European Culture AD 500–1500, ed. R. R. Bolgar, Cambridge 1976, pp. 335–348.

  19 Much of this discussion originates in my earlier studies; see Tod A. Marder, “Bernini and Alexander VII: Criticism and Praise of the Pantheon in the Seventeenth Century,” Art Bulletin 71, no. 4, 1989, pp. 628–645; Marder 1998, pp. 225–237; Marder, “Symmetry and Eurythmy at the Pantheon: The Fate of Bernini’s Perceptions from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day,” Antiquity and Its Interpreters, ed. Alina Payne, Ann Kuttner, and Rebekah Smick, New York 2000, pp. 217–226.

  20 Corrado Maltese, ed., Francesco di Giorgio. Trattati di architettura ingegneria e arte militare, vol. 1, Milan 1967, pp. 280–281, Plate 147; C. H. Ericsson, Roman Architecture Expressed in Sketches by Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Commentationes Humanarum Litterum 66, Helsinki 1980, pp. 219–220. See Chapter Nine in this volume for further comments on the drawing.

  21 Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro dell’architettura, Venice 1540.

  22 Serlio 1619, Bk. III, 50r; Bk IV, 171r ff., in Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, 2 vols., New Haven 1996–2001; vol. 1, 1996.

  23 Uffizi A 874 v, published with transcriptions in Alfonso Bartoli, I monumenti antichi di Roma nei disegni degli Uffizi di Firenze, 6 vols., Rome 1914–1922, vol. 3, Fig. 414; vol. 6, pp. 76–77. For other aspects of Sangallo the Younger’s critique, see Chapter Nine.

  24 Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, Venice 1570.

  25 “Per diametro della bellezza, e finezza di capitelli Michelangelo Buonarota si maraviglia anzi diceva, che dal primo Cornicione in giù era disegno angelico e non umano.” The full passage was printed in Carlo Fea, Miscellanea filologica critica e antiquaria, 2 vols., Rome 1790 and 1836; vol. 2, p. 241, and referenced in Theodor Schreiber, “Über unedirte römische Fundberichte,” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Classe 37, 1885, pp. 127–153 (reference kindly given me by the late Richard Krautheimer). See Chapter Nine, p. 289 here.

  26 Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’più eccellenti pittroi scultori ed architetti, vol. 4, ed. G. Milanesi, Florence 1906, pp. 511–512. See Marder 1989, p. 638, n. 39, and Chapter Nine, pp. 286–290, for Vasari’s words.

  27 Documentary references in Marder 1989, p. 638, n. 38.

  28 Information kindness of Christy Anderson.

  29 Inigo Jones on Palladio: Being the Notes by Inigo Jones in the Copy of I Quattro libri dell architettura di Andrea Palladio, 1601, in the Library of Worcester College, Oxford, ed. Bruce. Alsopp, Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1970, p. 57. Inigo dated his notes to “ye last of May 1614,” but later added on the same page, “Noat that in ye year 1625 the bras travi of the portico wear taken of to cast into ordinance by Barbarini ye Pope and travi of timbre put in the steed. This Will. Smith painter of burnishit worke tould me for he was thear preasant.” I owe the reference to the kindness of Christy Anderson. See Marder 2000.

  30 Again, my thanks to Christy Anderson for originally bringing this notation to my attention.

  31 Quoted in Marder 1989, pp. 634–635.

  32 The letter was known to Stanislao Fraschetti, Il Bernini, Milan 1900, pp. 299–300, but never taken seriously. I argue for its importance in Marder 1989, with a transcription of the text.

  33 I am not concerned here with the terms simmetria and euritmia that Bernini used to justify his reading (for which see Marder 2000, pp. 220–225), nor with the precise and measureable geometrical relationship of the main order to the pilastrini (for which see Ingrid D. Rowland and Thomas N. Howe, Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture, New York 1999, p. 147, Fig. 9).

  34 See Mark Wilson Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture, New Haven 2000, pp. 114–116, and Fig. 6.14 for the Porta dei Borsari.

  35 For illustration, see Wolfgang Lotz, Architecture in Italy 1500–1600, New Haven 1995, Fig. 150.

  36 Sir John Soane’s Museum, vol. 26. See Marder 2000.

  37 Marder 2000, pp. 222–223, for references.

  38 Famiano Nardini, Roma antica, Rome 1665, p. 335, is cited along with the others in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (BAV), Chigi M VII, LX, fols. 139–141, and BAV, Pantheon I, 17, fol. 177ff., both of which are datable to Alexander VII’s reign. See Marder 1989, p. 642, n. 53

  39 Carlo Fontana, Templum Vatican
um et ipsius origo. Cum aedificiis maxime cospiquis antiquitus & recens ibidem constitutes…, Book 7, Rome 1694, pp. 454, 459–461, 467, and 473, cited in Marder 1989, pp. 640–641.

  40 The avviso is given in Marder 1989, p. 630, n. 17.

  41 Marder 1989.

  42 Arnold Nesselrath, “Il Pantheon,” La Roma di Leon Battista Alberti. Umanisti, architetti et artisti alla scoperta dell’antico nella città del Quattrocento, exhibition catalogue, ed. Francesco Paolo Fiore in collaboration with Arnold Nesselrath, Milan 2005, pp. 190–198; Karmon 2011, pp. 152–155.

  43 Tod A. Marder, “Alexander VII, Bernini and the Urban Setting of the Pantheon in the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 50, 1991, pp. 273–292; p. 289.

  44 John Patrick Donnelly, S.J., “To Close a Giant Eye: The Pantheon, 1591,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 24, 1986, pp. 377–384.

  45 Tod A. Marder “Piazza della Rotonda e la Fontana del Pantheon: un rinnovamento urbanistico di Clemente XI,” Arte illustrate 59, 1974, pp. 310–320.

  46 For all drawings and documentation, see Marder 1989, pp. 629–634.

  47 Carlo Fea, Dei diritti del Principiato sugli antichi edifizi sacri e profane in occasione del Pantheon di Marco Agrippa, Rome 1806, pp. 12, 39–40; Karmon 2011, p. 152.

  48 Karmon 2011, p. 153.

  49 Francesco Cerasoli, “I restauri del Pantheon dal secolo XV al XVIII,” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 37, 1909, p. 283.

  50 Marder 1991, pp. 274–275; Marder 1974, pp. 310–320; and now the essays by Emma Marconcini in La Fontana del Pantheon, ed. Luisa Cardilli, Rome 1993, pp. 31–63, with still more documentation.

  51 For Eugene IV, see Fea 1806a, pp. 12, 38–40; for Urban VIII, see Fea 1790 and 1836, vol. 2, num. XVIII, p. 139; and for Alexander VII, see Marder 1991, pp. 274–276.

  52 On the topic of Alexander VII and the mechanics of expropriation, see Maria Grazia Damelio, “Gli espropri per la costruzione del colonnato di San Pietro a Roma,” Città e storia 1, 2004, pp. 159–167; and later Damelio, “Expropriation, Forced Sale, and Compensation: Legal Institutions and Professional Practice in Rome during the Pontificate of Alexander VII Chigi (1655–1667),” in Property Rights and Their Violators: Expropriations and Confiscations 16th–20th Century, Bern 2012, pp.121–136.

  53 Marder 1991, pp. 278–279.

  54 See the fascinating article by Volker Hoffmann, “The Repaired Columns of the Pantheon,” in Grasshoff, Heinzelmann, and Wäfler 2009, pp. 195–199.

  55 Marder 1991, p. 284; and now Nicoletta Marconi, Edificando Roma Barocca. Macchine, apparati, maestranze e cantieri tra XVI e XVIII secolo, Rome 2004, pp. 250–260, with precise descriptions of the methods used to install the columns. The architect for the work was Giuseppe Paglia, who came into conflict with Bernini here at the Pantheon and again at the completion of the Elephant and Obelisk monument in front of S. Maria sopra Minerva, and on many other occasions. See Tod A. Marder, “A Finger Bath in Rosewater: Cracks in Bernini’s Reputation,” in Sankt Peter in Rom 1506–2006, Beiträge der internationalen Tagung vom 22–25 Februar 2006 in Bonn, ed. Georg Satzinger and Sebastian Schütze, Munich 2008, pp. 427–434.

  56 Marder 1991, pp. 276–283, with archival citations.

  57 Details in Marder 1991, pp. 281–282.

  58 Marder 1991, pp. 277–281.

  59 For the relationship of the church at Ariccia to the Pantheon, see my early publications, cited in Marder 1991, nn. 82 and 108, as well as Marder 1998, pp. 239–258. The then-owner of Palladio’s Villa and Tempietto at Maser, Pietro Basadonna, was the Venetian ambassador to the court of Alexander VII and a papal intimate.

  Eleven Neoclassical Remodeling and Reconception, 1700–1820

  Susanna Pasquali

  The Pantheon Interior: A Famous View

  The Pantheon in the eighteenth century is epitomized in a single image: the view of the interior of the monument painted by Gian Paolo Pannini (1691–1765) and replicated in many versions by him and his school (Fig. 11.1, Plate II). When it first appeared, this famous veduta (“view”) was both a more reliable representation of the monument than those made previously and a celebration of a new veduta technique. For in addition to revealing a luminescent interior in radiant color, the magnificent interior seems also to have exploited the principles underlying the camera obscura, the instrument used to carry out a new method of view painting. Light bursts through the oculus into the dark interior – a sort of black box – and reflects on the coffered ceiling, thus allowing the viewer to observe every detail of the scene, which is shown with hitherto unknown clarity. It was this light that refreshed a view of an ancient monument that had been continuously portrayed for more than two centuries. Light revealed not only the exact arrangement of ancient marble columns and slabs but also their exact hues and all of the corrosion caused by the passing of centuries. Once they were transported home by tourists and erudites who had admired the monument in Rome, Pannini’s canvases vividly called to mind the colors and traces of time past, thus complementing the bookish culture of their owners. In a century when personal response to masterpieces was highly valued and carefully theorized, this special rendering of light over battered marbles reawakened memories and emotions experienced on the site.

  11.1. Interior of Pantheon; painting by Giovanni Paolo Pannini. (Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst, inv. 4694)

  When Pannini conceived this veduta, therefore, he had an audience of tourists and scholars in mind, a sort of Pantheon-appreciation society that would ensure the painting’s immediate success. Indeed, from 1734 onward, he painted at least eight variations on this theme for famous and wealthy diplomats or Grand Tourists visiting the city.1 These views, carefully conceived to meet a precise demand, reveal to us the various ways in which the multifaceted identity of the Pantheon was perceived during the eighteenth century. For although contemporary visitors to the Rotunda had different ideas about the building, they would have shared three overarching questions inherited from the antiquarians, artists, and church historians who had studied the Pantheon in the previous two centuries. Who built this ancient Roman building, and when? Could previous representations of the monument – potentially a model for modern architecture – be considered reliable? What was the significance of its changing use, from a temple to a Christian church, to the appearance of the fabric from the seventh century onward?

  For Pannini and his contemporaries, the first two questions had received apparently definitive attention in the form of two authoritative publications 50 years earlier. In 1682, the architect Antoine B. Desgodetz published a book entitled Les édifices antiques de Rome in Paris; 12 years later, in 1694, the architect Carlo Fontana issued his Templum Vaticanum in Rome. Throughout the eighteenth century, these two books – which differed considerably in their content, purpose, and target audience – represented the undisputed literary sources on the Pantheon. Desgodetz (1653–1728), a young protegé of the minister Colbert, was sent to Rome at the expense of the Académie Française in 1676–1677, charged with the task of carrying out a series of accurate measurements of Rome’s ancient monuments. The Pantheon was obviously the most important among them. Having compared differing details in the illustrations of Roman monuments published by Sebastiano Serlio (1540), Andrea Palladio (1570), and Roland Fréart de Chambray (1650),2 French academics wished to establish new and exact measurements. Upon Desgodetz’s return to Paris, his measured drawings were discussed in the Académie’s meetings and then lavishly published at the expense of the French crown, the text owing part of its authority to the fact that it was not the enterprise of an individual but of the leading French architectural institution.3 Fontana (1638–1714), on the other hand, published his book at the apex of his career at the papal court. As architect of St. Peter’s basilica, he dedicated a weighty tome to the church, rehearsing its long building history. An entire illustrated chapter of it was devoted to the Pantheon only because it was the largest known ancient temple; Fontana
compared the Rotunda to St. Peter’s in part to demonstrate that the latter boasted the greatest dome ever built in human history.4

  Both Desgodetz and Fontana had correlated their firsthand observations of the Pantheon with the written sources on the monument, namely, the inscriptions present in the portico and information contained in classical literary sources. Because these sources had all been known since the Renaissance and were known to refer to the first Pantheon, which was built by Agrippa during the reign of Augustus, then destroyed by fire, and finally obliterated by the construction of the existing fabric, both authors reached conclusions virtually identical to those advanced by their predecessors, conclusions that were, unfortunately, incorrect. Observing the formal discontinuity of the rotunda and portico, and given that the latter bore a dedicatory inscription to Agrippa, both Desgodetz and Fontana maintained that the rotunda had been constructed earlier, during the Republican Age. Because they judged the bases of the columns of the internal order to be too low, they also concluded that Agrippa had raised the level of an earlier floor on the interior. Finally, again with regard to the interior, they noted that the second order in the attic was not clearly aligned with either the principal order below or with the ribs in the vault above and, furthermore, that the attic was awkwardly interrupted by the two arches of the entrance and main apse. Desgodetz and Fontana therefore concluded that the attic dated to a later period, perhaps the empire or even to the subsequent period coinciding with the first Christian use of the building. Thus, what we now assume to be a unitary building, constructed entirely in the second century, was still thought, as in the Renaissance, to be composed of discordant parts.