THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES OF NEW ST. PETER’S

Monuments o f Papal Rome

This series, published in association with the American Academ y in Rome, examines important w orks commissioned by the popes during the Renais­sance and Baroque periods, that is, from 1400 to 1800. Based on prim ary archival research and close archaeological examination o f the monuments (including painting, sculpture, and architecture), monographs in this series will demonstrate how the arts patronage policy of the popes was closely allied with their political ambitions in a m anner analogous to that o f the Roman emperors, whom the popes w ere consciously mimicking.

THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES OF NEW ST. PETER’S

OUTFITTING THE BASILICA, 1621-1666

Louise RiceDuke University

CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITY PRESS

in association w ith the

American Academ y in Rome

PUBLISH ED BY THE PRE SS SYND ICATE O F THE UNIVERSITY O F CAM BRID GE

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge C B 2 lR P , United Kingdom

CAM BRID G E U N IV E R SIT Y P R E SS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge C B 2 2 r u , United Kingdom 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia

in association withAmerican Acadamy in Rome, 7 East 60 Street, New York, New York 10022

© Cambridge University Press and the American Academy in Rome

First published 1997

Printed in the United States of America

Typeset in Cochin

Library o f Congreoo Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rice, Louise.The altars and altarpieces of new St. Peters : outfitting the Basilica,

1621—1666 / Louise Rice, p. cm. — (Monuments of papal Rome)

Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-521-55470-5 (hardback)

1. Altars - Vatican City. 2. Altars, Baroque - Vatican City.3. Altarpieces — Vatican City. 4. Altarpieces, Baroque — Vatican City.

5. Christian art and symbolism — Modern period, 1500 Vatican City.6. Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano. I. Title. II. Series.

N7952.57A1R5 1997726'.5291 -d c 2 0 96-36272

CIP

A ca ta log re co rd for thl< book it available from the Britutb Library

Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the M illard Meiss Publication Fund of the College Art Association [ MM |

ISBN 0-521-55470-5 hardback

To my father

Contents

List of Illustrations xi

Acknowledgments xv

Introduction 1

PART ONE THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE ALTARS IN ST. PETER’S

CHAPTER O n e The C on grega tion a n d th e C hapter 7The Congregazione della Reverenda Fabbrica di San Pietro 7The Chapter of St. Peter’s 12

C h a p t e r T w o F rom Old to N ew St. P e t e r s 17The Altars in Old St. Peter’s 18Gregory XIII 23Clement VIII 27Paul V 34The Provisional Altarpieces 38

CHAPTER T h r e e G rego ry X V and th e St. P etron illa A ltarpieee 4 7St. Peter’s in 1621 48Gregory XV 51The Commission lor the St. Petronilla Altarpieee 52Iconography, Hagiography, and the Cult of Saints 54The Public Response 56

PART TWO THE ALTARS UNDER URBAN VIII

CHAPTER F o u r Toward a C om preh en siv e P ro je c t f o r th e A ltars a n d A ltarp ieces 6 1Urban VIII and St. Peter’s 61The First Altarpieces 65The Jub ilee of 1625 70Early Chronology of the Project 73

C O N T E N T S

CHAPTER FIVE The D ed ica t io n o f th e A ltars 7 8The Congregation’s Proposal 78The Chapter’s Counterproposal 91A Third Proposal 99The Pope’s Response 100Reaching Compromise 102

CHAPTER S ix The P ro je ct R ealiz ed 1 0 4The Subjects of the Altarpieces 104The Altarpieces in Place: 1626—32 109Additions, Changes, and Substitutions 111The Completion of the Project under Innocent X and Alexander VII 115

C h a p t e r S e v e n The S o p ra p o r t i 1 1 8The Petrine Cycle Continued 119

Christ’s Twin Charges to Peter 123The Washing o f the Feet 124Peter Baptizing H i Ja ilers Processus andM artuiian 126The Denial and Lamentation o f P eter and Peter Healing with H i Shadow 128The Calling o f P eter and Andrew 130

The Fate of the Petrine Cycle 131Conclusion 132

PART THREE THE COMMISSIONS

CHAPTER E ig h t P a tron a g e du r in g th e Barber'u ii P on tifica te 1 3 7The Nomination and Selection of Artists 137The Cardinals of the Congregation 141Urban VIII 142Cardinal Francesco Barberini 146Barberini Taste 149

C h a p t e r N in e The A rtists a t Work 153The Preparatory Process 153Medium 155Site and Light 160Payment 162The Public Reaction 164

E p il o g u e 1 6 8

CATALOGUE

In trodu ction 1 7 3

A ltars D ecora ted u n d er G rego ry XV1: Altar of St. Petronilla (Guercino) 175

A ltars D ecora ted u n d er U rban VIII2: Altar of the Crucifix 1823 (a ) : Altar of St John the Baptist (Celio) 1863 (b): Altar of the Cathedra Petri (Gianlorenzo and Luigi Bernini) 189

C O N T E N T S ix

4: Altar of St. Sebastian (Domenichino) 1925 (a): Altar of the Presentation of the Virgin (Passignano) 1975 (b): Altar of the Presentation of the Virgin (Romanelli) 2046: Altar of the Trinity (Cortona) 2057: Altar of St. Maurice (Pellegrini) 2138: Altar of the Pieta (Vouet) 2169: Altar of St. Gregory the Great (Sacchi) 22110: Altar of St. Erasmus (Poussin) 22511: Altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian (Valentin) 23212: Altar of St. Wenceslas (Caroselli) 23813: Altar of St. Thomas (Passignano) 24114: Altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e (Ciampelli) 24415: Altar of Sts. Martial and Valeria (Spadarino) 24616: Altar of St. Michael (Calandra after Cesari) 24917: Altar of the Navicella (Lanfranco) 252

A ltare D ecora ted u n d er In n o cen t X18: Altar of St. Leo (Algardi) 257

A/tare D ecora ted u n d er A lexander VII19: Altar of the Cathedra Petri (Bernini) 265

The Sopraporti C om m uteioned u n d er U rban VIIISP .l: Washing of the Feet (Baglione) 271SP.2: Peter Baptizing His Ja ilers Processus and Martinian (Camassei) 273SP.3: Paece Oi'e.i M eae (Sacchi: unexecuted) 275SP.4: Giving of the Keys (Antonio Pomarancio) 276SP.5 (a): Denial and Lamentation of Peter (Guidotti) 278SP.5 (b): Peter Healing with His Shadow (Romanelli) 280SP.6: Calling of Peter and Andrew (Cortona: unexecuted) 282

Documentary Appendix 285

Appendixes 317

Abbreviations 321

Archival and Manuscript Sources Cited 323

Bibliography 325

Index 337

Figures 351

List of Illustrations

1. St. Peter’s basilica2. Plan of new St. P e te r ’s, from F ilippo Buonanni, Numu m at a oummorum pon tificun i. . . , 16963. After Tiberio Alfarano, Plan of old St. Peter’s (1590) superimposed over new St. Peter’s, 15904. Etienne Duperac after Michelangelo, Plan of new St. Peter’s, 15695. Cigoli, Project for the completion of new St. Peter’s, c. 1606. Florence, Uffizi, A 976. Matthaeus Greuter after Carlo Maderno, Plan of new St. Peter’s, 1613, with handwritten annotations by Gia­como Grimaldi, c. 1615—20. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, ff. 490v-4917. Plan of new St. Peter’s, c. 1620, from Martino Ferra- bosco, Architettura della Baoilica d i S. P ietro . . . , 16848. Matthaeus Greuter after Papirio Bartoli, Plan of new St. Peter’s, 1623, with additions made by the Congrega­tion of the Fabbrica in 1626. BAV, ACSP, H55, f. 32b9. Matthaeus Greuter after Papirio Bartoli, Plan of new St. Peter’s, 1623, with additions made by the Congrega­tion of the Fabbrica in 1626. BAV, ACSP, H55, f. 32c10. After M aertin van Heemskerck, New St. P eter’s under construction, viewed from the north, w ith the dividing wall and the nave of old St. Peter’s visible on the left, c. 1538. Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett11. Maertin van Heemskerck, View of old and new St. Peter’s from the south, c. 1538. Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett12. Giovanni G uerra, Transportation of the obelisk, showing new St. Peter’s under construction on the left and the nave of old St. Peter’s at the center, 158613. Giovan Antonio Dosio, View of the facade and nave of old St. Peter’s, with new St. Peter’s in the background, 1575. Florence, Uffizi.14. Anonymous, Interior of new St. Peter’s under con­struction, showing Bramante’s tiburia housing the tomb of

the Apostles and the high altar, c. 1570. Hamburg, Kunst- halle15. Giovan Antonio Dosio, Interior of new St. Peter’s under construction, with a view from the south transept toward Bramante’s tiburio, c. 1564. Florence, Uffizi16. Giacomo Grimaldi, Interior of the nave of old St. Peter’s, with a view toward the dividing wall. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, ff. 104v-10517. Giacomo Grimaldi, Interior facade of old St. Peter’s. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, ff. 120v-12118. Giacomo Grimaldi, The dividing wall as seen from the nave of old St. Peter’s. BAV, ACSP, A64 ter19. Giacomo Grimaldi, Partial view of the outer north side aisle of old St. Peter’s, showing the altar of St. Mark and the chapel and tomb of Innocent VIII. BAV, ACSP, A64 ter20. Giacomo Grimaldi, Chapel of Innocent VIII. BAV, ACSP, H70, f. 29321. Giacomo Grimaldi, Chapel of St. Boniface IV. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, f. 822. Giacomo Grimaldi, Chapel of the Crucifix. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, f. 6123. Giacomo Grimaldi, Chapel of St. Gregory. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, f. 4924. Giacomo Grimaldi, Chapel ol the Sudarium. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, f. 9225. Giacomo Grimaldi, Chapel of Sts. Simon and Jude. BAV, ACSP, A64 ter26. Giacomo Grimaldi, Chapel of St. Erasmus. BAV, ACSP, A64 ter27. Altar of the Madonna del Soccorso, Cappella Grego- riana28. Girolamo Muziano and Cesare Nebbia, St. Jerom e Preaching in the Wilderneoo. Rome, S. M aria degli Angeli29. Altar of St. Jerom e, with a mosaic reproduction of Domenichino’s Loot Communion o f St. Jerom e

xii g a L I S T O F I L L U S T R A T I O N S

30. Jacques Callot after Girolamo Muziano and Cesare Nebbia, St. Ba.nl Celebrating the Mass, c. 161031. Altar of St. Basil, with a mosaic altarpiece designed by Pierre Subleyras representing St. Ba.nl Celebrating the Mass32. East w all of the Cappella Gregoriana, w ith Luigi Amici’s tomb of Gregory XVI (c. 1854) incorporating the door into the chapel of the Trinity33. East wall of the Cappella Gregoriana, in reverse, with Taddeo Landini’s relief in position over the door (detail), c. 1615, from Martino Ferrabosco, Architettura della Basilica d i S. P ietro . . . , 168434. Taddeo Landini, Washing o f the Feet, late 1570s. Rome, Palazzo Quirinale35. A ltar of the Transfiguration, formerly of St. Peter punishing Sapphira36. Cristofano Roncalli, St. P eter P un ish in g Sapphira, mosaic reproduction37. Jacques Callot after Domenico Passignano, Crucifix­ion o f St. Peter, c. 161038. Jacques Callot after Francesco Vanni, Fall o f Simon Magus, c. 161039. Jacques Callot after Cigoli, St. P eter Healing the Crip­ple, c. 161040. Jacq u es Callot after Giovanni Baglione, St. P eter Raiding Tab it ha, c. 161041. Jacques Callot after Bernardo Castello, Christ Sum ­m oning Peter to Walk on the Water, c. 161042. View of the three chapels in the north transept43. Stucco decorations in the chapel of St. Erasmus, 1597-9944. Stucco decorations in the chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian, 1597—9945. Stucco decorations in the chapel of St. Wenceslas, 1597-9946. Stucco decorations in the chapel of the Crucifixion of St. Peter, formerly of St. Martial, 1597—9947. Stucco decorations in the chapel of Sts. Simon and Jude , 1597-9948. Stucco decorations in the chapel of St. Thomas, 1597-9949. Dome of St. Peter's, with mosaics designed by Cava- liere d ’Arpino, 1603—1250. Giovanni Maggi, View of St. Peter’s, with insets rep­resenting the high altar, the sacram ent altar, and the seven privileged altars, c. 162051. Wooden crucifix , today located in the cham ber between the chapel of the Pieta and the chapel of St. Sebastian52. Jacopo Zucchi, Ascension, c . 1583. S. Lorenzo Nuovo,S. Lorenzo53. Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta, Virgin and Child Appearing to Pope Boniface VIII Accompanied b y Sts. Francii and B on ifa ce o f Taurus, c. 1574. Rome, S. Tommaso in Formis

54. Altar of the Madonna della Colonna55. Michelangelo, Pieta, 1497-150056. Attributed to Jacopo Zucchi, Glorification o f the Virgin. St. Peter’s, Sacristy57. Jacques Callot after the anonymous M artyrdom o f St. Erasmus formerly over the altar of St. Erasmus in old St. Peter’s, c. 161058. Leonardo da Pistoia and Jacopino del Conte, Virgin and Child with St. Anne and Sts. Peter and Paul. St. Peter’s, Sacristy59. Jaco p o Zucchi, R esurrection , c. 1583. S. Lorenzo Nuovo, S. Lorenzo60. C aravaggio , M adonna d ei P a la fren ier i, 1605-1606. Rome, Villa Borghese.61. M atthaeus G reuter, L ongitud inal section of St. Peter’s, showing Paul V ’s baldachin over the high altar, the colonna santa in the northeast crossing pier, and the gate of the Cappella Gregoriana, 162562. Stucco decorations in the vault of the Chapel of the Trinity, formerly the New Sacristy, c. 1621—2563. Carlo Maderno, Project for the crossing and apse of St. Peter’s, c. 1616—20. Florence, Uffizi, A 26564. Project for a pontifical choir in the apse of St. Peter’s, c. 1620, from Martino Ferrabosco, Architettura della Basil­ica di S. P ietro . . . , 168465. Anonymous, Project for an apse screen, showing the empty sopraporti on either side. W indsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 559066. Chair of the Penitenziere maggiore, 1612, beneath Paolo Campi’s statue of St. Giuliana Falconieri, 173267. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Tomb of Alexander VII, 1672—7868. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Project for the tomb of Alexan­der VII. Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art69. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Project for the tomb of Alexan­der VII. Windsor Castle, Royal Libraiy, inv. 560370. Gianlorenzo Bernini and workshop, Project for the tomb of Alexander VII. United States, private collection71. View of the high altar and baldacchino, with the apse altar and Cathedra Petri behind72. Altar of St. Petronilla73. Guercino, Burial and Reception in Heaven o f St. Petron­illa, 1621—23. Rome, Pinacoteca Capitolina74. Guercino, Preparatory study for the Burial and Recep­tion in Heaven o f St. Petronilla, 1621. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 275675. School of Rogier van der Weyden, The Exhumation o f St. Hubert, c. 1437. London, National Gallery76. Alessandro Tiarini, M artyrdom and Reception in Heaven o f St. Barbara, c . 1607—11. Bologna, S. Petronio77. Column of Trajan (detail), Rome78. Domenico Passignano, Recovery o f the Body o f St. Sebas­tian, 1602. Naples, Museo di Capodimonte79. Domenico Castello, Chapel of the Crucifix, c. 1644. BAV, Barb. Lat. 4409, f. 1780. Chapel of the Pieta, formerly of the Crucifix

L I S T O F I L L U S T R A T I O N S xii i

81. Giovanni Lanfranco, Angels Adoring the Cross, 1629-3282. Chapel of the the Pieta, formerly of the Crucifix, with a view toward the right arm of the chapel, with the colonna santa in front of the door designed by Gianlorenzo Bernini. The bronze putti holding a crown over the Vir­gin’s head date from 163783. Alessandro Specchi, Door designed by Gianlorenzo Bernini in the chapel of the Crucifix84. Domenico Castello, Chapel of the Cathedra Petri, c. 1644. BAV, Barb. Lat. 4409, f. 1885. Gaspare Celio, Preparatory study representing the Baptism of Christ, probably for his altarpiece in the bap­tismal chapel, c. 1624. Florence, Uffizi, 11810 F86. Gaspare Celio, Concert o f A ngeb, c. 1622. Rome, S. F rancesco a R ipa, Chapel of the B lessed Ludovica Albertoni.87a and 87b. Wooden model of the reliquary chair for the Cathedra Petri, c. 1636, with its shutters closed and open. St. Peter’s, depositi of the Fabbrica88. Alessandro Specchi after Carlo Fontana, Baptismal chapel89. Carlo Maratta, Baptbm o fC hrb t, mosaic reproduction90. Chapel of St. Sebastian91. Domenichino, M artyrdom o f St. Sebastian, 1628-31. Rome, S. M aria degli Angeli92. Domenichino, Preparatory study for the Alartyrdom o f St. Sebastian. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 62093. Domenichino, Preparatory study for the Alartyrdom o f St. Sebastian. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 61994. Chapel of the Presentation of the Virgin95. Gian Francesco Romanelli, Presentation o f the Virgin a t the Temple, 1638-42. Rome, S. M aria degli Angeli96. Antonio Pollaiuolo, Tomb of Innocent VIII, 149897. Pietro da Cortona, Trinity, 1628—32, with Bernini’s sacrament tabernacle in the foreground, 1673—7598. Copy after Pietro da Cortona, Trinity. Rome, Palazzo Corsini99. Guido Reni, Preparatory draw ing for the Trinity altarpiece, 1627. Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scot­land, inv. D4890/5100. Pietro da Cortona, P reparatory draw ing for the Trinity altarpiece, 1628. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 4533101. Pietro da Cortona, P reparatory draw ing for an altarpiece representing the Trinity with the Virgin Interceding on B eh a lf o f Mankind. Form erly Devonshire collection, Chatsworth102. Francesco d e ’ Rossi, Sacram ent altar, show ing Pietro da Cortona’s Trinity altarpiece behind Bernini's sacrament tabernacle103. Altar of St. Francis, formerly of St. Maurice104. Matteo Gregorio Rossi, Plan of St. Peter’s, 1687 (detail of the sacrament chapel, illustrating the proximity of the altar of St. M aurice [at no. 33] and the tomb of

Sixtus IV [at no. 34]. The tomb of the Countess Matilda is at no. 31)105. Antonio Pollaiuolo, Tomb of Sixtus IV, positioned in front of the altar formerly of St. Maurice106. Carlo Pellegrini, M artyrdom o f St. A laurice and the Theban Legion, 1636/38-40. Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca107. G ian lo renzo B ern in i, Tomb of the C ountess Matilda, 1633-37108. Altar of the Chapel of the Choir. Mosaic altarpiece designed by Pietro Bianchi, Im m aculate Conception with Sts. Francis, Anthony, and John Chrysostom, 1747109. Giacomo Grimaldi, Choir chapel of Sixtus IV in old St. Peter’s. BAV, Barb. Lat 2733, f. 131110. Giambattista Ricci da Novara, Choir chapel of S ix­tus IV in old St. Peter’s. St. Peter’s, sa c re gro tte111. Simon Vouet, Preparatory drawing of Peter Healing with Hut Shadow. Princeton, Art Museum, inv. x 1953—103112. Simon Vouet, Preparatory oil sketch of Peter Healing with His Shadow. Florence, Uffizi113. Simon Vouet, Preparatory oil sketch for his altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir. Great Britain, private collection114. Simon Vouet, Preparatory oil study for the angels in the upper left corner of the altarpiece. Private collection115. Simon Vouet, Preparatory oil study for the angels in the upper right corner of the altarpiece. Private collection116. A nonym ous, F u n e ra ry cerem o n y for M a r ia Clementina Sobieska in the Chapel of the Choir, c. 1735. Berlin, Kunstbibliothek117. Detail of 116118. Giovanni Battista Falda, Chapel of the Choir, showing the Pieta on the altar in front of Vouet s altarpiece (detail) (from F. Ehrle and H. Egger, Die Conclaveplane. Beitrage zn ihrer Entwicklungsgeschichte, Vatican City, 1933, pi. 20)119. Giulio Bonasone after Michelangelo, Pieta, 1547120. Wooden crucifix of uncertain date, in front of a frescoed altarpiece designed to accommodate it, c. 1620. Rome, S. M aria in Via, Lombardi chapel121. Altar of St. Gregory122. A ndrea Sacch i, M ira cu lou s M ass o f St. G regory , 1625—27. Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca123. Andrea Sacchi, Preparatory drawing for the Miraculous Mass o f St. Gregory. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 4857124. Chapel of St. Erasmus125. Jacques Callot after the anonymous M artyrdom o f St. Erasmus formerly over the altar of St. Erasmus in old St. Peter’s (detail), c. 1610126. Dirk Bouts, M artyrdom o f St. Erasmus, c. 1460-65. Louvain, St. Peter127. Nicolas Poussin, Alartyrdom o f St. Erasmus, 1628-29. Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca128. Nicolas Poussin, Preparatory drawing for the Alar­tyrdom o f St. Erasmus. Milan, Ambrosiana, Cod F 253129. Nicolas Poussin, Preparatory drawing for the M ar­tyrdom o f St. Erasmus. Florence, Uffizi, 885 E

xiv L I S T O F I L L U S T R A T I O N S

130. Nicolas Poussin, Preparatory oil sketch for the M ar­ty rd om o f St. E raomuo. O ttaw a, N ational G a lle ry of Canada131. Adam E lsheim er, /M artyrdom o f St. L aw rence, c. 1600—1601. London, National Gallery132. Chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian133. Valentin, Alartyrdom o f Sto. Proceoouo and M artinian, 1629-30. Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca134. Antonio Tempesta, A lartyrdom o f Sto. P elagia and Repitma, 1591135. Detail of Fig. 133136. V alentin , D en ia l o f Peter. F lorence, Fondazione Roberto Longhi137. Alarriage o f Peteuo and Thetut, terra-cotta Campana relief, first century A .D . Paris, Louvre (line drawing from Salomon Reinach, Repertoire de reliefo g r eco e t romaino, II, Paris, 1912, p. 262)138. Roman sacrifice scene. Florence, Uffizi139. Alaroyao. Florence, Uffizi140. Domenichino, St. Cecilia R efuting to Worohip the Pagan Idol, 1612-15. Rome, S. Luigi dei Francesi141. Chapel of St. Wenceslas142. Angelo Caroselli, St. Wenceolao, 1627-30. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum143. Angelo Caroselli, Preparatory sketch for the St. Wenceslas altarpiece. Rome, Museo di Roma144. Giacomo Grimaldi, Altar of St. Wenceslas in old St. Peter’s. BAV, ACSP, A64 ter, f. 29145. Giambattista Ricci da Novara, Altar of St. Wences­las in old St. Peter’s. St. Peter’s, oa cregro tte146. A. M annelli after Angelo Caroselli, St. Wenceolao (detail) (from Agostino Valentini, La patrla rca le Baoihca Vaticana, 1885, I, plate 52)147. Chapel of St. Thomas148. Domenico Passignano, The D oubting o f Thomao, 1624—26. St. Peter’s, Sacristy149. Chapel of Sts. Simon and Jude150. Agostino Ciampelli, Sto. Simon and Jud e Muraculouoly Turning the Serpento againot the Peroian Magieiano, 1626—29. Vatican City, Studio dei Mosaici151. Antonio Tempesta, St. Simon152. Chapel of the Crucifixion of St. Peter, formerly of St. Martial153. Spadarino, St. Valeria Carrying Her Head to the Altar Where St. Alartial Io Saying Alcuto, 1629—32. St. Peter’s, Sac­risty154. Altar of St. Michael155. Giovanni Battista Calandra after Giuseppe Cesari, St. Michael, 1627—28. Macerata, Duomo156. Altar of the Navicella157. Giovanni Lanfranco, C hriot S um m on in g P eter to Walk on th e W ater (fragm en t), 1627—28. S t. P e te r’s, Benediction Loggia

158. Giotto, Nav'icella, c. 1300 but heavily restored. St. Peter’s, portico159. Domenico Castello, Interior facade of St. Peter’s, showing Giotto’s Nacice/la in the lunette, c. 1644. BAV, Barb. Lat. 4409, f. 3160. Altar of St. Leo I161. Giovanni Lanfranco, Preparatory drawing for St. Leo Repuloing Attila the Hun. Naples, Museo di Capodimonte162. Giovanni Lanfranco, Preparatory drawing for St. Leo Repuloing Attila the Hun. Naples, Museo di Capodimonte163. Giovanni Lanfranco, Preparatory drawing for St. Leo Repuloing Attila the Hun. Naples, Museo di Capodimonte164. Alessandro Algardi, St. Leo Repuloing Attila the Hun, 1646-53165. Raphael, St. Leo Repuloing Attila the Hun, 1513—14. Vatican Palace, Stanza d ’Eliodoro166. Anonymous, St. M ichael B ringing the Tiara to Urban VIII, 1640. London, British Museum167. Bernini workshop, Project for the Cathedra Petri, 1657. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 5614168. Bernini, Cathedra Petri, 1657-66169. Pietro Bracci, Tomb of Benedict XIV, 1759170. Giovanni Baglione, Chru<t W aobing th e Feet o f the Apo.it/eo, c. 1628. Rome, Galleria Borghese171. Livio Agresti, Loot Supper, c. 1573. Rome, Oratory of the Gonfalone172. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Cathedra Petri, relief panel representing the Waohing o f the Feet173. Antonio Canova, Tomb of Clement XIII, 1784-92174. Boldrini, Copy after Andrea Camassei’s Peter Baptiz­ing HL Jailero. Vatican City, Studio dei Mosaici175. Andrea Camassei, Study for Peter Baptizing Hut Ja il­ero, c. 1630. Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca176. Andrea Camassei, Study connected with Peter Bap­tizing Hut Jailero. France, private collection177. Andrea Camassei, Study connected with Peter Bap­tizing Hut Jailero. United States, private collection178. Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Vrew of the interior of St. Peter’s (detail showing Camassei’s oopraporto on the right). New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art179. Andrea Sacchi, Preparatory study for the Paoce Oveo Meao. Florence, Uffizi, inv. 9517180. Pietro Francesco Garoli, View o f th e In ter io r o f St. P eter’o, 1682. Turin, Galleria Saubauda181. Detail of 180, showing Pomarancio’s oopraporto182. Tomb of Alexander VII183. Anonymous stuccoist, The Denial and Lamentation o f St. Peter, 1628. Rome, S. Pietro in Montorio, Tempietto184. N. Sangiorgio after Gian Francesco Romanelli, Peter Healing with Hut Shadow (from Agostino Valentini, La patriarcale Btutilica Vaticana, 1885, II, plate 42)185. Pietro Tenerani, Tomb of Pius VIII, c. 1857186. P ietro da Cortona, C a llin g o f P e te r an d Andrew, 1627—29. Castelfusano, Villa Chigi

Acknowledgments

ksM

I DID M OST of the research for this book within the imposing walls of Vatican City. Monsignor Michele Basso and Father Anthony Ward, past and present archivists of the Reverenda Fabbrica di S. Pietro; the late Monsignor Hermann Hoberg, archivist of

the Chapter of St. Peter’s; Dott. Pierluigi Silvan, Architect of St. Peter’s; the late Prof. Carlo Pietrangeli, Director of the Vatican Museums; and Father Leonard Boyle, Prefect of the Vatican Library, and his staff all went out of their w ay to facilitate my work. In addition, I thank the directors and staffs of the many other research facilities I have used, in particular the Bibliotheca Hertziana and the libraries of the American Academy in Rome, Columbia University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Oxford University, and Duke University.

Over the years, I have profited greatly from conversations with a number of scholars who have shared information and insights with me. I am especially indebted to M irka BeneS, Mal­colm Campbell, Philipp Fehl, Carmela Franklin, Herbert Kessler, Sarah McPhee, Jo rg Merz, Laurie Nussdorfer, John Beldon Scott, David Stone, Helga Tratz, and Carolyn Wood; others I thank in the appropriate places. Hilary Ballon, Jam es Hankins, John Headley, Je n ­nifer Montagu, Eugene Rice, John Rice, and David Rosand read all or parts of the manu­script at various stages in its evolution and generously contributed their suggestions and cor­rections. Assembling the illustrations for a publication of this kind is always a challenge; for their help either in procuring photographs from obscure sources or in lending me their own copies of otherwise unobtainable images, I am grateful to Randall Coleman, Joan Nissman, Erich Schleier, Ann Sutherland Harris, and Antonio Vannugli. M y special thanks go to Giuseppe Dardanello and Paolo Robino, who took the cover photograph.

M y greatest debt is to the two editors of the series Monuments of Papal Rome. Joseph Connors directed the dissertation with which the book began, and over the years I have benefited from his teaching, guidance, and friendship in more ways than I can say. Irving Lavin shared his unrivaled knowledge of St. Peter’s with me on several occasions, includ­ing one memorable visit to the basilica at the crack of dawn, when we had the place to ourselves but for the priests saying mass at every available altar. I would also like to express my appreciation to Beatrice Rehl, fine arts editor for Cambridge University Press, on whose sound advice and encouragement I depended throughout the final stages of preparing the manuscript for publication.

X VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I began my research on St. Peter’s while a fellow at the American Academy in Rome and have enjoyed the hospitality of that institution on many subsequent occasions. To its directors past and present, staff, fellows, and residents, 1 give most grateful thanks. I am also immensely obliged to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, the W hiting Fellowship Foundation, and the Research Council of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; without their financial support the project might never have been realized. Finally, for providing subventions to help defray the costs of producing the book, I am delighted to acknowledge the generosity of the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and of the Millard Meiss Publication Fund of the College Art Association.

Introduction

t o *

ST. PETER'S is no ordinary church. “Regina delle basiliche,”1 “Tempio de’ tempj,”2 "Base della Fede Gattolica,”3 "the Quintessence of wit and wealth ,"A "the most per­fect modell of decent Magnificence in the world, ”5 "la maggiore delle meraviglie dell’uni-

verso”6: the superlatives that have been used to describe the basilica bear witness to its unique place in the history of Western art and religion. St. Peters is the mother church of the Catholic faith; and in the eyes of many it is the cathedral, not of the city of Rome, butof the entire world.7 Its unparalleled prestige is due in part to its great antiquity, in part tothe preciousness of the relics it contains, but above all to its close associations with the institution of the papacy. Built over the tomb of the apostle Peter, it is the Petrine monu­ment par excellence, an embodiment in stone of the belief in the apostolic succession from Christ through Peter to the bishop of Rome that is the doctrinal rock on which Roman Catholicism is based.

St. Peter’s was founded around the year 320 by the Emperor Constantine. The original fourth-century structure survived more or less intact until 1506, when Pope Ju liu s II (1503-13), judging it dilapidated beyond repair, determined to tear it down and replace it with a majestic new edifice of modern design. The construction of new St. Peter’s took over a hundred years to complete.8 It was the most ambitious artistic undertaking of the Renaissance, and one with obvious political and propagandists significance. The project coincided with a turbulent period in the history of the papacy, a period defined by the

1 Baglione, 1642, p. 1. 2 Pichi, 1782, p. 9, citing Baronius.3 Fontana, 1694, p. 406. 4 Lassels, 1670, p. 47.5 Raymond, 1648, p. 87. 6 Alveri, 1664, II, p. 157.7 For example, Bralion, 1655—59, I, pp. 269—70: “Certes il semble que cette Eglise seule ait une dignite si

ample & si eminente, quelle l ’esleve au dessus de toutes les autres; car au lieu quelle n’est pas ainsi queS. lean Latran, la Cathedrale du Pape, pour l Fvesche particulier de Rome, elle l est en quelque fat,onpour toute la Terre.” In a similar vein, Totti (1637, p. 9) characterizes St. Peter’s as "Capo, Maestra, e M adre di tutte le Chiese del Mondo.” On the relationship between St. Peters and the cathedral of Rome, S. Giovanni in Laterano, see Freiberg, 1995, pp. 177—90.

8 The literature on the histoiy of the construction is vast, but see in particular Wolff Mettemich, 1972; 1975; and with Thoenes, 1987. See also Hibbard, 1971, pp. 65—74, 155—88; Frommel, 1976; Francia, 1977; 1989 (a); Carpiceci, 1983; 1987; Ackerman, 1986, pp. 193-220, 317-24; Thoenes, 1986; 1992 (a); 1992 (b); The Renauuance from B runelleochi to M ichelangelo, 1994, pp. 395—423, 598—671 (with extensive additional bibliography).

1

2 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

start of the Protestant Reformation, the Sack of Rome in 1527, the Council of Trent, and the institution of the policies and strategies of the Counter Reformation. As the new basil­ica, with its massive cupola and its broad facade, rose slowly over the Roman skyline, it must have seemed a defiant symbol of a resurgent and triumphant Catholic Church.

Even before the building was finished, the popes turned their attention to the outfitting and decoration of its interior. Readying the altars to accommodate liturgical activity was the first order of business. Already by the late sixteenth centuiy, a number of altars were installed and a handful of them provided with permanent altarpieces. But it was only in the seventeenth centuiy, after construction finally came to a end, that the majority of the altars - including the apse altar and the many side altars in the nave chapels, transept chapels, and corner chapels - were assigned titles, equipped with relics, and furnished with appropriate images reflecting their dedications. This book is a history of the altars and altarpieces of the new basilica, with particular emphasis on the group of altarpieces commissioned and installed in the half-century immediately following the completion of construction. The series begins with Guercino’s Burial o f St. PetronilLi, executed between 1621 and 1623, and concludes with Algardi’s St. Leo altarpiece and Bernini’s Cathedra Petri, erected over the last two altars still without permanent altarpieces. Although the former was commissioned by Pope Gregory XV (1621-23) and the latter two by Popes Innocent X (1644—55) and Alexander VII (1655-67) respectively, it was in fact Pope Urban VIII (1623—44) who was chiefly responsible for the campaign to outfit the altars of the new basilica. Shortly after his election, eager to leave his mark on the foremost church in Christendom, he directed "that images be made for every altar in St. Peter’s. ”9 The twenty-one years of the Barberini pontificate saw the creation of more than two dozen major altarpieces and related works of art. It is hard to exaggerate the significance of the achievement. Probably never before or since have so many top-ranking artists been involved in a single enterprise of this kind. When the campaign was at its peak, in the sec­ond half of the 1620s and the first half of the 1630s, a visitor to St. Peter’s might have encountered, in addition to Gianlorenzo Bernini directing the construction of the bal- da cch in o , an y num ber of ce leb rated p a in ters , am ong them G iovanni Lanfranco , Domenichino, Guido Reni, Simon Vouet, Andrea Sacchi, Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Valentin, G iovanni Baglione, C avaliere d ’Arpino, Domenico Passignano, Agostino Ciampelli, Gaspare Celio, Paolo Guidotti, Antonio Pomarancio, Spadarino, Angelo Caroselli, Andrea Camassei, and Gianfrancesco Romanelli, all of whom held com­missions there during those years.

The spirit of competition as much as the prestige of the site brought out the best in most of these artists, and the works they produced for St. Peter’s include a striking per­centage of masterpieces familiar to eveiy student of Roman Baroque art. Some of the altarpieces have, of course, received considerable art historical attention before now. The tendency, however, has been to study them individually, usually in the context of a partic­ular artist's oeuvre. The premise of this book is that, commissioned as they were as part of a concerted campaign to outfit the new basilica, the altarpieces of St. Peter’s are best con­sidered collectively. Only by investigating them as a group, reconstructing the historical, physical, liturgical, and devotional contexts for which they were created, can we appreci­ate the multiplicity of factors involved in realizing a project of such magnitude. Adopting an approach of this kind, we confront certain fundamental questions. In a church from which private patronage was barred, who were in charge of overseeing the campaign, and what agenda did they promote? What principles governed the distribution of titles among the various altars, and how was it determined which dedications were perpetuated from

9 " . . . e mente di Nostro Signore si facciano le imagini a tutti li altar di S. Pietro" (Poliak, no. 74).

I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

the old basilica and which were introduced for the first time in the new? How were the subjects of the altarpieces chosen, and to what extent did they reflect a coordinated mono­graphic program? Who selected the artists, monitored their progress, and assessed their finished works? What did it mean to be assigned an altarpieee in St. Peter’s, and what effect did it have on the future development of Baroque art that so many of the most tal­ented painters of the day contributed to the project, working in close proximity and in conditions bound to foster creative exchange? In tackling these and other questions of the kind, we not only gain insight into the history and meaning of an important group of images commissioned for the mother church of Catholicism, but in broader terms extend our understanding of the intricate connections between art, religion, and the cultural poli­cies of the papacy in early modern Rome.

The topic is a large one, and I have had to limit it in certain ways. For example, I have omitted a detailed analysis of the bronze baldachin Bernini erected over the high altar in the crossing, in part because the high altar, with its papal privilege, is distinct from the other altars and its history in certain ways independent from theirs, and in part because the baldacchino has already been the subject of several in-depth investigations.10 For similar reasons, I have excluded from my discussion the altars of Helen, Longinus, Andrew, and Veronica in the vacre grotte, linked as they are to the decoration of the high altar and cross­ing p iers.11 The mosaics adorning the vaults of the side aisles and corner chapels are another aspect of the basilica’s decoration that I have treated only superficially. Although these mosaics often reflect the dedications of the altars and the subjects of the altarpieces nearest them, it should be noted that most of them are of a later date. Thus, while a knowledge of the altars and altarpieces is crucial to an understanding of the vault decora­tions, the reverse is not necessarily true.12 While restricting the scope of my investigation in these areas, I have expanded it in another, devoting an entire chapter to the vopraporti, the series of six large altarpiece-like paintings over the doors in the navipiccole. Conceived and produced at the same time as the altarpieces, these images constituted an essential extension of the iconographic and artistic program and need to be included in any discus­sion of the campaign as a whole.

Few buildings have been as intensively studied as St. Peter’s. Yet for all the countless books and articles that have been devoted to it, there are still important aspects of its con­struction and design, its decoration and furnishings, its function and identity that have yet to be explored. This book, I hope, will supply one missing chapter. But the fascination of the monument is inexhaustible, and its power to engender fresh questions seemingly unlimited. “You can come here every day of your life, and never risk w earying of it," wrote Charles de Brosse in the mid-eighteenth century; “there is always some new obser­vation to be made.”13 Henry Jam es perhaps came closer to the heart of the matter. “They went a great deal to St. Peter’s, and M ary ” — the gentle heroine of Roderick Huchon - "easily recognised that [to enter the basilica and] find oneself a mere sentient point in that bril­liant immensity, was an act that had its w ay of remaining a thrill.”14

10 On the baldacchitio, see in particular Thelen, 1967 (b); I. Lavin, 1968; 1984; Kirwin, 1981; Schiitze, 1994, esp. pp. 219—55. Additional bibliography is cited in Schiitze, 1994, p. 219, n. 20.

11 On the four altars at the bases of the crossing piers, and their matching altarpieces by Andrea Sacchi, see I. Lavin, 1968; Sutherland Harris, 1977, pp. 71-74 and pis. 63—66. In addition, on the statues in the crossing piers, see Fransolet, 1933; Preimesberger, 1983; 1989; 1993.

12 For a useful if somewhat perfunctoiy treatment of the mosaic decoration of St. Peter’s, see DiFederico,1983.

13 "Vous pouvez y venir tous les jours de votre vie, sans crainte de vous en lasser; il y a toujours quelquenouvelle remarque a faire.” (Brosse, 1931, II, p. 155.)

14 Roderick Hudson, chpt. XVIII.

P A R T O N E

The Early History of the Altars in St. Peter s

Throughout the text and catalogue, numbers in square brackets refer either to the plan of new St. Peter’s illustrated in Figure 2 or, when so indicated, to the Alfarano plan of old St. Peter’s illustrated in Figure 3.

C H A P T E R O N E

THE C O N G R E G A T I O N A N D THE C H A P T E R

t o *

A HISTORY of the altars and altarpieces in St. Peter’s must necessarily take into account the two groups of churchmen who, under the guidance and supervision of the pope, were largely responsible for shaping it. One was the Congregation of the Fab-

brica of St. Peter’s, a powerful committee of cardinals and other prelates whose job it was to supervise the construction, outfitting, and physical maintenance of the new basilica, as well as to administer the financial and legal aspects of the enterprise. The other was the Chapter of St. Peter’s, comprising the nearly one hundred priests and clerics who had charge of the liturgical and ceremonial life of the basilica. The responsibilities of the Con­gregation and of the Chapter rarely overlapped, and while the building was under con­struction the two organizations had little to do with one another. But when it came to fur­nishing the interior, and especially to developing a plan for the designation and decoration of the altars, their separate worlds converged, necessitating for a time their close collabo­ration. Since both organizations will figure prominently in this study, it seems appropriate to begin with a brief account of the history, constitution, and function of each.

THE C O N G R E G A Z I O N E D E L L A R E V E R E N D A F A B B R I C A DI S A N P IE T R O

The Fabbrica di San Pietro came into being with the laying of the foundation stone of the new basilica in 1506.1 It began as a loosely knit, loosely defined organization, without a constitution and without a central administration. The word “Fabbrica” — literally "Build­ing" or “Construction” — was used in a general sense to apply to all persons, offices, and activities in any w ay connected with the financing and construction of the new basilica, and thus covered everything from the soliciting of funds in far-off lands to the stockpiling of travertine blocks at the building site.

As the building campaign accelerated, putting a growing strain on papal resources, it became necessary to coordinate the multiple activities of the Fabbrica under a central

1 On the history of the Fabbrica di S. Pietro, see Vespignani, 1762; Renazzi, 1793; Nicolai, 1817; Moroni, 1840-79, ><!> “Congregazione della Reverenda Fabbrica di S. Pietro,’’ XVI, pp. 199—206; Del Re, 1969; Rietbergen, 1983, esp. pp. 121—23; Basso, 1987—88.

8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

administration. In 1510, Pope Ju liu s II appointed a commission of prelates "to preside over the great work, and to collect the donations of the faithful for so pious and praiseworthy an enterprise.”2 He invested this commission with extraordinary powers and privileges, enabling it to collect the vast sums of money needed to pay for his ambitious undertaking. The Fabbrica’s fund-raising activities included the widespread sale of indulgences; a net­work of representatives in Italy and throughout Europe was authorized to offer indul­gences to all who donated money toward the rebuilding of the basilica. The commission also had exclusive rights to the proceeds from the sale of certain dispensations, including age dispensations to candidates for the priesthood and matrimonial dispensations to unlaw­fully consanguinous couples. It had the right to inspect the personal finances of priests, and to confiscate any money or possessions judged to have been acquired by illegal or improper means. It had access to the wills and fiduciary testaments of all residents of the Papal States and the Regno of Naples, in order to ascertain whether or not they contained legacies left for religious or charitable purposes. A fifth part of all so-called pious legacies (legati p ii) went directly into the coffers of the Fabbrica; furthermore, if any such pious legacy was wrongly or ambiguously worded, if the heirs failed to execute it within a year of the testa­tor’s death, if the will was contested, or if it involved any irregularity whatsoever, the Fab­brica was free to appropriate the entire amount for its own purposes.3 Finally, the Fabbrica received considerable income from the so-called Crusade, a tax levied by the kings of Spain and Portugal, a percentage of which was handed over to Rome, nominally to support the Church’s struggle against infidels and heretics, but in fact to help pay for the building of St. Peter’s.4 Throughout the period under discussion, the portion of the Crusade set aside for the pope remained fairly constant, with Spain undertaking to contribute about 100,000 gold ocudi every six years and Portugal roughly three-quarters as much.5

In 1523, Clement VII instituted a committee of sixty prelates - the so-called College of S ixty — to direct the Fabbrica’s activities.6 The College included representatives from every Christian nation; and to maintain its international character, whenever a member died he was replaced by a compatriot. Clement realized that in order to finance the con­struction of new St. Peter’s he had to have the participation of the entire Catholic commu­nity. This was becoming all the more imperative in the wake of Protestant attacks against the Fabbrica and its fundraising methods, especially its notorious policy of marketing indulgences. There was, in fact, growing resentment against Rome for what was widely perceived as nothing more than a new form of taxation. The pope needed to defuse the fears and encourage the generosity of the faithful outside Italy. By placing the Fabbrica’s business in the hands of a multinational committee, he hoped to remind them that "this sacred and sublime temple to the blessed Peter is not ours, nor does it belong to any one people, but to all Christian nations in common.”7

In the ensuing years, the Fabbrica’s rights and prerogatives were strengthened and

2 " . . . [per] presiedere al gran lavoro, e raccogliere le oblazioni de’ fedeli per una si pia, e lodevole opera.” (Renazzi, 1793, p. 1; cited by Del Re, 1969, p. 289.)

3 Moroni, 1840—79, XVI, p. 200; Del Re, 1969, p. 289; Rietbergen, 1983, pp. 121-23, 127—28; Basso, 1987-88, I, pp. 110-13.

A Moroni, 1840—79, ,w "Bolla della Crociata,” V, p. 283; Rietbergen, 1983, pp. 122—23; Basso, 1987-88, I, pp. 107-10.

3 Bullarium Romanum, 1857—72, XI, pp. 557—58, 610—11; XIII, p. 283; XV pp. 674—75. The arrangement remained in effect even during the period known as the Sixty Years of Captivity, between 1580 and 1640, when the Spanish king sat on the throne ol Portugal.

3 Moroni, 1840-79, XVI, p. 200; Del Re, 1969, pp. 289-90.7 ”. . . hoc sacrum et sublime B. Petri templum non nostri, neque cuiusquam esse proprium, sed omnium

christianarum nationum commune . . . . ’’ (Bullarium Romanum, VI, p. 48.)

CHAPTER ONE / T H E C O N G R E G A T I O N A N D T H E C H A P T E R 9

increased. The College of S ix ty w as answ erab le to no one other than the pope. It employed its own judge and was allowed to t iy all legal cases in which it was involved.8 Since its various money-making activities frequently resulted in litigation, the Fabbrica relied heavily on this privilege. That the Fabbrica had jurisdiction in all lawsuits in which it was a party may not have been fair but was certainly efficient, and discouraged those who might otherwise have initiated long drawn-out legal proceedings against it.

In 1589, Sixtus V put an end to the virtual autonomy of the College of S ixty by placing it under the direction of the cardinal archpriest of St. Peter’s basilica, then Giovanni Evangelista Pallotta.9 The move suggests that Sixtus wanted to tighten his control over the Fabbrica. As construction accelerated in the fourth quarter of the sixteenth century, it was becoming increasingly clear that the College was a bulky and unwieldy institution, too large to administer the Fabbrica effectively. Eventually, it was abolished altogether, and in its place was put a small but powerful Congregation of cardinals and prelates, equipped to assist the papacy in its drive to complete the new basilica.10

It was Leo XI who, during his month-long papacy, made the first moves toward thecreation of the Congregation of the Fabbrica.11 Leo died before his plan could be put into effect, but Paul V picked up where he had left off, and within a month of his election on M ay 16, 1605, had established the Congregation and appointed three cardinals to it.12 Cardinal Pallotta remained in charge, and Cardinals Giustiniani and Arrigoni served under him.13 Over the next couple of decades, the membership was gradually increased until by 1623 there were ten cardinals on the Congregation. Thereafter, and throughout the period covered in this study, the number remained more or less constant.14

One cardinal was put in charge of the Congregation as a whole. His title was that of Prefect, although in the first decades of the seventeenth century he was more often called simply i l capo della Congregazione. Between 1605 and 1679, there were six different directors of the Fabbrica. Cardinal Pallotta, appointed by Sixtus V to head the College of S ixty in 1589, retained the directorship of the Fabbrica until his death in 1620. He was succeeded by Cardinals Giustiniani (died 1621), Del Monte (died 1626), Ginnasi (died 1639), Lante

8 Del Re, 1969, pp. 289-90; Basso, 1987-88, I, pp. 119-21.9 Moroni, 1840-79, XVI, p. 201; Del Re, 1969, p. 291.

10 Moroni, 1840—79, XVI, p. 201; Del Re, 1969, p. 291. A Congregation, by definition, is Headed by a committee of cardinals and is the highest-ranking administrative unit in the Roman Curia. Thus the change was designed to increase the prestige and authority of the Fabbrica.

11 Grimaldi, p. 34: "Paulus quintus . . . congregationem aliquorum sanctae Romanae ecclesiae cardinalium ad Fabricae eius templi regimen, quam Leo undecimus Medices primus instituerat, sed XXVI dierum pontificatu ab hac luce subtractus, execution! non tradiderat; . . . Paulus quintus Burghesius confir- mavit, de novo instituit et ordinavit ad fabricam eius amplissimi templi absolvendam, eamque in tempo- ralibus gubemandam. Antea namque nonnulli Romanae curiae praelati ipsi Fabricae praeerant.”

12 Awioo of Ju n e 15, 1605: "Ha Sua Beatitudine eretto una nuova Congregatione de tre cardinal!, capo il cardinal Pallotta, sopra la fabrica di San Pietro et sabato si tenne per la prima volta (BAV, Urb. Lat. 1073, f. 327 v; transcribed by Orbaan, 1919, p. 33.) See also the previous note.

There is no formal bull of foundation; apparently Paul V created the Congregation by proclamation (ie. viva voce). The lack of a document has led to considerable confusion. A common misconception is that the Congregation was founded not by Paul V but by Clement VIII. This error seems to have origi­nated in 1751, in a bull issued by Benedict XIV, redefining the authority and composition of the Fab­brica, and has since been picked up and repeated in v irtually all of the literature on the Fabbrica, including, for example, Vespignani, 1762, p. 9; Moroni, 1840—79, XVI, p. 201; Del Re, 1969, p. 291; Rietbergen, 1983, p. 123; Basso, 1987—88, I, p. 47.

13 Awioo of Ju n e 18, 1605: "Oltre la Congregatione sudetta delli tre cardinali, cioe Pallotta, Justin iani et Arrigone, diputata per la fabrica di San Pietro come si e scritto . . . .” (BAV, Urb. Lat. 1073, f. 331; cited in Orbaan, 1919, p. 33.)

14 For a list of the cardinal members of the Congregation from 1605 to c. 1650, see Appendix I.

10 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

(died 1652), and Francesco Barberini (died 1679).15 Throughout this period, the leader­ship of the Congregation seems to have been entrusted to its oldest cardinal member.16

Under the cardinals were a varying number of high-ranking prelates who handled much of the administrative business of the Fabbrica. These men usually held prestigious office in other branches of the Curia: among them, for example, were the Auditor General of the Camera Apostolica, the Treasurer General, members of the Sacra Rota, and assorted bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs.

The Congregation generally convened at the palace of the cardinal-in-charge. At first, meetings were held at irregular intervals, and rarely more than three or four times a year. But Urban VIII wanted to speed things up, and in February 1625, he gave orders that the cardinals were to meet every fifteen days.17 His action reflects his intense interest in the basilica, and his impatience to bring its construction and decoration to completion. But the frequency of the meetings put a burden on the cardinal members, most of whom belonged to several congregations at once and had innumerable other demands on their time; not surprisingly, attendance varied considerably from one meeting to the next. Inevitably, the congregazion igenerali, or meetings of the full board of members, became less and less frequent, while the congregazion i picco/e or particolari, those at which only the cardi­nal capo and a few lesser functionaries were in attendance, became more common. Not until the middle of the 1630s, however, did the congregazioni partico lari begin to outnumber the congregazioni genera/i; in the period with which we are chiefly concerned, most of the Fabbrica’s business was conducted at meetings of the congregazionegenerate.

The Congregation s rights and responsibilities were much the same as those of the Col­lege of Sixty, although in the wake of the Counter Reformation its methods for raising money differed somewhat. The sale of indulgences and dispensations, formerly sanctioned by papal policy, was now frowned on, and although it was not entirely abandoned, it yielded only a tiny portion of the Fabbrica’s budget in the seventeenth centuiy. The Cru­sade, too, was unreliable, since all too often Spain and Portugal failed to deliver the promised sums. To make up for these losses in revenue, the Congregation relied more heavily than ever on the proceeds from pious legacies. Notaries were obliged to inform the Fabbrica every time they drew up a will that included a pious legacy, so that the Fabbrica could lay claim to its fair share. If they failed to do so, they were subject to fines. The Fab­brica had agents in every major town in the Papal States and Regno, who kept an eye on the notaries and saw to it that they did not cheat the Fabbrica.18 In addition, the Fabbrica financed certain of its major undertakings, such as the construction of the nave, the facade, and the porticoes of the piazza, by taking out loans.19

15 It is often assumed that after Sixtus V appointed Pallotta, who was cardinal archpriest of St. Peter's, to head the Fabbrica, the two positions, namely, those of archpriest and "capo” of the Fabbrica, were always filled by one and the same man. Thus Cardinal Scipione Borghese, who succeeded Pallotta as archpriest, is often said to have directed the Congregation in the years between Pallotta s death and his own in 1633 (Del Re, 1969, p. 300; Rietbergen, 1983, p. 12-4; Basso, 1987-88, I, p. 71). The mistake is understandable, given the fact that the bull appointing Borghese archpriest named him “Fabricae . . . Protectorem , & Superiorem” (Collection!.i Bullarum, 1747—52, III, p. 226). Nevertheless, although he was a member of the Congregation from 1620, Borghese never directed it. The two jobs became offi­cially linked only in 1652, when the then cardinal archpriest Francesco Barberini was appointed Pre­fect of the Congregation. Thereafter the two positions were always held by a single incumbent.

16 Lunadoro, 1650, p. 360: “. . . fanno Congregatione . . . in casa del cardinale piu antiano di questi [cardinal!].”17 See Chapter 4 and Doc. Appendix, no. 6. A similar decree had been issued on 28 November 1622

(AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3—159a, f. 50), and another similar decree was issued under Alexander VII (Riet­bergen, 1983, p. 125).

>8 Moroni, 1840-79, XVI, p. 202; Del Re, 1969, pp. 293-94; Rietbergen, 1983, pp. 128-29.19 Orbaan, 1919, p. 64; Rietbergen, 1983, pp. 138—41.

CHAPTER ONE / T H E C O N G R E G A T I O N A N D T H E C H A P T E R 11

By the seventeenth century the Fabbrica had developed into a finely tuned and effi­cient organization consisting of two distinct branches, one that handled the financial and legal side of the business, and the other that managed the building itself. Each branch was administered separately by its own staff of salaried officers who were appointed by the Congregation to oversee the Fabbrica’s day-to-day operations.

The staff of the financial-legal branch of the Fabbrica was headed by the economo, or steward, and included a secretary who also served as a notary, an accountant, a judge, a lawyer, an archivist, a scribe, and two chaplains.20 The economo worked closely with the cardinals in charge of the Congregation. He attended their meetings and took the minutes, handled their correspondence, and reported to them on the activities of the Fabbrica’s farflung agents and representatives. He also coordinated the activities of the two branches of the Fabbrica, arranging the transfer of moneys from one to the other and communicat­ing the cardinals’ instructions to the Architect and his underlings.

The other branch of the Fabbrica was headed by the Architect. He provided designs when necessary and maintained artistic control over the building as a whole. Second in command was the oopraotante, or superintendent, who oversaw the workers, recorded their hours, ordered and inspected building materials, and kept accounts of the cost of those materials. In this he was helped by the faltore, or factor, who in addition was responsible for distributing the tools and materials and for doling out the workmen’s wages.21 The Architect, the superintendent, and the factor were salaried officers.22 Under them worked teams of skilled craftsmen, including masons, stonecarvers, stuccoists, gilders, carpenters, and metal workers. These teams were paid on the basis of piecework. They presented their accounts to the Architect who, together with the superintendent and the factor, care­fully measured and appraised all work before approving payment. In addition, there were scores of unskilled laborers in the employ of the Fabbrica, paid according to the number of qiornate they worked. Finally, a small number of convicts were sentenced to hard labor in the service of the Fabbrica, and were paid nothing at all.23

The Congregation united both arms of the Fabbrica under its single authority. The minutes of its fortnightly meetings bear witness to the range and diversity of its affairs. The basilica itself was only one part of the cardinals' agenda, albeit an important one. At any given meeting, they might be called on to respond to a case of litigation brought against the Fabbrica by a private citizen hoping to protect his inheritance; an accusation of corruption against one of its commissioners in Naples; a report from the Fabbrica’s agent in Ancona about a consignment of bronze; a criminal case involving an employee of the Fabbrica arrested on charges of assault; or a request for charitable assistance from the widow of a workman killed on the job.

Yet clearly it was in its supervision of the construction and decoration of the new basil­ica that the Congregation made its most lasting contribution. From the moment the Con­gregation came into being in 1605, the cardinal members assumed a degree of artistic con­trol not even aspired to by their predecessors in the College of Sixty. One might have thought that, as the building neared completion, the Congregation’s role would have diminished. In fact the contrary was true. While construction was in progress, the day-to- day operation of the Fabbrica could be left in the hands of the Architect, whose models

20 See Appendix II.21 AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1—no. 20, ff. 346—46v (“Del offitio del fattore’,); ff. 347—48 (“Sopra 1 offitio del

soprastante, et fattore”).22 See Appendix II.23 On the organization and activities of the artistic branch of the Fabbrica, see, in addition to the litera­

ture cited in n. 1 above, Ackerman, 1954, p. 5; Tratz, 1988, esp. pp. 422—27; Anselmi, 1991, pp. 272-80.

12 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

and drawings had been approved in advance. But as the focus of activity shifted from building to furnishing the church, increasingly the decisions that had to be made fell out­side the competence of the Architect and required the attention of the Congregation.

One further point needs making. A number of churches in Rome and throughout Italy had their own permanent fabbriche, organizations founded originally to oversee the con­struction of the buildings and later perpetuated to finance and supervise their mainte­nance. But no other fabbrica was as influential in determining the physical and sacral char­acter of a church as the Fabbrica of St. Peters. The reason is simple. In new St. Peter’s, private patronage (i.e. nonpapal patronage) was excluded. Thus, the paintings, sculptures, stuccos, inscriptions, pavements, and other decorations, which in any other church would be commissioned by private individuals or families or institutions of one kind or another, in St. Peter’s were commissioned by the Fabbrica or, to be more precise, by the Congrega­tion in charge of the Fabbrica, acting on behalf of the pope.

The ban on private patronage is spelled out in no known edict or bull. Yet that it existed, and was recognized universally, is evidenced by the total absence of privately owned chapels, altars, and burial vaults in the new basilica. The policy seems to have been formulated at the outset of Paul V ’s pontificate, in other words, at around the time that the Congregation of the Fabbrica came into being. It is plausible, indeed, that the ban on pri­vate patronage and the creation of the Congregation were related events, the one necessi­tating the other. For with private patronage disallowed, some other system of patronage had to be devised to cope with the myriad decisions involved in completing and outfitting the basilica. Obviously, the pope could not direct the operation entirely on his own; he needed competent representatives to carry out the work in his name. The Congregation of cardinals, educated, cultivated, and committed to the goals of the papacy, was ideally suited for the purpose.

TH E C H A P T E R O F ST . P E T E R ’S

The Chapter of St. Peter’s was composed of beneficed clergy whose duty it was to attend to the day-to-day liturgical running of the basilica.24 They said masses at its altars; recited the Divine Office at the appropriate hours of the day in their private chapel off the nave; performed baptisms, funerals, and other functions of the sort; and took part in papal cere­monies in St. Peter’s. On certain feast days and holidays, they attended the festivities in various other churches in Rome, and they participated in the major processions and cam l- ca te that played such an important part in the ceremonial life of the Baroque city.25

24 On the history, constitution, and duties of the Chapter of St. Peter’s, see Grimaldi, pp. 346—49; Mar- torelli, 1792; Moroni, 1840—79, ae “Chiese di Roma. S. Pietro in Vaticano,” XII, pp. 302—327; Reynolds, 1982, pp. 218—47; Schmidtbauer, 1986; 1987; Montel, 1988-89; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 621-30.

25 The diaries of the Chapter’s .Master of Ceremonies Andrea Amici are lull of references to the festivals and processions in which the clergy participated. For example, on November 30, 1622: “Questa mattina finito il nostro Offitio in Coro si e fatta una bella, e numerosa cavalcata, con l ’occasione, che il Signor Niccolo Ludovisio nipote di Nostro Signore ha sposato la Principessa di Venosa" (BAV, ACSP, Diari 11, p. 117). On one occasion, a procession turned into a fiasco when it started to pour with rain right in the middle of it: “. . . siamo stati forzati dalla pioggia grande di fermarci alii Cesarini, chi in un portico, e chi nell’altro, e dopo havere aspettato un gran pezzo, e visto, che la pioggia non cessava, con cattivissima risolutione, e malissimo esempio, tutti li Canonici, e anco una parte de’ Beneficiati, et Clerici fatto venire le carrozze, entrati in esse se ne sono andati alia volta di S. Pietro ben serrati nelle medesime carrozze, lasciando il sinicchio, e la croce con quelli pochi Beneficiati, Clerici, ed altri ministri quasi tutti dipersi." (Dlari 10, p. 538.) A more pleasant outing took place on M ay 2, 1615, when the entire Chapter went on a weekend trip to Castel Porziano (near Ostia) to consecrate a chapel recently built by Pietro Strozzi, a

CHAPTER ONE / T H E C O N G R E G A T I O N A N D T H E C H A P T E R 13

The Chapter of St. Peter’s prided itself on its great antiquity. As early as the fifth cen- tuiy, there existed a body of clergy that devoted itself to the physical and ritual mainte­nance of the basilica.26 Over the centuries, the Chapter grew in size, until by the sixteenth century it had developed into a highly structured organization with a fixed membership, c learly defined rules and responsibilities, and a host of jealously guarded privileges. Thereafter, for at least two hundred years, the Chapter changed little. Headed by the car­dinal archpriest of St. Peter’s, it consisted of three ranks of clergy. The first in order of importance were the canons, of whom there were thirty; next came the beneficia ti who numbered thirty-six; and finally the twenty-six ch ierici beneficia ti In addition, there were four cappellani Innocenziani named after Pope Innocent VIII, whose rank was equivalent to that of the beneficiati'17 and usually one or two supernumeraries appointed to the Chapter in an honorary capacity.28 Thus the Chapter’s total membership fell just shy of one hun­dred.

A position in the Chapter was considered highly desirable. It was well paid, presti­gious, and probably not too demanding. The appointment was for life, if the incumbent so desired; but often it served merely as a stepping stone to higher office. M any canons went on to become bishops, archbishops, and cardinals.29 The Chapter included repre­sentatives of the leading noble families, such as the Aldobrandini, the Caffarelli, the Cesarini, the Muti, and the Cibo. M any of these families had long-standing ties with the Chapter, and their names show up in its registers generation after generation.30 But there were others from obscurer backgrounds, who had in one w ay or another earned the favor of the pope and his family.31 For example, Urban VIII made his personal physician Giulio Mancini a canon.32 Lucas Holstenius, the Barberini librarian and a leading mem­ber of Cardinal Francesco’s entourage, received the same honor.33 The fashionable com­poser Stefano Landi, whose patrons included the Borghese and the Barberini, was first assigned a lucrative chaplaincy by Gregory XV, and later made a ch ierico beneficiato by Urban VIII.34

member of the Chapter. The group, accompanied by four singers (soprano, alto, tenor, and bass), was taken by carriage to the banks of the Tiber, and then by boat downstream to their destination. They brought with them a relic of the True Cross (the chapel was in honor of St. Helen) and placed it in the altar; the formalities over, they had a picnic on the beach (ibid., pp. 260-62).

26 Martorelli, 1792, pp. 1-55; Moroni, 1840-79, XII, pp. 303-17; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 454-55, 517-20.27 On the cappellani Innocenziani, see Chapter 5 and Cat. 5 (a).28 For example, in 1624 the pope made W ladislaus, crown prince of Poland, an honoraiy canon of St.

Peter’s, to reward him for his stalwart defense of Catholicism (BAV, ACSP, Decreti 12, f. 51; C ollections Bullarum, 1747-52, III, pp. 236-37).

29 During the first half of the seventeenth centuiy alone, at least two dozen canons, including Metello Bichi, Cesare Gherardi, Angelo Giorio, Marcantonio Gozzadino, Agostino Oreggi, Stefano Pignatelli, Fausto Poli, and Roberto Ubaldini, were elevated to the cardmalate. See BAV, ACSP, H95, ff. 12v-87v; Torrigio, 1635, pp. 611—13; Schmidtbauer, 1986, pp. 276—78.

30 On the social makeup of the Chapter, see Schmidtbauer, 1986, especially pp. 280—91. Certain families clearly had what amounted to a prerogative of membership. Thus, for example, on March 21, 1630: "In solita capella Reliquiarum in sacrario, a Reverendissimis Dominis Canonicis per resignationem Domini Innocentij Cybi admissus fuit Benefitiatus in eius locum Dominus Dominicus Cybo eius nepos.’’ (BAV, ASCP, Turni 13, f. 297v.)

31 For complete membership lists, see BAV, ACSP, Diitribuzioni rn ersili32 Mancini assumed the post in Jan uary 1626. It has been suggested that he received the canoniy as a

reward for seeing Urban safely through the illness that attacked him immediately after his election (Mancini, 1923, p. 11), but if so he had to wait a couple of years, perhaps for a vacancy to open up.

33 Pastor, 1924-53, XXIX, p. 443.34 Panofsky-Soergel, 1984, pp. 108—10. For more on Stefano Landi, see Chapter 8 and Cat. 11, esp. n. 14.

14 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Members of the Chapter received a monthly salary, the amount of which varied according to their rank. Before the sixteenth centuiy, the clergy squabbled amongst them­selves over the distribution of resources. Ju liu s II put an end to the bickering by introduc­ing a system whereby the Chapter’s income was divided in such a w ay that each canon received one amount, each beneficiato one half of that amount, and each cbierico one-quarter of that amount.35 During the 1620s, the canons earned about 65 ocudi per month, the bene­f i t ia ti about 33 Midi, and the ch ierici about 16 o cu d i^

The Chapter’s wealth, amassed over many centuries, was enormous. The basilica had always attracted generous gifts from the faithful. At the ve iy outset, Constantine, the basilica’s founder, had endowed it with huge gifts of land.37 Thereafter, donations both large and small continued to pour in. In the later M iddle Ages, the Chapter’s assets increased dramatically, as the practice of bequeathing money or land to pay for masses of private intention, usually on behalf of the soul of the donor, gained in popularity.38 To give but two examples, in 1342 Napoleone Orsini left the Chapter nearly one thousand acres of agricultural lands, the revenues from which were to pay for the saying of soul-masses and the upkeep of the a ltar of St. M artia l.39 N early a century later, O rsina Orsini bequeathed 2,000 gold florins for a similar purpose.40 As late as the seventeenth centuiy, the tradition of providing for soul-masses was still active. In 1619, Cardinal Odoardo Far- nese presented the Chapter with the sum of 3,000 ocadi for an annual mass to be said in perpetuity on behalf of his own soul and those of his parents.41 Two years later, in 1621, Antonio M aria Aldobrandini, himself a canon of the basilica, donated 1,300 ocudi for the saying of masses at the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian.42

The C hapter’s assets came in various forms. The Chapter w as the single largest landowner in the Roman campagna, or indeed anywhere in the Papal States. Its proper­ties included twenty-three caoali, more than a hundred vigne, and over a hundred thou­sand acres.43 By one estimate, the Chapter owned as much as 12.5 percent of the total arable and grazing land in the cam pagna .44 In addition, it owned rich, crop-producing monasteries as far afield as Viterbo, Ravenna, Salerno, and Calabria. In Rome itself, it owned about three hundred buildings, most of which it rented out. Finally, it had over20,000 ocudi invested in nwntii45 The revenues from all of this property and capital came to an average of 60,000 ocudi annually, most of which went directly into the members’ salaries.46

The Chapter’s business was taken care of at weekly meetings. Ju s t as the meetings of the Congregation were held at the palace of the cardinal in charge, so the Chapter’s

35 Martorelli, 1792, p. 243; Moroni, 1840-79, XII, p. 318.36 See BAV, ACSP, Du'tribtczioni merutili 68, unfoliated. Grimaldi (p. 348) gives a slightly higher estimate

for the members’ salaries: 900 ocud i annually for the canons, 440 for the beneficiati, and 230 for the ch ier ici beneficia ti

37 Krautheimer, 1980, p. 20. 38 On this subject, see Chapter 2.39 See Cat. 15, n. 12. 40 See Cat. 15, n. 13.4' BAV, ACSP, Decreti 11, ff. 196-196v; D iari 11, p. 78.42 See Cat. 11, n. 11. 43 Grimaldi, p. 348.44 I am indebted to M irka Benes for providing me with this statistic, which she derived from information

contained in BAV, Chigi H.III.64 (Compendia o ' cero indice de ca<falieouitenti n e l terrihrrui rornano deciato aliaSantUa diN.S. Alexandra VII). See also Coste, 1971; 1973; Montel, 1971; 1979-85.

45 Grimaldi, p. 348.46 The records lor 1627, for example, show that of an estimated net income of 59,373 ocudi, at least 41,478

ocud i was set aside for the members (BAV, ACSP, Inven ta ri 32, unfoliated). See also Schmidtbauer, 1987, especially pp. 322—27.

CHAPTER ONE / T H E C O N G R E G A T I O N A N D T H E C H A P T E R 15

meetings took place at the palace of the cardinal archpriest — in other words, throughout most of period with which we are chiefly concerned, “in aedibus lllustrissim i ac Rev- erendissimi Cardinalis Scipionis Burghesij Archipresbyteri. ”47 Obviously not all ninety- six members attended these meetings; a group of about fifteen officers was appointed annually to represent the Chapter as a whole. These officers discussed everything from the roster of duties in St. Peter’s to the administration of the Chapter's lands and other assets. In a w ay more illuminating, though, is what they did not discuss. Anything that might be construed as the Fabbrica’s business they consistently omitted from their agenda, at least until the middle of the 1620s. Throughout the sixteenth century, as new St. Peter’s gradually took shape around them, the canons remained strangely silent. Despite the fact that the decisions being made at that time were inevitably going to affect them profoundly, they seem to have taken no part in the great debate over the size and design of the basilica, and expressed no reaction to the scores of models and ground plans presented by a succession of architects. They carried on performing their duties in the truncated remains of the old nave, just as though nothing were going on right next door. The canons’ oddly blinkered demeanor is typified by Onofrio Panvinio, a member of the Chapter, who in 1570 published a guide to the seven basilicas of Rome, in which he devoted nearly thirty pages to a detailed description of old St. Peter’s, but no more than a line or two to the new basilica.48

Nevertheless, the canons must have had a keen interest in the building destined to be their new domain. And if, for whatever reasons, they did not involve themselves openly in the Fabbrica’s affairs, they had other channels of communication available to them. For example, during the forty-six years that Alessandro Farnese was cardinal archpriest of St. Peter’s (1543—89), the Architects of the Fabbrica were, successively, Antonio da Sangallo, Michelangelo, and Giacomo della Porta, all of whom had close ties to the Far­nese family and to Cardinal Alessandro in particular; it would be surprising if, in the lat- ter’s frequent discussions with these architects, he failed to represent the interests of the Chapter.49 Farneses successor as archpriest, Cardinal Giovanni Evangelista Pallotta (1589-1620), was eventually put in charge of the Fabbrica, and was thus in an even bet­ter position to mediate between those who were designing and constructing the new basilica and those who would eventually use it. Cardinal Scipione Borghese, who served both as archpriest (1620-33) and on the Congregation, continued to provide a link between the two organizations. The extent to which the Chapter influenced, directly or indirectly, the design of new St. Peter’s has yet to be investigated, but was probably con­siderable. Paul V, for one, paid close attention to the canons’ needs: one of his chief motives for building the nave was to provide additional spaces to house the Chapter’s activities, including a private chapel in which the members could convene to recite the Divine Office; a sacristy where they could store their liturgical equipment and don their vestments; and a baptismal chapel.

After the Chapter moved into the new basilica in 1609, it continued to mind its own business and to have no official say in the activities of the Fabbrica. Only in the 1620s, when the time came to ready the basilica's altars, did the situation change. The altars clearly fell within the Chapter's purview; and although the cardinals tried at first to act on their own, they soon realized that they could accomplish little without the cooperation and participation of the canons. The histoiy of their collaboration will be explored in subse­

47 For example, see BAV, ACSP, D ecreti 12, f. lv. 48 Panvinio, 1570, pp. 51—79, esp. p. 58.49 Robertson, 1992, esp. p. 240.

16 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

quent chapters. Here, it need only be added that, even where the altars were concerned, there were distinctions to be drawn. The Chapter’s assistance was solicited only in the case of the side altars and apse altar^* The high altar over the tomb of the Apostles was a papal altar, reserved for ceremonies at which the pontiff was in attendance. It therefore fell outside the Chapter’s sphere, and the canons had no part in the decisions concerning its placement and decoration.

C H A P T E R T W O

F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. PETER'S

feM

THROUGHOUT most of the sixteenth century, there were two St. Peter’s, the old and the new, standing side by side. Large parts of the Constantinian building were demolished beginning in 1506, but about a third of the structure survived another one hun­

dred years after the laying of the foundation stone of the new basilica. This third, consisting of a 50-meter section of nave and side aisles, was sealed off from the elements, and from the construction going on all around it, by a dividing wall built by Paul III in 1538 (Figs. 10, 16, 18).1 Another, smaller fragment of the fourth-century church, comprising the high altar, apse, and flanking segments of transept wall, was similarly preserved, encased within a temporary protective structure in the crossing of the new basilica (Figs. 14-15).2

The dividing wall marked not only a physical boundary between new and old St. Peter’s, but an administrative one as well. The Fabbrica was in charge of everything to do with the construction of the new building. But the upkeep and maintenance of what was left of the Constantinian basilica was the responsibility of the Chapter. If its roof needed mending, if its windows needed replacement, if the numerous altars and tombs that crammed its interior needed refurbishing, it was up to the Chapter to make the appropri­ate arrangements and to pay all expenses.3 As long as there were two St. Peter’s, they con­tinued to be administered separately; the Chapter had virtually no say in matters pertain­ing to the new basilica, just as the Fabbrica had little or nothing to do with the old.

Liturgically, too, there was virtually no overlap between the two basilicas. It took sev­enty years from its foundation before even a portion of the new basilica was made suffi­ciently weatherproof to accommodate liturgical activity. Only under Gregory XIII, with the completion of the Cappella Gregoriana, were the first permanent altars installed in new St. Peter’s. Even then, the Gregoriana’s dome provided only a very partial umbrella against the weather: with the other three corner chapels and the main dome still unfin­

1 On the nuiro diviiorio, designed and built by Antonio da Sangallo, see Francia, 1977, pp. 50—52; Thoenes, 1992 (a).

2 Built in the guise of a Doric temple, the shelter lor the high altar and tomb of the Apostles was designed by Bramante and completed by Baldassare Peruzzi in 1513—14. See Shearman, 1974.

3 On the Chapter's role throughout the sixteenth century in the physical maintenance of old St. Peter’s, and of the works of art it contained, see Cascioli, 1923-26. Major repairs to the building were some­times funded by the pope (see nn. 44 and 85 below).

17

18 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

ished, nothing could have kept the rain and wind entirely out. In this inhospitable envi­ronment, normal church functions could not be conducted on a regular basis; and until the completion of the main dome in 1590 and the consecration of the new high altar in 1594, services were held in new St. Peter’s only on rare occasions.

Meanwhile the truncated Constantinian basilica continued to house the cult. Here the faithful came to receive the sacrament and to pray in the presence of the basilica’s principal relics. Here the clergy convened for the recital of the Divine Office, said masses, and ful­filled their other ritual obligations. Here, too, special ceremonies at which the pope officiated took place. For the canonization of Diego of Alcala in 1588, for example, a temporary teatro (a tapestry-lined enclosure large enough to accommodate the pope and the entire college of cardinals along with a considerable retinue) was set up in the nave of old St. Peter’s, and the service was carried out at a portable high altar positioned against the dividing wall.4

THE ALTARS IN OLD ST. PETER’S

The extant one-third of old St. Peter’s was crowded with altars, tombs, reliquaries, pul­pits, organs, and fonts. Some of these furnishings had been moved there from the two- thirds of the building already demolished. But even before the amputation of the transept and upper nave, the interior of old St. Peter’s must have given the impression of immense clutter. The floors were lined with tomb slabs; more elaborate sepulchral monuments crowded the side aisles and filled the chapels that clung like barnacles to the exterior of the church; frescoes and mosaics covered virtually every inch of wall; and even the columns were encrusted with memorials, images, and holy-water stoups. Above all there was an abundance of altars. They sprouted everywhere: in the transept, in the aisles, in the side chapels, along the interior facade, and even in the inter-columniations of the colonnades dividing the nave from the side aisles (Figs. 16—19). Alfarano lists about eighty-five altars in old St. Peter’s and the adjoining rotundi of S. Petronilla and S. Maria della Febbre, a number more or less confirmed by the Englishman John Capgrave, w rit­ing around 1450: "With inne the cherch of seynt petir be iiii score auteres and viii.”5 Other fourteenth-, fifteenth-, and sixteenth-centuiy descriptions make reference to as many as 105 altars.6 The exact number obviously varied over time as new altars were established and old ones, their endowments having run dry, were suppressed.

The history of the altars in old St. Peter’s is immensely complex. Suffice it to say that when it was first built, the basilica contained only a single shrine, over the tomb of the Apostle Peter. The rest of the vast interior was designed primarily as a covered cemetery and funeraiy hall, where Christians could be buried in proximity to the martyr and their families and associates could assemble for commemorative ceremonies and banquets.7 Later, in connection with this funeraiy function, the bodies of other venerated saints were transported to St. Peter’s, and shrines were set up in their honor. In the mid-eighth cen- tuiy, for example, the body of St. Petronilla was translated from the catacombs of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus and deposited in an altar erected in her honor in the rotunda attached to the south transept;8 a little over half a centuiy later the bodies of Peter’s jailers,

4 The event is recorded in a fresco by Cesare Nebbia and Giovanni Guerra in the Vatican Libraiy, illus­trated in Rasmussen, 1986, p. 122, fig. 2.

5 Capgrave, 1911, p. 62.6 Ibid., pp. 62-63, n. 2; Blaauw, 1994, II, p. 668, n. 303.7 Krautheimer, 1980, p. 26; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 493—503.8 Alfarano, pp. 135—37; Blaauw, 1994, II, p. 576.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 19

Sts. Processus and Martinian, were brought from the catacombs of St. Agatha on the Via Aurelia and reinterred in an altar in the southeast corner of the transept;9 an altar contain­ing the bodies of the apostles Simon and Ju d e is recorded at least as early as the twelfth century.10 M any popes were buried at St. Peter’s; and some of those who were recognized as saints, such as Leo I and Gregory the Great, had altars erected over their tombs.11

Beginning in the thirteenth century, the number of altars in St. Peter's increased dra­matically, the result of new devotional practices arising from the growing belief in the effi­cacy of the mass to ensure the salvation of the soul. In St. Peter’s, as in other churches in Italy and throughout Europe, private donors began founding and endowing chapels for perpetual masses on behalf of their souls after death. Provisions for the obligatory recital of soul-masses were called cappellaniae, literally chaplaincies, or to use the more familiar English term, ch an trie s .12 The phenomenon is described in G. H. Cook’s study of chantries in medieval England:

When a man died a mass was said for his soul by the parish priest and not infre­quently provision was made in money or in kind for further masses to be recited periodically and on the anniversary of his death. Thus it came about that bequests were made to a church or to a priest solely for the purpose of securing prayers for the testator after death. This cult of masses for the dead was the motive underlying chantry endowments. [. . .]

A chantry was literally a mass that was recited at an altar for the well-being and good estate of the founder during his lifetime and for the repose of his soul after death.It kept the name of the founder and of his family fresh in the memory of succeeding generations, particularly when a special chapel was erected for the recitation of the masses. [. . .] In general, the endowment [of a chantry] took the form of lands, tene­ments, rents, and other possessions, and sometimes of money. It provided a stipend for the priest whose office was to sing masses periodically for the founder and for ‘all the faithful departed' at a special altar in a church or in a chantry chapel; and frequently part of the endowment was set aside to bestow a weekly dole upon the poor.13

Chaplaincies, or chantries, varied greatly in character, depending on the size of the bequest. A person of modest means might leave only enough money for the recital of a lim­ited number of soul-masses at a preexisting altar. But for anyone who could afford it, a more attractive alternative, promising greater worldly renown and greater spiritual gain, was to found a new altar and provide for masses to be said there in perpetuity.14 Such arrange­ments were costly; but the firmly held conviction that masses guaranteed a shorter sentence in purgatoiy for the soul of the donor meant that there was no lack of people willing to invest great sums of money in pious foundations of this kind. Over the next three centuries, dozens of new altars were erected in St. Peter’s. The basilica’s immense prestige acted as a magnet to the wealthiest and most influential donors, including popes and their families, for­eign dignitaries, members of the nobility, high-ranking churchmen, and members of the Chapter. Their bequests of money, and often of lands and urban real estate as well, not only provided for the upkeep of their altars but vastly enriched the basilica in tbe process.

9 Alfarano, pp. 44—45; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 569—70.10 Alfarano, p. 64; Blaauw, 1994, II, p. 670.11 Alfarano, pp. 38-40, 65-66, 86-88; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 568-69, 574.12 Chantry is a translation of the Latin cantarui. However, the term cappellanui (chaplaincy) seems to have

the same meaning and is the usual term found in the documents connected with St. Peters.13 Cook, 1963, pp. 7-9.14 Boggis, 1913, pp. 148-58; Braun, 1924, I, pp. 378-82; Jungm ann, 1951—55, I, pp. 293—94. On perpet­

ual chantries in England, see Cook, 1963; Wood-Legh, 1965.

20 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Unlike the older tomb-altars in St. Peter’s, which were dedicated in honor of the saints whose bodies were buried inside them, the newer altars often had titles unrelated to the relics they contained. In keeping with their private and commemorative character, these altars were usually dedicated in honor of saints for whom the donor had a personal devo­tion, such as name saints, or patron saints of the donor’s native city or homeland. The Bishop of Olmiitz dedicated an altar in honor of St. Wenceslas, patron of Bohemia; and the same altar was later refurbished and provided with an altarpieee paid for by Johann Ocko von V lasim , A rchbishop of P rague, and the Emperor C harles IV, King of Bohemia.15 Cardinal Marco Barbo, nephew of Pope Paul II, founded and endowed an altar in honor of St. Mark, who was not only his name saint but also the saint to whom his titular church was dedicated and the patron saint of his patrui, Venice.16

Eventually so many altars crowded the interior of old St. Peter's that even those charged with their upkeep sometimes found it difficult to remember them all. Obviously, not all the altars were of equal importance. Those with active chaplaincies and large endowments were generally better maintained than those without. The altar of the Virgin founded by Pope Innocent VIII, for example, was one of the richest altars in the basilica: the ordinance of foundation provided for four chaplains to say mass there sixty times each month and to celebrate Sundays and feast days as well as the anniversary of Inno­cent’s death. But altars with smaller endowments saw much less liturgical activity; and when, as often happened, endowments dwindled because of inflation or property loss, altars could easily fall into disuse and eventually oblivion. One finds ample evidence for this in the pages of Tiberio Alfarano’s description of old St. Peter’s, written around 1582. As a member of the Chapter himself (he was a ch ierico beneficiato), Alfarano knew as much about the altars in the old basilica as anyone alive. But although he was writing little more than half a century after the first two-thirds of the building had been torn down, and despite his best scholarly efforts to reconstruct its interior, even he was unable to identify many of the altars that had once stood there, and was forced to resort to descrip­tions such as "duo antiqua sacella . . . quae ob vetustatem nomen amiserant,”17 "altare antiquum nomine ignotum ,’’18 "altare antiquum , cui vero dicatum fuerit, temporum iniuria sicut et alia plurima exolevit,’’19 and so on. These were altars that had outlived their usefulness, and the demolition of old St. Peter’s provided a convenient opportunity for their suppression.

With such a quantity of altars in a single church, it would be fascinating to know something of the religious life that surrounded them; but about this there is very little information. Probably most visitors to the basilica, hungry for indulgences, headed straight for the principal altars, in particular the high altar and the seven privileged altars, where their prayers guaranteed them the maximum number of spiritual benefits.20 But the many other altars in St. Peter's also attracted the faithful, if in smaller numbers.

15 Alfarano, pp. 67—68; Grimaldi, pp. 55—56. 16 Alfarano, p. 74; Grimaldi, p. 132.17 Alfarano, p. 53. 18 Ibid., p. 69.>9 Ibid., p. 72.20 John Capgrave, writing c. 1450, lists the indulgences available at St. Peters as follows: every day 7

years indulgence at each of the seven privileged altars; 1,000 years for visiting the church on the feastof the Annunciation, M aundy Thursday, and the feast of St. Peter; 1,000 years and one-third remission of sins for visiting the church on the day of its dedication; for being present when the Sudarium was exhibited, 3,000 years to Romans, 9,000 years to others, and 12,000 years to those who crossed the sea to go on pilgrimage to Rome; also at each altar in the basilica 28 years indulgence on the feast of its tit­ular saint (Capgrave, 1911, pp. 62—63). In addition, according to a late fourteenth-century guide known as the Vernon ms., the faithful earned 28 years indulgence every day at the altar of St. Peter, and 14,000years between Holy Thursday and Lammas, that is, August 1 (ibid., p. 63, n. 1).

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 21

One gets a sense of the feverish buzz of religious activity that once animated the great basilica from eyewitness descriptions such as this one by an anonymous English visitor in 1344:

And then lie open the doors to the church which is the largest of all churches in the world: with five roofs and four rows of columns, 100 feet wide and as long as a crossbow will shoot, as I figure, and with many chapels on the side. If one loses his companion in that church, he may seek lor a whole day, because of its size and because of the multitudes who run from place to place, venerating shrines with kisses and prayers, since there is no altar at which indulgence is not granted.21

The altars in old St. Peter’s were as various as they were numerous. The richer altars, such as the altar of the Sudarium, the altar of St. Boniface IVi or the altar of the Virgin founded by Innocent VIII, stood within marble tabernacles, or small, elegantly appointed chapels (F igs. 20—21, 23—25). The more modest ones w ere surrounded by simple balustrades and covered overhead by baldachins suspended from the wall or column against which they were built (Figs. 22 and 26).

Altarpieces, too, came in different shapes, sizes, and media. Painting on panel was per­haps the most common form of altarpiece. The altar founded by Innocent VIII, for instance, had an altarpiece painted on panel by Pinturicchio, showing the pope kneeling before a vision of the Virgin and Child (Fig. 20).22 Some altars, such as the altar of St. Wenceslas, had frescoed altarpieces (Figs. 144-145);23 others, such as the altar of St. Boniface IV, had altarpieces in mosaic (Fig. 2 1).24 Quite a few had sculptured altarpieces. A large wooden crucifix of late medieval design stood over the altar of the Holy Crucifix (Figs. 22, 51),25 and the altar of St. M ark had a marble relief altarpiece, possibly by Mino da Fiesole, representing the crucified Christ between M ary and John .26

Given the fact that the old church was in the process of demolition, it comes as some­thing of a surprise that many of its altars were significantly and expensively refurbished in the course of the sixteenth century. The chapel of Sts. Simon and Ju d e was rebuilt and lavishly decorated with frescoes by Perino del Vaga and others (Fig. 25). Michelangelo’s Pieta was installed over the altar in the canons' choir in 1568, and a few years later was given an elaborate polychrome marble setting paid for by Canon Ludovico Bianchetti (Figs. 109—1 10).27 The altar of the Sudarium received an altarpiece of St. Veronica exhibiting the cloth, with Sts. Peter and Paul, by Ugo da Carpi (Fig. 24).28 The altar of St. Leo IX, privileged for the dead, got an altarpiece representing the Deposition by

2' Cited in Parks, 1954, pp. 576-77.22 Vasari-Milanesi, III, p. 498: Alfarano, pp. 57—58; Grimaldi, p. 104. The present whereabouts of the

altarpiece are unknown, but see Cat. 5 (a), n. 28.23 The altarpiece of St. Wenceslas was destroyed in 1605. See Grimaldi, pp. 55—56; Claussen, 1980.-H The altarpiece, attributed by Grimaldi to Jacopo Torriti, represented Sts. Peter and Paul presenting

the donor, Pope Boniface VIII, to the Virgin and Child. Between the altar and the altarpiece was the tomb of Boniface VIII, which is today preserved in the su cre qrotte. See Alfarano, pp. 65—66: Grimaldi, pp. 37, 44-45.

25 The crucifix, attributed in most of the early sources to Pietro Cavallini, was later transferred into the new basilica, where it stood first over the altar of St. Petronilla, then over the adjacent altar, and then over the altar of the Crucifix in the first chapel on the right of the nave. Today it is located in the oval chamber between the first and second chapels on the right of the nave. See n. 108 below and Cat. 2.

26 Alfarano, p. 74; Grimaldi, pp. 132, 158. After the demolition of the nave in 1605, the altarpiece was stored for a while in the grottoes, and then moved in 1650 to the church of S. Balbina, a dependency of the Chapter of St. Peter’s, where it adorns the fourth chapel on the right.

27 Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987, pp. 88 and 101—102, nn. 133—35 and 140.28 Grimaldi, p. 123; Raffaello in Vaticano, 1984, pp. 324-25.

22 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R S

Lorenzo Sabbatini.29 Over the altar of St. Anne went an altarpieee by Leonardo da Pis- toia and Jacopino del Conte representing the /Madonna and Child with St. Anne flanked by Sto. Peter and Paul (Fig. 58).30 The altar of St. Gregory, where the head of St. Andrew was kept, was provided with a colossal polychrome marble statue of St. Andrew (Fig. 23).31 Siciolante da Sermoneta painted a picture of the Virgin and Child appearing to Sts. Boni­face of Tarsus and Francis, and Pope Boniface VIII, for the chapel of St. Boniface IV (Fig. 53).32 At the same time several older altarpieces, such as the fifteenth-century altar- piece of St. Erasmus, were extensively restored (Fig. 57).33

It is hard to see why anyone would go to the trouble and expense of commissioning new altarpieces, or restoring old ones, in a building slated for demolition. But were the donors convinced that the Constantinian nave was doomed? Their actions suggest that they were not. They not only continued to invest in the upkeep and embellishment of the old basilica, more to the point they continued to be buried there. This was true of laity and clergy alike. The rich were laid to rest in family chapels, or beneath the floor of the nave and side aisles. To cite but one example, in 1578 Agnese Colonna, the Duchess of Ser­moneta, was buried beneath an elaborate slab of marble and bronze near the altar of St. Gregoiy just inside the outer left side aisle [at no. 86 on the Alfarano plan].39 The peniten- zieri, the priests who took confession in St. Peter’s, had a communal tomb in the chapel of St. Thomas [at letter V on the Alfarano plan], which remained in use throughout the six­teenth century.35 Members of the Chapter were usually buried in communal tombs in the sacristy, but a number of canons opted instead for burial in the main body of the church.36 As for the parish dead, they were usually interred in the Secretarium, the large chapel to the left of the entrance to the church [at letter dd’ on the Alfarano plan]; and this too remained in use until 1605.37 It goes without saying that no one chooses to be buried in a building known to be temporary. The fact that, throughout the second half of the six­teenth centuiy, old St. Peter’s continued to be used for sepulchral purposes is perhaps the

29 The painting, which according to Baglione was based on a design by Michelangelo, was moved into the sacristy when the Constantinian nave was taken down. See Alfarano, p. 65; Grimaldi, p. 100; Baglione, 1642, p. 18.

30 Alfarano, pp. 47, 67; Baglione, 1642, p. 75; Zeri, 1951, p. 141; Spezzalerro, 1974, pp. 129—30 and n. 17.31 The polychrome statue of St. Andrew, by an anonymous sculptor ol the second half of the sixteenth

centuiy, was placed over the altar of St. Gregoiy in 1570 by Francesco Bandino Piccolomini, Arch­bishop of Siena. After the demolition of the old nave, it was moved into the new basilica and stood for a while in a niche in the south transept (see Doc. Appendix, no. 3). Under Pius VI it was moved to its present location in the passage leading from the church to the sacristy. See Alfarano, p. 86; Grimaldi, pp. 80-81; Fabriczy, 1901, pp. 67-69; Pressouyre, 1984, II, pp. 462—63 and fig. 225.

32 The painting was given by Onorato Caetani, a descendant of Pope Boniface VIII, in 1574. It was pre­sumably intended to hang on the side wall ol the chapel, since the altar already had a much-admired mosaic altarpieee (see n. 24 above). Today Siciolante’s painting can be seen over the high altar ol the church of S. Tommaso in Formis, another dependency of the Chapter of St. Peter's. Alfarano, pp. 65—66; Baglione, 1642, p. 24. See also Cat. 11, n. 12.

33 See Cat. 10, n. 12.39 Alfarano, p. 88; Grimaldi, p. 212 and fig. 92; Cancellieri, 1786, II, pp. 715—16, 1051.35 Alfarano, p. 83.36 Several canons, including Nicola Visconti in 1581, were interred in the chapel ol St. Thomas (BAV,

ACSP, H59c, pp. 63, 68). In 1568 Bernardo della Croce, a canon ol St. Peter’s and Bishop of Como, w as buried “appresso alia M adonna del Soccorso,” at no. 90 on the Alfarano plan (ibid., p. 65; Alfarano, pp. 89—90). Canon Giambattista de’ Canali, who died in 1572, was laid to rest in the Secre­tarium, at no. 146 (Alfarano, p. 122; De Maio, 1978, p. 278). In 1595, the canon and can ieriere.tcgreto ol Clement VIII, Marcello de’ Nobili, was buried “iuxta altare S. Gregorii seu Andreae,” at no. 85 (BAV, ACSP, H59c, p. 168; Cancellieri, 1786, II, p. 716).

37 AFSP, Piano 1—ser. 1—no. 8, ff. 217—18. See also Alfarano, p. 122.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 23

single most compelling piece of evidence that its destruction was considered by many to be neither imminent nor inevitable.38

Clearly, attitudes toward old St. Peter’s had changed considerably since Ju liu s II so cavalierly set about tearing it down. The Counter Reformation had generated an intense nostalgia for the early Church. Constantine’s basilica, which Ju liu s had condemned as a decrepit ruin, unworthy ol its status as the loremost church in Christendom, was now revered precisely because of its antiquity. At a time when Protestants were attacking the veiy foundations of the papacy, old St. Peter's was a link to Rome’s sacred past and a tan­gible reminder of the origin, mystery, authority, and unique legitimacy of the true Church.

A dilemma faced the popes of the later sixteenth century. Even if constructed accord­ing to a centralized plan, the new basilica could not be completed until the old basilica was torn down: there was simply not room enough for both. Yet confronted with this unalter­able fact, none ol the popes seemed willing to take the plunge. They continued to work on the existing portions of the new church, they even began the decoration and furnishing of its interior, but they could not bring themselves to finish one St. Peter’s at the expense of the other. Each left it to his successor to assume the terrible responsibility of destroying the last dilapidated remnants of a building that had become a relic in its own right.

GREGORY XIII

The first permanent altars in new St. Peter's were erected in the chapel in the northeast corner of the centralized church and in the adjoining nav ip icco le during the pontificate of Gregory XIII Boncompagni (1572—85).39 Designed and begun by Michelangelo, contin­ued by Vignola, and completed between 1578 and 1585 by Giacomo della Porta, the northeast corner chapel, or Cappella Gregoriana as it came to be known, was the first of the four corner chapels to be built, as well as the first significant space inside the new basilica to be vaulted.40 Gregory XIII, eager to lay claim to the chapel, which he deter­mined to use as the site for his tomb, began work on its outfitting and decoration even before the lantern was in place over the dome. No expense was spared: precious antique columns, polychrome marble revetment, mosaics, paintings, and sculptural decorations were combined to form an ensemble of unsurpassed opulence.41 The pope’s munificent

38 A powerful preservationist current runs through the histoiy of the construction of the new basilica. For more on the prospect of retaining the Constantiman nave and incorporating it into the modem fabric, see De Maio, 1978, pp. 325—29; Carpiceci, 1987, pp. 106 and 125, n. 87; Thoenes, 1992(a), pp. 54—59; L. Rice, forthcoming.

39 An earlier attempt to begin work on altarpieces lor the new basilica proved premature. In 1569 the sculptor Gughelmo della Porta produced wax models lor a trio of sculptured altarpieces to go over three unspecified altars in new St. Peter’s. One represented Peter Receiving the Keys to the Kingdom ol Heaven, another the Deposition, and the third the Pentecost. Della Porta was apparently working on his own initiative and at his own expense, no doubt in the hope of securing a commission once his work was seen. But no such commission was forthcoming, which is hardly surprising considering the basilica was still without altars. See Vasari-Milanesi, VII, p. 549; Gramberg, 1964, I, pp. 96-97, 124—25.

90 On the construction of the Cappella Gregoriana, see Francia, 1977, pp. 105—107.'1 On the decoration of the Cappella Gregoriana, see Alfarano, pp. 93-95; Beltrami, 1917, pp. 28—36;

Pastor, 1924—53, XX, pp. 567—73; Siebenhiiner, 1962, pp. 268—84; Steven Ostrow, 1990, pp. 259—62. For additional references to sixteenth-century descriptions of the chapel, see Alfarano, p. 91, n. 2.

The Cappella Gregoriana was the first of a series of large, ornate chapels erected by the popes of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, which included Sixtus V ’s Cappella Sistina in S. M aria M aggiore, Clement VIII’s Cappella Clementina in St. Peter’s, and Paul V ’s Cappella Paolina in S. M aria Maggiore. See, in particular, Steven Ostrow, 1996.

24 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

patronage is advertised in the inscription at the base of the lantern, and in the Boncom- pagni dragons emblazoned on the piers supporting the cupola, on the altar rails, and in marble intarsia at the center of the pavement.

Gregory founded and endowed the chapel’s altar and dedicated it in honor of the Vir­gin M ary and St. Gregory of Nazianzus [9 ],42 That he and Gregory ol Nazianzus shared the same name was of course no coincidence: we have already seen that donors frequently dedicated altars in honor of name saints. In this case, the pope also had the saint s body translated from the small church of S. Gregorio in the convent of S. M aria in Campo Marzio and reinterred in the altar in the Gregoriana.43 His decision to order the transla­tion is in itself revealing. Right next door to the Gregoriana, in the Constantinian nave, stood the tomb-altar of St. Gregory the Great [at no. 85 on the Alfarano plan]. In the Western Church, this saint is in every respect more illustrious than the Greek Gregory of Nazianzus; he is, furthermore, the true name saint of all later popes called Gregory. Given Gregory XII I s obvious desire to dedicate the altar in honor of a name saint, it would seem to have been more expedient simply to transfer the title and body of Gregory the Great from the old basilica to the new. That the pope chose not to take advantage of this option suggests that he, like many of his contemporaries, regarded the old nave as permanent and inviolable.44 Rather than deconsecrate one of its principal altars, he made do with the relics of a lesser St. Gregory for his own chapel.45

The altar in the Gregortana, like most of the altars tn the new basilica, stands tn a huge, flat niche set within a colossal aedicula (Fig. 27). The niche was designed to accommodate an altarpiece over twenty feet tall. But instead of commissioning a new altarpiece made to m easure, G regory decided to install a small m iracle-w orking image known as the Madonna del Soccorso, which had been over the altar of St. Leo I in the old basilica.46

42 According to an awLto of 1580, Gregory created an endowment large enough to yield an annual income of 1,000 scudi, to be divided between eight chaplains under the direction of a senior chaplain or dean (100 t cu d i for each of the chaplains, and 200 t cu d i for the dean), in return for which their duties included the recital of soul-masses thirty-two times each month and on the anniversary of Gregory’s death. By 1624, the revenues had shrunk to 300 dcudi per year, which was divided among four chap­lains. See Beltrami, 1917, p. 36; Doc. Appendix, no. 3.

45 Rastelli, n.d. (1580); Alfarano, pp. 91, 166—67; Grimaldi, pp. 403--406; Pastor, 1924—53, XX, pp. 569—72.The translation was carried out with great fanfare and festivity. Only the nuns of the convent of S.

M aria in Campo Santo, the former guardians of the relic, did not share in the general rejoicing. According to Piazza (1687, p. 346), "quando si videro togliere, e levare questo loro ricchissimo Tesoro, incredibile . . . fu il pianto dirotto, le gride ossequiose, e le lagrime, i sospiri pietosi, e le divote doglianze di esse; in modo che fu difficile il distaccar l ’arca da loro amplessi, e baci, quasi, che partisse il proprio Padre, e l ’unico loro conforto.” To appease them, the pope left them a fragment of the saint’s arm.

44 Gregory XIII contributed significantly to the upkeep and improvement of the Constantinian nave. In 1574, in preparation for the Holy Year, he commissioned a new pavement (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987, p. 88). He restored and reconsecrated several altars, such as the altar of Sts. Philip and Jam es and the altar of the Crucifix (Alfarano, pp. 67, 69). To the latter he transferred the body of St. Petronilla, for­merly stored in the sacristy (ibid., p. 69). He also commissioned a new ceiling for the entrance portico, featuring his coat of arms, and decorated with scenes from the life of St. Peter by Federico Zuccari (ibid., p. 153). These acts of patronage imply that he expected the nave to remain standing at least into the foreseeable future.

45 Pastor (1924-53, XX, p. 569) implies that Gregory XIII had a particular veneration for Gregory of Nazianzus that accounts for his decision to translate the body to St. Peter’s. By w ay of evidence he points out that the pope commissioned Baronius to write a biography of the saint. But, as its dedication makes plain, the biography was written a fter the translation and in commemoration of it (Acta SS, Maii II, pp. 373—74). Nothing that I am aware of suggests that the pope showed any exceptional devotion to the saint before 1578, when the idea of translating the relics was first broached.

46 According to Grimaldi, Paschal II (1099—1118) commissioned the image of the Madonna and Child later known as the Madonna del Soccorso for the altar of St. Leo in the transept of old St. Peter’s. The fresco was detached from the wall in 1543^44 and moved to an altar located against the temporary

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ’S 25

Obviously, so modest an image would have looked lost in so enormous a field. Therefore Giacomo della Porta designed a second aedicula, smaller and more elaborate than the first, to fit inside the niche. The holy picture is thus exhibited like a precious relic, against a background of marble intarsia, framed within a double aedicular surround. Della Porta's design was to have a lasting influence, not only in St. Peter’s, where the law of symmetry required that the main altars in the other three corner chapels be given identical double aedicular surrounds, but in countless other churches as well. The altar of the Holy Sacra­ment in the Lateran transept is but one example of an altar based on a design involving an aedicula within an aedicula.

Gregory XIII also erected the two altars in the nav ip icco le adjoining the Gregoriana. Although technically outside the chapel, these altars were outfitted at the same time as the chapel and participate in its iconography. Like the main altar, they were dedicated in honor of fathers of the Church. One was assigned the title of St. Jerome [11], and was furnished with a large modern altarpiece by Girolamo Muziano and Cesare Nebbia, representing St. Jerom e Preaching in the Wilderness (Figs. 28—29) J 7 The other was assigned the title of St. Basil [12]; its altarpiece, also by Muziano and Nebbia, represented St. Basil Celebrating M ass in the Presence o f the Arian Emperor Valens (Figs. 30—31).48 Relics of Jerome (the chin) and Basil (an arm) were placed in the altar of the Madonna del Soccorso, side by side with the body of Gregory of Nazianzus.49 The dedications of all three altars were moreover echoed in the mosaic decoration of the chapel, where, in the pendentives, Muziano and the team of mosaicists working under his direction depicted Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome, Basil, and a fourth Church father, Gregory the Great.50 The inclusion of Gregory the Great rounded the number to two Latin fathers and two Greek fathers, introducing a symmetry that underlines a central theme of the chapel’s program, namely, the harmony between the Latin and Greek Churches. Through the dedications of its altars and the decoration of its

dividing wall in the inner right side aisle [at no. 90 on the Alfarano plan]. This altar, dedicated in honor of the Madonna del Soccorso, was tom down within a few decades of its constmctron in order to make w ay for a narrow door providing access to the Cappella Gregoriana (Fig. 18). The image was installed over the altar in the Gregoriana on February 12, 1578. See Alfarano, pp. 38—39 n. 4, 89—91; Grimaldi, pp. 233, 406; Galassi-Paluzzi, 1975, p. 317.

47 The subject is unusual and its source has y e t to be identified. According to Piazza (1687, pp. 572—73), it represents "il S. Dottore, quando istruendo diversi Monaci a lui ricorsi, per intendere qual dottrina seguir dovessero, mostrando loro il Crocifisso, disse, ‘Questo e il testo dell’Evangeho, & il vero compendio di tutte le verita.’” The painting was begun by Muziano no later than 1584, and was completed not long after his death in 1592 by his student Nebbia; Paul Brill contributed the landscape background. It was removed to S. M aria degli Angeli in the mid-eighteenth century, and in its place the Fabbrica installed a mosaic reproduction of Domenichino’s Last Communion o f St. J erom e (Fig. 29). See Baglione, 1642, p. 51; Siebenhiiner, 1962, pp. 268—70; DiFederico, 1983, p. 75; Vannugli, 1991, pp. 61-63.

48 The altarpiece is lost, but its composition is recorded in an engraving by Jacques Callot. In 1723—24 preparations were begun to replace the painting with a mosaic copy; later it was decided to supplant M uziano’s and Nebbia’s composition with a mosaic altarpiece of the same subject designed by Pierre Subleyras (1743—51). See Baglione, 1642, pp. 51, 116; DiFederico, 1983, p. 75; Subleyras 1699—17J9, 1987, pp. 332—51; Vannugli, 1991, pp. 61—63.

49 Piazza, 1687, pp. 343, 571. The saints celebrated in the G regoriana form a closely knit family. Gregory of Nazianzus (328—89) was an exact contemporary and intimate friend of Basil (328—79); and it is Gregory’s oration composed on the occasron of Bastl’s death that is the source of the episode involving the emperor Valens represented in M uziano’s altarpiece (as noted by Garms, 1975, pp. 42—43). As for Jerom e (347-420), he studied with Gregory and later referred to him as his teacher (E. Rice, 1985, pp. 11, 26).

50 The mosaic decoration also alluded to the title of the Madonna del Soccorso: in the lunettes over the north and east walls were represented the Annunciation, and the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah, both holding scrolls inscribed with their prophecies concerning the Virgin birth. The mosaics in the penden­tives and lunettes were replaced between 1768 and 1779. See DiFederico, 1983, pp. 62—63.

26 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R S

vault, the Cappella Gregoriana made manifest the ideal of Catholic solidarity so constantly promoted in the propaganda of the Counter Reformation.51

In the east wall of the chapel, in a colossal aedicula identical to those that surround the altars, is a door that today leads into the neighboring Chapel of the Holy Trinity but that in Gregory's day, before the nave was added on, led to the exterior ol the church and pro­vided access to and from the papal palace [10] (Fig. 32). Originally, the arched space above the door was filled with a huge, lunette-shaped marble relief by Taddeo Landini representing CbrL't Washing the Feet o f his Disciples (Figs. 33—34).52 The story exemplifies Peter’s special status among the twelve apostles, because it was Peter who was the first to have his feet washed by Christ, Peter who tried to prevent Christ from performing this menial task, and Peter to whom Christ offered his explanation, saying "If I then, your Lord and Master (Dominus e t M agister), have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you .” Landini s relief, by celebrating St. Peter, linked the iconography of the Cappella Gregori­ana with that of the church as a whole. This was the first Petrine narrative commissioned for the new basilica, and although it did not remain long in situ, it introduced a theme that was to have an important and lasting future there.53

Gregory XIII intended his chapel to serve as the sacrament chapel of the new basilica and had a gilded wooden ciborium placed over the altar (Fig. 50).54 This accounts for the sacramental character of the chapel’s iconography. In one of Muziano’s altarpieces, St. Basil was depicted in the act of consecrating the eucharistic w ine; in the other, St. Jerom e points to an image of Christ crucified. The subject of Landini’s relief had sacra­mental connotations as well, since the episode of the Washing of the Feet occurred at the Last Supper, moments before the Institution of the Eucharist. Even the prominence given to the Church fathers in the monographic scheme may be related to the chapel’s designated function. Theologians regularly cited the fathers to defend their eucharistic doctrines. In art, one thinks of R aphael’s D isputa, in which four Latin fathers are enthroned around an altar on which stands a monstrance containing the wafer; and there are other similar examples, such as an anonymous late sixteenth- or early seventeenth- century project for a ciborium consisting of a tabernacle held aloft and venerated by four

,‘>l The idea was later developed in the pendentives of the other three corner chapels, and given tri­umphant expression in Bernini’s Cathedra Petri. It should be pointed out, however, that notwithstand­ing the ideal of Christian concord, in each instance the Latin fathers are given precedence over the Greek. In the lour comer chapels, the Latin fathers are positioned over the principal altars. This means that they alone are visible from the nave; one has to enter the chapels and turn around in order to see the Greek fathers. Similarly, in the Cathedra Petri, Augustine and Ambrose occupy the foreground, while Athanasius and John Chiysostom are relegated to the second row.

32 The relief was executed between 1578 and 1579. For the relevant documents, see AFSP, Piano 1—ser. arm adi—no. 75 (Entrata e teicita 1572—1579), ff. 117, 120, 130, 131v. See also Baglione, 1642, p. 63; Siebenhiiner, 1962, p. 280.

55 I suspect that Landini's lunette was not meant to stand alone, but was to form part of a series of Peter reliefs, one over each of the doors of the church. No other reliefs were commissioned, however, and when Paul V tore down the dividing wall, Landini’s work was removed to the Quirinal Palace, where it was placed in the Sala Regia, over the door leading to the Cappella Paola (Hibbard, 1971, pp. 182, 197).There is some doubt as to when exactly the Gregoriana became a functioning sacrament chapel. We know that until 1605 the sacrament was stored in a tabernacle over the altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e in the old nave, and that it was moved from there to the Gregoriana in a solemn ceremony that took place on October 1 (Grimaldi, p. 69; Orbaan, 1919, p. 36). On the other hand, according to a document writ­ten in 1626, the Gregoriana had housed the sacrament chapel “for forty years and more" (Doc. Appen­dix, no. 8). It seems, therefore, that from around 1580 until 1605 there were two sacrament altars, one in the old basilica and one in the new.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ’S 27

kneeling Church fathers.55 As the debate over the Real Presence raged among Catholics and Protestants, im agery of this kind became a staple of Catholic propaganda. The Church fathers depicted in the Cappella Gregoriana thus do more than allude to the con­cord of the Eastern and Western Churches; their presence is an affirmation of the mira­cle of Transubstantiation and of the mass.

The Cappella Gregoriana, with it opulent ornamentation and coherent iconographic program, set important precedents for the outfitting of new St. Peter’s. In particular, the careful thematic linking of the chapel’s three altars — each dedicated to a father of the Church — had lasting implications for the history of the basilica’s altars as a whole. The same programmatic approach was later adopted by G regory’s successors, especially Clement VIII, who attempted to apply it throughout the church.

CLEMENT VIII

Under Clement VIII Aldobrandini (1592—1605), the basilica took on a new aspect. With Michelangelo’s building at last nearing completion (except, of course, for the ever-prob- lematic fourth arm, which remained open-ended and unresolved), work began in earnest on outfitting and decorating its interior. The massive coffered vaults of the transept, tri­bune, and navi p iccole were stuccoed and gilded. A team of artists under the direction of Gavaliere d'Arpino covered the dome and pendentives with sumptuous mosaics. The floor of the crossing was paved with colored marbles. Bramante’s Doric temple built to house and protect the tomb of the Apostles during the construction of the new church was finally torn down, opening up for the first time the enormous volume of space in the cross­ing. In its place a new high altar was erected, and dedicated on Jun e 26, 1594.56 In the gro tte beneath the high altar, Clement built a small chapel, ornately stuccoed with Peter stories and Aldobrandini heraldry, and connected to the papal palace by a passageway designed to facilitate the pope’s private devotions at Peter’s tomb.57

Not least of Clement’s projects — and one that he undertook in direct emulation of his predecessor Gregory XIII — was the decoration of the southeast corner chapel, which immediately became known as the Cappella Clementina, or simply the Clementina. Like the Gregoriana directly opposite, the Clementina was embellished from top to bottom with marble, mosaic, painting, and sculpture.58 Clement, however, paid little attention to the sacral, as opposed to the decorative, aspect of his chapel, and in this he differed from Gregory. Gregory, we recall, chose an appropriate title for the altar in the Gregoriana, installed a miracle-working image of the Madonna as its altarpiece, imported a venerable relic to lay inside it, endowed it for the frequent recital of soul-masses, and had it conse­crated. Clement, on the other hand, never chose a title for the altar in the Clementina, commissioned no altarpiece for it, placed no relic inside it, and left no endowment; the altar remained unconsecrated until 1628.

With the exception of the three altars built by Gregory XIII (and the altar of St. Leo, which was added later), all the altars in the centralized portion of the new basilica were

55 Illustrated in Kauffmann, 1970, fig. 135. Kauffmann, influenced by its iconographic sim ilarity to Bernini’s Cathedra, identifies the drawing as a project for a reliquary for the chair ol Peter. To judge from its silhouette, however, the object held up by the four Church fathers is more likely to be a tempi- etto-shaped ciborium.

56 Grimaldi, pp. 204—206; Kirwin, 1981, pp. 144—48.57 Siebenhuner, 1962, p. 290; Freiberg, 1995, pp. 178—79.58 Siebenhuner, 1962, pp. 289-95; Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, pp. 125—31; Abromson, 1976, pp. 62—65.

28 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

built during the pontificate of Clement VIII. They include/-4fr-addilion to the high altar, the altars in the Clementina and the other two corner chapels, the altars in the six remain­ing navi piccole, and the altars in the six transept niches.59 All were furnished with sur­rounds designed to accommodate altarpieces, but most were left without titles, without relics, and without images. Only the six altars in the navi piccole were provided with altar- pieces during Clement’s reign.

Clement’s plans for the altars in St. Peter’s can be understood only in light of his plans for the basilica as a whole. Like Gregory before him, he did not anticipate the demolition of the old nave.60 Shifting titles, relics, and chaplaincies from the altars in the old church to those in the new was therefore something he did not have to think about. Old St. Peter’s, crammed with its miscellany of shrines, continued to house the daily liturgical activities of the basilica’s clergy, providing a kind of repositoiy for the traditional devo­tions and ritual obligations accumulated over the centuries. This left the new basilica unencumbered, and free to serve the twin functions for which it central plan made it so perfectly suited, as a martyrium over Peter’s tomb and as a splendid stage for the display of papal majesty.

Insofar as they can be reconstructed, Clement's intentions for the altars in new St. P eter’s were unabashedly programmatic, and conceived, like the architecture itself, according to a centralized plan. He did not treat the altars as autonomous units but rather in groups according to their location in the church. Thus the altars in the navi piccole, posi­tioned symmetrically behind the crossing piers, constituted one group, the six transept altars another group, and so on. Each group was to be linked iconographically to the tomb and high altar at the center of the church. To Clement’s w ay of thinking, the main purpose of the side altars was to reinforce and celebrate the principal themes of the basilica, namely, the glory of Peter and, through him, the origin, legitimacy, and spiritual sover­eignty of the papacy.

Let us turn first to the altars in the navi piccole, the only ones actually provided with altarpieces during Clement’s reign. For these six altars, Clement commissioned paintings representing scenes from the life of St. Peter. They included, clockwise from the southeast corner, the Puniihnicnt o f Sapphira by Cristofano Roncalli (1599-1604) [41] (Figs. 55—56); the Crucifixion o f P eter by Domenico Passignano (1602—1605) [37] (Fig. 37); the Fall o f Simon M aguo by Francesco Vanni (1602—1603) [32] (Fig. 38); Peter Healing the Cripple a t the Golden Gate by Cigoli (1604-1606) [26] (Fig. 39); the Raioing o f Tabitha by Giovanni Baglione (1604-1605) [22] (Fig. 40); and Chriot Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water, more often known as the Navieella, by Bernardo Castello (1604—1605) [18] (Fig. 41).61 These six pictures, as Miles Chappell and Chandler Kirwin have shown, "illustrate the triumph of Peter over his own doubts, over heresy, and finally over death; publicize the unbroken lineage of the papacy back through the saint to Christ; and extol God’s justice and mercy, as experienced and administered through Peter.”62 Clearly, Clement conceived of the pic­tures as forming a ring around Peter’s tomb and the papal high altar, like the setting of a jewel. The ring was incomplete, of course, since the altars in the navi p iccole adjoining the Cappella Gregoriana, having been dedicated by Gregory XIII in honor of St. Jerom e and

59 For the documents pertaining to the construction of the altars in the comer chapels and navi piccole, seeChappell and Kirwin, 1974, pp. 149—58. For the altars in the transept chapels, see AFSP, Piano 1—seriearmadi—nos. 152, 162, 171, passim.

60 See n. 85 below.61 For a detailed analysis of the Clementine altarpieces and related documents, see Chappell and Kirwin,

1974, pp. 119—70. See also Siebenhtiner, 1962, pp. 295—99; Abromson, 1976, pp. 66—81.62 Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, p. 131.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ’S 29

St. Basil, were not encompassed within it. But the implied symmetry of the Petrine altar- pieces was so compelling that one wonders whether Clement may not have planned, time and money permitting, to do aw ay with Gregory’s altarpieces and replace them with the Peter stories needed to bring his cycle to a close.

The programmatic treatment of the altars in the navip icco le was entirely unprecedented. In no other church will one find a comparable cycle of altarpieces illustrating scenes from the life of a single saint. Occasionally one will come across series of altarpieces represent­ing episodes from the life of Christ or his mother.63 But in these cases, the episodes chosen are usually feasts in their own right (e.g. the Nativity [Christmas], the Adoration ol the Magi [Epiphany], the Resurrection [Easter], or the Presentation, Visitation, or Assump­tion of the Virgin). Thus, the altars over which the altarpieces stand commemorate not so much the divinity as the feast.64 In contrast, none of the episodes in Peter’s life has the sta­tus of a feast. Consequently the Petrine altars in St. Peter’s represent a liturgical anomaly. They could not all be dedicated simply in honor of St. Peter: this would have caused no end of confusion. In fact, they seem to have been dedicated in honor of the individual events, or "mysteries” as they were sometimes called, in Peters life. But this was so pecu­liar a solution that few felt comfortable referring to the altars by their proper titles. Instead, one finds them again and again identified in the documents by their altarpieces: "altare in cuius Icone depictum est insigne m iraculum Principis Apostolorum cum Thabitam mortuam resuscitavit in Joppe”; "Altare ubi est pictus Lapsus Simonis M agi”; and so on.65

This awkward and ambiguous situation arose because of Clement’s tendency to put the altarpieces ahead of the altars. For him, the altarpieces were, first and foremost, elements in a pictorial cycle; that they happened to stand over altars was of secondary importance. Thus, in the case of the altars in the navi piccole, we find an inversion of normal ecclesiasti­cal practice: instead of the altarpieces reflecting the titles of the altars, the titles reflect the subjects of the altarpieces. Only in a church as exceptional in every other w ay as St. Peter’s could such a departure have been allowed.

Although the altars in the navi p icco le were the only ones for which altarpieces were commissioned during Clement s reign, plans called for a sim ilarly programmatic treat­ment of the altars in the six transept niches. Curiously, Clement's project for the transept altars has been ignored in all the previous literature on St. Peter's, despite the fact that the evidence for its existence is in plain view, in the stucco decoration of the chapels in question.66

The tribune and transepts of Michelangelo’s church are identical in design, each arm culminating in a semicircular apse topped by a half-dome. These half-domes were origi­nally adorned with plain stucco ribs, which divided the vault into three compartments, or gores, each containing a blank tondo.67 (The architectonic system is still visible, although overlaid by a quantity of gilded stucco reliefwork added in the eighteenth centuty.68) Below the half-domes, at ground level, are three enormous niches, or chapels, which are themselves sem icircular in plan and topped by half-domes. The six niches in the two transept arms were furnished with altars during the pontificate of Clement VIII. Elegant

63 See, for example, Van Os, 1969, pp. 3—33; Hibbard, 1972; Hall, 1979; Humfrey, 1990, esp. p. 191, n. 7.M For a stimulating essay on related issues, see Hope, 1990.65 See Doc. Appendix, nos. 3 and 21.66 In an appendix to their article on Michelangelo’s design for the apses of St. Peter’s, Millon and Smyth

publish some of the payment documents for the stuccos in the transept chapels, but do not comment on their significance (see their n. 33 on p. 149).

67 Millon and Smyth, 1976, pp. 137—206. 68 Ibid., p. 150, n. 34.

3 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

aedicular frames were placed over the altars in readiness for altarpieces; the walls and floors were covered with polychrome marble; and the vaults were adorned with gilded stuccowork which repeats the basic pattern of the stuccowork in the larger half-domes overhead, but to far richer ornamental effect (Fig. 42). Instead of plain ribs there are bands decorated with garlands of fruit and Aldobrandini stars; the three gores are filled with grotesques, angel-sphinxes, and still lifes of miters and missals; and the roundels, each encircled by four cherub heads, are not blank but contain jto r ie in finely executed stucco relief (Figs. -43—-48).

The atcrie, three to each niche, represent episodes from the lives of six different saints. In no instance do the .'torie correspond to the dedications of the altars beneath them. It fol­lows that they were commissioned as part of a project for the transept altars predating thefinal distribution of titles during the pontificate of Urban VIII. Documents confirm that the stuccos were executed between 1597 and the end of 1599.69

The documents are useful in dating the stuccos, but otherwise tell us nothing at all about the commission.70 Fortunately, the stuccos themselves are more informative. From them we learn how Clement planned to dedicate the six altars. Here is a list of the scenes represented over each altar;

SOUTH TRANSEPT

Left altar [34] (Fig. 46): St. Andrew1 St. Andrew baptizing converts (?)2 St. Andrew brought before the tyrant3 Martyrdom of St. Andrew

Middle altar [35] (Fig. 47): St. Peter1 Liberation of St. Peter2 Giving of the Keys3 St. Peter walking on the water

Right altar [33] (Fig. 48): St. John the Evangelist1 St. John on Patmos2 St. John drinking from the poisoned cup3 Martyrdom of St. John

NORTH TRANSEPT

Left altar [17] (Fig. 43): St. James Major1 St. Jam es brought before the tyrant2 St. Jam es cures a cripple3 Martyrdom of St. Jam es

Middle altar [16] (Fig. 44): St. Paul1 Conversion of St. Paul2 St. Paul bitten by a serpent on Malta3 Martyrdom of St. Paul

Right altar [15] (Fig. 45): St. Thomas1 St. Thomas baptizing converts2 Doubting St. Thomas3 Martyrdom of St. Thomas

®> AFSP, Piano l-ser. armadi—nos. 152, 156. 159, 162, 171.70 The Acts ot the meetings of the Congregation of the Fabbrica for the relevant years are, unfortunately,

lost.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 31

The list tells us several things. First, the middle altars in the two transepts were meant to relate to each other as pendants, one dedicated to Peter and the other to Paul. This would have introduced a nice element of symmetry, with the altars positioned like brack­ets on either side of the tomb containing the relics of the two saints. (Note that Peter, the more important of the two, was assigned the altar on the liturgically more important south side of the church.71)

The stuccos also reveal that Clement planned to treat the six transept altars as a series, with each dedicated in honor of one of the apostles. (Paul, of course, was not one of the twelve disciples of Christ, but was frequently included in series such as this.) Images of the apostles commonly appear in church decorations.72 But to have a sequence of altars dedicated in their honor was unheard of, and from the liturgical standpoint difficult to jus­tify. It seems that, as with the altars in the nan piccole, Clement was putting his desire for programmatic unity ahead of all other considerations. It is easy to imagine how the transept altars would have fitted into his scheme for St. Peters. The apostles are the twelve pillars of the Church; the altars, positioned as they are at the extremities of the building, would thus have stood like symbolic buttresses supporting the edifice.73 And since Peter was himself an apostle, and the prince of apostles at that, the cycle would have been intimately linked to the iconography of the church as a whole.

Baglione states that Clement VIU s friend, confessor, and theological adviser, Cardinal Cesare Baronio, played an important role in formulating the Petrine cycle in the nan p ic­cole.7 A It is reasonable to suppose that he was also involved in the planning of the transept altars. To a historian and reformer like Baronius, the cult of the apostles presented a chal­lenge to his faith. Because the lives of the apostles were largely based on apociyphal texts popularized through works like the Golden Legend, they were discounted by Protestants, and even by some Catholic theologians.75 But Baronius, in his Annaleo, maintained the authority of the traditional accounts of the apostles' lives, despite the suspect nature of the sources.76 As he saw it, the adventures of the apostles after they parted company — the many conversions they performed, the miracles they worked, above all the gruesome mar­tyrdoms they willingly underwent — were so powerful a stimulus to faith as to outweigh all other considerations. Besides, Baronius, ever the vociferous champion of the papacy, was

71 There is some evidence that the south transept was designated as a Peter chapel even before Clement’s reign. In 1565 a seated statue of St. Peter in marble (apparantly not to be identified with the seated marble statue of Peter now near the exit to the grottoes) was brought to the basilica and set up in the south transept. How long it stayed there and what happened to it afterward are not known. It was cer­tainly moved by 1609, when Michelangelo’s Pieta was placed over the altar in the middle niche. See Siebenhiiner, 1962, pp. 258-59.

72 To give but one contemporary example, the fresco cycle in the transept of S. Giovanni in Laterano, commissioned by Clement VIII in 1599, features the apostles, standing and holding their attributes, in the spaces between the windows of the upper register (Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, p. 121; Freiberg,1995, pp. 301-302).

73 Cf. Male, 1958, p. 21: "The liturgical writers taught that when the bishop consecrated a church he should mark twelve columns in the nave or choir with twelve crosses in token that the twelve apostles are the true pillars of the temple. ’’

74 In his life of Francesco Vanni, Baglione (1642, p. 110) notes that it was Baronius who got the painter the commission for one of the Petrine altarpieces in St. Peter’s, and who told him what subject to paint: "questo soggetto g lie ’l diede il Cardinale Baronio, si come fece parimente de gli altri; perche il Pontefice Clemente viii. havea dato a lui la carica di scompartire l ’historie, & le opere, che si doveano lavorare.’’ On Baronius’s involvement in the creation of the Petrine cycle, see Siebenhiiner, 1962, p. 294; Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, pp. 121-25, 147; Kirwin, 1985.

75 Male, 1932, pp. 365—68; Knipping, 1974, I, pp. 132—33.76 Baronio, 1736-A6, I, pp. 298—301.

32 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

well aware of the clanger of investigating the lives of the apostles too closely. After all, Peter was one of the apostles, and if the exploits of the other apostles were rejected as fic­tional, so too the extra-biblical episodes in Peters life — his journey to Rome, his role as founder of the Church and first bishop of Rome, his martyrdom and burial — might come into question. Baronius’s acceptance of the legends of the apostles, and his devotion to their cult, found visual expression in the decoration of his own titular church, Ss. Nereo e Achilleo, which he undertook between 1597 and 1599, the very years in which the transept chapels were being decorated. On the walls of the side aisles are depictions of the martyrdoms of the twelve apostles (including St. Paul), alternating with standing figures of the apostles holding their attributes/7 The sim ilarities between the frescoes in Ss. Nereo e Achilleo and the decorations of the transept chapels of St. Peter’s support the suggestion that Baronius may have had a hand in both, and that his involvement in the outfitting of the basilica may have been more extensive than previously thought.

For all its programmatic logic, the project for the transept altars had an obvious flaw, at least from what we can gather from the surviving evidence. No apostle cycle can feature fewer than eleven saints, and when Paul is one of them the number is more often twelve or thirteen. Yet there were only six altars in the transepts, and each was assigned only one apostle. It follows that the transept altars constituted only one half of what was to have been a larger series of altars honoring the full complement of apostles. But where were the altars for the other six apostles?

A clue to this puzzle may be provided by Cigoli’s 1606 plan of St. Peters in the Uffizi (Fig. 5).78 The plan, which illustrates Cigoli’s proposal for the completion of St. Peter’s according to a centralized design, is chiefly of interest here for its many annotations, describing or identifying the various parts of the church. Next to the three chapels in the right transept, an inscription reads: “3 Altari con statue, e cosi a rincontro e da capo, che saranno 9." According to Cigoli, then, there were to have been altars not only in the transept niches, but also in the corresponding niches in the tribune. Although there is no w ay of knowing whether Cigoli, in making this annotation, was recording an existing project or merely introducing an idea of his own, it stands to reason that Clement would have considered the possibility of using the tribune niches to extend the apostle cycle. Even so, this would have yielded only three additional altars, only two of which could have been used to accommodate apostles, since the middle altar would presumably have been dedicated to Christ. Clement would have had to find another three or four altars to bring the cycle to completion, and it is difficult to see how he could have done this while still maintaining the strict symmetry he favored.79 In the end this may have been what caused him to abandon the project. Having completed the decoration of the transept chapels in time for the jubilee year of 1600, he made no move to commission appropriate altarpieces, but turned his attention instead to the Petrine altars in the navi piccole.

Despite the fact that Clement did not get very far with the transept altars, it is worth

77 Abromson, 1976, pp. 128—29; Zuccari, 1984, pp. 58—59; Herz, 1988, p. 607. The frescoes in the side aisles are undocumented and may date from a few years before the rest of the cycle.

78 Ulfizi inv. no. 97A. See L’edificio a puinta centralc, 1984, pp. 114—15. The plan exists in several versions,but the others are not as copiously annotated as this one.

79 It is worth recalling that at the time only three of the four arms of M ichelangelo’s Greek cross had beenerected. Had the fourth arm been built identical to the transept and tribune arms, there would have been a total of twelve niches, the perfect number for an apostle cycle. At least one plan of the basilica, probably from the 1570s, does in fact illustrate such an arrangement (Windsor 10448, illustrated in The Rentiuoance from BrunelleochL to M ichelangelo, 1994, p. 665). The plan was hopelessly impractical, however, since it deprived the basilica of a central doorway, leaving the side entrances into the southeast and northeast comer chapels as the only frontal points of access.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 33

giving some thought to the kind of altarpiece he may initially have planned for them. Almost certainly, these would not have been narrative altarpieces; after all, the principal narrative events in each apostle’s life were depicted in the stucco tondi overhead. Instead, the saints would have been represented standing and holding their attributes in the stan­dard manner of apostle cycles of the period.80 I have already mentioned that the transept altars were equipped with elaborate aedicular surrounds designed to hold altarpieces. These surrounds were later fitted with painted altarpieces, but it does not necessarily fol­low that this was what Clement had in mind. He may have planned something more ambi­tious, namely, a series of statues of the apostles, one over each of the altars. This in any event is what Cigoli implies: on his plan of St. Peter’s, he identifies the transept and tri­bune altars as "altari con statue;” and in six of the niches he adds little squiggles to indi­cate the presence of sculptures. Again we cannot know whether Cigoli was recording an existing project or merely jotting down his own ideas for the transept altars. On the other hand, since he worked in St. Peter’s from 1604 to 1606, painting one of the six Petrine altarpieces,81 he would certainly have known of such a project had it existed.

Having abandoned his scheme for the transept altars, Clement VIII still found a w ay to include the apostles in his decoration of the church. In 1603 Cesari d ’Arpino was instructed to decorate the cupola with mosaics representing the twelve apostles plus St. Paul, along with Christ, the Virgin, and John the Baptist (Fig. 49).82 Less than a decade later, Paul V commissioned another series for the exterior of the church: visitors approaching St. Peters are confronted by colossal statues of tbe apostles, with Christ at their center, standing atop the facade like sentries guarding the ramparts of a fortress (Fig. I).83

Clement’s treatment of the altars in new St. Peter’s was programmatic in the extreme.84 His idea was to create a visually and iconographically unified interior centered around the tomb and high altar. For him, the side altars and their altarpieces were little more than decorative ingredients in the larger scheme; and to ensure programmatic sym metiy he was willing to tie up whole groups of altars with liturgically senseless titles. But all of this was possible only because the Constantinian nave was still standing. As long as the nave continued to house the older altars around which the ritual life of the basilica for the most part revolved, the altars in the new basilica could be used for other, less conventional pur­poses. Clement’s plans for new St. Peter’s depended on the continued existence of the Constantinian nave; and while he lived, every effort was made to preserve it.85 Signfi- cantly, even after his death in 1605, his adviser Baronius persisted in defending the ancient building against those who would destroy it.86

80 See, for example, the apostle cycles cited by Male (1932, pp. 365-68) and Knipping (1974, II, pp. 480-82).81 Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, pp. 138—44.82 Abromson, 1976, pp. 81—84.83 Hibbard, 1971, pp. 175—76; Pressouyre, 1984, I, pp. 109, 218—19.84 Another project conceived during the Aldobrandini pontificate, revealing the same fascination with

symmetiy and program, involves the niches in the four crossing piers: Nelle quattro nicchie grandi che sono alii piloni della Cuppola a canto I’Altar maggiore [. . .] alcuni hanno opinione, che si staranno bene quattro Altari, nelli quali si potranno collocare li quattro Corpi di S. Leoni Papi, che sono nella medes- ima Chiesa.’’ (Poliak, 1915, p. 73.)

85 The roof was restored (Hibbard, 1971, p. 156). In addition, Clement contemplated a costly scheme toshore up the walls of the nave, which were sloping dangerously to one side: “E perche e pericolo che la Chiesa vecchia non caschi per esser le muraglie transpiombate fuori della grossezza del muro quattro palmi, et per esser puntellata dalla parte nesso Santo Andrea, si sono fatti alcuni disegni d ’aggiungeredue Capelle simili alia Gregoriana, che cosi si allongaria la nave della Chiesa, et altri per assicurar la detta Chiesa vecchia, et la spesa di questa saria di 14,000 scudi, per l ’haver rifondare, et far pilastri, archi et volte.” (Poliak, 1915, p. 73.)

88 Pastor, 1924-53, XXVI, pp. 380-81; De Maio, 1978, p. 327.

34 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R S

Clement’s vision for St. Peter’s was undoubtedly conditioned by personal experience. Throughout his life, the old and new basilicas coexisted; indeed, from the time he was a young man, the buildings abutted one another, with only the dividing wall separating them (Text Fig. I).87 The St. Peter's that he was familiar with was thus a hybrid, a fusing together of two architecturally and liturgically distinct spaces. In a sense all Clement tried to do was to perpetuate the arrangement he himself had grown up with. Had he had his way, the Constantinian structure would presumably have remained the domain of the basilica ’s clergy, and would have continued to house their daily liturgical activities; whereas the Renaissance building, on the other side of the dividing wall, would have func­tioned as a kind of vast papal chapel, a space reserved primarily for those ceremonies at which the pope officiated. The cycles of altarpieces, radiating out from the papal high altar, would have reinforced the space’s specifically petrine and papal identity.

Such a scheme presented obvious drawbacks. To maintain two structures so dissimi­lar in style and scale, with different floor levels and different roof levels, facing off across the dividing wall, would have proved not only aesthetically jarring but also highly impractical. Moreover the old basilica was in dilapidated condition and according to some accounts was on the verge of collapse, which, if true, rendered moot all arguments in favor of perpetuating it. By the turn of the century, the preservationist option was becoming less and less realistic; and, finally, one hundred years after Ju liu s II had begun the demolition of the Constantinian basilica, the painful but inevitable decision was made to finish the job.

PAUL V

Clement VIII died in 1605, and was succeeded by Leo XI. The latter’s pontificate lasted less than a month, not long enough for him to have had a major impact on the basilica's develop­ment. His only significant contribution, as discussed in the previous chapter, was to make the initial moves toward establishing a Congregation of cardinals to direct the Fabbrica.

It fell to Paul V Borghese (1605—21) to accomplish what his predecessors for a centuiy had only dreamed of, the completion of new St. Peter’s. Within a few months of his elec­tion, he had determined to tear down the last hallowed remnant of the Constantinian basilica, and had initiated what turned into a passionate debate among the cardinals of the Fabbrica and other interested advisers about whether the church should be completed according to Michelangelo’s Greek cross plan or according to a Latin cross plan.88 Those in favor of the Greek cross plan called for preserving the purity and sym m etry of Michelangelo’s design, which they claimed would be destroyed by the addition of a nave. A nave would be immensely costly and would take a long time to build; and furthermore, once built, it would obscure the view of the dome on the outside and cut down the natural light reaching the inside. Proponents of a Latin cross plan argued for the need to express the continuity between old and new St. Peter’s by imitating the basilical form of the Con­stantinian building; they recommended the Latin cross plan for its overt Christian symbol­ism and criticized Michelangelo's centralized plan for its dependence on pagan models;

87 Thoenes, 1992(a), p. 58.88 Among those calling for the preservation of M ichelangelos design were Gian Paolo Maggi, Fausto

Rughesi, Ludovico Cigoli, and, most notably, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini. In favor of the addition of a nave were, among others, Tiberio Alfarano, Giovanni Paolo Mucanzio, Carlo Mademo, and Cardinals Arrigoni and Cesi of the Congregation. For a full account of the debate, see Pastor, 1924-53, XXVI, pp. 385—88; Hibbard, 1971, pp. 66—68, 156—58. See also Wazbinski, 1992, pp. 147-64; Thoenes, 1992 (b), pp. 171-81.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 35

Text Fig. I. St. Peter’s around 1600 (author’s reconstruction)

and they claimed that only by adding a nave would it be possible to ensure that new St. Peter’s covered eveiy inch of ground made holy by old St. Peter’s. They stressed practical considerations as w ell, which probably weighed more heavily in the final decision. M ichelangelos church lacked a benediction loggia; it lacked important chapels, such as a baptistery, a sacristy, and a choir for the canons; and from the ceremonial standpoint it lacked a suitably majestic processional space in front of the high altar. Each side put for­ward valid arguments; but although the debate continued until 1607, when work was begun on the foundations of the new nave and facade, it is likely that the pope had settled on the Latin cross plan much earlier. From the moment he resolved to tear down what was left of old St. Peter’s, it was inevitable that the new basilica would have to be enlarged in order to accommodate the devotional and ceremonial activities that had been crowded into the nave for the past one hundred years.

36 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Having decided on the demolition of the old basilica, Paul set to work with a will. The first order of business was tbe deconsecration of its many altars and the removal, examina­tion, and translation of the relics they contained. In a series of solemn ceremonies, with the cardinal archpriest, members of the Chapter, and various prelates in attendance, the altars were opened one by one, and their contents removed, documented, sealed in capsules, and carried in procession either into the new basilica, where they were placed in the altars built by Clement VIII, or to tbe sacristy, where they were stored in a reliquary cabinet. Where a relic ended up depended to some extent on its importance. Not all relics were considered of equal worth. For example, whole bodies (corpora) were always valued more highly than fragments of anatomy, such as fingers or forearms (reliquiae).89 Distinctions such as this plainly influenced the distribution of relics. All of the bodies of saints formerly interred in altars in the old basilica were eventually reinterred in altars in the new basilica. Paul V deliberately set out to surround Peter’s tomb-altar at the center of the church with a ring of saints' tomb-altars arranged around the periphery: "Our most Holy Father [wishes] to encircle the body of Heaven’s gatekeeper with a crown made up of the many saints whose bodies rest in this basilica . . . .”90 In contrast, many of the smaller bits and pieces of saints extracted from the altars in the old nave were relegated to the sacristy.91

Everything to do with the deconsecration of the altars in old St. Peter’s and the trans­fer of relics was carefully recorded by Giacomo Grimaldi, a member of the Chapter who, in 1605, was assigned the job of documenting the demolition of the Constantinian basilica. From him we know that the first deconsecration occurred on October 1, 1605, when the sacrament was removed from the altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e in the nave and transferred to the altar in the Cappella Gregoriana.92 Somewhat later, on December 27, the bodies of the two apostles were translated to the middle altar in the south transept.93 This was fol­lowed a day later by the translation of the bodies of Sts. Processus and Martinian to the middle altar in the north transept.94 The body of St. Gregory the Great was placed in the altar in the Cappella Clementina on Jan uary 8, 1606; and that of St. Petronilla in the sec­ondary altar of the northwest corner chapel on Jan u ary 15.95 Two days later, the bodies of the sainted popes Boniface IV and Leo IX were interred in the right and left altars of the south transept, respectively.96 On March 21, three of the basilica’s most precious relics, the Sudarium, the lance, and the head of St. Andrew, were deposited in the crossing piers.97 The last of the major translations of Paul’s reign occurred on M ay 27, 1606, when the bodies of Sts. Leo I, II, III, and IV were placed in the altar of the southwest corner chapel.98 We know from Grimaldi that Paul also planned to bring the body of St. John

89 A body, even if reduced to a mere handful of dust, was invariably distinguished from any other kind of relic. We are told, for example, that the altar of St. Gregoiy contained no reliquiae because it contained instead the corpus of the saint (Doc. Appendix, no. 21).

90 Grimaldi, p. 70: “. . . volens idem sanctissimus dominus noster, ut aetherei ianatoris corpus plurium sanctorum, quorum corpora in hac basilica quiescunt, corona circum daret. . . . ’’

91 St. Peter’s was believed to possess relics of more than 180 different saints. For a complete list, see BAV, ACSP, H2; Torrigio, 1622, pp. 15-59.

92 See n. 54 above.93 Grimaldi, pp. 73—74, 503.94 Ibid., pp. 75-76, 503.93 Ibid., pp. 87-89, 93-94, 503.% Ibid., pp. 96-97, 101-102, 503.97 Ibid., pp. 208-209, 503.98 Ibid., pp. 237-^8, 503.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 37

Chrysostom from the sacristy, where it had been kept for at least half a century, to the main altar in the northwest corner chapel, but this he never got around to ."

There were not enough saints’ bodies to place one in every altar in the new basilica, and as a result some of the lesser altars were furnished with mixed packets of relics from the altars in old St. Peter’s. The Petrine altars in the navi piccole, which Clement VIII had provided with altarpieces but left without sacred contents, were all treated in this way: the altar of the Crucifixion of St. Peter, for example, received the relics from the former altar of the Dead {altare m ortuorum ), which included pieces of St. Innocent, St. Maurice and his2,000 comrades in the Theban legion, and the 11,000 martyred virgin companions of St. Ursula.100 Similarly, the left altar in the north transept was provided with relics from the former altar of St. Erasmus; the right altar in the north transept with relics from the for­mer altar of Sts. Simon and Jude ; and the main altar in the northwest corner chapel with relics from the former altar of S. M aria della Febbre.101

Because of the urgency with which Paul V set to work tearing down the old nave, the translations of relics were carried out in a huriy. As a result, no serious effort was made at that point to coordinate the distribution of relics with the assignment of titles. The impor­tant thing was to empty the altars in the old nave as quickly as possible; the dedications of the altars in the new church could be worked out later. Yet despite the speed with which the translations were effected, there was some effort to ensure a modicum of order and symmetry in the placement of the relics within the new church. We have already seen that Paul V wanted to showcase the tomb of St. Peter by surrounding it with a circle of saints’ tombs, a corona oanctorum ; in a sense, Paul was doing with relics what Clement had tried to do with altarpieces. A similar programmatic mentality lies behind the choice of relics for the middle altars of the two transepts. Clement had planned these altars as pendants, one dedicated in honor of Peter and the other of Paul. By moving the bodies of Sts. Simon and Jud e Thaddeus to the altar in the south transept and the bodies of Sts. Processus and Martinian to the altar in the north transept, Paul retained something of the symmetry implicit in Clement’s project. For besides the fact that the apostles Simon and Jud e and the martyrs Processus and Martinian are both pairs of male saints, they also have in com­mon their close association with St. Peter, the former as his fellow apostles and the latter as his jailers and disciples. Once again it seems that the south transept (on the gospel side from the point of view of the priest officiating at the high altar) was given liturgical prece­dence over the north transept (on the epistle side): just as Peter was considered more important than Paul, so Simon and Jude, who were apostles as well as martyrs, were con­sidered more important than Processus and Martinian, who were merely martyrs.102

Paul V was again thinking in terms of establishing symmetiy across the width of the church when he had the body of G regory the G reat deposited in the a lta r in the Clementina, directly opposite the body of Gregoiy of Nazianzus in the altar in the Grego­riana. Here, too, the relic on the south side is superior in status to the relic on the north side, since Gregory the Great, a pope and a Larin Church father, ranks higher in the hier­archy of saints than Gregory of Nazianzus, a bishop and a Greek Church father.

99 Ibid., pp. 34^35, 503.100 Doc. Appendix, no. 21.

Ibid.102 The inherent symmetry between the two altars, as well as the precedence of the south altar over the

north altar, were expressed even in the scheduling of the translations, which occurred on consecutive days (December 27 and 28, 1605), with the bodies of Simon and Ju d e laid to rest one day before the bodies of Processus and Martinian.

38 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

The distinction between gospel and epistle sides may have affected the distribution of relics in another important way. The bodies of six other sainted popes besides Gregory were transferred into the new church, and all of them were placed in altars on the south side of the building.103 Boniface IV and Leo IX were laid to rest in the altars to the right and left of the altar of Simon and Jude ; and Leo I, along with his namesakes Leo II, III, and IV, was interred in the altar in the southwest corner chapel. Had Paul V realized his plan to transfer the body of St. John Chrysostom to the altar in the northwest corner chapel, he would have established a symmetry between the altars in the southwest and northwest corner chapels comparable to that between the Clementina and Gregoriana, with the body of Leo I, pope and Latin Church father, balancing that of John Chrysos­tom, bishop and Greek Church father.

Even before the last of the old altars were deconsecrated and their relics removed, the demolition of the nave had begun. From that moment on, the Fabbrica directed its efforts and its funds almost exclusively toward construction. Committed as he was to bringing the architecture to completion, Paul V paid much less attention than had Clement VIII to the decoration of the centralized portion of the basilica. He probably recognized, in any case, that the building was not yet ready to accommodate perishable works of art. The Petrine altarpieces commissioned just a few years earlier were already deteriorating in an interior that was still far from weatherproof; and the construction in progress on the other side of the dividing wall, not to mention the eventual demolition of that dividing wall, was only going to add to the inhospitableness of the environment.104 Thus, during the sixteen years of the Borghese pontificate only two new altarpieces were commissioned for St. Peter’s, and only one of them proved to be permanent.

Paul did not leave the other altars unadorned. Instead of commissioning new paintings, however, he furnished them with preexisting altarpieces salvaged from the old basilica or acquired from other sources. This was never meant to be anything other than a temporary measure. The paintings were of different shapes and sizes, and some were old and shabby; furthermore, in most cases their subjects had nothing to do with the saints whose relics were in the altars beneath them. They were chosen because they were portable and avail­able, and not necessarily because they were iconographically appropriate or of great artistic merit. Still, they remained over the altars for approximately two decades; and since several of them influenced the dedications of the altars over which they hung, or served as models for the permanent altarpieces that eventually replaced them, they deserve a closer look.

THE PROVISIONAL ALTARPIECES

By piecing together scattered bits of evidence, it is possible to identify the paintings and sculptures that served as temporary altarpieces during this interim period, and to ascertain over which altars they were placed.105 The single most important source is Giovanni M aggi’s souvenir print of St. Peter's, completed around 1620, and revised and reprinted for the Jubilees of 1625 and 1650 (Fig. 50).106 The print features a view of the exterior of the

103 I am indebted to Irving Lavin for bringing this circumstance to my attention, and pointing out its litur­gical significance. See also Chapter 6, n. 2.

ltM See Chapter 3, nn. 1 and 2.105 On the identification of the temporary altarpieces and their location within the church, see also Van-

nugli, 1994, esp. pp. 165—68. Our results, arrived at independently, on most points coincide.106 On Maggi and his series of prints of the major pilgrimage churches in Rome, see Ri<ma Mncla, 1985,

pp. 280—83; Baglione, 1639 (1990), pp. 13, 196; Borsi, 1990, pp. 9-41.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ’S 3 9

church, framed on three sides by reproductions of nine altarpieces. At the center of this group is the high altar; to its left is the sacrament altar in the Cappella Gregoriana, with its miracle-working image of the Madonna del Soccorso and tabernacle below. The other seven altarpieces are labeled simply V N V M EX VII A LTA R IBV S: these are the images that were situated over the seven privileged altars of the basilica. Until Paul V ’s pontificate, the seven privileged altars were located in the old nave; but one of his first acts in preparation for the demolition of the nave was to transfer the privileges to seven altars in the new basilica. These were, originally, the middle altar in the north transept [16], the main altar in the northwest corner chapel [20], the altar of St. Peter raising Tabitha [22], the altar in the southwest corner chapel [30], the middle altar in the south transept [35], the altar of the Crucifixion of St. Peter [37], and the altar in the Clementina [39]; in 1607, the secondary altar in the northwest corner chapel [21] was substituted for the altar of St. Peter raising Tabitha.107 A close examination of M aggi’s print reveals that the altarpieces are arranged in sequence, clockwise, according to their positions in the church. The four altarpieces on the left side of the print were located on the north side of the building, and the four altarpieces on the right side of the print were located on the south side of the building.

The image in the lower left corner of the print represents the large wooden crucifix, tra­ditionally ascribed to Pietro Cavallini, which hangs today in the oval chamber between the first and second chapels on the right of the nave, but which in M aggi’s day stood over the altar of St. Petronilla in the northwest corner chapel [21] (Fig. 51). The sculpture's associa­tion with the altar of St. Petronilla dated back to 1574, when Gregory' XIII deposited the saint's body in the altar over which the crucifix was then standing (Fig. 22).108 When the body was moved into the new basilica and installed in the altar in the northwest comer chapel, the crucifix was moved along with it and remained there until it was replaced in 1623 by Guercino s Burial o f St. Petronilla. 109

The second image illustrates the painting that hung over the adjacent altar in the north­west corner chapel [20]. The subject is the Ascension, but the author would be more diffi­cult to name were it not for a clue provided by Giovanni Baglione. In his life of Jacopo Zucchi, Baglione mentions that the artist painted "various pictures from the life of Christ for the private chapel of Cardinal d ’Aragona, which were later placed over various altars in new St. Peters. ”l 10 The Ascension was evidently one of these works. After its removal from St. Peter's around 1623, it was stored for a while in the sacristy, and then all trace of it was lost. Only recently has it been identified in the church of S. Lorenzo in S. Lorenzo Nuovo near Viterbo, where, along with another work by Zucchi representing the Resurrec­tion (discussed below), it was sent by Pope Pius VI around 1777 (Fig. 52).111

Next on M aggi’s print comes the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian in the north transept [16], which was decorated with Siciolante da Sermoneta’s Virgin and Child Appear-

]07 Grimaldi, p. 53.108 The crucifix had once stood over the altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e in the Constantinian nave [at no. 44

on the Alfarano plan], but at some point after 1538 it was moved to one of the altars built up against the dividing wall, which was thenceforth known as the altar of the Crucifix [at no. 54 on the Alfarano plan]. It was to this altar that the body of St. Petronilla was brought during the pontificate of Gregory XIII. See Alfarano, p. 69; Grimaldi, pp. 69, 95; also n. 25 above and Cat. 2.

109 As long as the crucifix stood over it, the altar was frequently referred to as the altar of the Crucifix. See, for example, Felini, 1610 (1969), p. 12: “II terzo [altare privilegiato] e quello del Crocefisso, sotto il quale e il corpo di S. Petronilla Vergine, & pero si chiama anco l ’Altare di S. Petronilla.”

110 Baglione, 1642, p. 46: “Opero il medesimo per la cappella segreta del Cardinale Aragona diversi quadri della vita di N. Signore Giesu Christo, li quali furono poi messi sopra diversi altari in s. Pietro nuovo infin’a tanto, che furono fatti questi, che hora vi si ntrovano."

m Un’antologui direstauri, 1982, pp. 46--49.

4 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

in g to Pope Boniface VIII, with St.t. Francit and Boniface o f Tannic, originally commissioned around 1574 for the chapel of St. Boniface IV in the old basilica (Fig. 53).112 The painting remained in its new location at least until 1626, and probably until 1630, when Valentin’s Alartyrdom o f St.t. Proce.utuc and Afartinian was set up in its place.113

Turning to the right side of the engraving, we come to the altarpieces located over the four privileged altars on the south side of the church. The first of these is the altarpiece of the Madonna della Colonna, the only altarpiece in St. Peter’s that dates from the pontifi­cate of Paul V [30] (Fig. 54). Like the altarpiece in the Gregoriana, which it imitates, it consists of a miracle-working image of the Madonna and Child in a setting of marble intarsia. The image is known as the M adonna della Colonna because it was painted directly onto the curved flank of one of the columns dividing the nave from the left side aisle in old St. Peter’s. In 1579, Ludovico Bianchetti, a canon of St. Peter's, built an altar in honor of the image at the foot of the column (Fig. 16). In 1607, during the demolition of the nave, the section of column on which it was painted was literally sawn off from the rest of the shaft and transported to the altar in the southwest corner chapel.114 Private patronage was not normally permitted in new St. Peter’s, but in this instance Cardinal Lorenzo Bianchetti, the brother of the founder of the original altar, was allowed to pay for the costly marble altarpiece.115

Maggi next illustrates Michelangelo’s Pieta, which stood at the time over the altar of Sts. Simon and Jud e in the south transept [35] (Fig. 55). The Pieta was commissioned in 1497 by Cardinal Je an de Bilheres Lagraulas for the rotunda of St. Petronilla, to the south of the transept of old St. Peter’s. When the rotunda was demolished to make way for the new basilica, as early as 1514, the statue was moved, first to the so-called Secretar- ium to the left of the entrance into the old nave, and then, in 1568, to the choir chapel of Sixtus IV, where it remained for the next forty years .116 The choir chapel, because of its vital function, was left standing after every other portion of the old nave had been torn down; but in 1609 it too was deconsecrated and razed. A temporary canons’ choir was erected in the south transept of the new basilica, incorporating the altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e .117 The members of the Chapter had by this time developed a proprietorial feeling toward the Pieta, and when it came to decorating the altar of the temporary choir in an appropriate fashion they claimed the statue as their own. In 1626, when they moved into the new Chapel of the Choir, they once again took the Pieta with them.118

The Pieta is followed by Passignano’s Crucifixion o f St. Peter, which stood over the altar of the same name located in the ruice p icco la between the south transept and the Cappella Clementina [37] (Fig. 37). This brings us to the last of the nine altarpieces, in the lower right corner of M aggi’s print, which must, through the process of elim ina­tion, have stood over the altar in the Clementina [39]. The picture is a densely allegori­cal G lorification o f the Virgin, in which M ary, surrounded by Old and New Testament figures arranged in a composition reminiscent of T itian’s Gloria, is received into heaven by God the Father and a female personification of Ecclesia. Although the subject does not involve Christ, the style of the painting suggests that it is one of the “diversi quadri” by Jacopo Zucchi that, according to Baglione, temporarily adorned several of

112 See n. 32 above. 113 See Cat. 11.114 Grimaldi, p. 227; Cherubini, 1609, pp. 9—11.115 Grimaldi, p. 227; Felini, 1610 (1969), p. 12; Orbaan, 1919, p. 80. On Lorenzo Bianchetti, s e e DBI, X,

pp. 51—52.116 Alfarano, pp. 79, 120, 122, 165—66; Grimaldi, p. 445; Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987, esp. pp. 87—90.117 Grimaldi, p. 262. 1,8 See Chapter 4 and Cat. 8.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ’S 41

the altars in the new basilica.119 Corroboration is provided by Giulio Mancini, who, in his brief description of St. Peter’s written around 1620, observed that the altar (i.e. the altarpiece) in the Clementina was by "Zucca.”120 The painting is today in the sacristy (Fig. 56).

M aggi’s engraving provides us with valuable information about the seven privileged altars, the altar in the Gregoriana, and the high altar. The altars in the navi p iccole we also know about, since these had been furnished with permanent altarpieces during the pontif­icates of Gregory XIII and Clement VIII. This leaves only four other altars to account for, the left and right altars of the north and south transepts.121 To reconstruct how these four altars were furnished during the pontificate of Paul V, we have to rely on other prints as well as descriptions and documents of various kinds.

Around 1610, Jacques Callot produced a set of thirty small engraved reproductions of altarpieces in the major basilicas of Rome.122 Of these, seventeen are of altarpieces in St. Peter's. In addition to the altarpieces over the seven privileged altars, Callot copied all eight of the altarpieces in the navi p iccole (Gastello’s Cbri.it Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water he copied twice), and one other altarpiece, labeled S . E R A SM V S , which represents the saint's martyrdom (Fig. 57). We know that there was an altarpiece with this subject, painted on panel, over the altar of St. Erasmus in old St. Peter’s.123 We also know that the painting was moved into the new basilica: Mancini saw it there, although he does not mention its precise location.124 Other evidence allows us to deduce that it was placed over the left altar in the north transept [17]. This was the altar to which the relics from the old altar of St. Erasmus had been transferred;125 and throughout Paul’s pontificate, it was referred to by the title of St. Erasmus.126 Furthermore, a memo from around 1627 con­tains the following unambiguous reference to the painting: “The [new] altarpiece of St. Erasmus, which is planned for the altar next to the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian, [. . .] should be painted so as to include the saint’s martyrdom in the form in which it is represented in the altarpiece that hangs there today.”127 The text establishes beyond doubt that the old altarpiece of St. Erasmus stood over the left altar in the north transept, and also that it remained there at least until 1627. In 1629, Poussin's M artyrdom o f St. Ercumuui was set up in its place.128

The altar on the right of the north transept was known by the title of St. Anne, and had as its temporary altarpiece the painting by Leonardo da Pistoia and Jacopino del Conte representing St. Anne with the Virgin and Child and Sto. P eter and Paul, formerly over the altar of St. Anne in the old basilica (Fig. 58).129

As for the left altar in the south transept, this was always referred to, up until 1627 or

119 See n. 110 above.120 Mancini, 1956, I, p. 268: ". . . la cappella Clementina invece di Cristofaro Pomarancio e l ’altar in faccia

del Zucca.” Mancini mentions one other altarpiece by the same painter, without however specifying either its subject or its location.

121 The secondaiy altar in the southwest comer chapel, today dedicated to St. Leo, did not yet exist, and its site was occupied by a door leading to the exterior of the church [29]. See Cat. 18.

122 Lieure, 1924-29, pt. II, vol. I, pp. 7-16 and figs. 16-45; Loire, 1993.123 Alfarano, p. 188; Grimaldi, p. 55.12,1 Mancini, 1956, 1, p. 268: “Vi sono di quadri, uno del Zucca e I’altro del segretario del cardinal Ver-

miense, che e il Martirio di S. Erasmo." On Mancini's puzzling attribution of the painting, see ibid., II,pp. 171-72. See also Cat. 10.

125 See Doc. Appendix, no. 21. 126 See Doc. Appendix, no. 1.127 See Doc. Appendix, no. 16. 128 See Cat. 10. The old altarpiece no longer exists.129 See n. 30 above.

42 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

1628, as the altar of St. I eo IX, because his body was interred inside it [34]. Its tempo­rary altarpiece did not represent the saint, however, but the Resurrection o f Christ. This we know from three documents, the earliest dating from 1624, in which the altar is mentioned in connection with an unattributed painting of this subject.130 There was an altarpiece rep­resenting the Resurrection, painted by the Flemish artist Michael Coxie in the 1530s, over one of the altars in old St. Peter’s; since Van Mander records that the altarpiece was done in fresco, however, we must assume that it was destroyed during the demolition of the nave.131 An altarpiece of the Resurrection appears in the background of a fresco by Fed­erico Zuccari, painted in 1600 in the chapel of St. Hyacinth in S. Sabina, which repre­sents the canonization of St. Hyacinth by Pope Clement VIII, an event that took place in 1594 in the Cappella Gregoriana.132 Zuccari's rendering of the setting is vague, however, and his inclusion of a Resurrection altarpiece cannot be presumed to be topographically accurate. It is more likely that he inserted the image for purely documentary purposes; the canonization took place on April 17, which in the year 1594 fell on Easter Sunday, or in other words the day of the Resurrection. We are left with a third possibility, that the Res­urrection over the altar of St. Leo IX, like the Ascension over the altar in the northwest cor­ner chapel, was one of the scenes from the life of Christ by Jacopo Zucchi mentioned by Baglione.133 The Ascension in fact has a companion piece representing the Resurrection, also sent to S. Lorenzo Nuovo in the eighteenth century (Fig. 59 ).13 The two works were clearly designed for a single chapel, and this fits with Baglione’s claim that the altarpieces by Zucchi in St. Peter’s were originally commissioned for the private chapel of Cardinal d ’Aragona. We can reasonably conclude, therefore, that it was Zucchi s Resurrection that stood over the altar of St. Leo IX on the left side of the south transept.

We come now to the altar on the right side of the south transept, the most problematic of all those considered so far. Since we lack concrete information about either the subject or the author of the temporary altarpiece that stood over the altar, we must rely in this instance entirely on circumstantial evidence. The altar was usually referred to by the title of St. Boniface IV, whose body had been deposited there in 1606.135 But by 1621, and pos­sibly much earlier, another title had come into use, that of St. Thomas.136 The altar con­tained neither a relic of St. Thomas nor relics from the altar of St. Thomas in the old basil­ica.137 The most plausible explanation for its acquiring the title, therefore, is that it had an image of St. Thomas as its altarpiece. If we pursue this hypothesis, we discover two important facts. First, a painting representing St. Thomas, executed by Niccolo Martinelli in 1574, is recorded in the old basilica, where it almost certainly adorned the saint's altar [at letter ’r ’ on the Alfarano p lan].138 Second, the painting was later tranferred to the new basilica. This can be deduced from a stray remark by the anonymous author of a bio­

130 gee I)oc. Appendix, nos. 3, 14, and 20. 131 Van Mander, 1885, II, p. 33.132 Illustrated in S. Sabina,, 1966, p. 105. 133 Seen . 110 above.134 See n. 11 1 above.135 See n. 96 above. See also Doc. Appendix, no. 1; Cat. 13, nn. 3 and 4.136 [Jan . 30, 1621] "Questa mattina [. . .] I'Hore sono state lette privatamente dietro al Coro all'Altare di

S. Tomasso.'' (BAV, ACSP, Diari 12, p. 8.)>37 See Cat. 13.138 The painting is first documented on September 27, 1573, when a payment was made to a certain Cur-

tio senese, "a bon conto del quadro di S. Tomasso.” By 1574, for reasons unknown, the commission had passed to "Nicolo da Pesaro” (i.e. Niccolo Martinelli), who was paid "per havere pinto il quadro di Sancto Thomasso . . . .” For the relevant documents, see Cascioli, 1924(a), p. 523; 1925, pp. 39—40.

Niccolo Martinelli, called il Trometta or il Trombetta, was a student of Federico Zuccari, whosestyle he largely imitated. According to Baglione, M artinelli arrived in Rome during the pontificate of Gregory XIII; if Baglione is right about this, the date of his arrival may now be placed with greater

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D T O N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 43

graphical note on the learned canon Giacomo Ercolano: “Today one can see a portrait ol Ercolano in the altarpiece of St. Thomas Apostle in the new basilica of St. Peter’s.”139 The anonymous author does not specify where in the new basilica the painting was situated. Still, since we have identified the images that stood over every other altar, we can deter­mine by a process of elimination that Martinelli's St. Thomas stood over the altar ol St. Boniface IV.

A further piece of circumstantial evidence supports this conclusion. In December 1626, the Chapter paid to have a painting representing St. Thomas transported from the "stantia del Capitolo” to the tiny church of S. Tommaso in Formis, a dependent of the Chapter, and installed over its single altar.140 Shortly before, the altar in St. Peters had been pro­vided with a permanent altarpiece, Domenico Passignano's Doubting o f Thomas. 141 The coincidence of dates suggests that Passignano’s painting replaced Martinelli's, which was then relegated to the church of S. Tommaso.142

We have established how each of the altars in the centralized part of the basilica was decorated during the crucial interim period between the demolition of the old nave and the completion of the new nave. But before we move on, one other painting deserves our attention. As mentioned earlier, two altarpieces were commissioned during the pon­tificate of Paul V. One of these was the altarpiece of the Madonna della Colonna, which has already been discussed. The other was Caravaggio’s ill-fated M adonna dei Palafrenieri (Fig. 60). The painting remained in the church less than a week, and thus has only a tangential bearing on the later history of the altars and altarpieces in St. Peter’s. Still, the circumstances surrounding the commission are worth recounting, not least for what they reveal about the workings of patronage in St. Peter’s in the early months of the pontificate.143

On October 20, 1605, the altar of St. Anne in the old basilica was deconsecrated.144

accuracy between 1572 (when Gregory XIII was elected) and 1574 (when Martinelli painted the St. Thomas lor St. Peter’s). The altarpiece was thus one of his first Roman works, which may account for the fact that it escaped the notice of his biographer Baglione. More recent scholars of M artinelli’s work, too, make no mention of the commission. For more on M artinelli, see Baglione, 1642, pp. 125-26; Gere, 1963.

139 "frjus [j e Hercolani] imago cernitur hodie in icone S. Thomae Apostoli in novo Templo S. Petri.’’ (ACSP, D cjcendentiae Canonicatuum, ff. 63-64, transcribed in Alfarano, p. xviii.) The passage is of inter­est not only because it demonstrates that a painting of St. Thomas was transferred to the new basilica, but because it tells us that the painting included a donor-portrait of Ercolano. Ercolano died in Ju ly 1573, only a couple of months before the painting was commissioned (see the previous note). Presum­ably, therefore, the painting was begun in connection with a pious legacy left for that purpose by the deceased. It may be that Ercolano expected to be buried in the chapel of St. Thomas - at that time canons were occasionally buried there (see n. 36 above) - but in the end his body was placed in the canons’ communal tomb in the sacristy (Alfarano, p. 140).

140 "Spese latte alia Chiesa di S. Tomasso alia Navicella [i.e. S. Tommaso in Formis] per la sua festa [i.e. December 21] l'anno 1626

E piu per far portare il quadro di S. Tomasso che stava nella stantia del Capitolo e fattolo acconciare sopra I’Altare. . . . sc.—.80” (BAV, ACSP, Diitr'ibuzlonimens 'di 68, unfohated.)See Cat. 13.

142 I have been unable to trace the present whereabouts of M artinelli’s altarpiece. The church of S. Tom­maso in Formis underwent a major redecoration in 1663. Two side altars were built, and the high altar was completely remodeled. M artinelli’s St. Thomas may have been removed from the church at that time.

143 For a thorough and insightful treatment of the histoiy of Caravaggio’s painting, see Spezzaferro, 1974.144 Grimaldi, p. 57.

44 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Anne was the patron saint of the Confraternity of the Palafrenieri, the gentlemen-grooms employed by the pope and the cardinals. The Confraternity had long held certain rights to the altar in old St. Peter’s, and its members were anxious that those rights should be trans­ferred to an altar in the new basilica as quickly as possible. By October 31, they had somehow managed to lay claim to the main altar in the northwest corner chapel, which only eleven days earlier had been designated one of the seven privileged altars [20].145 Their first idea was to place the old altarpieee by Leonardo da Pistoia and Jacopino del Conte over the new altar (Fig. 58). But when they discovered that it did not fit properly into the preexisting altar surround, they decided instead to hang the Confraternity’s stan­dard as a temporary altarpieee until a new painting could be commissioned. The Dean of the Confraternity immediately set about soliciting contributions from the members. By December 1, Caravaggio had been chosen for the commission; and by April 8, 1606, the painting was finished. The speed with which the Palafrenieri acted suggests that they were trying to secure their claim to the altar by planting an image of their patron saint over it as quickly as possible. If so, their efforts were in vain. On April 16, only days after it was installed over the altar in the northwest corner chapel, the painting was removed from the church.

Caravaggio’s composition, dark and austere, shows St. Anne standing to one side, absorbed in contemplation of the Virgin and Child, her daughter and grandson, who together grind the serpent of sin beneath their feet. Bellori, in 1672, was the first to inti­mate that the painting was rejected because of its own shortcomings, these being, in his view, an excessive naturalism and an indecorous use of nudity.146 Bellori was, of course, writing well over half a centuiy after the event, and was also an avowed enemy of Car­avaggio’s art. Nevertheless most scholars have followed his lead in assuming that there was something improper or objectionable about the painting that caused it to be refused. It may well be that the work was not considered up to Caravaggio’s usual standard from an aesthetic point of view; or that the emphatic nudity of the boy-Christ was found to be offensive; or that the Palafrenieri were displeased at seeing their patron saint shunted to one side and portrayed as a wrinkled crone; or that the suggestion of the theological equality of M aty and Christ implicit in the iconography was judged too daring.147 But a more compelling explanation for the removal of the painting has less to do with the paint­ing itself than with the altar for which it was intended. Spezzaferro has shown that, at around the time that Caravaggio’s painting was taken away, the Confraternity’s rights to the altar were rescinded. On M ay 4, just a little over two weeks after the painting was withdrawn, the Confraternity petitioned the pope and the cardinals of the Fabbrica “per hauere l ’altare in San Pietro.”148 That such a petition was necessaiy indicates that they were without an altar at that point. And if they had no altar, they certainly had no right to erect an altarpieee. This, then, would seem to be the main reason why Caravaggio’s pic­ture was removed.

Spezzaferro assumes that the Palafrenieri were eventually granted another altar in the new basilica, namely, the right altar in the north transept [15 ].149 I find no evidence for

145 Ibid., p. 53.146 Bellori, p. 231: “[II] quadro di Santa Anna fu tolto ancora da uno de’ minori altari della Basilica Vati-

cana, ritratti in esso vilmente la Vergine con Giesu fanciullo ignudo. . . . ”147 For a summary of the huge literature on the painting, see Cinotti, 1983, pp. 497-99. For more recent

discussions, see Calvesi, 1990, esp. pp. 125, 344—49; Bologna, 1992, esp. pp. 220, 382.148 Spezzaferro, 1974, p. 133, n. 33. 149 Ibid., p. 129.

CHAPTER TWO / F R O M O L D TO N E W ST. P E T E R ' S 45

this. It is true that this altar was temporarily assigned the old altarpiece of St. Anne by Lorenzo da Pistoia and Jacopino del Conte, and that as long as the painting was in place the altar was called by the title of St. Anne.150 But there seems to have been no formal connection between the altar and the Palafrenieri; at least no such connection is men­tioned in any of the related documents. If the pope and the Fabbrica did in fact deny the Confraternity’s request for an altar, it was probably on the grounds of redundancy. For the Confraternity now had its own church, dedicated in honor of St. Anne, and located only a few meters from St. Peters. Begun around 1568 and already in use by the mid- 1570s, the church provided the Palafrenieri with ample space for their religious activities, and obviated the need for an altar in St. Peter’s.151

The fate that befell Caravaggio's altarpiece seems to have resulted from a misunder­standing between the members of the Confraternity and the authorities with whom they were dealing. Evidence is lacking as to how the Confraternity came to be assigned the altar in the northwest corner chapel in the first place. But apparently this occurred at the very outset of Paul’s pontificate, before a policy for the distribution of the altars had been worked out. By the time the painting was installed five months later, the situation had changed. In order to guarantee the universality of the new basilica, it had been decided that private patronage, which had played so vital a part in the history of the altars in old St. Peter's, would no longer be permitted except in extraordinary cases. Once the Palafre­nieri realized that they were to be deprived of their altar in St. Peter's, the altarpiece lost its usefulness to them. For that matter, it may have been they themselves who decided to take it down, preferring to sell it than to forfeit their investment by leaving it in place.152 In the end they even turned a profit, for Cardinal Scipione Borghese purchased the paint­ing for 100 M'udi, which was 25 jcu d i more than they had paid for it.153

St <t st

Paul V contributed to the history ol the altars in St. Peter’s in significant ways. He trans­lated the relics from the altars in the old church to those in the new. Sharing to some extent his predecessor’s fascination with program, he took care to position the relics in such a w ay as to suggest symmetries across the width of the church. He erected temporary altarpieces over all of the altars that were without permanent ones. In addition, by building tbe nave, he added space for half a dozen new altars. As we will see in the following chapters, these achievements were to have important implications when it came time to work out the dedi­cations of the altars and to commission permanent altarpieces for them.

In the meantime, work continued on construction. In 1612, Paul’s name went up in gilded letters five feet high over the principal entrance of St. Peter's: In H O N O R E M P R IN -

C IP IS A PO ST . PAVLVS V B V R G H E SIV S R O M A N V S PO NT. M A X . VII (Fig. 1). The inscription com­memorates the completion of the facade, but by implication it confers on Paul a still greater honor, the consummation of the basilica as a whole. The ambition of eveiy pope

150 Later, when permanent dedications were chosen for the altars in St. Peter’s, the title of St. Anne was relegated to an altar in the sacristy, to which the old altarpiece was moved at some point in the 1620s.

151 The point was made by Lewine, 1965, p. 202: "When Pius IV issued his bull in 1565 [giving the Palafrenieri the right to erect a church in the Borgo Pio, under the invocation of Sant "Anna, for the exercise of their religious customs and the divine offices], in effect he made it plain that there would be no room for the Palafrenieri in new Saint Peter's.”

152 Baglione (1642, p. 137) claims that it was the cardinals of the Congregation who ordered the painting to be removed. But he may be wrong on this point, just as he is wrong in stating that the Palafrenieri presented the painting to Cardinal Borghese as a gilt.

153 Spezzaferro, 1974, p. 133. The painting is today in the Galleria Borghese.

46 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R S

since Ju liu s II, to have his name immortalized on the facade of the principal monument of Catholicism, had at last been realized.154 Three years later came the culmination of all Paul s efforts: the dividing wall was taken down, and for the first time the architectural g lo iy of new St. Peters was revealed in its awe-inspiring entirety.155

154 Felini, 1610 (1969), p. 14: "Hora anco N. Signore Papa Paolo V. fa attenderre con ogni dillgenza a far la stupendissima facciata della presente Chiesa, la quale si spera sara fra 8. overo 10. anni senz’altro finita, si che sua Santita la possi anco godere longo tempo compita, mettendovi le sue Armi a memoria perpetua.”

155 Grimaldi, p. 153: "Paulus V pontifex maximus post absolutam magnificentissimam fabricam et augustissimam frontem divisorium hunc murum solo aequavit, mense martio et aprili ad diem usque XII, quae fuit dominica Palmarum anno MDCXV. Quo visum est primum totum ipsum longissimum et amplissimum templum omnium admiratione absolutum et expenditum.”

C H A P T E R T H R E E

G R E G O R Y X V A N D THE ST. P E T R O N I L L A AL T A R P IE C E

A T THE DEATH of Paul V in 1621, the interior of St. Peters was still an uninviting place, subject to extremes of temperature, and infiltrated at all times of year by rain, drafts, and creeping damp, so that clergy and workmen alike suffered real discomfort

as they went about their daily business.1 Weatherproofing the vast edifice was the focus of the Fabbrica’s activities at that time. All plans to begin the more delicate and perishable aspects of the interior decoration were necessarily postponed until the building could be secured against the elements, its windows glazed, its leaking roofs mended, and the cracks that had appeared in its walls and vaults filled in and stuccoed over.2

1 The cold of St. Peter’s in w inter regu larly brought out the w orst in those who had to endure it. Grimaldi, speaking as a member of the Chapter, rudely accused Carlo Mademo of being “rei ecclesiasti- cae ignarus” because the temporary choir that the latter built for the canons of St. Peters was protected from the cold by nothing more than a sheet of canvas (“temporaneus chorus . . . desuper tela ad arcenda frigora opertus”). When the pope saw this, his concern for the canons’ health was such that he immedi­ately gave orders to have the canvas replaced by a proper panelled ceiling (Grimaldi, p. 262). The painter Simon Vouet was equally peevish when it came to putting up with the cold. In a letter to the pope, his resentment is all too apparent as he contrasts the conditions under which he and Guercino painted their respective altarpieces: “. . . gli [i.e. Vouet] e bisognato lavorare nel muro, et luogo proprio, nel rigor del verno, con grandissimo disagio, et incommodo, il che non e intervenuto al Guercino, il quale ha lavorato in tela, a casa sua, et con tutte le sue commodita” (AFSP, Piano 1—ser. 1—no. 2, biuta 5). See also Chapter 5, n. 69.

2 The following is a sampling of the activities of the Fabbrica between 1615 and 1623. [Ju ly 18, 1615]: “S e ordinato che si fmischino le sei cuppolette, et si copri la chiesa dove sia bisogno, [. . .] et per riparare a ll’aria, et vento si facciano le vetriate.” [M arch 6, 1619]: “. . . si accomodino le volte piccole in maniera che si levi l ’acqua che non faccia danno, ne piova in chiesa.” [Dec. 6]: “Che l’Architetto veda se la Confessione patisce danno per la pioggia et bisogna nuovo fatti rimediare.” [Nov. 5, 1620]: “L’Ar­chitetto della Fabrica faccia accomodare li luoghi dove piove. [. . .] S ’atturino le fissure della Cuppolla, et si faccino l'invetriate della Gregoriana.” [M arch 10, 1621]: “Si e ordinato, che si faccia il lantemino alia Sacrestia per darli il lume, e levarli l'humidita.” [M arch 30, 1622]: Maderno petitions the Congrega­tion to provide him with an assistant to help with the maintenance of the roof (e.g. repairing leaks, uprooting grass, etc.). [Oct. 6, 1623]: “Le sei cuppoletti fatte nella nova aggionta della chiesa si coprino di mattoni tagliati, accio non piova in chiesa, secondo il pensiero dell’Architetto.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3-no. 159a, ff. 18, 30, 33v, 36->56v, 39, 46v, 61.)

47

48 gg T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

ST. P E T E R ’S IN 1 6 2 1

It is worth taking a moment at this point to consider the appearance of St. Peter's at the out­set of the pontificate of Gregory XV. A visitor to the basilica in 1621 would have entered a world filled with noise, dust, and all the hectic commotion associated with construction in progress. As he approached through the central doors, he would have beheld an interior quite different Irom the one we know today. The nave (or nuova aggionta, as it was usually referred to) was barely completed, and was as stark then as it is sumptuous now. The floor was of brick.3 The piers were of plain white stucco; they did not receive Bernini’s festive polychrome marble “hangings” until about a quarter-century later. There were no statues in the niches, and no spandrel figures over the arcades. Only the vault was truly magnificent, with its gilded stucco coffering supporting the coat of arms of Paul V in colorful mosaic.4 As for the side aisles, in place of the pink cottanello columns and glittering mosaics that brighten them today, there were sober columns of darkish granite and plain stucco vaults.5 The chapels on either side were still under scaffolding, and lacked altars, altarpieces, and orna­ment of any kind.

Continuing on his tour, the visitor would have found the south transept entirely blocked by the temporary choir built in 1609 to house the basilicas clergy while their new chapel in the nave was being prepared (Text Fig. II). The bulky construction blocked the three altars of the south transept from view. The altar of Sts. Simon and Jud e was in fact enclosed within it and served it; the altars on either side, hidden behind its flanks, were used as mini­sacristies, where the priests officiating in the temporary choir could change their vestments and store their liturgical equipment. The north transept had no such obstruction, although on certain occasions it may have been curtained off from the rest of the basilica in order to provide greater privacy.6 The confessionals were located there, as was the raised wooden throne of the Penitenziere maggiore.7 None of the six transept altars had a proper altarpiece. Instead, the visitor would have found a miscellaneous batch of fifteenth- and sixteenth-cen­tury paintings salvaged from the old basilica or obtained from other sources and set up over these, and over other altars in the basilica, as a stopgap measure.

Of the four corner chapels, the two to the east, the Gregoriana and the Clementina, were fully decorated (although the altar in the Clementina lacked a permanent altarpiece). The Gregoriana was being used as the sacrament chapel, and was cut off from the rest of the church by a tall wooden gate — later replaced by one in bronze — set up in 1605 in order to secure a quiet and removed environment for the distribution of the eucharist (Fig. 61).8 As for the Clementina, there is evidence that it was often used during this period as a stor­age space, where the risers, lecterns, and portable organs of the Cappella Giulia were kept when not in use.9 The northwest and southwest corner chapels were furnished with altars

3 Hibbard, 1971, pp. 72, 164—65. 4 Ibid., pp. 165, 183—85.5 Ibid., pp. 72, 164.6 On the Cigoli plan of 1606, a dotted line, labeled “tenda," is drawn between the northwest and the

northeast crossing piers (Fig. 5). How such a curtain would have looked is difficult to imagine. But the north transept has been closed off for special occasions in more recent times. When the First Vatican Council convened there in 1870, it was isolated from the rest of the church by a temporary wall posi­tioned exactly where the curtain is indicated on Cigoli s plan; for illustrations of the event, see Lees- Milne, 1967, p. 316.

7 See Doc. Appendix, no. 1. For more on the location of the confessionals and the throne of the Peniten- ziere m aggiore, see Chapter 7, nn. 42-44, 49.

8 Orbaan, 1919, p. 33.9 This information was kindly brought to my attention by Noel O ’Regan, from his research in the

archives of the Cappella Giulia. Founded, as its name suggests, by Pope Ju liu s II, the Cappella Giulia provided the choral and instrumental music for the accompaniment of religious services in St. Peters

CHAPTER THREE / GR E GO RY XV AND THE ST. P E T R O N IL L A ALTARPIECE 4 9

Text Fig. II. Plan of St. Peter’s c. 1621, showing the temporary canons’ choir in the south transept, 1609-26 (author’s reconstruction)

but were otherwise virtually undecorated, except for the reliquary altarpiece of marble intarsia surrounding the holy image of the Madonna della Colonna over the altar in the southwest chapel. In this part of the church, the normal symmetiy of the architecture was interrupted by a slight irregularity: in place of the present altar of St. Leo, located in the

(see Ducrot, 1963: Rostirolla, 1977). It was distinct from the Cappella Pontificia (or Sistina), which provided music for all services at which the pope was in attendance, whether in St. Peter’s, or, as was more often the case, in his private chapels in the Vatican and Quirinal palaces.

50 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

southwest chapel in a position corresponding to that of the altar of St. Petronilla in the northwest chapel, there was a door leading to the exterior [29] (Fig. 7). This irregularity was to prove a problem when it came time to work out a balanced and symmetrical arrangement lor the altars and altarpieces, and in 1626 Urban VIII ordered the door sealed up and an altar built in its place.10

The navip'iccole were in reasonably good shape, with floors of inlaid marble and gilded stucco coffering on the vaults. Yet here too there was work to be done. The eight altars located behind the crossing piers had modern, permanent altarpieces, but these altar- pieces, commissioned under Gregory XIII and Clement VIII, were already in ruinous condition and in desperate need of repair.11 Moreover, of the six large aediculas over the doors in the navi purole, later to contain a series of paintings, four stood empty.12

The crossing, centered on the papal high altar and confeooio, had received more atten­tion than any other part of the church and was already lavishly decorated, from the mar­ble pavement to the mosaics in the pendentives and cupola. Even here, though, much remained to be done. The baldachin over the high altar was a provisional affair, made of wood, stucco, and cloth (Fig. 50).13 The four great niches in the crossing piers had yet to be unified into a coherent scheme.14 The two to the west were being used as makeshift reliquary tabernacles for the vo/to oanto, the lance of St. Longinus, and the head of St. Andrew. The northeast niche contained the colonna oanta, encircled by a low railing of bronze (Fig. 61 ).15 The southeast niche, richly decorated with inlaid marbles depicting various Farnese devices, was occupied by the tomb of Paul III.16

Above all, the church in 1621 differed from the church today in that it lacked the tri­umphal directional character that it gradually acquired in the succeeding decades, espe­cially through the visionary genius of Gianlorenzo Bernini. There was as yet no great bronze baldachin marking the area of the high altar and confeooio, and there was no Cathe­dra Petri, with its eye-catching stained-glass window and glory of angels, to draw the visi­tor’s attention toward the apse. The centralized aspect of the basilica was still dominant, in other words, while the longitudinal aspect had yet to be developed.

From this brief tour of the church, it will be clear that St. Peter’s at the death of Paul V provided an invitation for patronage on the grandest scale. It needed only a pope inter­ested in art and ambitious to leave his mark on this, the principal church of the Catholic faith, to transform the interior into one of the wonders of the world.

Whether Paul’s successor, Gregory XV, would ever have developed into such a pope is doubtful. His pontificate lasted less than two and a half years, hardly enough time to con­ceive and realize major artistic projects. Yet throughout his brief reign his attitude toward the basilica was such as to suggest that he was not the pope to assume such an undertaking.

'» Poliak, no. 2172. See Cat. 18.11 In 1611, the Congregation paid Pietro Paolo Bemascone to clean and retouch the two altarpieces adja­

cent to the Gregonana (Orbaan, 1919, pp. 102—103). In 1620, the same Bemascone applied to do a similar job on other altarpieces in the church: "Pietro Paolo Bemasconi che sofferisce nettare li quadri al presente imbrattati per l'umidita e quelli mantenerli netti" (AFSP, Piano 1— ser. 3—no. 159a, f. 37). In a couple of cases, the original artists came forward to perform emergency restoration work on their own paintings. Thus, in 1613, Bernardo Castello was given permission to set up a scaffolding and pro­vided with a supply ol ultramarine [per] raccomodar la tavola dipinta da lui in S. Pietro dell'istorie della Navicella, come s e fatto con g l’altri” (ibid., f. 12; also Orbaan, 1919, p. 128). Eleven years later, in 1624, Passignano spent almost two months restoring his Crucifixion o f St. Peter, the deterioration of which had been exacerbated by brutal overcleaning (Poliak, no. 936).

12 See Chapter 7.13 Kirwin, 1981, pp. 141—71: 1. Lavin, 1984, pp. 405—13.14 I . Lavin, 1968, pp. 3-4 . 15 On the colonna oanta, see Busiri-Yici, 1888.16 Gramberg, 1984, pp. 279-80 and fig. 18; Thoenes, 1990.

CHAPTER THREE / GR E GO RY XV AND THE ST. P E T R O N IL L A ALTARPIECE 51

G R E G O R Y X V

Alessandro Ludovisi was a native of Bologna, and on being elected pope on February 9, 1621, he took the name of the previous Bolognese pope and his personal benefactor, Gre­gory XIII. His accomplishments were far from insignificant. He was instrumental in founding the Congregation of the Propaganda Fide, for instance, and in introducing criti­cal reforms to the policies governing conclaves for papal elections. But he was old and frail. Frequent illnesses obliged him to stay closeted and avoid many of the responsibilities of his office; and his death on Ju ly 8, 1623, cut short a pontificate best remembered for the extraordinary degree of nepotism it engendered.17

Gregory was not a major patron of the arts. His tastes were strongly “campanilistic." As a cardinal he had favored the artists of his hometown, especially Domenichino and Guercino, and it was these artists who benefited most from his patronage as pope.18 Domenichino was appointed papal architect and assigned several important commissions, including the double portrait of Gregory with his nephew Cardinal Ludovico Ludovisi.19 Guercino was sum­moned to Rome within three months of the election. He seems to have been the favorite painter of the papal family, for he was given the job of decorating the pleasure villa of the cardinal nephew, which he accomplished with notable success, producing what is perhaps his masterpiece, the lovely Aurora ceiling, as well as the Fame ceiling in the room above.20 But these were private commissions, for the delectation of family and friends. When it came to art of a more official kind, Gregory was an apathetic patron, contributing virtually noth­ing to the beautification of the city or the embellishment of its monuments.

Where St. Peter's was concerned, Gregory XV showed little of the enthusiasm of his predecessor or of his successor. He found the cold and damp of the basilica off-putting, and in his enfeebled condition preferred to conduct papal ceremonies in the comparative comfort and intimacy of the papal chapels in the Vatican and Quirinal palaces. He rarely came to St. Peters. Even when his presence was called for by precedent and tradition, he as often as not sent his excuses. His obvious unwillingness to officiate in the basilica did not go unnoticed. The canons were acutely aware of his repeated absences, and discreet references in their ceremonial diaries hint at a certain dissatisfaction on their part.21

Gregory’s lack of interest in the basilica is reflected in the snail-paced progress made in its outfitting during his short pontificate.22 Work continued on a couple of projects initi-

Pastor, 1924-53, XXVII, passim; Magnuson, 1982-86, I, pp. 192-207.18 On Ludovisi art patronage, see Wood, 1988. 19 Spear, 1982, I, pp. 15—16, 91, 227.20 Wood, 1986, pp. 223—28; L. Salerno, 1988, pp. 161-66. According to M alvasia (1841, II, p. 260), Guer­

cino was the principal candidate for another major commission, the decoration of the vault of the bene­diction loggia in St. Peter's, for which he was to have been paid the huge sum of 22,000 Mudi. Nothing came of this project, however. See Schleier, 1970, p. 40.

21 The diaries of Andrea Amici, M aster of Ceremonies of the Chapter, and other records of the Chapter's activities, such as the list of daily services, or turni, contain numerous references to the pope’s unprece­dented absences. In the two and a half years of his reign, the phrases “Dominus Noster Gregorius XV non descendit in nostram Basilicam,” “non fuit facta solita missa,” and so on, recur again and again. In Jan u ary 1622: "In festo primae cathedrae non fuit facta solita capella a Sanctissimo in nostra Basilica sed in Palatio in cape lla X ysti Q u a rt i.” (BAV, ACSP, Turni 13, 1. 66v.) On M arch 27, 1622: “Quest anno Nostro Signore Papa Gregorio XV si per sentirsi poco bene, come anco perche la nostra chiesa era tuttavia impedita dal palco delli Santi Canonizati, non ha fatto Cappella in S. Pietro.” (Diari 11, p. 93.) See also nn. 32 and 50 below.

22 With major construction out of the way, the number of workmen employed by the Fabbrica was con­siderably reduced during this period. See, for example, AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3—no. 159a, f. 49: [Ju ly 18, 1622] "Nella fabbrica non si lavori senon con trenta persone in tutto tra M uratori, M anuali, e Scarpellini, et non si accresca detto numero senza ordine della Sacra Congregazione o del Signor Car- dinale Prefetto.”

52 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R S

ated by Paul V, such as the stucco decoration of the vaults in the Chapel of the Choir and the New Sacristy (Fig. 62),23 but few new projects were undertaken. Indeed, Gregory XV would scarcely be remembered in connection with the basilica were it not for one signifi­cant contribution. This was the altarpiece of St. Petronilla, painted by Guercino between 1621 and 1623, the first of the great Baroque altarpieces in St. Peter’s (Fig. 73).

THE C O M M I S S I O N F O R THE ST. P E T R O N I L L A A L T A R P IE C E

Since Gregory commissioned only one altarpiece, we are justified in asking why he com­missioned it for the Petronilla altar and not some other altar in St. Peter’s. Practical motives almost certainly played a part in the decision. In 1621, the altars in the nave chapels were not yet built and therefore did not require altarpieces; the eight altars in the nai’t purole, as well as the altars in the northeast and southwest corner chapels, already had permanent altarpieces; and the remaining altars were equipped with provisional altar- pieces of one kind or another. The Petronilla altar, too, had a provisional altarpiece, but unlike the others it was designed to accommodate a much larger work of art. With noth­ing in the colossal arched space above it but a less-than-lifesize wooden crucifix (Fig. 51), it must have looked conspicuously bare and unfinished.24 Thus, of all the altars in the basilica, it was the one in most obvious and urgent need of a suitable altarpiece. That it was one of the seven privileged altars, and as such an object of special devotion to the hundreds of pilgrims and visitors who streamed through the church each day, must have made the need seem all the more imperative.

To suggest that Gregory had a practical motive for commissioning the Petronilla altar- piece is not to rule out the possibility that he was influenced by other factors as well. It is in fact quite likely that political, or at any rate diplomatic, considerations also had a role. Here we need to consider the commission in connection with the cult of St. Petronilla and the history of her altar in St. Peter’s.25

Petronilla lived in Rome in the first century of the Christian era and was buried in the catacombs of Domitilla, on the Via A rdeatina, near the tombs of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus. By the fourth century, she was venerated as a martyr. Soon the similarity of their names gave rise to the curious legend that Petronilla was the daughter of St. Peter, and on the strength of this presumed kinship, her cult grew in popularity. A major change in her fortunes occurred in the mid-eighth century when, to reward Pepin the Short for his faithful service to the papacy in the face of Lombard invasion, Pope Stephen II named Petronilla the special protector and patron of the Frankish kings. In 757, Stephen’s suc­cessor, Pope Paul I, had Petronilla’s body translated to St. Peter’s, where it was placed in an altar in the circular mausoleum located just outside the south transept and attached to it by means of a narthex-shaped passageway. The rotunda, thereafter known as the Cap- pella Regum Francorum’ or the 'Cappella del Re di Francia,’ became a center of French piety in Rome and a symbol of France’s close ties with the papacy. Pepin’s son Charle­magne visited the chapel on several occasions and paid generously to have it decorated;

23 Poliak, nos. 33-34, 705-22; Hibbard, 1971, p. 165.24 See Chapter 2, nn. 25 and 108; Cat. 2.25 For an excellent summary of the early histoiy ol the Petronilla chapel in St. Peters, see Weil-Garris

Brandt, 1987, pp. 78—80. See also Alfarano, pp. 133—37; Grimaldi, pp. 89-95; Sindone, 1744, pp.32-36; La Croix, 1892, pp. 4—13; Male, 1942, pp. 36-45; Steinberg, 1980, pp. 215—21.

CHAPTER THREE / GR E GO RY XV AND THE ST. P E T R O N IL L A ALTARPIECE 53

and later French kings also contributed to its maintenance and embellishment. In 1471, for example, Louis XI not only ordered an extensive restoration, but also established two chaplaincies for the purpose of maintaining the cult.26 The popes too invested a good deal of money in the chapel; as Weil-Garris Brandt has pointed out, they generally had an ulte­rior motive in doing so, uniting “religious statecraft and art patronage in Sta. Petronilla to bind the Frankish kings to their cause.”27 Pope Innocent VIII officially conceded the jiut patronatiu> of the chapel to the king of France in 1490, a privilege reconfirmed in 1601 by Pope Clement VIII.28 Even after the altar was transferred into the new basilica in 1606, the French king retained the jiut patronatiu, which guaranteed his right to have masses said and to appoint or approve the appointment of the chaplain or chaplains who officiated at the altar.29

Since the altar of St. Petronilla constituted a recognized French presence in the Roman basilica, it was clearly in the king’s interest that it should be decently furnished and main­tained. While old St. Peter’s stood, the king shared in the responsibility for the altar’s embellishment. But in the new basilica, private art patronage was prohibited. The king might retain the jiut patronatiut, but the right to commission an altarpiece was exclusively the pope’s. Under the circumstances, Gregory’s decision to provide the altar with an image may well have been meant as a gesture of goodwill and friendship toward his Catholic ally. Whether or not Gregory had France in mind when he commissioned the Petronilla altar- piece, it is clear that a French connection iivza perceived by others. One anonymous writer even credited King Louis XIII of France with having commissioned Guercino s painting.30 Probably the writer was confusing “Ludovicus XIII" with another Ludovicus, the cardinal nephew Ludovico Ludovisi, who may indeed have been the one who summoned Guercino to Rome and recommended him to paint the altarpiece. Nonetheless, the attribution pro­vides compelling evidence that the altar of Petronilla was still strongly associated with the house of France tn the minds of Gregory ’s contemporaries.

Gregory was not notably pro-French in his political stance; indeed, if anything, he had a tendency to favor Spanish causes. But he was a prudent man, who assiduously avoided antagonizing either side in the age-old rivalry between the two kingdoms.31 The Petronilla altarpiece may have played a part in the pope’s delicate balancing act between France and Spain. Guercino received the commission in December 1621, a month or so after prepara­tions had begun to transform St. Peter’s into the stage for a vast exhibition of Spanish wealth, splendor, and piety. The occasion was the quintuple canonization of March 12, 1622. For at least five months, beginning in November 1621,32 the crossing of St. Peter’s was completely taken up by a grandiose temporary structure erected at the expense of King Philip III of Spain and his representatives in Rome for the celebration of the canon­

26 Other high-ranking Frenchmen contributed to the decoration of the chapel as well, including Cardinal Jean de Bilheres Lagraulas, abbot ol St-Denis and ambassador to the Holy See, who in 1497 commis­sioned Michelangelo’s early Pieta lor this site. See Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987, pp. 77—78, 80-82; W al­lace, 1992.

27 Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987, p. 78.2« C ollectionsBullarum , 1747-52, III, pp. 201-204.29 In Jan u ary 1623, when the "cappellama del Santissimo Crocifisso" was combined with that of St.

Petronilla, the two to be jointly fulfilled at the altar of St. Petronilla, this was done “con consenso del Re di Francia Padrone di defta Cappella.’’ (BAV, ACSP, D iari 11, pp. 123—24.)

30 "Ludovicus XIII tabulam a Guercino depictam fieri fecit." (Doc. Appendix, no. 2.)3' Pastor, 1924-53, XXVII, pp. 47-48.32 BAV, ACSP, Turm 13, f. 58v: "Die 1 Novembris 1621 in nostra Basilica <non> fuit facta solita capella a

Sanctissimo Domino PP. Gregorio XV sed in Palatio Quirinali propter impedimentum Amphiteatri canonizationis Beati Isidoris."

54 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

ization of Isidor and four of the great leaders of the Counter-Reformation Church, Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier, Teresa of Avila, and Philip Neri, of whom all but the last were Spanish.33 It was Gregory XV who authorized this extravagant display of Spanish national pride. By commissioning an altarpieee for the French altar in St. Peter’s, he may have been trying to counterbalance the apparent favoritism implied by the canonization, and all the attendant spectacles and festivities.

But the language of painting has a nearly infinite capacity for subtlety, and if Gregory ordered the altarpieee as a courtesy to His Most Christian Majesty, the picture contains no indication of this. Nothing in Guercino’s altarpieee suggests Petronilla’s ties with France. On the contrary, one might almost suppose that the painter was trying to claim the saint for Gregory himself. Petronilla is clothed regally, but the colors of her garments are not the blue and gold of the royal house of France, but the red and gold of the Ludovisi otemma.M Thus, even as Gregory obliged the king by providing the king’s altar with an altarpieee, he effectively neutralized the a lta r ’s identity by commissioning an image that in no w ay alludes to Petronilla’s role as the patron and protector of the mon- archs of France.

I C O N O G R A P H Y , H A G I O G R A P H Y , A N D THE CULT O F S A I N T S

It is not my intention to enter into a full discussion of the painting’s rich iconography at this point — for this I refer the reader to the catalogue entry.35 However, since this was the first of the altarpieces commissioned following the completion of the new basilica, and since it involves themes that recur in many of the later ones, it may be helpful to comment briefly on the meaning of the image and the implications of its subject.

Guercino’s painting illustrates the Burial and Reception into Heaven o f St. Petronilla. In the lower half, the saint’s limp body, supported by three men, is gently lowered into an open grave, while, on the left, sorrowing women and children are gathered around her bier, and, on the right, a group of men debate the significance of the event they witness. In the upper half, Petronilla appears again, kneeling before Christ who opens his arms to receive her into his embrace. Strictly speaking, we do not see two representations of a single fig­ure. Instead we see her body below and her soul above, identical twins separated from each other by death.36 In Catholicism, the souls of saints, by virtue of their superhuman holiness, go instantly to heaven upon being released from the body, without suffering the anguish of purgatory. Guercino has illustrated the simultaneity of death and entrance into heaven, the exclusive reward of saints.

Altarpieces representing burial scenes (other than Christ's) are exceedingly rare. When they do occur, they are invariably located over altars in or near which the body of the deceased lies or once lay buried.37 To appreciate Guercino’s altarpieee, it is essential to

33 On the canonization, see Gigli, 1958, pp. 57-60; also Briccio, 1622; La Canonizzaeione, 1622; Pastor, 1924-53, XXVII, pp. 119-21; I. Lavin, 1968, figs. 5 and 6.

34 For Guercino's use ol red and gold as an heraldic motif in the clothing of Aurora, and of Honor and Virtue, in the Casino Ludovisi frescoes, see Wood, 1986, pp. 226—27.

35 See Cat. 1.36 Passeri [p. 351] rightly describes the painting as a representation of "la Santa morta . . . e 1’anima di lei.”37 An example is Caravaggio’s b u r ia l o f St. Lucy, painted in 1608 for the high altar of the church of St.

Lucy in Syracuse. Caravaggio was instructed to represent the saint’s burial rather than a more conven­tional scene of martyrdom or miracle-working because the church was built next to the site where Lucy was at one time buried. See Caravaggio in Sicilia, 1984, p. 149.

CHAPTER THREE / GR E GO RY XV AND THE ST. P E T R O N IL L A ALTARPIECE 55

keep in mind that it was designed to hang over the altar that contains Petronilla’s earthly remains. The painting is thus a vivid reminder of the presence of the body in the altar below. Louis Duchesne defined the tradition of placing saints’ relics in altars as "une liturgie exclusivement funeraire," by which he meant that the act of laying the relic in the altar comprises a sort of second burial for the venerated saint.38 The relevance of this to Guercino’s painting cannot be overemphasized. The saint's actual burial, depicted in the altarpiece, is a metaphor for the burial of the relics within the altar.

The subject of Guercino’s painting does, however, require further explanation. This is the only altarpiece in St. Peter’s that represents a burial scene; other altars house equally important relics (the altar of Sts. Simon and Jude , for example, or the altar of Sts. Proces­sus and Martinian), but instead of burial scenes, their altarpieces illustrate scenes of mira­cle-working or martyrdom. Why, then, was Guercino assigned the unusual scene of the saint’s burial?

Those whose job it was to recommend an appropriate narrative for Guercino to paint were faced with something of a dilemma. Petronilla was not known to have done any deed or performed any miracle in the whole of her short life deserving of representation. Accord­ing to popular legend, Petronilla’s father Peter, anxious to preserve her chastity and “judging her too comely of aspect, obtained from God that she should be stricken with a fever. ”39 Thus, the child lived in tender paternal custody until she reached the age of marriage, when, despite all Peter’s precautions, the noble Roman Flaccus, a pagan, fell in love with her and asked for her hand in marriage. Petronilla, desperate to avoid the marriage, prepared herself for death. She was not martyred, nor was she even tortured by the pagans. Indeed, from a dramatic and pictorial standpoint, her death was frankly disappointing: after a few days of prayer and fasting, she simply pined away. It is probably not too much to suppose that, had she died a martyr’s death, this would have been the subject of the altarpiece.

The whole issue of Peter’s paternity was also highly problematic. In the official Roman Martyrology, issued in 1584, Petronilla still appears as Peter’s daughter.40 But by the end of the sixteenth century, as Leo Steinberg has demonstrated, discriminating hagiogra- phers had taken a fresh look at the saint’s legend and rejected her traditional filiation.41 Antonio Gallonio made some neat calculations with dates, and showed that Petronilla, assuming that she was conceived before Peter was called to the apostolate (for thereafter he was celibate), would have been some fifty or sixty years old by the time of her death under Domitian, hardly the ravishing doruella that she is made out to be in the accounts of her life.42 Baronius reasoned similarly, and pointed out that ‘Petronilla’ is in any case derived from ’Petronius’ and not from ‘Petrus.’43 While denying Peter’s biological father­hood, these historians allowed him to be the spiritual father of Petronilla. Nevertheless, no one aware of their coldly logical refutation could go on accepting the legend as truth, nor would it have been fitting to perpetuate it in a church as exemplary as St. Peter’s. We can detect the effect of Baronius s writings as we follow the peregrinations of the body of Petronilla from altar to altar in the last quarter of the sixteenth century and the early years of the seventeenth century. When Gregory XIII moved the saint’s relics to the altar of the Crucifix in 1574, the marble altar front was inscribed with the words: C O R P U S SA N CTA E

P E T R O N IL LA E V IR G IN IS FIL IA E SA N C TI PE TR I. But when the body was moved again under

38 Duchesne, 1925, p. -422.39 Jacobus de Voragine, 1941, p. 300. See also Acta SS, M aii, VII, pp. 420—22; Reau, 1955—59, Ill.iii, pp.

1063-65; Bibliotheca SS, 1961 -70 , X, cols. 514—21.40 M artyrologuun romanurn, 1584, p. 159. 41 Steinberg, 1980, pp. 219—21.42 Gallonio, 1591, pp. 101—105 (cited in Steinberg, 1980, pp. 219—20, n. 22).45 Baronio, 1738—46, I, p. 640.

56 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Paul V, some three decades later, a new inscription replaced the old, which read simply: C O R P U S SA N CTA E PETR O N IE EA E V IR G IN IS .44

The problem facing the artist and his advisers was how to represent Petronilla when the traditional accounts of her life were founded on the notion — now disproved — that she was the daughter of the Apostle Peter. Petronilla had become a mystery saint, about whom nothing was known, not when she lived, nor how she died, nor what miracles, if any, she performed. All that could be said about her with any degree of certainty was that she was a saint and that her body was in St. Peter’s. These two simple truths, secure and unassailable to those with faith, form the real subject of Guercino’s altarpiece, and all other details are merely incidental. The painting, understood in this context, is a master­piece of tact. It avoids the pitfalls of spurious hagiography, but leaves open the possibility, indeed even hints at the likelihood, that Petronilla died a martyr’s death.

The St. Petronilla altarpiece introduces us to several important issues that will be of relevance throughout this study: the observance and promotion of the cult of saints; the veneration of relics; and, above all, the critical, quasi-scientific approach to saints’ lives introduced during the Counter Reformation and nowhere more in evidence than in the Vatican basilica, where learned churchmen worked out the subject matter of the altar- pieces in defensive awareness of Protestant derision. All of this must be understood in the context of the times. The veneration of saints, based on a belief in their semidivinity and in their power to intercede on behalf of mankind, had been consistently held up to ridicule by Protestants. Similarly, Protestants mocked the whole concept of relics, disputing both their authenticity and their miraculous properties. In response to Protestant attacks, the Church of Rome set out to reaffirm loudly and with conviction a belief in saints and in the mystical power inherent in their relics.45 St. Peter’s basilica was the public showplace of the papacy, and its altars and altarpieces were a vehicle for the expression of these vital principles of the faith. The altarpiece of St. Petronilla, like all those commissioned in the years that followed, should be understood not only within the narrow context of the altar for which it was designed but as a kind of proclamation of the Church’s steadfastness and self-confidence in the face of Protestant challenge.

THE P U B L I C R E S P O N S E

Guercino received the commission to paint the St. Petronilla altarpiece by December 18,1621, along with an initial payment of 200 jcudL He worked on the painting throughout the following year and into the spring of 1623. On the basis of new documentation, it can now be established that the finished work was transported from the artist’s studio and set up over the altar in St. Peter's on M ay 29.46 There can be little doubt that the installation was contrived to coincide with Petronilla’s feast day two days later; the actual unveiling pre­sumably took place on M ay 31, in the presence of the faithful, both French and Roman, who had come to the church to attend the annual services held in the saint’s honor.

44 Grimaldi, pp. 92, 94. The same distinction applies to the more detailed inscriptions affixed to the cap­sules containing the body itself (ibid.).

45 Male, 1932, pp. 103—107; Boiron, 1989.46 "Terzo [altare privilegiato] gia del Crocefisso, e di S. Petronilla, ove fu collocato il suo corpo 1606, e

I'anno 1623 adi 29 di maggio vi fu posto un raro quadro di valuta scudi mille dipinto da Giovanni Francesco Barbiere da Cento fatto alle spese della fabrica e vi si scorge quando essa santa fu data alia sepoltura.” (BAV, Vat. Lat. 9907 [Francesco M aria Torrigio, Compendia delle grandezzc della Sacnuaneta Bii.nl/ai Vatican//. . . . written c. 1623, with marginal notes added until c. 1627.], f. 189v.)

CHAPTER THREE / GR EG ORY XV AND THE ST. P E T RO N IL L A ALTARPIECE 57

The public reaction to Guercino’s altarpieee was strongly lavorable. Francesco M aria Torrigio, who was present at the time, tells us that numerous verses in praise of the artist and his work were pinned up on the wall near the altar. One of these, an anonymous madrigale, he records in full:

To Signor Giovanni Francesco of Cento, most excellent painter, on his painting in St. Peter’s:

Whoever looks at this beautiful work, the product of your great genius, Guercino, is filled with a longing to praise you. Radiant is the image of the young virgin Petro- nilla, of aspect so lovely and graceful; and if we see her lifeless at the tomb, so also we see her, through your art, resurrected by God. Never before nor since has heaven granted the virtue of such perfection as triumphs in your work.47

Guercino's altarpieee must certainly have outshone all others in the church at that time. Many, as we have seen, were relatively small, antiquated works lifted from the old church and temporarily installed in frames that were the wrong size and over altars that bore no relation to their subject matter. Even the altarpieces in the nan piccole, which were specifi­cally designed for their locations, must have seemed distinctly shabby next to Guercino’s glowing composition. Two decades in St. Peter’s, exposed to the elements and to the dust and dirt of construction, had taken their toll on these eight paintings, and already they were peeling and fading.48 In contrast, Guercino’s altarpieee must have looked like a bright, eye-catching jewel. Small wonder that it created a sensation when it was unveiled. Throughout Rome the talk was of nothing else. Even Lanfranco, a potential rival of the young painter from Cento, was unstinting in his praise.49 With its powerful scale, its rich, resonant colors, and its suggestive, almost romantic air of mystery, Guercino’s magnificent work set a new standard. The many talented and accomplished artists who produced altarpieces in St. Peter's in the succeeding years had a difficult act to follow, and while some may have equaled Guercino’s achievement, none ever surpassed it.

At the time of the unveiling, Gregory XV was recovering from a fever that had kept him bedridden throughout most of April. On M ay 25, the feast of the Ascension, he was still too weak to attend services in St. Peter’s, as was customary, and instead attended ser­vices in the Sistine Chapel.50 It is probable, therefore, that he was again absent from St. Peter’s a few days later, when the new altarpieee was unveiled. He would of course have

47 "In lode di tal pittura furono attaccati appresso a tal'altar molti versi; e Ira gl'altri questo madrigale d ’m- certo autore.A1 Signor Giovanni Francesco da Cento pittore eceellentissimo per il quadro latto da lui in S. Pietro in Vaticano:Chi mira la bell'opra,CENTO, del gran valor del vostro ingegno Da in desio di lodar voi ci fa pregno [? ];Splende in sembiante si leggiadro e vago Di Petronilla verginella imago,Che se fu mostra al monumento morta Si mira anco per voi da Dio nsorta;Regna virtu d'opra perfetta in voi,Che il ciel non diede, ne dara mai poi.” (Ibid.)

48 See n. I 1 above.49 De' Dominici, 1742, III, p. 317 (transcribed in the Sources section at the end ol Cat. 1).50 Pastor is mistaken in his assertion that Gregory was present in St. Peter's on Ascension Day (1924—53,

XXVII, p. 289). Alaleone’s ceremonial d ia iy is explicit on this point: [M ay 25, 1623] "In die festo Ascen- sionis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi fuit Cappella in solita Cappella Apostolica Sixti 1111 in Vaticano, et non in Basilica S. Petri ut est consuetudo propter comoditatem Papae." (BAV, Barb. Lat. 2818, f. 51v.)

58 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

had other opportunities to see the painting in situ. But Gregory was not well and had only a little over a month to live. One wonders whether, had his death not come when it did, the enormous popular response to Guercino’s painting might have persuaded him to com­mission other altarpieces for St. Peters. As it was, there is no evidence to suggest that he had any further plans for the basilica. He died on Ju ly 8, 1623, leaving it to his successor Pope Urban VIII to commission one of the most ambitious and magnificent series of altar- pieces ever conceived for a single church.

P A R T T W O

The Altars Under Urban VIII

C H A P T E R F O U R

T O W A R D A C O M P R E H E N S I V E P R O J E C T F O R THE ALTARS

A N D A L T A R P I E C E S

ted

T HE NEW POPE could hardly have been more different from his predecessor.1 Whereas Gregory XV had been old and infirm at the time of his election, Urban

VIII Barberini (1623—44) was relatively young and vigorous, with every reason to antici­pate a long and productive pontificate. Gregory was by nature somewhat reclusive; Urban, in contrast, was outgoing, energetic, and keenly intelligent. And while they shared a passionate interest in promoting the welfare of the Church, Urban was in addition a profoundly cultivated man, who wrote poetry and delighted in music and art. Not surpris­ingly, in matters of art patronage, Urban was infinitely the more enterprising of the two. Already as a young prelate he had demonstrated his taste; and the fortune he inherited from his uncle in 1600, followed by his elevation to the cardinalate in 1606 and his even­tual election to the papacy, further enabled him to indulge his fondness for collecting and commissioning works of art.2

Like others before him, Urban VIII tended to favor artists from his native city, and Florentines such as Agostino Ciampelli and Domenico Passignano particularly benefited from his patronage. As for the young Gianlorenzo Bernini (born in Naples but of a Flo­rentine father), he more than any other owed his phenomenal rise to fame and wealth to the sponsorship of Urban, who lost no time in putting the sculptor’s incomparable talent to work for the greater glory of God and himself.

U R B A N VII I A N D ST. PET ER S

Legend has it that upon being elected pope, Urban VIII summoned Bernini into his pres­ence and said to him: "Your luck is great to see Cardinal Maffeo Barberini Pope, Cava-

1 On the life and character of Malleo Barberini, see BAV, Barb. Lat. 4730 and consecutive numbers [A. Nicoletti, Della vita d i Papa Urbano Ottaiv et L’toria del,<uopontificatb]’, Pastor, 1924-53, XXVIII, esp. pp. 26—54; Magnuson, 1982—86, I, pp. 215—360.

2 On Maffeo Barberini and the arts, see Pastor, 1924—53, XXIX, pp. 408-544; Haskell, 1980, pp. 24—62; and most recently, Hammond, 1994. For relevant documentary material, see Poliak, 1928—31; M. A. Lavin, 1975.

61

62 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Here; but ours is much greater to have Cavalier Bernini alive in our pontificate.”3 He may have had St. Peter’s in mind even as he spoke these words. Paul V had brought the con­struction of the building to completion and had his name inscribed for all to see across the facade; but equal glory awaited the pope who took on the herculean task of outfitting and decorating its interior. From the moment of his election, Urban VIII fixed his attention on the new basilica. He recognized the enormous potential of the building, and appreciated its compelling authority as a symbol of the Catholic faith. For Urban VIII, St. Peter’s was the perfect vehicle for expressing the aspirations of the Church, for advertising the pres­tige of the papacy, and, not least, for securing lasting fame for himself and his pontificate.

Urban was better equipped than any pope before him to take on the job of furnishing the interior of the basilica. This was because, since around 1608, he had served as one of the cardinals on the Congregation of the Fabbrica.4 Throughout the fifteen years of his tenure there, he had shown himself to be a capable and active administrator. He knew the workings of the Fabbrica backward and forward; he understood how it was financed, how it was organized, how it carried on the business of the church. When he became pope, of necessity he resigned from the Congregation. But he did not lose interest, and his intimate familiarity with the Fabbrica s administrative procedures enabled him to direct its activities with tighter control than ever before.

Urban lost no time in getting to work on St. Peter’s. His first priority was to ready the church for the massive influx of visitors expected in Rome for the Holy Year of 1625. There was much to be done, and very little time in which to do it: the nave chapels were not yet completed, the south transept was still blocked by the temporary choir, and much of the rest of the church lacked appropriate embellishment. Urban recognized that before launching his campaign he needed detailed information about the precise state of the basilica. Consequently, he ordered a succession of Apostolic Visitations, or official tours of inspection, conducted by specially appointed groups of churchmen, called i>uitatori, whose responsibility it was to report back on the condition of the church and its readiness to accommodate liturgical activity.5

3 Baldinucci, 1948, p. 80. The translation is from Hibbard, 1965, p. 68.Cardinal Barberim’s vocal participation in the debate over the construction of the new nave and facade (he strongly opposed Paul V's decision to tamper with M ichelangelo’s Greek cross plan and criticized M aderno’s design tor obscuring the view of the dome on the exterior and restricting the light that entered the interior) proves that even before his nomination to the Congregation he had a voice in the planning of the new basilica. See Pastor, 1924—53, XXVI, pp. 387—88, 475—76; Hibbard, 1971, pp. 69-70, 157-58.

5 Visitations, or Sacre VLiite, as they were usually called, were first introduced by the Council of Trent. Their purpose was to ensure that the cult was properly maintained in eveiy church throughout a dio­cese. During a Visitation, the bishop or his appointed representatives would check that the priests were performing their obligatoiy duties (saying mass the prescribed number of times each week, lighting the prescribed number of candles, etc.), that altars were properly consecrated and maintained, and situated at an appropriate distance from each other, that altar furnishings (linens, candlesticks, crucifixes, etc.) were accounted for and in good condition, and that roofs, walls, and so on, were sound. In short, by facilitating the identification and correction of "errors and abuses" of both a physical and a spiritual kind, the Visitations enabled the bishop to keep stricter control over the churches and convents in his jurisdiction. (On the origins and histoiy of the Sacre Vunte, see Moroni, 1840-79, C l, pp. 115—34; Enciclo- pedia Cattolica, 1948—54, XII, cols. 1494-98.)

In Rome, Apostolic Visitations (i.e. those instigated by the pope in his role as Bishop of Rome) were relatively rare until the time of Clement VIII. Following Carlo Borromeo’s lead in M ilan, Clement undertook a thorough and rigorous survey of the city's churches and convents through a series of visits that took eight years to complete (1592-1600). (See ASV Miscellanea, Arm. VII, vols. 3—4; also Beg- giao, 1978; Fiorani, 1980; Pagano, 1980.) A quarter of a centuiy later, Urban VIII repeated Clement’s ambitious project and appointed i’Lutatori to inspect eveiy church and monastic establishment in the city.

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 63

The first Apostolic Visitation took place on Sunday, M ay 19, 1624. The i’ioitatori drew up a minutely detailed description of the interior of the basilica at that time.6 The description is a mine of information not only about the physical aspect of the building but also about a variety of liturgical issues. We learn, for instance, that the altar in the Gregoriana, dedicated in honor of the Virgin and containing the body of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, was being used as the sacrament altar, with the sacrament housed in a gilded wooden tabernacle; furthermore, that the altar was maintained by members of the Arch- confraternity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter’s; that four chaplains from the Chapter of St. Peter's were responsible for celebrating mass there thirty-two times each month, for which service each received an annual stipend of 75 ocudi from the endowment estab­lished by the altar’s founder, Pope Gregory XIII; that there had once been another chap­laincy associated with the altar, or rather with its altarpiece, the miracle-working image of the Madonna del Soccorso, a chaplaincy established in the previous centuiy by the canon Bernardino della Croce, Bishop of Como, which the vu ita tori now recommended reinstituting; that the faithful who visited the altar on the feast of the Assumption, the feast of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, or the anniversary of the translation of his body received plenary indulgences; and, finally, that four lamps burned perpetually in front of the altar and six others at the entrance of the chapel, all provided with oil donated by the Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament. Similar information is provided for every altar in the church. Most of the altars were in use at that time, although only a handful ol them were consecrated. This was facilitated by the simplest of arrangements: portable altars, themselves consecrated, were placed over the unconsecrated altars, thus allowing the celebration of the mass. No detail was too small or too insignificant to escape the notice of the vu ita to r i We are even informed ol the locations of the various collection boxes where the faithful were encouraged to contribute alms to support the Fabbrica and other worthy causes, and of the identities of the officials entrusted with the keys to open these boxes.

A second Visitation, which took place on September 19 and 21, 1624, produced an abbreviated list of recommendations specifically concerning the basilica’s altars.7 Most of the recommendations are of relatively little interest, having to do with minor points ol altar maintenance. The vu itatori advised, lor example, that brass candlesticks and cruci­fixes be placed over several altars, including the sacrament altar, and that candlesticks and crucifixes elsewhere in the church be polished and straightened. They also suggested that certain altars be provided with altar rails and gates; that ex-votos encrusting one of the altarpieces be removed and reattached to the frame; and that greater care be taken in replenishing lamps so as to avoid spilling oil on the pavement in front ol the altars. From their reticence on the subject, it appears that, on this occasion at least, the vu ita tori were not expected to make recommendations concerning the altarpieces. Only in the case of the altar of St. Gregory the Great in the Cappella Clementina did they stress the need for a new altarpiece.8

(See ASV, S.C. Visita Apostolica, vols. 1-3; Petrocchi, 1970, pp. 94-107; Fiorani, 1980.) The first Apos­tolic Visitation to St. Peter's during the reign ol Urban VIII (M ay 1624) was conducted as part of this larger review. Subsequent visits (September 1624, Jan u a iy 1625, September 1626 [? ]) are perhaps best understood as follow-ups to the first one.

6 See Doc. Appendix, no. 3. 7 See Doc. Appendix, no. 4.8 “Visitatio altaris S. Gregorij. Provideatur de Icone seu imagine.’’ (Ibid.) That the recommendation was

considered necessaiy suggests that by this time Jacopo Zucchi ’s Glorification o f the Virgin was no longer in place over the altar.

64 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

A third Visitation occurred shortly before February 2, 1625. This time the committee of visitors, headed by the commissioner Domenico Bassano, presented its findings in a for­mal decree, which was submitted to the pope, and afterward with his approval to the Chapter and Congregation.9 For the first time, the w ita to r i urged the speedy completion of all unfinished chapels, and the consecration of those already completed.10 They also made a special point of recommending that the baptismal chapel be provided with a font and made functional as soon as possible: "Let the new baptismal font be built with all haste in the designated chapel, but first, if it pleases His Holiness, let a model be presented and exhibited to the Congregation. "n

The decree includes information about the transfer of certain particularly important onera from the old church to the new. (Onera are the obligatory duties of one or more chaplains — usually involving the saying of masses, the recital of prayers for the soul of the founder, the celebration of the anniversary of his death, the lighting of candles, and so forth - attached to a specific altar.) Thus, we learn that the oniut, or duties, of the chap­laincy connected with the altar of the Madonna Praegnantium (of Pregnant Women) in the old basilica, established by Giovanni Orsini with the proviso that mass be said there three times weekly, was to be transferred to the altar of S. M aria della Colonna in the new basilica; that the omui associated with the former altar of St. Sebastian was to be trans­ferred to the altar of the Crucifixion of St. Peter; and so on. From this information, it becomes clear that the liturgy of the church was still in considerable confusion, as clergy were juggled from one chapel to another and chaplaincies were reinstated, combined, or suppressed according to the availability of altars. These sorts of liturgical concerns were of fundamental importance to the Chapter, and in the following years, as we will see, were to have a profound influence on the history of the altars in St. Peter’s.

Clearly readying the altars for ritual use was the primary focus of Urban s campaign to furnish St. Peter’s. This involved not only the side altars, but also, of course, the papal high altar. Already in 1624, within months of his election, Urban employed Bernini to design a monumental bronze canopy to mark with due pomp and splendor the site of the tomb of the Apostles.12 Bernini set to work at once, and by March 1625, the foundations were laid and casting of the four great twisting columns had begun. The baldacchino took another decade to complete (Fig. 71). Meanwhile, the chapels of the nave were being fitted with marble altars, steps, altar rails, and frames for altarpieces. Obviously, it was not going to be possible to have all of this ready in time for the Holy Year, but work progressed rapidly, and an extraordinary amount was in fact accomplished in a very short time.

To cope with the new pace of activity, Urban realized that it was necessary to reorganize the Congregation of the Fabbrica. As an ex-member, he knew very well how cumbersome the Congregation was as an administrative body. It convened relatively seldom, and at

9 See Doc. Appendix, no. 5. Poliak (no. 65) transcribes a brief excerpt from what is clearly a later copy of this decree, which accounts for his error in dating it Ju n e 3, 1626.

10 "Ad Universam Ecclesiam. [. . .] Altaria, quae mensas lapideas habent, consacrentur. Sacella iam desig- nata, quae imperfecta manent, cum primum poterit, perficiantur." (Doc. Appendix, no. 5.)

11 "Novus fons Baptismalis quanto citius extruatur in sacello iam designato, sed eius formae exemplum antea Congregationi deferatur ostendendum, an Sanctissimo placeat.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 5.) At the time nothing came of this plan, and it was not until the end of the century, when Carlo Fontana rebuilt and redecorated the baptismal chapel, that St. Peter’s was at last provided with a new font. In the meantime, the sarcophagus of Probus Anicius continued to serve as the baptismal font, as it had throughout most of the previous century. See Cat. 3 (a), n. 1.

12 On Bernini’s baldachin, see Poliak, nos. 1052—1593, in addition to the works cited in the Introduction, n. 10.

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 65

irregular intervals, with the result that urgent decisions were sometimes delayed. This was unacceptable to the pope. In February 1625, he ordered important reforms.13 Thenceforth the Congregation was to meet every two weeks. Announcements about the time and place of the meeting were to go out at least four or five days in advance, in order to give the car­dinals every opportunity to fit the meeting into their busy schedules. When the cardinal in charge was unable to attend because of other, more pressing business, the meeting was preferably not to be canceled but was to be held instead at the home of the next ranking cardinal. Furthermore, two prelates, to be assigned by the pope, were to attend the so- called congregazwnipiccole, in order to report back to the eongregasuone generate — as well as to the pope himself - all that was decided there. Other reforms, to do with the handling of money and the workings of the legal and financial branch of the Fabbrica, are of less direct interest to us except insofar as they demonstrate Urban’s intimate knowledge of the work­ings of the Fabbrica. The new rules had immediate effect. Whereas in the decade between 1615 and 1625, the Congregation met an average of four times a year, in the decade that followed they met on average sixteen times a year, a fourfold increase in activity.

When Urban VIII went to St. Peters on December 24, 1624, to perform the ceremo­nial opening of the porta ran/a, signaling the beginning of the Jubilee, work was still in progress on the interior of the building. The pilgrims who streamed through the church in the weeks and months that followed could have peeked behind the scaffolds and canvas screens and seen teams of otuccatori and ocarpetlini busily decorating vaults and walls, erect­ing altars, and installing steps and balustrades. Much remained to be done. But the mech­anisms were now in place for the rapid completion of the interior. Through a series of Apostolic Visitations, Urban had established in a comprehensive and orderly manner the state of the basilica, especially with regard to its liturgy. He had reformed the Congrega­tion, making it more efficient, and more answerable to himself. He had engaged the prodi­gious artistic and organizational talents of Gianlorenzo Bernini, and conferred on him many of the responsibilities of Architect of St. Peters, although the title remained offi­cially Madernos until his death in 1629. But above all, Urban had made known his own keen interest in all matters pertain ing to St. Peter’s and had dem onstrated that he intended to play an active role in determining the character and appearance of the new basilica. No pope since Ju liu s II had involved himself more directly or identified himself more completely with the magnificent enterprise.

THE F I R S T A L T A R P I E C E S

It must have been obvious from the outset of Urban's pontificate that a major series of altarpieces would eventually be needed to complete the altars of St. Peter’s. Nevertheless, a coordinated campaign to initiate and oversee the production of these paintings did not get under w ay immediately. The nave chapels were still in the hands of the workmen, and until the vaults were stuccoed and gilded, and the altars and altar surrounds installed, mural altarpieces could not be contemplated. As for the altars in the centralized portion of the church, those that did not have permanent altarpieces had provisional ones;14 and although these provisional altarpieces were shabby and mismatched, their presence did at least lessen the urgency for new paintings.

The first orders for new altarpieces were handed out one by one, in a surprisingly

13 See Doc. Appendix, no. 6. 14 See Chapter 2.

66 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

piecemeal and unsystematic fashion. Three altarpieces were commissioned in 1624, and the history of each points to the fact that, during the first year of Urban's pontificate, the Congregation lacked a consistent or considered approach to the task of outfitting the altars.

The first of the altarpieces commissioned during the Barberini pontificate was for the third chapel on the left of the nave, the private chapel of the Chapter of St. Peters [43].15 The canons, eager to take possession of their new space, urged the Congregation to make haste in furnishing it with all that was necessary to make it functional. The cardinals obliged, and, early in 1624, engaged Simon Vouet to paint the altarpiece, assigning him the subject of St. Peter healing with his shadow. Vouet got to work at once and produced a “concetto,” which he exhibited to the cardinals on March 14 (Figs. I l l —112).16 Having received their approval, he went ahead with preparatory drawings and full-scale cartoons. But before he could begin work on the painting itself, there was an abrupt change of plans.

It seems that the Congregation had failed to inform the Chapter of its decision to com­mission a Peter story lor the altar; or perhaps the Chapter was simply slow to react. In any event, once the canons had registered the Congregation's intention, they made known their opposition to it. They had their own ideas about the dedication and decoration of their chapel, and with these an altarpiece representing a scene Irom the life of St. Peter was incompatible. We can begin to reconstruct what the canons had in mind from a letter they wrote to the pope shortly before August 7:

We ask that you take into consideration that [Michelangelo's] Pieta, which stands over the altar in the old Choir [i.e. the temporary choir in the south transept], might suffer some damage, if it remains outside, unless Your Holiness sees fit tohave it transported into the new Choir, so that it can be more visible to everyone,and better guarded, and all the more so since it was donated to the Chapel of the Choir by Sixtus IV.17

The Congregation’s reaction to the canons’ petition was not at first favorable, but they resolved to let the pope decide the issue:

Signor Cardinal Del Monte is agreed to have a word with His Holiness . . . about the placement of Michelangelo’s Pieta, since it seems that there is no appropriate place for it in the Chapel of the Choir.18

The pope’s response is not recorded, but we can assume that he ruled in favor of the Chapter, for the next thing we hear is that preparations were under w ay to move the Pieta to the Chapel of the Choir and to set it up over the altar.19

15 See Cat. 8. 16 Poliak, no. 724; also Cuzin, 1987.17 Poliak, no. 783 (transcribed in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 8). The Chapter’s conned ion

with the Pieta goes back no further than 1568, when the sculpture was placed over the altar of the choir chapel in old St. Peter’s (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987, p. 88). In 1609, when that chapel was deconse­crated in preparation for demolition, the sculpture was transferred to the temporary choir located at the altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e in the south transept. The canons’ claim that the Pieta had been donated to the choir chapel by Pope Sixtus IV is obviously erroneous. The confusion presumably stemmed from the fact that the choir chapel in old St. Peter’s was built by Sixtus IV and contained his tomb.

18 [August 7, 1624] "II Signor Cardinale dal Monte si contend far parola con Nostro Signore [. . .] circa il collocare la Pieta di Michelangelo, parendo che nel coro non vi sia luogo proportionate. ” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 159a, f. 69v.)

19 Poliak, nos. 728, 730, 746-52.

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 67

This new development inevitably affected the Congregation’s decision to have the altar- piece represent a Petrine miracle. Not only would the Pieta, when positioned on a pedestal above the altar, obscure the lower portion of the painting, but the juxtaposition of two images so totally unconnected with one another in subject matter would be both visually jarring and iconographically incongruous. The obvious solution to these difficulties was to change the subject ol the altarpieee. In the summer of 1625, the Congregation told Vouet to stop work on the composition they had approved a year and a hall earlier, and to begin work on another one. All of Vouet’s efforts up to that point, his presentation drawings, preparatory studies, and full-scale cartoons, were rendered obsolete. Because of overhasti­ness on the part of the Congregation and an astonishing lack of communication between the Congregation and the Chapter, time and money, not to mention creative invention, were wasted.

It was Vouet who had the most to lose, for he had to come up with two compositions for the price of one. Shortly before September 1625, he wrote to the pope, asking to be allowed to paint his original, Petrine composition over one of the other altars in the basil­ica.20 Later, just before he was due to return to France, he wrote again to the pope and to the Congregation, asking for additional payment “because his labor was doubled, in that first he was commissioned to paint the altarpieee with a representation of the Shadow of St. Peter, for which with great care he made all the necessary drawings, but then he was ordered to depict a different subject. ”21

In place of St. Peter healing with his shadow, Vouet painted an image specifically designed “to accompany the Pieta of Michelangelo.”22 The altarpieee was destroyed in the eighteenth century, but from surviving bozzetti and drawings, copies by other artists, and written descriptions, its basic outlines are known. It featured Sts. Francis and Anthony of Padua kneeling in adoration on either side of a large bare cross, with God the Father hov­ering above the cross, surrounded by angels carrying symbols of the Passion. The paint­ing did not represent the Adoration of the Cross, as is usually claimed,23 but rather the Adoration of the Pieta: it was the marble group in front of the cross, and not the cross itself, that was the focus of the painted figures. Vouet provided a backdrop so intimately related to Michelangelo’s sculpture that the two works together formed a single scene.

The painting as executed satisfied a second basic requirement of the Chapter. Not only did it allow for the placement of the Pieta over their altar, it also ensured the perpetuation of the chapel’s traditional dedication. The original choir chapel was built for the Chapter of St. Peter’s by Sixtus IV, a Franciscan, who dedicated it in honor of the two principal saints of his order, St. Francis and St. Anthony of Padua, and of the Immaculate Concep­tion, a doctrine long espoused by the Franciscans.24 The members of the Chapter, moti­vated by a sense of obligation to the chapel’s founder and more generally by a desire to uphold the ancient titles of their basilica, were determined to retain the Sistine dedication, not least because the new choir chapel was built directly over the site of the old one. An

20 Poliak, no. 728.21 ". . . perche g l’6 convenuto farvi doppia fatica, per rispetto, ch'essendogli da principio stato commesso,

che devesse nella Tavola rappresentare I'Ombra di S. Pietro, per la quale haveva di gia fatto con molto studio tutti li disegni necessarij, doppo gli fu ordinato, che vi esprimesse nuovo pensiero . . .” (Poliak, no. 73d and AFSP, Piano 1-serie 1-no. 2, busta 5 [transcribed in full in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 8].)

22 “. . . per accompagnare la Pieta di Michel Angelo . . (Poliak, no. 728.)23 Crelly, 1962, p. 246; Dargent and Thuillier, 1965, p. 46: Schleier, 1967 (b), p. 272; 1968, p. 573; Cuzm,

1987, p. 359.24 Alfarano, pp. 78—81, 165—66; Grimaldi, pp. 162—63, 260—61.

68 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

altarpieee representing Peter healing with his Shadow would have meant, in effect, the suppression of the Sistine title. But Vouet’s second composition, depicting Sts. Francis and Anthony flanking the marble image of the Virgin M aiy, guaranteed its survival. True, the ensemble did not, strictly speaking, illustrate the Immaculate Conception, but the canons rationalized "that even though it is not possible to represent the Conception here, Michelangelo's Pieta situated over the altar seems an acceptable substitute. ”25

In their determination to retain the dedication of the Sistine choir chapel, the canons are likely to have had the support of the pope. Urban VIII, like Sixtus IV, came from a family with strong Franciscan connections, as is indicated by the fact that his uncle, one brother, and two of his nephews bore the names Francesco and Antonio, and the fact that his brother Antonio was a Capuchin friar, in other words, a member of a branch of the Franciscan order. Furthermore Urban, like Sixtus, seems to have had a special devotion to the Conception of the Virgin. In 1625, he founded an order of knights to whom he gave the title “Cavalieri della Concezione della Beata Vergine.”26 A year later, in 1626, he funded the rebuilding of the Capuchin church, dedicated in honor ol the Conception, on a site near the Barberini family palace, and contributed significantly to its decoration.27 As for the Chapel of the Choir, Urban seems to have made a special effort to identify it with his family. When Vouet wrote to him in 1627 to ask for additional payment for his altar- piece, he gave as one of his reasons: “because it turned out that he had to paint the two aforementioned saints [Francis and Anthony of Padua] twice, first in the habit of zoc­colanti, as he had been instructed by the Chapter of the basilica, and then in the habit of Capuchins, as they appear at present.”28 W hether the order to repaint Francis and Anthony “da Capuccini” came from the Congregation or directly from the pope, it would not have been issued w ithout good reason .29 The saints had not been depicted as Capuchins in the original choir chapel of Sixtus IV; indeed the Capuchin branch of the Franciscan order had not yet been founded when the decoration of that chapel was com­pleted. Instead, the idea seems to have been to honor the reigning pope by alluding to his close family ties with the Capuchin order. The allusion was perhaps too obscure to be understood by the average viewer, but it would not have escaped the better-educated audience for whom the chapel was reserved, the clergy of St. Peter’s.30 They would have looked toward the altarpieee and seen in Sts. Francis and Anthony a reference to their papal patron, to whom many of them owed their positions, and a reminder of his generos­

25 Doc. Appendix, no. 12. 26 Buonanni, 1724, no. 23.27 Isnello, 1923, esp. chapters 4—11: also see Chapter 8.28 “. . . perche gli e convenuto far due volte li sopradetti Santi, prima in habito di zoccolanti conforme che

a lui era stato commesso dal Capitolo di quella Vaticana, et poi da Capuccini, nel modo, che si veggonoal presente.” (The text is cited in full in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 8.)

29 Considerable reworking may have been involved, since zoccolanti, or Observant Franciscans, wore short hoods and wooden clogs, whereas Capuchins wore pointed hoods and went barefoot or in san­dals. For the different habits of the principal branches of the Franciscan order in the seventeenth cen­tuiy, see The IllustratedBarloch , 1983, XXXVIII, pp. 251, 274, 282.

30 At the time, the archpriest ol St. Peter’s was Cardinal Scipione Borghese. But the fact that the altar- piece of the Chapter's private chapel contained a visual reference to the Capuchin order perhaps indi­cates that the pope’s brother, the Capuchin friar Cardinal Antonio Barberini, was expected to succeed to the post whenever it was vacated. Cardinal Antonio does seem to have had ties with the Chapter. On March 27, 1629, for example, services were held in the Chapel of the Choir (i.e. in front of Vouet’s altarpieee) “e vi e stato alia predica il Cardinale S. Onofrio Capuccino Fratello di Nostro Signore.” (BAV, ACSP, Diari 11, p. 356.) When Scipione Borghese died in 1633, it was in fact the pope’s nephew Cardinal Francesco, and not Cardinal Antonio, who succeeded as archpriest. But Cardinal Antonio did cement his connections with the basilica by assuming another ot Scipione’s appointments at St. Peter’s, that ot Penitenziere niaggiore.

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 69

ity in undertaking the decoration of their chapel and allowing them to retain the Pieta as their own.31

Two other altarpieces were commissioned in 1624. One was for the first chapel on the left of the nave, which had been designated the baptismal chapel a year earlier, during the last months of Gregory XV’s reign.32 The painter Gaspare Celio was assigned the job of decorating the chapel and providing it with an altarpiece representing the Baptism o f Chri.it. Once again the vicissitudes ol the commission expose the Congregation’s lack of a coherent strategy in the early months of Urban’s pontificate.

The cardinals initially instructed Celio to execute the altarpiece, like the decorations in the vault and lunettes, in mosaic.33 But apparently they failed to consider the implications of this decision; they did not calculate, for example, the enormous cost of mosaic, or the laboriousness ol the medium. As a result, the project had to be considerably modified in midstream. After exhibiting his designs to the cardinals and receiving their approval, Celio spent months preparing detailed cartoons to be used in assembling the mosaics, only to be told that the commission was in danger of being canceled on account of the expense. He pleaded his case with Cardinal Francesco Barberini and was finally allowed to retain the commission, but instead of mosaic, he was told to decorate the chapel in the cheaper, speedier medium of oil on stucco.34 One can imagine his frustration as he contemplated the time and effort wasted in the preparation of the cartoons.35

The third altarpiece commissioned in 1624 was that of St. Thomas, for the right altar in the south transept.36 Both the Chapel of the Choir and the baptismal chapel had important liturgical functions, so it is easy to understand why they were among the first to receive new altarpieces; but the same was not true of the chapel of St. Thomas. At the time, it was hidden from view behind the temporary choir, and was being used as a sac­risty by priests officiating in the choir; it had a provisional altarpiece, moreover, a paint­ing probably of St. Thomas transferred there from the old basilica.37 But urgent liturgical necessity was not the only reason for commissioning an altarpiece. The fact that this one was assigned to one of Urban VIII’s favorite artists, the Florentine painter Domenico Passignano, suggests that, on this occasion at least, the Congregation acted mainly out of a desire to please the pope, or perhaps in response to a direct order to find employment for his protege.

Passignano had come to Rome earlier that year, ostensibly to restore his 1605 altar- piece, the Crucifixion o f St. Peter,38 but probably also in order to ingratiate himself with his former patron, now that he was pope. If his intention in making the journey was to secure a major commission, he was successful. But Passignano was either unable or unwilling to

31 The Barberini reference was not limited to the altarpiece, but was reinforced throughout the chapel. The bronze gates at the entrance, designed by Borromini, are decorated with bees and portrait medals of Urban VIII, and surmounted by his coat of arms; the choir stalls, carved by Giovanni Battista Soria between 1625 and 1627, are likewise covered with bees; and the original altar and pedestal supporting the Pieta, also by Borromini, were adorned with inlaid marbles again representing the Barberini devices, the sun and bees. (Poliak, no. 752.)

32 See Cat. 3 (a). 33 Poliak, nos. 478-79." Poliak, nos. 480-81.33 Mosaics, like tapestries, are assembled directly over the cartoon. For this reason, cartoons for mosaics

and tapestries need to be considerably more detailed than cartoons for frescoes, and are generally painted rather than merely drawn. The change of medium meant, in effect, that Celio had to paint hiscompositions twice.

36 See Cat. 13. 37 See Chapter 2.33 Poliak, nos. 936-38.

70 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

remain long in Rome, and presumably this was why he was assigned one of the transept altarpieces, which, being relatively small and painted on canvas, could be executed back in Florence as easily as in Rome.

Passignano was assured the commission before he left Rome, but significantly he was not told what his subject was to be. Since the usual subject of an altarpiece of St. Thomas is the Doubting of Thomas (the scene he ultimately painted), his ignorance on this point may mean that the Congregation had not yet determined which of the six transept altars to assign him. Back in Florence, Passignano was promptly forgotten. He had to write repeatedly before he could get Carlo Maderno to inform him of his assignment.39 Finally, Maderno did respond, sending him not one but two different subjects and giving him per­mission to choose between them.40 We know the subject he chose, but not the one he rejected, and therefore we cannot tell whether he was allowed to select between two dif­ferent Thomas scenes or, as seems more likely, between two different altarpieces alto­gether. In either case, the fact that he was allowed to decide for himself what he would paint points to the same astonishing casualness on the part of the Congregation that we saw with the Vouet commission and with the Celio commission.

These three case histories amply demonstrate that in the early months of Urban’s pon­tificate the cardinals of the Fabbrica had yet to develop and voice a consistent policy with regard to the altars and altarpieces. They determined issues such as medium and cost on an ad hoc basis and made important decisions concerning subject matter without consult­ing the members of the Chapter and without giving serious thought to the liturgical con­text within which the paintings would function. The Congregation’s lack of a viable strat- egy was to pose a continuing hindrance as the campaign to furnish the altars of St. Peter’s picked up speed in the following year.

THE J U B I L E E O F 1 6 2 5

The yea r 1625 was a Holy Year. For the first time since the completion of new St. Peter’s, pilgrims flocked in the tens of thousands to pray at its altars, to touch its holy relics, and to take communion in this, the foremost church of Christendom. In 1625, 56,345 masses were celebrated in St. Peter’s, on average 154 masses daily. Every altar in the church must have been in nearly constant use. M ay was the busiest month. Cool spring weather was suitable for traveling, and lured the faithful from farther afield. In M ay alone, some 5,294 masses were celebrated (about 170 per day); 65,574 people took communion; and 101 different confraternities and other religious societies descended on the basilica, each bearing with it a banner, and in some cases elaborate parade floats as well.41 Each confraternity or society made its entrance into the basilica as spectacular as possible. The Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter's, for example, vis­ited the church accompanied by musicians. In their midst they carried a banner repre­senting the Crucifixion, painted especially for the occasion by Paolo Guidotti.42 They also brought with them a float, a kind of portable stage representing St. Peter denying

Poliak, 1913, pp. 37-38. i» Ibid., p. 39.41 The events in St. Peter’s during the Holy Year are recorded in considerable detail in the official d ia iy

kept by Francesco Speroni, a member of the Chapter. See ACSP, Duiri 14 [Diarium Vaticanum Anni Jub ilaei AIDCXXV. . . tuictore Francioo Speroni Preobytero Romano landatae BaoiFieae Manoinnario}.

« AASS, vol. 37 \Mandati 1625], no. 10; vol. 169 [Decreti dal 1608 a lo tto 16-17], IT. 154-154v, 155v-156, 159. 163.

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 71

Christ to the serving woman, which featured, to everyone’s delight, a live rooster perched atop a column.43 One can imagine the kind of spectacle that accompanied these ceremonial entrances, with the crowds craning forward to catch a glimpse, the musicians playing fanfares, and the members processing solemnly up the nave, holding their bright banners aloft and toting their festival floats.

The pageantry of the Holy Year drew hundreds of thousands to St. Peter’s, as partici­pants or spectators. The church was on exhibit to the world, and perhaps the realization of its power to attract and impress an international audience acted as a spur to Urban’s deter­mination to furnish the interior with suitable splendor. In any event, there was a sudden fluriy of activity involving the altarpieces. Before the year was out, Andrea Sacchi was com missioned to paint an a ltarp iece for the a lta r of St. G regory in the C appella Clementina;44 Lanfranco was given the job of replacing Bernardo Castello’s Christ Summon­ing Peter to Walk on the Water, painted in 1605, but badly damaged after two decades in St. Peter’s;45 Domenichino was instructed to depict the stoiy of Peter and the centurion in the second chapel on the right of the nave;46 Passignano, back in Rome to deliver his small altarpiece of St. Thomas, received his third major commission in St. Peter’s, to represent Peter pulling the tribute money from the fish’s mouth in the second chapel on the left of the nave;47 and Agostino Ciampelli was assigned the altarpiece of Sts. Simon and Jude in the south transept.48

These new commissions, like the earlier ones, seem to have been distributed hastily and without due preparation. Thus, we find the Congregation in some cases assigning altar- pieces without specifying subject matter, or in other cases assigning subjects before deter­mining the dedications of the altars. The confusion must have been obvious to everyone, and most of the artists, made w a iy by the experience of Vouet, had the good sense to post­pone action until the dedications of the altars were determined and the subjects of their paintings settled once and for all.49 Only Passignano, a notoriously speedy worker, opted not to delay. In the second chapel on the left of the nave, he began an altarpiece over twenty-three feet tall in oil on stucco representing his allotted topic, St. Peter Pulling the Tribute M oney from the Fuih's Mouth. Apparently he made significant progress, too, for by M ay 1627, the altarpiece was described as “gia dipinta. ”50 But once again the artis t’s efforts were wasted, for in that same year the Congregation made another about-face, and Passignano was obliged to start from scratch, replacing his Peter stoiy with a depiction of the Presentation o f the Virgin a t the Temple.51

It may at first appear that the Congregation was acting through all this entirely without a plan, randomly assigning subjects and randomly changing them. But such was not really the case. In a sense, the opposite was true. The cardinals were trying to coordinate the altarpieces, insofar as was possible, around programmatically related themes. W hat they seem to have forgotten, however, is that by treating the altarpieces as pictorial series instead of individually, they were compromising the paintings' sacred function. The cardi­nals' scheme, for all its superficial attractiveness, was simply untenable from a liturgical standpoint.

43 ACSP, Duiri 14, p. 75. For a fuller discussion of the Archconfraternity s float, see Cat. SP. 5 (a).44 See Cat. 9. 43 See Cat. 17.46 See Cat. 4. 47 See Cat. 5 (a).48 See Cat. 14.49 Sacchi and Ciampelli deferred working on their assigned altarpieces until 1626 at the earliest, Lan­

franco until 1627, and Domenichino until the summer of 1628.50 Poliak, no. 94. 51 See Cat. 5 (a).

72 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

The programmatic intentions of the Congregation are nowhere easier to detect than in their initial project for the chapels of the nave. The nave chapels, unlike those in the cen­tralized portion of the building, were brand-new and never before used. They therefore lacked provisional altarpieces and had no titles associated with them; in essence they pro­vided a tabula ra ja. By 1624, the cardinals had decided to reserve several of the nave chapels for a continuation of the Peter cycle begun by Clement VIII in the navi piccole. Accordingly, they instructed Vouet to paint Peter Healing with Hit Shadow in the Chapel of the Choir, Passignano to paint Peter and the Tribute M oney in the second chapel on the left, and Domenichino to paint Peter and the Centurion in the second chapel on the right; and since it is hardly likely that they would have flouted the rules of symmetry, we may assume that they also contemplated a Peter story for the so-called New Sacristy, opposite the Chapel of the Choir. Only the first chapel on the left, having been set aside as the bap­tismal chapel, and the corresponding chapel on the right, were omitted from the scheme.

The Congregation’s project for the nave altars had its appeal. The second and third pairs of nave chapels (unlike the first) have large altarpieces identical in shape and size to those in the navi piccole. Had the project been realized as the cardinals envisaged it, all of the large altarpieces in the basilica, with the exception of the two in the Cappella Gregori- ana and the altarpiece of St. Petronilla, would have featured Peter stories. Thus the cardi­nals would have achieved a high degree of visual and iconographic unity throughout the basilica, while supplementing the message of apostolic succession and papal authority implicit to the Petrine theme.52

In commissioning additional Peter altarpieces in the navi piccole, the cardinals were merely following in Clement VII Is footsteps. But the situation in St. Peter's had changed so considerably in the two decades since Clement’s death that the iconographic scheme he had initiated was now no longer viable. When Clement commissioned the six Peter altar- pieces, the Constantinian nave still stood, and housed the scores of altars and relics around which the ritual life of the basilica revolved. But the demolition of the nave in 1605 left only new St. Peter’s standing, and at that point it became necessary to accommo­date as many as possible of the traditional titles and onera at its altars. There were many fewer altars in the new basilica than there had been in the old, so it was particularly important that the dedication of each one should be selected with care and discrimination. By commissioning a series of Peter stories for four of the largest chapels in the basilica, the cardinals showed themselves strangely insensitive to the liturgical situation. To put it simply, an altar adorned with a Petrine altarpiece must under normal circumstances be dedicated in honor of St. Peter (or in this case more accurately in honor of a specific deed or event in his life). Thus, in a church already overflowing with Peter altars, the cardinals were proposing to add still more, thereby reducing the number of altars available for other, more pressing dedications.

In theory, at least, an altarpiece is ancillary to the altar over which it is located, and its subject matter is determined by the dedication of the altar rather than the other way around. It may have been the cardinals’ apparent obliviousness to these basic points that eventually led the clergy of St. Peters to challenge their handling of the business. Up until then, the Chapter had played virtually no part in the Congregation’s activities. All deci­sions concerning the architecture, the outfitting, and the decoration of the basilica were made by the cardinals, acting on behalf of the pope, without consultation with the mem­bers of the Chapter. The canons first ventured to intervene in the business of the Congre­gation in 1624, when they protested the arrangements being made for the Chapel of the

52 For more on the significance of Peter imagery in St. Peter’s, see Chapter 7.

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 73

Choir. Even then, it was no doubt a sense of proprietorship that made them feel justified in interfering: the Chapel of the Choir was, after all, their own private chapel. But the suc­cess they had in their dealings with the Congregation on that particular occasion may have given them the confidence to become increasingly involved, especially as they w it­nessed the Congregation's continued insensitivity - not to say incompetence - in its han­dling of such delicate matters as the distribution of relics and titles, the transfer of onera, and the selection of subject matter for the remaining altarpieces. In the following months, the Chapter came to play an increasingly important role in the planning and appointment of the altars. This role was eventually defined and made official in 1626, marking the beginning of a new phase in the campaign.

E A R L Y C H R O N O L O G Y O F THE P R O J E C T

On November 18, 1626, 1,300 years to tbe day after the consecration of the Constantinian basilica, Pope Urban VIII consecrated new St. Peters. The solemn ceremony marked the official completion of construction and meant that future activity would be focused on the outfitting and embellishment of the interior. For Urban, the altarpieces now became a first priority. It seems that shortly before the consecration, he ordered yet another Apostolic Visitation, which resulted in a formal recommendation that every altar in St. Peter’s be provided with a permanent altarpiece. This recommendation is referred to in the following letter from Stefano Landi to Cardinal Ginnasi, received on September 19, 1626:

Stefano Landi, Rector and Perpetual Chaplain of the chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian in St. Peter’s, understanding following the Visit that His Holiness has in mind to commission images for all of the altars in St. Peter’s . . . , and since the painting that stands over the aforementioned altar is from the old church, and has nothing to do with the story of the aforementioned saints [Processus and M artin­ian], he implores [the cardinals of the Congregation] to follow the recommendation of His Holiness and of the Visit.63

Although it is unclear when precisely the Visitation referred to by Landi took place, it pre­sumably occurred shortly before he wrote his letter. This Visitation, and the resulting decision of the pope “to commission images for all of the altars in St. Peter’s," mark a turn­ing point in the history of the altars and altarpieces. With the baldcuchino well under way, and the nave at last completed and ready for consecration. Urban now turned his atten­tion to the side altars, many of which still lacked titles, relics, and permanent altarpieces. However the pope expressed his wishes in this matter, the sense can be gleaned from Landi s petition and from other sources: Urban charged the Congregation to see to it that every altar in the church was properly furnished, provided with an altarpiece, and made ready to accommodate religious activity.

Up to this point, only a few altarpieces had been commissioned, and those on a more or less piecemeal basis. Now an organized and systematic effort was envisaged, involving

53 "Stefano Landi Rettore, et Cappellano perpetuo della Cappella delli SS. Processo et Martiniano in S. Pietro, intendendo doppo la Visita, che e mente di Nostro Signore si facciano le imagini a tutti li altari di S. Pietro [. . .] et essendo stato posto un quadro in detto altare, che era nella chiesa vecchia, che non ha che far niente con la historia di detti Santi supplica Vostra Signoria Illustrissima et tutti rillustris- simi Signori della Congregatione della fabrica voler esseguir la mente del Nostro Signore e della Visita.’’ (Poliak, no. 74.)

On Stefano Landi, a member of the Chapter of St. Peter's and a noted composer of music, see Chap­ter 8 and Cat. 11, esp. nn. 14, 16.

7A T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

every altar in the church still without a permanent image. Before the remaining paintings could be commissioned, however, it was necessary to decide the dedications of the altars over which they were to go. This may seem an obvious point. Yet, surprisingly, no attempt had previously been made to consider the basilica's altars collectively and to determine appropriate dedications for each and every one of them. This omission had led to a grow­ing backlog of artists who had been granted altarpieces, but who were unable to begin work because the dedications of the altars for which their paintings were intended had not yet been worked out. Now all this was to change. A new stage in the campaign to outfit the basilica was under way, and the first order of business was to assign a title to every one of its altars.

The job of deciding the dedications was placed at first in the hands of the Congregation of the Fabbrica. The earliest reference to the Congregation’s efforts in this regard is in a document dated September 19, 1626. On that day, Carlo Ghetti, econonw of the Fabbrica, made the following entry in the Acts of the Congregation:

I presented in Congregation the memorandum that 1 had drawn up by order of our most Holy Lord on the situations and titles of the altars of the basilica of St. Peter’s; and the cardinals were good enough to approve it and ordered me to show and pre­sent it to His Holiness.54

At the meeting of the Congregation on October 12, Ghetti presented a revised draft of the previous memorandum:

Once again I showed a plan for the altars of the basilica, and gave information con­cerning the altarpieces which are to be painted, concerning the painters to whom certain sums of money have been given to begin their work, and concerning others who have been proposed and nominated [for commissions].55

On December 7, we learn of a new development, namely, the involvement of the Chapter in the Congregation’s deliberations. Urban VIII wanted to make sure that the priests who would ultimately be responsible for officiating at these altars would also have some say in their dedications. The case of Simon Vouet and the altar in the Chapel of the Choir had made him mindful of how things could go wrong when there was no regular means of communication between the Chapter and the Congregation. Consequently, he instructed the cardinals of the Congregation to invite representatives from the canons to join in all discussions having to do with the altars and altarpieces.

The most illustrious Cardinal Ginnasi reported that it is His Holiness’s wish [. . .] that the most illustrious Cardinals Lante, Zacchia, and Biscia, having consulted once again the Canons and Chapter, should deliberate about what to do regarding the sit­uation and titles of the altars, so that they may be consecrated, provided with altar- pieces, and finished, and [having done so] they should report back to His Holiness.56

54 "Praesentavi in Congregazione annotationem de mandato Sanctissimi Domini Nostri per me lactam super situationibus, et titulis Altarium Basilicae Sancti Petri, quam pro eorum benignitate appro- barunt, et per me eidem Sanctissimo exhiberi, et praesentari mandarunt." (AFSP, Piano 1—ser. 3-no. 159, f. 64v.)

55 "Item denuo per me exhibita planta altarium Basilicae, et informati de Tabulis, quae pingendae sunt, ac de Pictoribus, quibus fuit data certa pecuniarum summa ad inchoandum opus, ac de alijs, qui fuerunt propositi, et nominati." (Poliak, no. 76.)

56 "Illustrissimus Dominus Cardinalis Ginnasius retulit mentem Sanctissimi esse: [. . .] Item quod Illus- trissimi Domini Cardinales Lantes, Sancti Sixti et Biscia audito denuo Dominis Canonicis et Capitulo deliberent, quid agendum sit super situatione, et titulo Altarium, ut consecrari, pingi, et perfici possint, referantque Sanctissimo Domino Nostro." (Poliak, no. 92.)

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 75

We learn more about the involvement of the Chapter on Jan u ary 15, 1627:

Canons Bovio, Cittadini, and Ubaldini, having been chosen by their Chapter to par­ticipate in the meeting, were summoned from the most Reverend Canons of St. Peter's by this Holy Congregation, or rather by those cardinals [i.e. Lante, Zacchia, and Biscia] who were appointed to determine the distribution of titles and sacred relics among the hitherto unconsecrated altars of this basilica, and their dedications; and after suitable debate on the matter, the altars were at last distributed and denominated, as appears in the notice entrusted to Cardinal Zacchia so that he could present it to our most Holy Lord and arrange for its appropriate execution in accordance with His Holiness’s wishes.57

These few scattered references enable us to reconstruct with some degree of specificity the chronology of events following Urban’s decision to make a concerted effort to com­plete the altars of St. Peter’s. By September 1626, the project was under way; by Novem­ber, the Congregation had worked out a draft of a proposal for the disposition of every altar in the church; by December, the Chapter had become involved in the decision-mak­ing process; and in Jan u ary of 1627 another proposal was worked out by a joint commit­tee of cardinals and canons, and submitted to the pope for his approval.

Within this chronological framework, we may now fit a group of five documents of vital importance lor our subject. The first is undated, but from internal evidence it is iden­tifiable as the planta altaruim that the economo, Carlo Ghetti, presented on October 12, 1626, for the approval of the Congregation.58 The text, which is addressed to the pope and signed by Ghetti, is neatly inscribed in the margins and on the reverse of a printed plan of St. Peter’s, to which it makes reference by means of a letter key. Beginning with the first chapel on the left of the nave and ending with the first chapel on the right, it identifies every altar in the basilica (with the exception of those in the navi p iccole) and in most cases offers brief but valuable explanations for tbe proposed dedications.

The second document is dated November 4, and is closely related to the first.59 It is a simple list of altars, the dedications of which conform precisely to those on the planta a ltar­uim. This time, however, the document also includes the names of the artists recom­mended for each altarpiece.

The third document, although again undated, was presumably written soon after the first two, and certainly no later than Jan uary or February 1627.60 It may be the notula mentioned in the Acts of the Congregation of Jan u ary 15. The document is addressed to the pope from the members of the Chapter of St. Peter's. Like the Congregation’s planta altaruim, it refers to the altars of St. Peter’s by means of a letter key. The letters are not the same as those on the planta altaruim. We may assume, therefore, that the Chapter’s sub­mission, like the Congregation’s, was originally accompanied by a plan of the church, which in this case has been lost. The text includes a list of proposed titles for every altar in the church (again with the exception of those in the navi piccole), along with detailed expla­

57 “Fuerunt vocati ex Reverendissimis Dominis Canonicis Sancti Petri Domini Canonici Bovius, Citadi- nus, et Ubaldinus, ab eorum Capitulo deputati ad interveniendum deliberationi, per hanc Sacram Con- gregationem sive supradictos Illustrissimos Dominos Cardinales deputatos facien[di] super distribu- tione Titulorum, et Sacrarum Reliqu iarum in A ltaribus dictae Basilicae adhuc non consecratis illorumque denominatione, et super hoc mature discusso tandem Fuerunt distributa, et denominata prout in notula quae fuit Illustrissimo Domino Cardinali S. Sixti consignata, ut illam Sanctissimo Domino Nostro referrat, et iuxta eiusdem Sanctissimi m[ent]em debitae executioni possit demandari.” (Poliak, no. 93; but note that my transcription differs slightly from his.)

58 Doc. Appendix, no. 8. 59 Doc. Appendix, no. 9.60 Doc. Appendix, no. 11.

76 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

nations of those titles. It was clearly composed in response to the Congregation’s proposal, to which it makes specific reference on several points, and I will therefore refer to it as the Chapters counterproposal.

The fourth document is dated February 19 and 20, 1627.61 It is a memo, written by Angelo Giorio, concerning negotions between the pope, the Congregation, and the canons apropos the dedications and decoration of certain altars. The memo opens:

In my capacity as a/taruita, and having been ordered by Signor Cardinal Zacchia of the Congregation of the Fabbrica, to whom this business has been entrusted: I spoke with His Holiness concerning the establishment of the altars of St. Peters, in accordance with the attached text and instructions, and he made the following objections.

There follows a list of six relatively minor objections made by Urban VIII to the proposal submitted to him by the Chapter. Giorio communicated the pope’s reservations to the canons:

On the 20th of February I went down to St. Peter's and spoke with Canons Ubal- dini and Bovio about the matters discussed with His Holiness, and they acceded to his suggestions, and agreed to revise their proposal insofar as seems reasonable, while making every effort to accommodate the ancient obligations and altars of St. Peter’s.

The memo concludes with a summary of the canons’ response to each of the six points raised by the pope. This document is of exceptional interest, not only for the factual infor­mation it contains but because it vividly demonstrates Urban’s involvement in all decisions regarding the altars and altarpieces. Clearly, he kept himself minutely informed of every­thing that went on in the Congregation and in the Chapter, and exercised tight control over the activities of both organizations.

A final document crucial to establishing the chronology of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s is the Acts of the meeting of the Congregation on M ay 14, 1627.62 The meeting was called specifically for the purpose of discussing plans relating to the altarpieces:

The Congregation of the Reverend Fabbrica was held at the palace of the most Illustrious and Reverend Cardinal Ginnasi for the purpose of distributing among the painters all those altarpieces in the basilica which have yet to be painted. The following cardinals were present: Cardinals Ginnasi, Zacchia, Spinola, Aldobran- dini, and Biscia.

Knowing that His Holiness wishes to have the altars of this basilica completed and consecrated as quickly as possible, they called on me, the econorrw, to show them the notice which lists the altarpieces already distributed, and the painters to whom they have been entrusted, and likewise tbose which hitherto remain to be distrib­uted, and the names of the painters among whom they might be distributed.

Wherefore I, the econorrw, showed them the notice, which contained the following information.

There follow the lists of altarpieces and painters. Ghetti then goes on:

After [the notice] was seen and read through by the aforementioned cardinals, and after they had summoned and consulted the Reverends Giorio, Bovio, Cittadini, and Ubaldini of the basilica’s canons, who had been designated by the Chapter specially

61 Doc. Appendix, no. 12. 62 Poliak, no. 94 (Doc. Appendix, no. 13).

CHAPTER FOUR / TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE ALTARS AND ALTARPIECES 77

for this purpose, as they averred, so that they could observe the proceedings, and who were present at the Congregation, since His Holiness w ished it so, they approved the distribution of the altarpieces among the aforenamed painters . . .

By the meeting of M ay 14, the cardinals and the canons had worked out between them the dedication of every altar in St. Peter’s. Thus, in a remarkably short space of time, between October 1626 and the early months of 1627, all confusion and conflict over the distribution of titles were resolved, and the w ay was smoothed for the Congregation to proceed rapidly and efficiently with its mandate, to oversee the production of permanent altarpieces for every altar still in need of one.

C H A P T E R F I V E

THE D E D I C A T I O N S OF THE ALTARS

DETERMINING the dedications of the altars in St. Peter’s was no easy task. The modern basilica had room for only a fraction of the eighty or so altars that had stood in the old basilica. Even if no new titles were introduced, therefore, only the most

important altars from the old basilica could be reinstated in the new. But what constituted an altar’s importance? Its antiquity? The preciousness of its relics? The prestige of the saint to whom it was dedicated? The size of its endowment? The number of clergy employed to say masses at it? Its popularity with the faithful? Any or all of these consider­ations could contribute to an altar's status. In short, no prescribed scale of values deter­mined the superiority of one altar relative to another. This meant that the selection of titles was left largely to the discretion of the representatives of the Congregation and of the Chapter charged with this responsibility. But these two organizations had very different priorities where the altars and altarpieces were concerned, and produced very different proposals for their dedication and subject matter; only after much debate and negotiation did they reach a compromise that enabled them to proceed with the task of commissioning the altarpieces. To understand how their perspectives differed, and how the program eventually evolved, we must examine in greater detail the proposals submitted by each organization in the winter of 1626—27.

THE C O N G R E G A T I O N S P R O P O S A L

The Congregation s proposal exists in two nearly identical copies, each inscribed on a single broadsheet printed with Matthaeus Greuter's 1623 engraved plan of St. Peter’s (Figs. 8—9).1

1 Doc. Appendix, no. 8. The plan illustrates Papirio Bartoli’s eccentric proposals for the improvement and embellishment of St. Peter s, as described in his Diocoroo oopra una forma Si coro p er le funtioni ponteficie che ot potria fare net tempio Si Min Pietro in Vatieano . . . , 1620 (BNR, Ms. Fondi minori, Prov. claustrale varia X, int. 1—9, 13—24, 28—29; BAV, Barb. Lat. 4512, IT. 16-43). Besides recommending the construction of an elaborate pontifical choir in the crossing, to be built in the form of a nariee/Ia, or ship symbolic of the Church, and to encompass within its complex iconography the tomb of the Apostles, the papal high altar, and the chair of Peter, Bartoli also advocated transforming St. Peters from a three-aisled to a five-aisled basilica by modifying the chapels on either side of the nave, and accentuating the centralized portion of the building by raising its floor level and separating it from Maderno’s nave by means of a low flight of

78

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T I O N S O F T H E A L T A R S 79

On the plan, each altar (with the exception of the high altar and the altars in the navi piccole) is hand-lettered in pen and has a small paper disc pasted over it, painted in miniature to illustrate either its proposed dedication or function. Thus, one altar is identified by a tiny image of a baptismal font, another by a depiction of the Giving of the Keys, a third by a pic­ture of the Pieta, and so forth. In the margins is a key, which lists the altars in the order in which they are lettered on the plan, identifying the dedication of each, and in some cases recording the relic enclosed within it and the number of priests affiliated with it. The key is followed by the proposal itself, addressed to the pope, and written and signed by the economo of the Fabbrica, Carlo Ghetti.

The Congregation’s proposal can be identified, as mentioned earlier, with the planta altarunn presented by Ghetti at the meeting of the Congregation on October 12, 1626. It provides an accurate and complete idea of the cardinals’ intentions concerning the dedica­tions of the altars and the subject matter of the altarpieces at a time when they still retained more or less full authority over such matters, before the Chapter became involved in the decision-making process.

In formulating their proposal, the cardinals seem to have decided on two basic rules from the outset, both intended to save time and money. First, the bodies of saints trans­lated into the new church by Paul V were to remain in the altars to which he had con­signed them. Consequently, in the case of four major altars, those containing the bodies of St. Petronilla, St. Gregory the Great, Sts. Processus and Martinian, and Sts. Simon and Jude, the titles were predetermined by the presence of the relics within them.2 Second, no changes of title were to be recommended in the case of altars already equipped with per­manent altarpieces. Thus, the altar of St. Thomas in the south transept, recently fitted with an altarpiece by Passignano, was to retain its title, as were the altar of the Madonna del Soccorso in the Gregoriana, the altar of the Madonna della Colonna in the southwest corner chapel, and the eight altars in the navi piccole. In accordance with these two rules, then, some fifteen titles were decided even before the cardinals drew up their proposal.

The cardinals had a tendency, whenever possible, to treat the altars and altarpieces programmatically. Once again, we can see this best in the nave, where they abandoned their previous plan to extend the cycle of Peter altarpieces, in favor of a somewhat more practical scheme involving pairs of related altarpieces, corresponding to one another across the width of the nave. In this they may have been encouraged by the architecture itself, for the nave chapels were designed in pairs, each pair differentiated from the other two. The first pair of chapels are shallow and partially closed off from the side aisles, with handkerchief vaults flanked by segments of barrel vaults; the second pair are equally shal­low but open to the side aisles, with barrel vaults; and the third pair are considerably larger than the other two, and closed off from the side aisles by gates.3 Following the lead of the architecture, the cardinals set out to establish a tidy system of pairing, by providing the altars on the left and on the right of the nave with complementary dedications or iconographically twinned altarpieces.

The first pair of chapels are identified in the Congregation’s proposal as the baptismal

steps. In Greuter’s print, Bartoli’s proposed modifications are superimposed over a plan of the church as actually built. There is no reason to think that the cardinals took Bartoli’s ideas seriously; the additions they made to the plan clearly conform to the outlines of the church as built. They probably chose to use this plan rather than Maderno’s official 1613 plan merely because of its smaller and more convenient size.

2 "Altaria Sanctorum Apostolorum Simonis et Judae, S. Petronillae, ac SS . Martirum Processi et Mar- tiniani illis iam dedicata, et in quibus eorum sacra Corpora recondita sunt, nullo modo mutanda, sed illi- bata, prout nunc extant, retinenda, et consecranda censerem.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 8.)

3 Hibbard, 1971, pp. 71-72.

80 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

chapel (on the left) and the chapel of the Crucifix (on the right). The function of the for­mer had been determined at least as early as the summer of 1623 and, as we have seen, Gaspare Celio was already at work decorating its altar with a representation of the Bap­tism o f Chruit, as befitted its dedication in honor of St. John the Baptist. By now recom­mending the title of Christ crucified for the corresponding chapel on the right, the cardi­nals were aiming for iconographic symmetiy. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was frequently equated with baptism. According to the Gospel of John (19:34), the wound in Christ’s side poured forth not only blood but also water, which water was subsequently interpreted as the source of baptismal water.4 Furthermore, as Marilyn Lavin has pointed out, "Christ himself equated his baptism to his bloody sacrifice (M atthew 20:22, Luke 12:50). Through this equation the Church Fathers saw the Baptism as the beginning of the Passion and Christ’s descent into the waters of Jordan as his descent into the ‘waters of death. ’”5 During the Counter Reformation, with its unprecedented insistence on sacra­mental imagery, the parallel between baptism and Christ’s sacrifice became a common subject in the visual arts, as for example in an engraving by Hieronymus Wierix, entitled Fono Vitae, which shows the risen Christ seated on the ledge of a baptismal font, his wounds gushing blood into the basin.6 In addition, it should be noted that the arrange­ment proposed by the cardinals was particularly appropriate given the proximity of the two chapels to the entrance of the church. Ju s t as the faithful are washed of sin and gain salvation through the double cleansing of the water of baptism and the blood of Christ, so too the worshiper, as he leaves the world behind him and enters the church, a heaven on earth, passes the threshold flanked by images of Christ’s baptism and crucifixion.7

The Congregation’s proposal for the dedication and decoration of the second, or cen­tral, pair of nave chapels is even more obviously aimed at establishing iconographic sym­metiy. Originally Peter altarpieces had been commissioned for both chapels, as part of the Congregation ’s planned extension of the Peter cycle into the upper four nave chapels. But the Chapter’s refusal in 1625 to accept a Peter altarpiece in their own Chapel of the Choir severely curtailed this scheme, leaving only the central pair of nave chapels available for Peter stories. Under the circumstances, the cardinals recommended a change of subject matter for these two remaining Peter altarpieces. Instead of Peter Pulling the Tribute M oney from the Fuih’o Alouth and Peter and the Centurion, formerly commissioned for the left and right chapels respectively, the Congregation substituted two Peter stories that were both more important in terms of the symbolism of the church and more closely related as a pair: the Paoce Oreo Meao and the Giving o f the Keyo, Christ’s charges to Peter, the twin episodes on which the pope based his claims of apostolic legitimacy.8 Clearly, the cardinals had in mind that the two works should be viewed as pendants, thematically and visually linked across the nave. Because the central pair of chapels are shallow and open, their altarpieces are more easily visible from the middle of the nave than those of the other four nave chapels. Thus the visitor would have found himself confronted and embraced by these powerful images of papal authority as he moved from the entrance of the church toward the tomb of Peter and the papal high altar.

4 Lane, 1978, pp. 669-70. 5 M . A. Lavin, 1981, p. 77.6 Illustrated in Mauquoy-Hendrickx, 1978—83, I, p. 76, fig. 581.7 In the version of the Catechism promoted by the Council of Trent and first published in Rome in 1566,

the sacrament of baptism is described as "the door by which we are admitted into the Church . . . ” (Cited in translation in Sinding-Larson, 1984, p. 17.) For an earlier use of the same image, see Dante’sInferno, IV. 35—36.

8 Doc. Appendix, no. 8.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T I O N S O F T H E A L T A R S 81

The scene of Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom of Heaven was already represented at St. Peters, in a life-size marble relief set up by Paul V over the central door of the facade.9 The cardinals anticipated that some might accuse them of redundancy in commissioning an altarpieee representing the same theme, and had their response already prepared:

And although the same story of the Giving of the Keys is sculptured in marble on the facade of the church, there is no reason why this famous mystery and its mem­ory should not all the more be perpetually honored by the faithful, with innumer­able prayers and immense joy, in the center of the church.10

But if the cardinals were ready to defend their choice of subject matter, they apparently failed to anticipate another obvious objection to their proposal. They made no recommen­dation, indeed no mention at all, concerning appropriate relics for the two Peter altars, and their silence on this point indicates that they were still guilty of putting the altarpieces ahead of the altars, and of caring more about the subject matter and symbolism of the for­mer than the liturgical requirements of the latter.

The third pair of nave chapels, considerably larger, deeper, and more secluded than any of the other chapels in the church, were intended from the beginning to serve as choir and sacristy for the members of the Chapter.11 For the Chapel of the Choir on the left, the Chapter had insisted on a dedication in honor of the Conception and of Sts. Francis and Anthony, in memory of the title of the original choir chapel founded by Sixtus IV. In the Congregation’s proposal, we find the dedication described rather inaccurately as “Pietati Dominicae,” in reference to Michelangelo’s Pitta, which stood over the altar. The docu­ment also records the presence in the altar of the body of St. John Chrysostom, which had been moved there from the old sacristy, at the Chapter's request and with the autho­rization of the pope, about half a year earlier.12

For the New Sacristy, the Congregation proposed the title of the Holy Trinity and All Saints. As the subject of an altarpieee, they evidently felt that the Trinity would nicely complement the Pieta across the nave. Theologically, the two subjects balance one another, for they represent the two natures of Christ, one revealing him in his human nature, dead in the arms of his mother, and the other in his divine nature, enthroned at the righ t hand of his father. The inherent sym m etry w as moreover enhanced by the manner in which the altar of the Pieta was decorated. Vouet’s painting, which served as a backdrop to M ichelangelo’s sculpture, included the figure of God the Father, looking down toward the Pieta as though ordaining his son’s sacrifice, while the dove of the Holy Spirit was depicted on the ceiling of the baldachin suspended over the sculpture and a ltar below. Thus, arranged along a central vertical plane, the a ltar ensemble embodied all three elements of the Trinity — the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost - offering a neat iconographic parallel to the proposed Trinity altarpieee in the opposite chapel.

The title of the Holy Trinity and All Saints appealed to the cardinals for another reason as well. Under the generic title of All Saints, they hoped to combine and subsume a num­ber of other titles carried over from the old basilica. They must have envisaged the altar in

9 The relief was carved by Ambrogio Bonvicino between 1612 and 1614. See Hibbard, 1971, pp. 174—75.10 Doc. Appendix, no. 8.11 They are so labeled on M adem o’s printed plan of 1613 (Fig. 6).12 Doc. Appendix, no. 8. The translation of the body of St. John Chiysostom took place on M ay 1, and

the altar w as officially consecrated on Ju ly 22, 1626 (see BAV, ACSP, H55, ff. 7—18; Poliak, nos. 756-57).

82 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

the New Sacristy as a convenient catch-all, where titles like those of St. Martial and St. Wenceslas, which had long played a part in the traditional liturgy of St. Peter’s but which were more meaningful to the basilica’s clergy than to the average faithful, could be com­memorated and celebrated under a single umbrella title.13

It was probably because the chapel was destined for the private use of the Chapter that the cardinals felt justified in proposing such an arrangement; they considered it appropriate that the clergy should fulfill some portion of their traditional duties and obligations in their sacristy, rather than at altars in other, more “public” parts of the church. But the canons were unhappy with the designation of the nave chapel as their sacristy. They preferred the old sacristy, in the rotunda of S. M aria della Febbre, which in many ways was more conveniently designed to house a sacristy's various functions. As for the nave chapel, the canons suggested an entirely different use for it. Concerned that the sacrament was not being properly protected in the Cappella Gregoriana, where it was rained on and subjected to cold drafts, they recommended that the ciborium be moved into the New Sacristy, which, they claimed, was better built to withstand the ele­ments and better suited to provide a quiet and removed environment lor the veneration and distribution of the eucharist. The canons’ motion, seemingly so reasonable, was adam antly opposed by the cardinals. They offered several somewhat contrived argu­ments against it;14 but perhaps the true explanation for their resistance was that they wanted to preserve the intended sym metiy of function between the New Sacristy and the Chapel of the Choir.

The cardinals were clearly intent on ordering the nave chapels according to a simple, quasi-programmatic system of pairing. To this end, in working out appropriate titles, they divided the chapels into three sets of two. At the same time, they never lost sight of the full effect. True, the titles they proposed for the six altars were not closely interrelated. But the titles per se were not all that concerned the cardinals; they also had in mind the sub­jects of the altarpieces that were to illustrate those titles. If we think for a moment not of the dedications but of the altarpieces, we find that, besides the simple symmetiy linking each pair of chapels, the cardinals were also attempting to introduce a common theme that would bind all six nave chapels together into a unified program. The common theme was Christ himself. The baptismal chapel, for example, was to be dedicated to John the Bap­tist, but its altarpiece was to represent the Baptism o f Chriot, which is a scene from the life of Christ as much as it is one from the life of St. John. The same is true of the central pair of nave chapels. The paintings the cardinals planned for these two chapels have been referred to as Peter altarpieces, because they were to represent scenes from the life of St. Peter. But the stories the cardinals selected, the “Feed Aly Sheep " and the Giving o f the Keyo, also involve Christ, who would have figured prominently in both works. Similarly, the Chapel of the Choir was dedicated in honor of the Conception and of Sts. Francis and Anthony, but the presence of M ichelangelo’s Pieta over the altar meant that, here too, Christ was represented. Had the card inals’ proposal been realized, all six nave altars would have been surmounted by images of Christ. There would have been no discernible order, chronological or otherwise, to the arrangement of these images, other than the pair­ing already discussed. Nevertheless the effect would have been of a unified cycle of altar- pieces, similar to the cycle of Peter altarpieces commissioned by Clement VIII, but cele­brating Christ instead of his Apostle.

The ideals of symmetiy and order detectable in the Congregation’s proposal for the nave chapels were less applicable when it came to the six transept altars. Granted, an

13 Doc. Appendix, no. 8. M Ibid.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T IO N S OF T H E ALTARS 83

inherent symmetry already existed between the two middle altars, both of which were dedicated in honor of pairs of male saints, the apostles Simon and Ju d e on the left and the martyrs Processus and Martinian on the right. But the titles the Congregation pro­posed lor the flanking altars seem in contrast totally unrelated to one another. Perhaps the cardinals felt that the enormous distance between the transepts, and the relatively small size of the transept altarpieces, would render any attempt at programmatic symme­try all but imperceptible to the average visitor. But more important, they had to deal with the fact that, unlike the nave altars, which were only recently built and therefore had no previous history, the transept altars had been in use for two decades and were already known to the faithful by certain titles. In drawing up their proposal, the cardinals had the difficult task of deciding which of these titles to preserve and which to discard in favor of others.

The altars in the south transept were less well known to the public than those in the north, for the simple reason that, until the middle of 1626, they had been blocked from view by the temporary choir (Text Fig. II). We have seen that the titles of two of the three altars in the south transept were decided even before the cardinals drew up their proposal: these were the altar of Sts. Simon and Jude , at the center, which contained the apostles’ bodies, and the altar of St. Thomas, on the right, which had already been provided with a permanent altarpiece, Passignano’s Doubting o f Tbomao (Fig. 148). The altar on the left, on the other hand, was still in need of an appropriate title. In the past, it had been referred to for convenience's sake as the altar of St. Leo IX, because it contained his body. But this was in no sense an official title, and the Congregation recommended that it be superseded by the more prestigious title of St. Sebastian.

There had been an a ltar dedicated in honor of St. Sebastian in the old basilica. Described as antixjuuoimum by Alfarano, this altar was restored and richly endowed by Cardinal Cristoforo de’ Iacobazzi, a canon of St. Peter's, in 1501.15 The endowment sup­ported a chaplain whose duties included saying masses and otherwise maintaining the altar. When the altar was torn down along with the last remaining section of old St. Peter’s, the chaplain was left without anywhere to perform his ritual obligations. We know that this was considered a serious problem, for during the Apostolic Visitation of 1625, the vioitatori made a point of recommending that the chaplain's duties be transferred to the altar of the Crucifixion of St. Peter.16 This was only a temporary measure, however. By proposing to reestablish the title of St. Sebastian at the altar in the south transept, the Congregation was now offering a permanent solution.17

Not only were the altars in the north transept better known to the general public than those in the south, one of them seems to have been at the center of a thriving cult of ven­eration during the decades between 1606 and 1626. This was the altar on the left, over which Paul V had placed a painting on panel representing the M artyrdom o f St. Eraomiu, which had come from the saint's altar in the old basilica (Fig. 57).18 The original altar of St. Erasmus, unlike that of St. Sebastian, was not particularly important from a liturgical standpoint. It had no endowment, nor was there a chaplaincy attached to it.19 Moreover, St. Peter’s possessed no relic of the saint. Given the limited number of altars available in

15 Alfarano, pp. 120 and n. 2, 197. 16 Doc. Appendix, no. 5.17 There may, in fact, have been more than one chaplain associated with the title of St. Sebastian: the

Congregation’s proposal refers to "particulares Cappellani.”18 See Chapter 2 and Cat. 10.19 In 1624, the altar was described: “altare Sancti Erasmi nuncupatum nec consecratum, nec oneratum

aliquo onere . . . .” (Doc. Appendix, no. 3.)

84 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

the new church, such an altar would seem an unlikely candidate for inclusion. Indeed, it is doubtful that Paul V, when he ordered the old altarpieee transferred to the altar in the north transept, had any intention of perpetuating the title of St. Erasmus. He merely meant the painting to serve as a temporary adornment, until a more suitable title could be chosen and a permanent altarpieee installed.

But the public, not unreasonably, took the altarpieee as an indication of the altar's title, and those who had prayed at the altar of St. Erasmus in old St. Peter’s now flocked to what they assumed to be his altar in the new basilica. Frustratingly little is known about the nature of popular veneration in St. Peter’s. Pilgrims who came to visit the shrine of the Apostles followed an established route around the church, saying prayers by rote at each of the seven privileged altars.20 But as to what went on at the many other altars, who visited them, when, and under what circumstances, there is virtually no record. In the case of the Erasmus altar, however, evidence does survive pointing to its immense popularity and prestige among the faithful, both in the old church and in the new. During the Holy Year of 1575, when the altar still stood in the Constantinian nave, an incident occurred involving an overzealous Spanish pilgrim , so anxious to approach the altar that he tried to climb over the altar rail while mass was in progress. When an acolyte who was attending the priest barred the Spaniard's way, he reacted by punching him in the nose. Blood was spilt, the candle the acolyte had been holding was extinguished, and the mass had to be interrupted until such time as the altar could be reconsecrated.21

The story proves nothing by itself; but there are other, more tangible indications of an active and vigorous cult at the altar of St. Erasmus. From a document of 1627, we learn: "From long-established devotion the people bring votive plaques to this altar and make offerings of money.”22 The altar’s popularity is confirmed in the Iruttrurnenta issued on the occasion of an official visit of inspection to the basilica, which took place in September 1624. Concerning the altar of St. Erasmus, the w it a tori gave the following instruction: "Let the votive offerings, which are suspended directly from the altarpieee, be removed and reaffixed to the frame of the said altarpieee.”23 This brief statement (which, by the way, was applied to no other altar in the basilica) conjures up an image of an altarpieee encrusted with votive plaques, messages, medallions, and all the paraphernalia of popu­lar devotion. The form such offerings took is not difficult to imagine. Because of the nature of his martyrdom (he was eviscerated), Erasmus was venerated by those with stomach aches or other ailments of the digestive tract, as well as by pregnant women hoping to be spared the agony of labor. That Erasmus was invoked primarily for his powers of healing, in St. Peter’s at least, is indicated by a curious custom that developed at his altar there. A small spool of thread (a toy version of the horrifying gut-winder depicted both in the original altarpieee and in the work that eventually replaced it, Poussin’s M artyrdom o f St. Eraanituf) was attached to the side of the altar, and pieces of the thread were dispensed to the faithful afflicted with colic or other abdominal pains, so that

20 There were published manuals, with instructions to the faithful, listing the altars to be visited and the prayers to be said at each of the seven Roman basilicas. Examples include Francesco M aria Torrigio, Diario vaticano cioe brere modo d i f a r Oratione oqniqu im o nella oacrooancta Ba.<ilica d i S. Pietro d i Roma, Rome, 1622; ibid., Saero p ellegrinaggio delle IVchieoe d e ll’anno del Giubiteo, Rome, 1625; Giovanni Severano, Aienw- rie oacre delie oette chieoe di Roma, 11, Rome, 1630; Trattato delie iadulgenze con ce.ve a i VII a lta ri della Han lira di S. P ietro . . . , Ascoli, 1638; Fausto Ricci, Coruiderazioni, e oraz ion i. . . p er vititare la oaerooancta Baoilica Vati- cana, e i VII a lta ri della medeoima, Rome, 1754.

21 Masetti Zannini, 1976, pp. 157—58. 22 Doc. Appendix, no. 11.23 Doc. Appendix, no. 4.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T IO N S OF T H E ALTARS 85

they might consume it, or apply it to the affected area, and by invoking the saint, gain relief from their suffering.24

The cardinals, aware as they must have been of the saint’s enormous popularity, and of the fervid cult that had grown up around the altar in the north transept, were unwilling to change a title that had found such overwhelming public acceptance. Thus, the altar of St. Erasmus presents what may well be a unique case in the context of the present study, in that the cardinals decided to retain the title not because of its theological significance, nor because of its importance within the liturgy of St. Peter’s, but primarily because of its pop­ularity with the faithful.

The altar on the right in the north transept presented a somewhat different problem. It had as its temporary altarpiece Leonardo da Pistoia and Jacopino del Conte’s St. Anne with the /Madonna and Child Enthroned between Sto. P eter and Paul, formerly over the altar of St. Anne in the old basilica (Fig. 58).25 As was the case with the St. Erasmus altar, it had come to be known by the title of St. Anne by association with the image that hung over it. But in this case the Congregation did not recommend that the title be made official. It was not that they wished to abolish the title of St. Anne. On the contrary, as we will see in a moment, they considered it so important that they wanted to transfer it to a more promi­nent and prestigious altar elsewhere in the church. They therefore needed to come up with a different title for the transept altar. As to what that title should be, the cardinals affected a certain vagueness and irresolution, suggesting only that the matter be left “to the judgment of His Holiness.”26 Yet they clearly did have a preference. For on the plan accompanying their proposal, pasted over this altar, as over the other altars in the church, is a small paper disc with an image of the saint to whom they planned to dedicate it. In one version of the document, the figure is represented empty-handed (Fig. 9); in the other, he holds nothing more distinctive than a cross (Fig. 8). But in both versions he is shown with one distinguishing attribute: he is dressed as a cardinal. Cardinal saints are few, and therefore when we find a mention of an altar of "S. Carlo” in another, closely related docu­ment (the list of altarpieces and painters drawn up by the Congregation on November A, 1626), we may safely match up these two references and conclude that the cardinals had in mind to dedicate the altar in the north transept in honor of St. Carlo Borromeo.27

The title of St. Carlo Borromeo differs in character from the titles proposed for the other five transept altars. To begin with, it is the only one not carried over from the old basilica. (Not only was there no altar of St. Carlo in old St. Peter’s, the man had not even been canonized when the last section of the Constantinian nave was torn down.28) Fur­thermore, had the title found acceptance, this would have been the only altar in the entire basilica to honor a modern saint. Most of the saints venerated in St. Peter’s are Early Christian; one or two are medieval, but none lived later than the early tenth century. It is not at all clear why the cardinals favored so incongruous a title. Perhaps they had a per­sonal motive for doing so. In dedicating an altar to St. Carlo, they would have been hon­

24 "Si suol tenere appesa a lato di quest’altare una matassina di filo, che poi si dispenza ai fedeli affetti dalla colica, ed altri dolori di ventre, dai quali si prende per bocca, e si applica alia parte con raccoman- darsi al suddetto Santo.” (AFSR Piano I—serie 3—no. 3, busta A, f. 145. The document dates from the early nineteenth centuiy, but the practice may well have originated earlier.)

25 See Cat. 12.26 Doc. Appendix, no. 8.27 Doc. Appendix, no. 9.28 The canonization took place in St. Peter’s in 1610. It was a spectacular event, costing 30,000 jcu d i to

stage, and among those who attended were several of the cardinals who later participated in drawing up the Congregation’s proposal, including Del Monte and Borghese. See Rasmussen, 1986.

86 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

oring someone from their own ranks, a representative of the cardinalate, whose piety and glory cast a reflected glow on all who wore the purple. But whether this was what they had in mind, we simply cannot know.

Apart from the fact that all six involve male saints, the titles of the transept altars as set forth in the Congregation’s proposal have little in common with one another. The cardi­nals’ fondness for establishing programmatic connections between altars, or between their altarpieces, was thwarted in this part of the church, simply because the transept altars had been in use for two decades and had already acquired titles, the majority of which, for one reason or another, the cardinals thought it best not to tamper with.

In the case of the four corner chapels, once again there was little room for maneuver. The altar in the Gregoriana was already consecrated and decorated. The corresponding altar in the Clementina lacked a permanent altarpiece, but its title was long since deter­mined by the presence in it of the body of St. Gregory the Great. In the southwest corner chapel, the principal altar of the Madonna della Colonna was already provided with a per­manent altarpiece; and the secondary altar was not yet built — a door to the exterior still occupied the site (Fig. 7). In the northwest corner chapel, the title of the secondary altar was established both by the presence in it of the body of St. Petronilla and by the pres­ence over it of the altarpiece by Guercino, completed in 1623. This left only one altar as yet without an official title: the main altar in the northwest corner chapel [20]. It was to this altar that the Congregation now proposed transferring the title of St. Anne.29

Although they make no mention of it, the cardinals were doubtless aware that the altar in the northwest corner chapel had once before been assigned the title of St. Anne. In 1605, before the formulation of a consistent policy to exclude most forms of private patronage from the new basilica, the rights to the altar were briefly granted to the Confraternity of the Palafrenieri, who commissioned Caravaggio to paint an altarpiece for it. His so-called Madonna del Palafrenieri (a better title would be S. Anna dei Palafrenieri) was removed from St. Peter’s after only a few days (Fig. 60); and at around the same time, under circum­stances that remain somewhat obscure, the Confraternity lost its rights to the altar.30 The cardinals provide no explanation for their recommendation to return the title of St. Anne from the altar in the north transept, with which it had been associated for the past twenty years, to the altar in the northwest corner chapel. But given their tendency to establish iconographic symmetry wherever possible, they may have been motivated by a desire to pair this altar with the corresponding altar in the southwest corner chapel [30]. They appreciated the existing symmetry between the altars in the Cappella Gregoriana and the Cappella Clementina — the one containing the body of the Greek Church father Gregory of Nazianzus and the other the body of the Latin Church father Gregory the Great — and per­haps wanted to establish a comparable symmetry between the remaining two corner chapels. The altar in the southwest comer chapel was dedicated in honor of the Madonna della Colonna; it was fitting that the altar directly opposite should be dedicated in honor of St. Anne, the Virgin’s mother. That they did in fact conceive of these two altars as a pair is revealed by another document, the Congregation’s list of altarpieces and painters from November A, 1626, in which we learn that the proposed altar of St. Anne was to be deco­rated "in mosaic to accompany the altar of the Madonna della Colonna opposite it, which has an altarpiece of marble intarsia.”31 The altar of the Madonna della Colonna, completed in 1609, has a reliquary altarpiece, consisting of an elaborate pattern of marble intarsia sur­

29 Doc. Appendix, no. 8.31 Doc. Appendix, no. 9.

30 See Chapter 2.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T IO N S OF T H E ALTARS 87

rounding the holy image of the Madonna (Fig. 54). The proposed altar of St. Anne, on the other hand, was to have a modem narrative altarpiece. The cardinals must have been con­cerned that the formal differences between the two altarpieces would obscure the symme­try of subject matter, and so they recommended that the altarpiece of St. Anne be executed in mosaic, which they apparently considered comparable to marble intarsia. Not content to coordinate the titles of these two altars, they sought to ensure a modicum of harmony, at least of medium, if not of form, between their altarpieces.32

Finally, the cardinals proposed the title of St. Michael for the altar in the central niche of the apse.33 The history of this altar, involved as it is with the history of the high altar, is not easy to unravel. The high altar, situated in the crossing over the tomb of the Apostles, was consecrated by Clement VIII in 1594. Soon after, in 1605—1606, Paul V built a second altar at the entrance into the apse, marking it with an elaborate ciborium, consisting of a wooden dome supported on eight of the marble solomonic columns from the high altar of old St. Peter’s, with projecting wings.34 Both altars, it seems, were reserved for papal functions: the altar over the tomb was used on certain special feast days, while the altar at the entrance into the apse was used on all other occasions when the pope officiated in St. Peter’s.35 This dual arrangement continued until 1624, when Urban VIII removed the altar built by Paul V and confirmed once and for all the preeminence of the altar in the crossing.

During this period, a variety of projects were produced in connection with the high altars and the proposed pontifical choir. The majority of these projects do not indicate an altar in the central niche of the apse. One exception is a drawing by Carlo Maderno, from c. 1616-20, which shows not only the altars over the tomb and at the entrance into the apse but a third altar in the apse itself (Fig. 63).36 But Maderno’s drawing is a proposal and does not purport to illustrate the existing arrangement. In fact, although by Urban's time an altar was certainly planned for the apse niche, the evidence suggests that no such altar was actually built until much later.37 The delay may have resulted from a certain con­fusion as to the precise function of the apse altar. In most churches, the apse altar is the high altar. But the liturgical status of the apse altar in a church like St. Peter’s, which has its high altar in the crossing, defies easy definition. W hat should be the relationship of such an altar to the pontifical choir planned for the space directly in front of it? Should the choir be screened off at the back, obscuring the altar from view, as in a project by Martino Ferrabosco (Fig. 64)? Or should the choir incorporate the altar, as in the draw­

32 It must be said that the cardinals were not always so concerned about imposing symmetry of medium. In the first pair of nave chapels, for example, they planned a painted Baptism o f Christ for one altar and a sculptured Crucifix for the other.

33 See Cat. 19.34 I. Lavin, 1968, pp. 5—7, 40-44, and fig. 2; Hibbard, 1971, pp. 166—68; Kirwin, 1981, pp. 152—54.35 Kirwin, 1981, p. 152, esp. n. 69. 36 I. Lavin, 1968, p. 43; Hibbard, 1971, p. 167.37 Only under Alexander VII was a permanent altar built in the apse (see Cat. 19). The general arrange­

ment of the apse as we know it today nevertheless owes a great deal to Urban VIII. He not only planned an altar for the central niche, but also determined the use ol the flanking niches, transportingthe tomb of Paul III to the niche on the left and commissioning Bernini to build his own tomb in the niche on the right. The proximity of the altar and tomb meant that masses on behalf of the pope’s soul could be recited at the former within clear view ol the latter. Exequies on the anniversary ol the death of Urban VIII were, in fact, performed at the apse altar in the years following 1644. For example: [1647] “. . . sacrum fuit celebratum in ara principis Tribunae, inter sepulitura Pauli Tertij, et Urbani Octavi.’’ (ASR, Cartari-Febei, huota 74, f. 149.) [1649] ", . . in Basilica Vaticana ab hora 12 Episcopus Scannarola sacrum celebravit pro anima Sacn Memoriae Urbani VIII in principi Tribunae A ra.’’ (Ibid., huota 75, f. 210.) Since a permanent altar had not yet been built, we have to assume that a portable or provisional one was used on these occasions.

88 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

ing by Maderno? In the latter case, should the pontifical throne be placed in front of the altar, thus putting the pope in the awkward position of sitting with his back to it, or to one side? Finally, when and by whom should the altar be used? Should it be a papal altar, used only when the pope officiated or attended the service? Or should it be used on a daily basis by the clergy of St. Peter’s? No one seemed to have ready answers to these questions, and perhaps for this reason, the best — or at least the simplest — solution was simply to postpone construction of the altar for the time being.

The cardinals of the Fabbrica nevertheless felt that the projected apse altar was as much their responsibility as were the other a ltars in the church, and they not only included it in their proposal of 1626, but also, as we will see, gave serious thought to how it should be decorated.

The cardinals’ recommendation to assign the apse altar to St. Michael comes at first as something of surprise. Customarily, the apse altar of a church is dedicated in honor ol the saint to whom the church as a whole is dedicated. In the case ol St. Peter’s, although the apse altar is not the high altar, still, because of its prominence, it functions as a kind of sec­ondary high altar. To dedicate it in honor of any saint other than Peter would have been a striking departure from standard ecclesiastical practice.

The explanation offered by the cardinals themselves is bland and uninformative:

It is in every w ay fitting that there should be built in this sacrosanct basilica an altar dedicated to the most glorious M ichael, prince of archangels and the special defender of the Catholic Church, as is indicated at the site marked by the letter ‘I’, since it has been ascertained that this site has so far been assigned to no other saint, and seems to have been left for the glory of Michael, and conceded to him by all other saints, [as though] by a kind of divine dispensation.38

Tradrtronally rdentrfied as the soldier angel, the sword-wteldtng agent of God’s wrath who wages cosmic war against the forces of evil, Michael emerged during the Counter Refor- matron as the champton and figurehead of the mrlrtant Catholrc Church rn rts struggle against Protestantism. Yet M ichael’s position as prince of archangels and defender of the Church does not by itself account for the cardinals’ wish to assign him the apse altar. To understand their real motive, we need to take into account the special relationship that existed between the archangel Michael and Pope Urban VIII.

Urban’s attachment to the archangel stemmed from the fact that he was crowned on September 29, the feast of St. M ichael.39 Popes are usually crowned within a week of their elections; but Urban VIII, who was elected on August 6, was forced to postpone his coronation because of an illness he contracted during the conclave. The delay ultimately proved advantageous, since it allowed him greater flexibility than he would otherwise have had in selecting a date for the ceremony that seemed to him especially appropriate and propitious.40 In choosing the feast of St. M ichael, Urban demonstrated a shrewd understanding of the power of association. For by putting himself under the protection of

38 Doc. Appendix, no. 8.39 For more on Urban VIII and St. Michael, see Scott, 1991, pp. 96—98, and 1995, pp. 206—208; L. Rice,

1992.40 According to Andrea Amici, M aster of Ceremonies of the Chapter of St. Peter’s, Urban first gave

orders for the coronation to take place on August 10, the feast of St. Lawrence, four days following his election, “ma vedendo, che il suo male, e la cattiva stagione andava assai in lungo, e non bastandogli l ’animo di fare detta funtione per la molta debolezza, si risolse per riaversi piu presto, andarsene con la corte a Monte Cavallo, designando di coronarsi subito, che egli si fosse bene risanato, e dopo molti dila­tion!, e molte deliberationi, e mutationi si stabili finalmente la coronatione per il sudetto giomo 29. di Settembre festa di S. Michele Arcangelo.’’ (ACSP, Diari 11, p. 170.)

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T IO N S OF T H E ALTARS 89

the archangel, he was in effect forwarding an image of himself as an aggressive defender of the Church and a promoter of peace and prosperity for the city of Rome.41 Panegyrics composed on the occasion of the coronation and subsequent anniversaries emphasize these very themes. Here is an example:

How fitting it is, Most Holy Father, that it was on this day sacred to M ichael, Prince of the Blessed Spirits, that Divine Providence bestowed on you the triple­crowned tiara! For was it not appropriate that you, URBAN, were crowned with the sacred tiara and proclaimed Prince of the Church Militant on St. Michael 's Day, when, with a courage equal to M ichael’s, you undertook to crush the enemies of the Church? And shall we not proclaim with holy fervor that the insignia of the Sacred Commonwealth were deservedly conferred on you on this day, when you, like another Michael, accepted the task of defending this city, the Heart of the World — nay, virtually the entire Holy Empire — from the contagion of plague, the hardships of famine, and the cruelty of w ar?42

Medals, too, dramatize the pope’s sacred alliance with the archangel.43 One of them, issued around 1640, depicts the pope in prayer, with the archangel hovering above him in a g lo iy of light, holding the tiara in one hand and pointing to it with the other, his gesture signaling not only that Urban was crowned on his feast day, but that the coronation was divinely ordained (Fig. 166). As these examples illustrate, the cult of the archangel took on a political resonance during the pontificate of Urban VIII: in essence, to celebrate Michael was to celebrate the advent and continuation of Barberini rule.

It is in light of the archangel’s associations with Urban VIII that the cardinals’ recom­mendation for the dedication of the apse altar must be understood. Although they were tactful, avoiding any d irect and obsequious reference to M ich ael’s role as U rban ’s guardian angel, they surely intended to compliment — not to say shamelessly flatter — the pontiff by proposing to dedicate to his patron saint the apse altar of this, the capital church of the Catholic world.

In coming up with this ingratiating scheme, the cardinals were presumably thinking not only of the apse altar itself but of the crucial relationship between the apse altar and the pontifical choir that was planned for the space in front of it.44 They knew that on cer­

41 On M ichael’s role as a tutelary saint of Rome, see Mercalli, 1987.42 "Urbano VIII Pontifici Optimo Maximo gratulatio. Quam opportune factum est, Beatissime Pater, ut

hoc eodem die, qui Principi beatarum Mentium Michaeli sacer est, triplici te corona, Regnoque Divina Providentia cumularet! An non erat VRBANI caput sacra tiara decorandum eodem hoc die, quo Prin- ceps M ilitantis Ecclesiae renunciatus, pari fortitudine, ac Michael, Ecclesiae perduelles profligaturus eras? An non insignia sacrae Reipublicae merito concessa tibi divinitus exclamemus hoc die, quo Urbem hanc, Orbis cor, imo universum fere sacrum Imperium, a pestis contagione, a famis aerumnis, a crudelitate bellorum, ut alter Michael, defensurus eras? Ergo quam e coelo duxisti potestatem Coeli vicariam, dum supplex adoro, in hodiema totius Orbis gestientis felicitate de tuo diutumo, pacatoque dominatu, tibi feliciores annos, ipsique aeternitati proximos auguror, voveoque.” (BAV, Barb. Lat. 2152, pp. 212—13.) For similar rhetoric, see Torelli, 1639, pp. 13—14. See also BAV, Barb. Lat. 1772 [De S. Michael* ad Urbanum VIII Carmen, n.d.].

43 Patrignani, 1952, pp. 52, 57, 60; L. Rice, 1992, pp. 429—30.44 Temporaiy choirs had been erected in the apse on numerous previous occasions, but when Urban was

elected a permanent choir had yet to be built. Early in the pontificate, the Fabbrica’s carpenter Gio­vanni Battista Soria was paid twenty ,icad i for a model of the choir stalls (Poliak, no. 35. For an earlier model by Soria, see I. Lavin, 1968, pp. 42—43), but the project was allowed to lapse. In 1630, the pope again called for the construction of a permanent choir (Poliak, no. 118). Finally, in 1634, on orders from Urban VIII, the Congregation commissioned Bernini to design the choir and Soria and his assis­tants to produce a model based on Bernini’s design (Poliak, nos. 48 and 2455). The model was com­pleted by 1635 at a cost of at least 200 jcu d i But again the project lapsed and was not revived during the remainder of Urban's reign.

9 0 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

tain occasions the papal throne would be placed at the "head" of this choir, that is, directly in front of the altar/’ There was no w ay of avoiding this hturgically awkward arrange­ment, which entailed the pope sitting with his back to the altar. But by commissioning an altarpiece representing St. Michael, the cardinals saw a w ay of mitigating the problem, by linking the altar and the throne beneath an image appropriate to both. They meant the St. /Michael to serve a double function: as an altarpiece and as a backdrop to the pontifical throne. Had the project been realized as they anticipated, Urban VIII would have appeared in St. Peter’s seated in state beneath an image of his patron saint. Few would have missed the significance and the drama of such a juxtaposition/6

The cardinals considered the apse altar of major importance and meant to provide it with what would have been the costliest altarpiece in the church. Instead of an ordinaiy painted altarpiece, they planned to commission a relief of marble or bronze, to be exe­cuted by the pope’s favorite, Gianlorenzo Bernini/7 It is unclear what Bernini had in mind for the site, or if indeed he even got to the design stage; no drawings have survived that can be directly connected with the proposed M ichael altar. On the other hand, since Bernini often stored unused ideas at the back of his mind, sometimes for decades, only to bring them forth and use them in later projects, it may well be that in the earliest surviving design for the Cathedra Petri, commissioned for the apse altar by Pope Alexander VII some thirty years after the cardinals’ proposal, we find an echo of a forgotten project for the Michael altar (Fig. 167). The drawing represents the apse altar, with the four Church fathers, still niche-bound (they were later to grow in size and expand well beyond the confines of the niche), supporting the chair-shaped reliquary. Above the niche, hovering in a burst of divine light, is a wingless angel carrying the keys and tiara, the symbols of papal authority. This angel can be none other than Michael, for he wears a cuirass, the traditional garb of the soldier angel/8 Could this drawing, then, reflect what Bernini had in mind for the M ichael a lta r? Did he plan an altarp iece featuring a statue of the archangel, larger than life, apparently free-floating, emanating gilded rays? Bernini’s angel holds the tiara, much like the Michael on the anniversary medal issued in honor of Pope Urban VIII (Fig. 166). Since Urban’s assocratron wrth the archangel stemmed from the fact that he was crowned on the feast of St. Michael, the inclusion of the tiara would seem to support the idea that the drawing records, at however great a remove, a project con­ceived during the Barberini papacy/9

The Congregation’s proposal of 1626 reveals much about the attitudes and preconceptions of the cardtnals tn charge. Three points tn particular deserve emphasis. First, the cardinals favored dedications that glorified the pope and his office. Earlier they had planned to con­tinue the Peter cycle, with its obvious papal overtones, into the upper four nave chapels.

45 The throne itself would be portable and would be positioned in front of the apse altar only on a tempo- ra iy basis, during certain papal functions, as indeed is still the practice today.

46 In his design for the Cathedra Petri, Bernini made use of an identical stratagem, that is, he embellished the apse altar with an image that was intended to serve both as an altarpiece and, on certain occasions, as a backdrop to the pontifical throne. In the case of the Cathedra, of course, its double function is emphasized by its very nature, since it is a celebration in sculpture of the chair of Peter, the original pontifical throne.

47 Doc. Appendix, no. 9. ” Kauffmann, 1970, pp. 259—60.49 M ichael shows up in none of the subsequent designs for the Cathedra (Fig. 168). Bernini decided

either that his presence was extraneous, or that he was still too strongly associated with Urban to fig­ure so prominently in a work commissioned by another pope.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T IO N S OF T H E ALTARS 91

Having been dissuaded from this, they settled for dedicating the central pair in honor ol the two principal Petrine episodes, the Giving of the Keys and the “Feed M y Sheep,” widely understood as the scriptural foundation stones of the papacy. In the case of the apse altar, they recommended a dedication in honor of St. Michael, in reference to the archangel’s symbolic alliance w ith the reigning pope and w ith the Roman Catholic Church as a whole.

Second, the Congregation felt no qualms about suppressing titles from old St. Peter’s, without regard for their antiquity or their importance within the traditional liturgy of the basilica. Thus, they sought to combine the titles of St. Wenceslas and St. Martial under the generic title of All Saints at the altar of the Trinity. In addition (and this has not been mentioned before), they advocated subsuming the title of the Madonna Praegnantium under the title of the Madonna del Soccorso in the Cappella Gregoriana and the title of the Presentation of the Virgin under the title of the Madonna della Colonna in the south­west corner chapel.50

And third, the cardinals viewed the task of choosing the dedications of the altars and the subjects of the altarpieces as an opportunity to establish order and symmetry through­out the church. Wherever possible, their intention was to pair the altars or their altar- pieces across the width of the building; and in the nave, where they were subject to fewer constraints, they aimed for something still more ambitious, a series of altarpieces featuring Christ to balance the series of Peter altarpieces in the nai’ip iccole. Circumstances prevented them from introducing anything like a single unified program encompassing all or even most of the altars in St. Peter ’s. Nevertheless, their proposal is the product from beginning to end of a programmatic mentality.

TH E C H A P T E R ’S C O U N T E R P R O P O S A L

The Congregation’s proposal soon triggered a response from the Chapter. The canons accepted the majority of the cardinals’ recommendations, which indeed coincided nicely with their own ideas about the organization of the church, but others they felt bound to protest. On being invited to participate in the debate, they therefore presented a counter­proposal, in which they defined their objections to the Congregation’s proposal and out­lined their own plan for the altars of St. Peter’s.

The canons’ counterproposal, written in or around Jan uary 1627, begins with a simple statement of facts. They have already submitted their recommendations concerning the “denomination, dedication, and consecration of the altars of the basilica” to the cardinals of the Congregation, they explain, and are now submitting these same recommendations to the pope. They go on to enumerate three fundamental principles on which their recom­mendations are based.

First, they emphasize the need to maintain physical uniformity and symmetry among the altars:

To begin with, it is the canons’ wish and desire, that the individual chapels and altars of so large a church should correspond to one another in placement and pro­portion, and that there should be a congruous distance maintained between them.51

In other words, whereas in old St. Peter’s altars of all sizes and shapes were clustered together in chaotic disorder wherever there was a stretch of wall or a column to support

50 Doc. Appendix, no. 8. 51 D oc.Appendix.no. 11.

9 2 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

them, in new St. Peter’s the altars were to be regular in design, and confined to the chapels, niches, or aediculas built to accommodate them, in such a w ay as to conform to the symmetry of the architecture as a whole.

The second principle on which the canons base their counterproposal is presented as follows:

Since this is not the construction of a new church but the rebuilding and renovation of an old one, the canons desire that as many as possible of the titles and denomina­tions of altars in the old basilica be retained, and especially those which have duties [onera] attached to them, and which have revenues assigned to them, in thanks for which, by ancient custom, our clergy celebrate their offices.52

We have already seen, in the case of the Chapel of the Choir, that the canons were anx­ious to preserve the original Sistine title. But their traditionalist tendencies were not lim­ited to their own private chapel. In this passage, they point out that old and new St. Peter’s are, from an ecclesiastical standpoint, one and the same church, and on these grounds urge the reestablishment of its ancient titles, especially those with which the Chapter has been closely associated, that is, those with large endowments intended to support liturgical activity on the part of one or more chaplains, or of the entire member­ship of the Chapter.

The third principle has to do with the apportioning of relics:

Third, [the canons desire] that the distribution of the aforementioned titles should be in such a manner that the entire body of the basilica, and each one of its chapels — for our purposes the six principal chapels on either side — should be provided with its own object of veneration, in the form of the bodies or relics of saints, and should be illuminated with tapers or lamps.53

Here the canons, introducing an issue more or less ignored by the cardinals, call for a more even distribution of relics, and other objects of cultic importance, among the basil­ica’s altars.

Having defined these three principles, the canons proceed to criticize the cardinals’ proposal for violating each of them. The first principle, that the altars should be disposed according to a uniform and symmetrical plan, was violated by the arrangement of altars in the northwest corner chapel. Whereas the other three corner chapels contained only one altar each, this one contained two altars — the altar of St. Petronilla and the altar for which the cardinals had proposed the title of St. Anne - and thus presented a glaring asymmetry. Furthermore, the title the canons considered the more important of the two, that of St. Petronilla, was connected with the secondary altar rather than with the principal altar of the chapel. To correct these incongruities, the canons recommended that the title of St. Petronilla be transferred to the principal altar. They further recommended that the sec­ondary altar be demolished and replaced with a door, to achieve symmetry with the corre­sponding chapel of the Madonna della Colonna on the opposite side of the church, which at that time had a door where the altar of St. Leo stands today (Fig. 7). The canons make no mention of Guercino’s altarpiece of St. Petronilla. Since the principal altar in each of the four corner chapels is surmounted by a relatively small aedicular surround, it would have been impossible to transfer Guercino’s colossal painting along with the title. Presum­

52 Ibid.55 Ibid. The twelve principal chapels to which the canons refer include the six nave chapels, the four cor­

ner chapels, and the two transepts. The transepts were sometimes referred to as single chapels in spite of the fact that each contains three altars.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T IO N S OF T H E ALTARS 93

ably, then, and horrible to contemplate, the canons were willing to sacrifice the painting in the greater cause of symmetry.

As for the second principle, that every effort be made to reestablish as many as possible of the ancient titles from the old basilica, here the Congregation had transgressed on sev­eral counts:

The second rule has been violated, since the honored memory of the chapel of Inno­cent VIII will be entirely blotted out if it is not provided with its own individual chapel, but is instead made accessory to another title; to wit, if its duties are trans­ferred to the altar of the Madonna della Colonna. Moreover, the memory of the altar of St. Boniface, Martyr, has been abolished, which was one of the seven privi­leged altars in the old basilica, and contained the saint s body along with other relics, which are now sealed within the altar of St. Thomas. Furthermore, no individual altars have been assigned to St. Martial, Bishop, and St. Wenceslas, whose offices are celebrated by our clergy according to long-established tradition.54

The canons refer to four specific titles, those of the Presentation of the Virgin, established by Pope Innocent VIII, ol St. Boniface IV, of St. Martial, and of St. Wenceslas. These were important titles in old St. Peters, each associated with an altar of its own, and the canons wanted to see them reinstated in the new basilica, despite the fact that the Congre­gation had recommended, either exp licitly or implicitly, their suppression. We have already seen that the cardinals favored subsuming the titles of St. Wenceslas and St. M ar­tial under the title of All Saints at the altar in the New Sacristy, and the title of the Presen­tation of the Virgin under the title of the Madonna della Colonna in the southwest corner chapel; and although their proposal includes no reference to the title of St. Boniface IV, we may assume, since they planned to leave his body where Paul V had deposited it, in the right chapel in the south transept (i.e. the chapel of St. Thomas), that they intended to suppress or to subsume this title, too. The canons feared that under such circumstances the duties associated with these titles would have to be curtailed and that eventually the titles themselves would be forgotten. To prevent this, they recommended that the titles in question be assigned to individual altars of their own, as they had been in the old basilica.

Of the four titles mentioned in the counterproposal, that of the Presentation of the Vir­gin was undoubtedly the most important. The altar with which this title had been associ­ated was founded by Pope Innocent VIII (148-4—92), but realized only after his death by his cousin Cardinal Cibo.55 The latter not only built a magnificent chapel of marble and bronze in the southwest corner of the nave of old St. Peter s, but also established a gener­ous endowment, the income from which went to support four chaplains in perpetuity, whose duties included saying mass at the altar sixty times each month and celebrating Sundays and feast days as well as the anniversaiy of Innocent’s death on Ju ly 26. These four chaplains, called cappellani Innocenziani in honor of the founder, continued to perform their prescribed duties throughout the sixteenth centuiy and into the seventeenth century. Even after 1606, when the chapel of Innocent VIII (which had meanwhile been moved to the outer north side aisle) was deconsecrated and disassembled in anticipation of the demolition of the old nave, the chaplains persevered in the fulfillment of their sacred obligations, using whatever other altars were made available to them for this purpose. For the next twenty years, the cappellani Innocenziani made do without an altar of their own.

54 Ibid.55 For a detailed account of the histoiy of the altar of Innocent VIII and its dedication in honor of the

Presentation of the Virgin, see Cat. 5 (a).

94 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

This situation, although inconvenient from a liturgical standpoint, was tolerated because it was assumed to be temporary. The altar of Innocent VIII was one of the most important in the old basilica, and the Chapter was determined to see it reestablished in the new - not only because of the size of its endowment and the number of priests assigned to officiate at it, but because of the great esteem in which the Chapter held the memory of its founder, who had been a generous benefactor and who had donated to St. Peter's one of its holiest relics, the lance of Longinus. Under the circumstances, the Congregation’s attempt to sup­press the title, and to relegate its chaplains to the altar of the Madonna della Colonna, must have struck the Chapter as singularly injudicious.

The fact that, just a couple of years earlier, the cappellani Innocenziam had been virtually guaranteed a chapel of their own can only have heightened the Chapter s feeling of resent­ment. During the Apostolic Visitation of 1625, Domenico Bassano and his team of i’ioita- tori had recommended that the cappellani Innocenziani be assigned the second chapel on the left of the nave, a site certainly chosen because of its proximity to the newly reinstalled tomb of Innocent VIII.56 Two years later, the Congregation, intent on commissioning a Peter altarpiece for the same chapel, conveniently forgot that such a recommendation had been made. But not so the Chapter. In their counterproposal, the canons urge the pope not only to reestablish the altar of Innocent VIII, but to reestablish it in the second chapel on the left of the nave, just as the vu ita tori had advised.57

As for the four cappellani Innocenziani, so concerned were they about the fate of their chapel that they decided not to rely solely on the Chapter’s counterproposal to state their case. Along with their powerful ally, the Prince of M assa (who, as a direct descendant of Innocent VIII, took a strong personal interest in all matters pertaining to the chapel), they wrote to the Congregation along similar lines, asserting their claim to the nave chapel and asking that it be provided as quickly as possible with an altarpiece representing the Pre­sentation of the Virgin.58 The urgency of their request for an altarpiece, and their insis­tence that it depict the Presentation, are revealing in themselves. Apparently they looked on the altarpiece as a kind of identifying marker: as long as the altar was without an image, its title was vulnerable and subject to change: but an altarpiece illustrating the title of the altar of Innocent VIII would label the chapel once and for all, and assure the cappel- lant Innocenziani of their claim to it.

The canons were as eager to preserve the titles of St. Wenceslas and St. Martial as they were the title of the Presentation. Both were old, their foundations traceable back to the fourteenth century and the eleventh centuiy respectively, and both had splendid endow­ments associated with them, in the form of real estate in Rome and in the surrounding campagna, which yielded sizeable annual revenues.59 Rather than allow the Congregation to suppress two such important titles by combining them under the generic title of All Saints, the canons recommended establishing them at two of the transept altars. The altars they chose for this purpose were the right altar in the north transept and the left altar in the south transept. The former, as we have seen, the cardinals had thought of dedicating in honor of St. Carlo Borromeo. But the canons had no intention of allowing, if they could help it, the introduction of a new cult, which had no traditional association with St. Peter’s and no obligations or emoluments connected with it, into the already overcrowded basil­ica, and asked instead that the altar be given the title of St. Wenceslas.60 For the left altar

56 Doc. Appendix, no. 5. 57 Doc. Appendix, no. 11.58 The letter is transcribed in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 5 (a).59 On the histoiy of these two titles in old St. Peter’s, see Cats. 12 and 15.60 Doc. Appendix, no. 11.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T I O N S O F T H E A L T A R S 95

in the south transept, the Congregation had proposed a dedication in honor of St. Sebast­ian. In this case it was not the title per se that the canons objected to; on the contrary, they argued that Sebastian warranted a larger and more prestigious altar, and recommended shifting the title to one of the nave chapels, to wit, the second chapel on the right, opposite the proposed chapel of the Presentation.61 For the transept altar they advocated instead the title of St. M artial.62

The fourth title mentioned in the canons counterproposal is that of St. Boniface IV.63 This title seems to have meant less to the Chapter than the other three, for they did not insist that it be established at an altar of its own. They did, however, recommend the translation of the saint’s body from the altar of St. Thomas in the south transept to the proposed altar of St. Sebastian in the nave.

The canons' third principle concerned the distribution of relics and other objects of devotion among the various altars of the basilica. Here, too, they accused the Congrega­tion of a serious transgression:

Then there is this infringement of [our] third rule, namely that that entire part of the church added by Paul V, and completed by Your Holiness [i.e. the nave], is lacking in bodies of saints and lamps, and except for the altar of the Choir, in which Your Holiness placed the body of St. John Chrysostom, there will be hardly anyone who will kneel at the other five chapels in this part of the church.64

The canons were objecting to the fact that the cardinals had failed to make any effort to redistribute the major relics in the possession of St. Peter's so as to provide the newly completed nave chapels with appropriate objects of veneration. The cardinals had, in fact, ignored the issue of the allocation of relics. By leaving the relics and other items of devotional significance where Paul V had deposited them twenty years earlier, they were perpetuating a lopsided arrangement whereby all of the major relics were clustered in the centralized portion of the church and none were located in the new nave. The canons made a number of related recommendations in order to correct this imbalance.

For the first pair of nave chapels, the canons were content with the dedications pro­posed by the cardinals. True, no major relics were destined for either of these chapels, but the canons compensated for this by suggesting that each be equipped with a venerated sacred object from the old basilica: the font in the case of the baptismal chapel on the left and an old wooden crucifix in the case of the chapel of the Crucifix on the right.65 It should be emphasized that it was the canons, and not the cardinals, who insisted on pre­serving and exhibiting these battered “relics” from old St. Peter’s. The cardinals, on the contraiy, were hoping to engage Gianlorenzo Bernini to fashion a new crucifix out of

61 Ibid. 62 Ibid.63 Pope Boniface IV (608—15) is best known lor having converted the Pantheon into a church, the first

pagan temple in Rome to be so altered. His cult was unknown until the thirteenth centuiy, when his body was discovered in St. Peter’s. The altar of St. Boniface IV was founded by Nicolas III (1277-80)and was decorated and enriched by Pope Boniface VIII (1294—1303), who had himself buried nearby. See Alfarano, pp. 65—66; Grimaldi, pp. 37, 44—45.

64 Doc. Appendix, no. 11.65 Ibid. The font referred to here is the Early Christian sarcophagus of Probus Anicius, which was used in

this capacity throughout most of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see Cat. 3 [a], n. 1). The cru­cifix is a medieval wooden sculpture of unknown date and origin, which had stood over the altar of the Crucifix in old St. Peter’s, and which, in 1606, had been transferred into the new basilica and placed temporarily over the altar of St. Petronilla in the northwest comer chapel (see Chapter 2, nn. 25, 108, and Cat. 2; Fig. 51).

96 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

bronze;66 and they also planned a new baptismal font.67 But the tradition-hungiy canons rejected the opportunity to furnish these chapels with splendid modern works of art, pre­ferring objects of symbolic and historical value, objects that, because they came from the old basilica, testified to that continuity between the old and the new basilicas on which the prestige and authority of St. Peter's - and of her clergy - rested.

The Congregation's proposal to dedicate the second pair of nave chapels in honor of the Giving of the Keys and the P iu ce Ovej Afea.< was, not surprisingly, rejected by the canons, who insisted that these altars be used to accommodate titles from the old basilica. As we have already seen, they recommended dedicating the chapel on the left to the Pre­sentation of the Virgin, and the chapel on the right to St. Sebastian. There remained the problem of finding suitable relics to install in these two altars, in order to attract the faith­ful to worship at them. The canons proposed transporting the body of St. Leo IX to the altar of the Presentation and the body of St. Boniface IV to the altar of St. Sebastian.68

The canons made only one suggestion concerning the third pair of nave chapels. The dedication of the Chapel of the Choir in honor of the Immaculate Conception and of Sts. Francis and Anthony naturally pleased them (it had been they who had insisted on it in the first place); and they also favored the plan to dedicate the chapel opposite, the so- called New Sacristy, in honor of the Holy Trinity and All Saints. But whereas the Chapel of the Choir was hallowed by the presence of the body of St. John Chrysostom in its altar, the New Sacristy still lacked an important relic or sacred object. Therefore, the canons argued on behalf of converting the New Sacristy into the sacrament chapel and placing the ciborium containing the host, that most sacrosanct of “relics,’’ over its altar. The canons’ support for such a scheme was not new. Along with the members of the Archcon­fraternity of the Holy Sacrament, they had been calling for the transfer of the sacrament from the Cappella Gregoriana to the New Sacristy for at least several months.69 But the cardinals of the Congregation, as we have already seen, were opposed to the idea, and in their proposal pointed out the various disadvantages that would result from it. In this case, the canons saw fit to respond directly to the cardinals’ objections:

The chapel, which is opposite [the Chapel of the Choir], and which is constructed on the same design and equal scale, will be magnificent if Your Holiness gives orders to have it fitted and decorated for the keeping of the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Because ol its size, its beauty, and since it is the safest location lor preserving such a treasure, and furthermore because it has many storage spaces for the various objects connected with the maintenance and exhibition of the cult,

66 See Doc. Appendix, nos. 9 and 13. 67 See Doc. Appendix no. 5.68 Doc. Appendix, no. 11. St. Peter's did possess the head of St. Sebastian, but this was preserved in the

sacristy and was never installed in the altar of St. Sebastian, either in the old basilica or in the new.69 See Poliak, no. 872. The Chapter and the members of the Archconfratemity of the Holy Sacrament in

St. Peter’s were united in deploring the continued use of the Cappella Gregoriana as the sacrament chapel. Their objections were that (1) the altar in the Gregoriana was already encumbered with numer­ous onera, making it difficult to schedule the frequent administration of the eucharist needed to accom­modate the constant stream of visitors to the church; (2) the Gregoriana was too open and too accessi­ble to provide a quiet and protected environment for the display of the eucharist; and (3) the chapel was drafty and damp and thus unsuitable lor housing the holy of holies. The ceremonial diaries abound with references to the cold and clamminess of the Gregoriana, which forced the canons on more than one occasion to abandon it in favor of more hospitable comers of the basilica. See, for example, ASCP, Diari 11, p. 124: [Feb. 26, 1623] "Questa mattina nella Messa si e detta la seconda Oratione del Santis- simo Sagramento [. . .] et inline s e fatta la Processione del Santissimo Sagramento, e si e messa 1’Ora- tione delle 40 Ore solite della nostra Compagnia, quale non s e messa a l[la Cappella del] Santissimo Sagramento secondo il solito, ma nel nostro Coro per essere luogo piu ritirato, e men freddo.”

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T I O N S O F T H E A L T A R S 97

which need to be close at hand: lor all of these reasons, the Confraternity of the Holy Sacrament has often urgently requested this chapel. And it is no impediment, indeed it is an advantage, that the chapel will be given the title of the Holy Trinity.

It does not matter that the Holy Sacrament has been conserved in the Gregoriana for the past forty years, for this was necessary in the beginning, since the Gregoriana was the first chapel to be completed in the new basilica. But now that it is time to assign a permanent chapel for the Eucharist, the chapel which we propose is much more suitable than the Gregoriana, for the Gregoriana is more difficult to seal off from dripping pipes, and its altar of the ciborium is exposed to the cold in the spring­time and beset by drafts. Furthermore, in the Gregoriana there are already several chaplains assigned to the altar by Gregory XIII, and therefore the altar is less avail­able for the exhibition and distribution of the Eucharist and ministering to the peo­ple. But none of these drawbacks is present in the chapel we are recommending.

Nor is it a problem that the chapel is opposite the Chapel of the Choir, and that therefore those who are participating in the Divine Office will turn their backs on the sacrament, first, because the distance between the two chapels is so great, that it would be virtually unnoticeable, since there are three naves [i.e. a nave and two side aisles] between the two chapels; and second, because this is not the natural choir nor the principal choir of the basilica, that is to say it is not the site used during pub­lic ceremonies, where the [pontifical] choir is seated either at the high altar or in the tribune, but rather the private choir of the canons and clergy, who are alone here; besides, they sit on either side of the altar.70

It is noteworthy, in comparing the arguments presented by each, that the canons seem willfully to have misunderstood or at least to have misquoted the cardinals on one impor­tant point. The cardinals made the observation that, if the chapel of the Trinity were used as the sacrament chapel, the priest and his attendants (,iacerc)a< et minL<tri) officiating in the Chapel of the Choir would be forced to turn their backs on the sacrament. The canons (mis)took the cardinals to be referring not to the officiating priest but rather to the clergy as a whole, assembled in that chapel for the recital of the Divine Office. Since the clergy perform the Office from choir stalls ranged along the side walls of the chapel, there would be no question of their turning their backs on the sacrament (h i lateraliter a&ttant Altari). Thus, the canons responded to the cardinals' opposition by misrepresenting their argu­ment and twisting their meaning.

The canons concluded their counterproposal with two final recommendations. Since they advocated transferring the body and title of St. Petronilla to the main altar of the northwest corner chapel, they naturally opposed the cardinals’ plan to dedicate that altar to St. Anne. Rather than suggesting an alternate site for the St. Anne altar, the canons advised subsuming the title under that of the Presentation of the Virgin:

For St. Anne, it would be best to attach her veneration to the chapel of Innocent VIII, the ancient title of which is the Presentation of the Virgin, since in the altar- piece for this chapel it will be necessary to represent the parents of the blessed Vir­gin, viz. St. Joachim and St. Anne, who brought their little daughter to the temple. And it should be pointed out that the altar of St. Anne does not have a long history in this basilica, but was founded out of profound devotion by the Palafrenieri, and has no omw attached to it.71

The canons’ w ay of thinking, their own brand of logic, is by now becoming familiar to us. From their point of view, the altar of St. Anne was expendable because it was not particu-

70 Doc. Appendix, no. ] 1. 7' Ibid.

9 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

larly ancient, and, more important, because it had no chaplaincy attached to it. Therefore, rather than tie up a valuable altar with a nonessential title, they recommended subsuming the title under that of the Presentation. They pointed out that since St. Anne would in any case be represented over the altar of the Presentation, it made good sense to combine the two titles. But the canons had another, shrewder reason for recommending that the title of St. Anne be transferred to the altar of the Presentation. Although they do not mention this in their counterproposal, they surely had in mind the fact that Innocent VIII died on Ju ly 26, the feast of St. Anne. The altar of the Presentation was founded by Innocent VIII, and one of the most important functions of the cappeUani Innocenziani was to celebrate the anniversary of his death. If the title of St. Anne were combined with that of Innocent VIII, the saint’s feast and the anniversary of the founder’s death could be commemorated jointly and with more concentrated pomp at a single altar.72

Finally, the canons addressed the apse altar. They disapproved of the Congregation’s plan to dedicate this altar in honor of St. Michael, pointing out the liturgical impropriety of assigning the apse altar to any saint other than St. Peter. They treaded carefully, how­ever, for they were well aware of the archangel's association with Urban VIII, and surely guessed the cardinals’ motives in recommending the dedication. They therefore worded their objection with tact, not to say timidity:

As to the altar of St. Michael to be erected at the center of the tribune, there is only one small scruple, and that is, that considering that this is the apse of the church, and directly opposite the high altar, with which it is in a sense linked, it might seem a little out of the ordinary to dedicate this altar to any saint other than the saint to whom the church as a whole is dedicated.

They hastily qualified:

However, because of the great distance from the high altar, perhaps we can dismiss our scruple.73

Clearly, the canons were anxious to avoid what they considered a breach of church deco­rum. Nevertheless, in the list of altars attached to their counterproposal they played it safe and included the dedication to St. Michael, along with the one they themselves preferred: “To the most glorious archangel Michael, or, as it was previously intended, to the prince of Apostles when the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are presented to him."'4

The Giving of the Keys was a fitting subject for representation in so prominent a site, for it is a scene with dual significance, which alludes with equal force to the two sources of the basilica’s unparalleled prestige, its association with the Apostle on the one hand, and with his successor, the pope, on the other. An apse altarpiece illustrating the Giving of the Keys would be linked iconographically both to the tomb of St. Peter and to the papal high altar above, and would at the same time provide an ideal backdrop against which to view the pontifical throne.75

The cardinals too had favored the idea of commissioning an altarpiece representing the Giving of the Keys. But they had proposed the altarpiece for one of the nave chapels, for

72 See Cat. 5 (a). 73 Doc. Appendix, no. 11.74 Ibid.76 Although the altarpiece the canons envisaged was never produced, it is worth noting that the Giving of

the Keys was eventually represented over the apse altar. Along with its twin, the "Feed M y Sheep,” and a third Petrine episode, the Washing of the Feet, it is depicted in relief on the bronze throne in Bernini’s Cathedra Petri (illustrated in Wittkower, 1981, fig. 90).

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T I O N S O F T H E A L T A R S 99

an altar entirely without papal function, and with no direct connection to either the tomb of Peter or the high altar. The canons offered instead a w ay to highlight this most central legend of the Catholic Church in a fitting manner. That their recommendation involved shifting a Petrine title from a nave altar (which could then be used to accommodate another title) to the apse altar (which ought to be dedicated to Peter in any case) was, of course, from their point of view, an added advantage.

* -S -

If we consider the Chapter’s counterproposal in its entirety, we find that it demonstrates throughout a steady conservatism. The canons were chiefly concerned that the traditions of their church should be respected and liturgical decorum observed. Thus the majority of their recommendations stem from their desire to accommodate as many as possible of the titles from old St. Peter’s, to distribute and enshrine its precious relics, to reinstall its ancient treasures; in short, to transplant the very heart and soul of the old basilica into the new, thus perpetuating the one in the other.

The canons’ motives were self-serving to a degree. Their livelihood depended on the revenues and emoluments attached to altars in the old basilica, and unless these altars were reestablished in the new basilica, they would have difficulty in fulfilling the obliga­tory masses, prayers, and anniversary celebrations on which, nominally at least, a good part of their income was contingent. It would, however, be misleading to suggest that the canons were impelled by financial considerations alone. It was the prestige of their Chap­ter — and of their basilica as a whole — that concerned them as much as anything else. They understood very well that the dignity and authority of St. Peter’s depended largely on its antiquity. Its Constantinian origins, its ancient and venerable relics, its centuries-old role as the preeminent center of pilgrimage in the Christian West: these were what justi­fied the position of St. Peter’s as the first among churches, the chosen headquarters and seat of the papacy. The Chapter’s counterproposal, with its emphasis on preserving the traditional and rejecting the innovative, was aimed above all at ensuring continuity between old and new St. Peter’s.

A T H I R D P R O P O S A L

At least one other proposal for the altars in St. Peter’s exists, and although it is not nearly as carefully thought out as either the cardinals’ proposal or the canons’ counterproposal, it deserves our attention if for no other reason than that it demostrates the variety of schemes under consideration.76 It consists of nothing more than a list of recommended titles and relics, scrawled onto a copy of M aderno’s 1613 plan of St. Peter’s. Who the author was cannot be established, but two things suggest that he may have been a mem­ber of the Chapter. First, the lettering of the altars is identical to that used in the canons’ counterproposal. Second, there are other correspondences between the two documents that suggest at least a degree of communication if not a shared agenda. For example, the second chapel on the left of the nave is labeled ‘Cappella di Innocentio [VIII]/S. Leon Nono,’ the same title and relic proposed for it by the canons. In the northwest corner chapel, the secondary altar is without designation (this is the altar that the canons pro­posed elim inating), while the principal altar is labeled ‘S. Petronilla,’ again as in the

76 Doc. Appendix, no. 10.

100 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

canons’ counterproposal. The altar in the apse is labeled 'S. Pietro,’ and we recall that, in their counterproposal, the canons mention a previous plan to dedicate this altar in honor of St. Peter receiving the keys from Christ.

But there are also many points on which the “third" proposal differs from both of the other two. Above all, the author recommends a radically different distribution of titles among the six transept altars. To the middle altar in the south transept he suggests mov­ing the relic of the co/to oanto, while for the flanking altars he proposes the titles of St. Longinus (on the left) and St. Joseph of Arimathea (on the right). One can understand the need for altars in honor of Veronica and Longinus, since the church possesses pre­cious relics associated with them (the veil, or vo/to oanto, of Veronica and the lance tip of Longinus); but Joseph of Arimathea has no connection with St. Peter’s and seems to be included here for purely programmatic reasons, to round off a trio of altars dedicated in honor of saints who figured in Christ’s Passion. Still more curious are the titles proposed for the north transept. The author advises shifting the bodies of Sts. Processus and Mar- tinian to the second chapel on the right of the nave. The middle a ltar in the north transept, thus vacated, was to be given the title of St. Andrew, and was presumably to serve as a repository for the basilica’s other major relic, Andrew’s skull. The flanking altars are labeled 'S. Luca’ (on the left) and 'S. Bastiano’ (on the right). The latter title makes sense; there was an altar of St. Sebastian in the old basilica, and as we have seen both the canons and the cardinals wanted to reestablish it in the new. But there was no altar of St. Luke in old St. Peter’s, and it is unclear why the author includes one here, unless it has to do with the fact that Luke, like Sebastian, is a saint primarily connected with healing.

The "third" proposal was evidently hastily thrown together and may be nothing more than the jottings of someone playing around with ideas. If the author was a member of the Chapter, though, it does at least prove one thing; that the cardinals were not the only ones who were fond of programmatic groupings of altars. The canons shared their taste for this sort of thing, even if in the end other priorities prevented them from indulging it.

THE P O P E ’S R E S P O N S E

The pope studied the counterproposal submitted to him by the canons and responded with questions and comments of his own. It was a simple matter to communicate his wishes to the Chapter, for among its members were several of his intimates. Angelo Gio- rio, a high-ranking canon and coppiere, or cupbearer, to Urban VIII (he later became the pope’s maestro di cam era and was eventually made a cardinal), was particularly active as an intermediary in negotiations between the Chapter and the pontiff.77

77 Giorio held the post of altaruita of St. Peter’s from 1626. As such, his ceremonial duties centered around the upkeep and maintenance of the papal high altar, but he was also responsible for inspecting all other altars in the basilica and grotte and for ensuring that they were properly maintained (on the role of the a ltariita of St. Peters, see Moroni, 18-40-79, I, pp. 282-84). Giorio was one of four canons chosen to represent the Chapter in its dealings with the Congregation of the Fabbrica (see Poliak, no. 94). He also regularly served as Urbans spokesman in matters pertaining to St. Peter’s, passing on the pope’s instructions not only to his colleagues in the Chapter but also to the members of the Congregation. For example, when the econonio Carlo Ghetti wanted to know what to do with the bronze statue of St. Peter, it was Giorio he consulted to find out the pope’s intentions, as we learn from a somewhat garbled memo scribbled on the back of a letter: "Il Papa in quel loco dice voler far porre il S. Pietro di metallo, s ’e detto alio Coppiere li lochi” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1—no. 175, biutu “1628 ”). See also Doc. Appendix, nos. 12 and 19. For more on Angelo Giorio, see Feliciangeli, 1917; Corradini, 1977.

CHAPTER FIVE / T H E D E D I C A T I O N S O F T H E A L T A R S g g 1 0 1

On February 19, 1627, Giorio met with the pope to discuss the altars of St. Peters. As a result of their conference, he drew up a brief memorandum in which he communicated to his colleagues in the Chapter the pope’s thoughts on a proposal they had submitted to him. The fact that, throughout this memorandum, the altars are referred to by letters which correspond to the letter key used in the counterproposal discussed above supports the assumption that this was the document to which the pope was responding.78

The pope made few objections to the canons' counterproposal. The dedication of the canons’ choir was once again broached. Having formerly approved it, the pope now won­dered whether it might not be better to shift the title of the Conception to an altar specifi­cally dedicated to the Virgin, such as the altar of the Madonna del Soccorso in the Grego­riana; but he was not particularly adamant on this point. He also opposed the canons’ recommendation to transfer the sacrament to the chapel of the Trinity, preferring it to remain where it w as.79 Otherwise, he accepted the canons’ advice, and in particular, he supported them in the matter of the dedication of the apse altar:

He would prefer an altarpiece representing St. Peter receiving the Keys to the King­dom of Heaven, rather than an image of St. Michael, because this being the church of St. Peter and this [i.e. the apse altar] being the most important location [in the church], it is fitting that it be dedicated to the principal event [in Peter’s life].80

Two days after his consultation with the pope, Giorio went to St. Peter’s and met with Canons Ubaldini and Bovio, who had been assigned to represent the Chapter in all deal­ings with the Congregation regarding the dedications of the altars. He passed on to them the pope’s comments and got their own reactions in turn. They were surprisingly stub­born. They praised Urban’s decision to dedicate the apse altar in honor of St. Peter. But they defended their own judgment in dedicating the Chapel of the Choir in honor of the Conception;81 and, on the question of the sacrament, they repeated their arguments in favor of transferring it to the altar of the Trinity.

That place [i.e. the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian, where the sacrament was temporarily stored during Lent] is too open and exposed to the perils of theft, harshness of temperature, drafts, and so on. Furthermore, since that altar already has its own chaplaincies associated with it, these will get in the w ay of the obliga­tions [connected with the distribution of the sacrament].82

78 Doc. Appendix, no. 12.79 Giorio writes: Sua Santita loda piu che si lasci stare il Sacramento, dove sta oggi nella Cappella di SS.

Processo et Martiniano. " The reference to the chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian is not an error on either Urban's or Giorio’s part. Every year, just before the start of Lent, during the so-called Forty Hour devotions, the sacrament was exhibited in an elaborate ephemeral apparato set up in the Gregori­ana. The tabernacle that normally stood over the a ltar was tem porarily moved to the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian in the north transept, where the sacrament continued to be distributed on a regular basis. Giorio visited the pope in February, during the three-day period when the tabernacle was housed at the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian. Giono's wording is, admittedly, vague, but should not be taken to mean that the pope wished to make the chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian the p er­manent sacrament chapel. Rather, he sided with the Congregation in preferring to continue the existing arrangement, with the tabernacle housed in the Gregoriana during most of the year, and at the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian whenever the Gregoriana was otherwise encumbered. See Cat. 6.

80 Doc. Appendix, no. 12.81 The pope was troubled by the fact that the title ol the Conception was not illustrated over the altar

because the canons insisted on placing the Pieta there. But the canons argued boldly that “Michelan­gelo’s Pieta seems an acceptable substitute” (ibid.) for a depiction of the Conception, and in the end they were allowed to retain the title.

82 Ibid. See n. 79 above.

102 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Giorio’s memorandum gives us a glimpse of the kind ol back-and-forth exchange that must have taken place between the pope, the Chapter, and the Congregation following the submission of the two proposals in the winter of 1626—27. The debate probably continued for another couple of months. But already most of the important decisions had been made. When Cardinals Ginnasi, Zacchia, Spinola, Aldobrandini, and Biscia and Canons Giorio, Bovio, Cittadini, and Ubaldini gathered at the palace of Cardinal Ginnasi on M ay 14, 1627, to discuss the distribution of the remaining commissions for altarpieces, the dedica­tion of eveiy altar in the church had been determined.

R E A C H I N G C O M P R O M I S E

The Acts of the M ay 14 meeting of the Congregation of the Fabbrica provide us for the first time with a complete list of the dedications ol the altars, as worked out by the cardi­nals and canons, and approved by the pope. The document reveals that, in most instances, the canons’ point of view prevailed. For example:

The chapel near the Choir, in which at one time the Cavaliere Passignano was to have painted the image of the Prince of Apostles pulling the tribute money from the fish’s mouth, and which is now going to be dedicated to the Presentation ot the Most Glorious Virgin, and to St. Anne, is to be painted by the same Cavaliere Passignano.

And:

It has been decided that the altarpieee for the altar in the apse of the basilica, in which the sto iy of the Giving of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven is to be painted, or carved ol marble, or cast ol metal, will be assigned to Guido Reni, if His Holiness orders that it is to be painted, and to Bernini, if His Holiness orders that it is to be carved or cast.83

When the canons did not get outright what they wanted, the parties reached compro­mises with which all could be content. This was the case with the St. Petronilla altar. The Congregation refused to give serious consideration to the Chapter’s suggestion to move the saint’s body to the adjacent altar, especially since this would have meant sacrificing Guercino’s altarpieee, for which they had paid 1,000 .fcadi. On the other hand, the canons did have a point: there was an unsatisfying asymmetry between the northwest and the southwest corner chapels. The canons had suggested correcting this by replacing an altar with a door in the northwest corner chapel, in order to make it like the southwest. The Congregation, acting on instructions from the pope, opted for the opposite solution: to replace the door with an altar in the southwest corner chapel, in order to make it like the northwest.84 This was clearly a more advantageous solution, since it not only resolved the asymmetry between the northwest and southwest corner chapels but added to the overall number ol altars in St. Peter’s. The new altar was to be dedicated to St. Leo I, and the saint's body, which Paul V had deposited in the adjacent altar of the Madonna della Colonna, was to be transferred to it.

The cardinals had initially proposed dedicating the principal altar in the northwest cor­ner chapel in honor ol St. Anne. But the canons had successfully opposed them on this

83 Doc. Appendix, no. 13.w See Poliak, no. 2172, and Doc. Appendix, no. 13.

CHAPTERFI VE / T H E D E D I C A T I O N S OF T H E A L T A R S g g 1 0 3

point, recommending instead that the title of St. Anne be combined with that of the Pre­sentation of the Virgin. This left the altar in the northwest corner chapel still in need of a dedication, and the cardinals seized the opportunity to recommend the title of St. Michael. The pope and the canons had vetoed their earlier suggestion to dedicate the apse altar in the archangel’s honor. But the objections voiced in the case of the apse altar could hardly be relevant in the case of a side altar. To shift the title of the archangel from the apse altar to the altar in the corner chapel might somewhat diminish its symbolic force; but no mat­ter which altar it was associated with, the title would still constitute a tribute to the pope’s patron saint, and by extension to the pope himself.85 The cardinals’ proposal had obvious appeal as far as Urban was concerned; and under the circumstances the canons wisely refrained from making any objection to it, and indeed embraced it as enthusiastically as the cardinals themselves.

The M ay 14 Acts offer evidence of another compromise between the cardinals and the canons. The left chapel in the south transept is listed with a dedication in honor of St. Martial and St. Carlo Borromeo. Since these two saints have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, we may assume that the curious joint dedication resulted from a stale­mate. The dedication to St. Martial was demanded by the canons; the dedication to St. Carlo was favored by the cardinals. Apparently neither side was willing to concede, and so they agreed to combine the two dedications in one. But once again, the canons won out in the end. For Spadarino’s altarpiece, placed over the altar in 1632, represents only one of the two saints, M artial (Fig. 153). Perhaps the title of St. Carlo had already been dropped by the time Spadarino began work; in any case, it was quickly forgotten once the painting was installed. The episode reminds us of the critical role that altarpieces play in supporting or in undermining the official titles of altars, and in elaborating, modifying, or defining their significance.

85 There is abundant evidence that the altar of St. Michael was associated with Urban VIII in the minds of his contemporaries. His biographers Nicoletti and Torelli both refer to the altar and to the precious mosaic altarpiece with which it was eventually provided as manifestations of the pope s profound devo­tion to his patron saint: "In oltre adorno nella stessa Basilica molti altn Altan con marmi, e pitture eccellenti, e specialmente quello di San Michele Archangelo suo particolare Auvocato . . (BAV, Barb. Lat. 4731 [A. Nicoletti, Della vita d i papa Vrbano Ottai’o e t iatoria d el auo pontificate, II], p. 837); "Musivam eius imaginem gemmis contextam pretiosis in Vaticana vovisti; & patronum elegisti, qui TE MANE, TE VESPERE de Coelo protegeret." (Torelli, 1639, p. 14.)

C H A P T E R S I X

THE P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D

W ITH THE DEDICATIONS SETTLED, the next task aw aiting the project organizers was to select appropriate narratives for the altarpieces. The individual paintings - their history, subject matter, and iconography — are discussed in detail in the

catalogue section, but here a few general observations are made concerning the character and significance of the scenes chosen for representation.

THE S U B J E C T S OF THE A L T A R P I E C E S

In some cases, the subjects of the altarpieces were dictated by the dedications of the altars. The baptismal chapel, dedicated in honor of St. John the Baptist, could hardly be without an image of the Baptism of Christ; the chapel of the Presentation of the Virgin had to have an altarpiece illustrating that particular episode; and so on. But in other cases there was greater leeway, and it seems that the planners took advantage of this by choosing scenes specifically intended to suggest programmatic relationships between certain altars.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the six transept altars. We have already seen that Paul V introduced an element of symmetry between the north and south transepts when he placed the bodies of pairs of male saints in the middle altar ol each, the martyrs Processus and Martinian in the north transept and the apostles Simon and Jude in the south transept. This distribution of relics may have given rise to the idea of differen­tiating the two transepts by reserving all three altars in the north transept for martyr saints and all three altars in the south transept for apostle saints. Thus in the north transept, the left altar was dedicated in honor of St. Erasmus and the right altar in honor of St. Wenceslas, both martyrs like Processus and M artinian. Sim ilarly, in the south transept, the right altar was dedicated in honor of the apostle Thomas and the left altar in honor of St. Martial, who, although not one of the original twelve disciples of Christ, nev­ertheless had the official title of “Apostle.”1 A hierarchical distinction, by now familiar to

1 M artia l’s identification with the twelve apostles stems from a legend forged in the tenth or eleventh centuiy, according to which he was a younger cousin and devoted disciple of St. Peter. As a boy, he witnessed the miracle of the Multiplication of the Fishes and the Loaves; was present at the Raising of Lazarus; held the towel at the W ashing of the Feet; and waited on table at the Last Supper. After

CHAP T ERS I X / T H E P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D 105

us, was once again at work here: the north transept, on the liturgically less important "Epistle” side from the point of view of the priest officiating at the high altar (i.e. the pope), was reserved for the lower-ranking martyr saints, whereas the south transept, on the liturgically more important "Gospel” side, was reserved for the higher-ranking apostle saints.2 When it came to commissioning altarpieces for these six altars, the planners sought to emphasize the distinction between the "m artyr transept" and the "apostle transept” by visual means. They commissioned scenes of martyrdom for the altars in one,3 whereas for the altars in the other, even though the apostles too died martyrs’ deaths, they commissioned scenes of miracle working or revelation.4 By distinguishing in this w ay between the different categories of saints, they imposed a kind of order on the transept altars, which otherwise bore little direct relation to one another.

The same desire to establish a connection between symmetrically positioned altars may explain the choice of subject matter for the altarpieee in the Cappella Clementina. A corre­spondence between the altar in the Clementina and the altar in the Gregoriana across the nave had already been envisaged by Paul V, who placed the body of the Roman Church father and pope St. Gregory the Great in the former to balance that of the Greek Church father and bishop St. Gregory of Nazianzus, already interred in the latter. Since the altar- piece in the Gregoriana did not represent St. Gregory of Nazianzus but instead displayed the small holy image of the Madonna del Soccorso, there was no plausible w ay that the altarpieee in the Clementina could serve as a pendant to it. But the planners nevertheless devised a w ay to suggest a different kind of symmetry between the two chapels, one that had less to do with the two Sts. Gregory and more to do with the designation of the Gregori­ana as the sacrament chapel. By choosing as the subject of the altarpieee in the Clementina thz Miraculouo Aiaoo o f St. Gregory the Great, a scene with obvious sacramental connotations (it has been called the "quintessential eucharistic tale”5), they implied an iconographic link between the Clementina and the Gregoriana. These few examples suggest that the subjects of the altarpieces were chosen with as much care as the dedications of the altars, with an eye to establishing a degree of programmatic coherence throughout the basilica.

It is uncertain whether the cardinals or the canons, or the two working in tandem, determined the subject matter of the altarpieces. A letter from Domenico Passignano, in which he mentions having written to the Architect of the Fabbrica to inquire about the subject of his assigned painting, may offer a clue: "I wrote to Signor Carlo Maderno [to ask ] that he find out from the canons w hat it is that they would like to see in the

the death of Christ, Peter sent him to Gaul, where he converted the people of Limoges and became their first bishop. It was Pope John XIX (1024—32), who in response to a request from the bishop of Limoges conferred the honorary title of Apostle on St. M artial, and who commemorated this event by founding an altar dedicated to St. M artial in St. Peter’s, "so that the reverence and renown of so great an apostle may be raised aloft throughout the whole w orld .” For more on St. M artial and the title of Apostle, see Cat. 15, esp. n. 11.

2 I am grateful to Irving Lavin for pointing out to me the importance of the liturgical position of these altars in relation to the high altar. On the hierarchy of saints, the distinction between Gospel and Epistle sides, and related issues, see I. Lavin, 1968, pp. 24—27, esp. n. 116.

3 The altarpieces represent, from left to right: (1) The /Martyrdom o f St. Eraomuo; (2) The M artyrdom o f Sto. troceooiui and A ta rt Lilian; (3) St. Wenceolaj. In the last, the martyrdom of the saint is relegated to a fictive relief sculpture in the lower right comer of the composition (Fig. 146). Yet it is the saint’s status as mar­tyr that is the principal emphasis of the painting, for Wenceslas is shown receiving the crown of martyr­dom from an angel. See Cats. 10—12.

4 The altarpieces represent, from left to right: (1) St. Valeria o f Limogeo Carrieo Her Head to the Altar Where St. M artia l Ij C elebrating the Maoo; (2) Sto. Simon and Jud e M iracu lously Turn the Serpento Again.it the Peroian M agicians; (3) The Doubting o f Thomao. See Cats. 13—15.

5 Rubin, 1991, p. 308, with reference to one of several miraculous masses involving St. Gregory.

106 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

painting.”6 The implication is that the canons had the right at least to approve, if not to choose, the subjects of the altarpieces. Once the subjects had been chosen, the canons clearly played a significant role in determining how particular scenes or narratives were depicted. It was they, for example, who instructed Simon Vouet to represent Sts. Francis and Anthony as zoccolanti (i.e. members of the Observant branch of the Franciscan order) in his altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir.7 It is true that on this point they were later overruled. But their other specifications were presumably allowed to stand: Vouet, in his 1627 letter to the pope, mentions no other iconographic changes to his work. Of course, since Vouet s altarpiece was painted for the Chapel of the Choir, the canons’ involvement is not surprising. But there is compelling evidence that the canons' interests were not lim­ited to their own private chapel, and that they had a hand in determining the iconography of other paintings in St. Peter s.

The canons’ views on the iconography and composition of the altarpieces were as con­servative as their views on the dedications of the altars. We have already seen that they preferred an old wooden crucifix to a bronze one by Bernini, and a battered antique sar­cophagus (likened by one pope to a watering trough for horses8) to a proper baptismal font of modern design. The same pious sentiments that motivated these choices, influ­enced their recommendations in the case of the paintings being created for St. Peter’s.

In connection with several of these paintings, written instructions have survived, intended for the artists, stating explicitly how they were to handle their assigned subjects in terms of both iconography and composition. Three of the four surviving documents of this kind are in the handwriting of Angelo Giorio. Since Giorio was a close adviser to the pope, it is conceivable that the texts reflect the pope's own views. But it is more likely that Giorio composed the instructions in his capacity as a member of the Chapter (he was, as we have noted, one of the canons chosen to represent the Chapter in its dealings with the Congregation) and that they therefore demonstrate the Chapter’s w ay of thinking.

Of the four surviving sets of instructions, one involves the altarpiece of St. Wenceslas, another the altarpiece of St. Erasmus, and two others the altarpiece of St. Leo. All three paintings were commissioned in 1627, so it is probably safe to assume that the instructions were written in the same year. About the Wenceslas altarpiece, Giorio writes:

The chapel of St. Wenceslas has a long history in St. Peter’s f. . .] One can still see how St. W enceslas w as depicted [in the old chapel] in the book by Giacomo Grimaldi, which records the appearance of the altars that were demolished in the remaining section of the old church. Now that the altar is to be reestablished in the chapel next to that of Sts. Processus and Martinian, and furnished with a small altarpiece representing the saint, it seems best to proceed in the following manner.

The saint should be shown in the middle of the painting, young, and of handsome and imposing aspect, as Surius describes him, and dressed in imperial costume, tu he «vt,< dreMed in the old pain ting [italics added], with a standard in his hand with a black eagle on a white field, and a sword and shield. And since it is known that this saint [. . .] was often seen to be assisted and waited on by angels, it would be very appro­priate to include in the four corners, as a kind of ornament and filler for the paint­ing, four angels, one holding a lily to indicate his virginity, another a sword to

6 [Oct. 26, 1624] “Scrivo al Signor Carlo Mademo che sia con li Signori Canonici per intendere che cosa si puo Fare dentro [? ] al quadro per dare loro gusto.” (Poliak, 1913, p. 38.)

7 See Chapter 4, n. 28 and Cat. 8.8 ASV, S. C. Visita Apostolica, no. 129, biuita 4, f. 9: "Adi 14 giugno 1693 giomo di Domenica la Santita di

Nostro Signore Papa Innocentio XII venne a fare la Visita Apostolica nella Sacrosanta Vaticana Basilica [. . .] Di poi havendo osservato il Fonte Battesimale, disse che questo non era decente, e che era piu tosto un abbeveratoro da cavalli. . . . ”

CHAP T ERS I X / T H E P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D 107

denote the arms which the angels provided him with in a famous encounter, the third a palm to denote his martyrdom, and the fourth a crown. And because the saint is not well known in these parts, space should be left at the bottom of the com­position for a card with the saint’s name: S. WencesLaus Boenwrum Dux M artyr?

The painter eventually assigned the St. Wenceslas altarpiece, Angelo Caroselli, did not follow the Chapter's instructions in every detail (Fig. 142). Instead of four angels carrying lily, sword, palm, and crown in each of the four corners, Caroselli depicted only one angel — the one with the crown — in the upper right corner. And he added a fictive relief in the lower right corner illustrating the saint’s martyrdom — possibly, as suggested earlier, in order to underline the identity of status between Wenceslas and the other martyr saints venerated in the north, or "martyr,” transept. But in one vital respect Caroselli obeyed Giorio's instructions to the letter: for the figure of the saint he took as his model the origi­nal Trecento altarpiece in the chapel of St. Wenceslas in the old basilica. This altarpiece was painted on the wall and was destroyed in 1606 when the nave was torn down. But, as Giorio points out, Caroselli could refer to the watercolor reproduction in Grim aldi’s description of old St. Peter’s, then as now in the possession of the Chapter, as well as the copy of Grimaldi's illustration frescoed on the wall of one of the chapels in the Mere gro tte (Figs. 144-145). Using these copies as his model, Caroselli depicted Wenceslas standing at the center of the composition; wearing armor and a red cloak fastened over the shoul­ders and looped up in a sweeping diagonal from the right leg to the left arm; wearing a crown (although the distinctive Bohemian ducal "bonnet” in the earlier work is now replaced by a simpler coronet without specific regional connotations); and carrying a sword and shield in one hand and the eagle standard (black on white) in the other. The similarities of pose and costume between the two altarpieces are too numerous to be coin­cidental. Indeed, so closely did Caroselli base his composition on the earlier work that he even retained something of its iconic character: his is the only one of the six transept altar- pieces without a clear narrative subject.10

The canons, impelled by a kind of devotional nostalgia for old St. Peter’s and all it con­tained, were anxious that the original Wenceslas altarpiece, or rather the memory of it, should live on in the modern altarpiece that replaced it. It was as though they hoped in this w ay to affirm the antiquity of the altar and lend an air of authenticity to its image. The same attitude is evident in Giorio’s instructions for the St. Erasmus altarpiece:

The altarpiece of St. Erasmus, which is planned for the [. . .] altar next to the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian, should be painted so as to include the martyrdom of the aforementioned saint in the form in which it i< represented in the pain ting that stands there tuns [italics added]. The only change that should be made is in the placement of the tribunal of the tyrant, so that the tyrant does not occupy the center of the com­position, but is moved to one side.11

Once again the artist was told to take the altarpiece from old St. Peter’s as his model. Since that painting had in fact been transferred to the new basilica and was standing over the very altar for which the new picture was commissioned, such advice may hardly have been necessary. The painter who w as given the commission (it turned out to be Nicolas Poussin), even without the Chapter's instructions, could hardly have avoided being influ­enced to one degree or another by the earlier work (Fig. 125). In any case, whether delib­erately or not, Poussin does seem to have followed Giorio’s directions and based his inter­

9 Doc. Appendix, no. 16.11 Doc. Appendix, no. 16.

10 See Cat. 12.

108 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

pretation on the older altarpiece, making use of a similar cast of characters and depicting the scene of torture in much the same fashion, even copying the gruesome motif of the exe­cutioner who reaches one hand into the wound to extract the guts (Fig. 127). To the extent that Poussin’s composition departs from that of the original altarpiece, Giorio’s memo may again have had a significant influence. Either for iconographic or for formal reasons, Giorio rejected the rigid symmetiy of the earlier work and recommended that the position of the tyrant be shifted from the center to the side. Poussin did exactly this, and to great dramatic effect, positioning the pagan high priest (who replaces the tyrant) on the far left, and thus transforming a static, gridlike composition into one full of movement and energy.12

For the altarpiece of St. Leo, two sets of instructions survive, one in Giorio’s hand and another, similar in content, in a different, unidentified hand, possibly belonging to another member of the Chapter. In this instance the artist could not be told to consult the St. Leo altarpiece in old St. Peter’s, since no such altarpiece had existed.13 Consequently, the instructions are longer and more detailed than those for the Wenceslas and Erasmus paintings. The texts are noteworthy lor two reasons. First, they reveal that at the time they were written the subject of the altarpiece had not yet been definitively decided. The story of Leo and Attila was the clear favorite, as we learn from one of the two documents:

There are many subjects from the life of St. Leo which could be illustrated in the painting commissioned lor the saint’s altar. But as the subject best suited to the church of St. Peter, and to the talent and style of the painter, we propose the libera­tion ol Italy from invasion by the army of Attila King of the Huns.

But the text goes on to ofler an alternate topic:

Another possible subject, which would again be well suited to the church of St. Peter, but perhaps not so much to the taste of the painter, is the story of St. Leo praying at the tomb of St. Peter. . . .14

These passages suggest that the final decision concerning the choice of subject matter was not solely the Chapter’s to make: the Congregation, the pope, and even the painter seem to have had some say in the matter. It is nevertheless true that the subject favored by the Chapter as the more dramatically effective of the two, that is, the story of Leo and Attila, was the one that was eventually chosen.

The second point worth emphasizing is that both sets of instructions for the Leo altar- piece demonstrate an extraordinary attention to seemingly minor details that one might have thought could have been left to the imagination and intelligence of the artist. Con­sider, for example, the description of St. Leo:

The composition must be organized in such a w ay that the figure of St. Leo occu- pres the center of the pamtrng, and rs rn the most worthy position and closest to the foreground. He should be shown as a handsome man, serious and venerable, wear­ing a soutane, surplice, cape, stole, and miter, in the act of extending a written promise not to attack Rome and making Attila swear to it.

Or the description of Attila:

Attila, fierce, barbaric, and proud, must be shown under the circumstances humble, reverent, and fearful, holding out his right hand and promising to turn back his

12 See Cat. 10.13 The altar of St. Leo in old St. Peter’s had as its altarpiece the holy image of the Madonna del Soccorso,

later moved to the altar in the Gregoriana.H Doc. Appendix, no. 15.

CHAP T ERS I X / T H E P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D E g 1 0 9

army. His costume should be fanciful and exotic. The meeting should take place — on foot and not on horseback — at the center of the composition.15

The texts go on to describe the attendant clerics and soldiers, the celestial apparition, and even the landscape in similar detail. It would be fascinating to know to what extent the Cavaliere d ’Arpino, who held the commission from 1627 until his death in 1640, felt obliged to follow these veiy specific directions. Unfortunately, since he never completed the picture, and since no drawings or sketches related to his composition have been identi­fied, there is no w ay of telling. Alessandro Algardi finally executed the altarpiece in mar­ble relief during the pontificate of Urban VIII’s successor, Innocent X; but this was some two decades after Giorio and his colleague wrote their instructions, and there is no reason to think that the sculptor was aware of them, or if he was, that he felt any need to adhere to them (Fig. 164).16

The surviving instructions for the Wenceslas, Erasmus, and Leo altarpieces suggest that the Chapter played an important part in determining the subject matter, iconography, and in some cases even the compositions of the altarpieces. But the Congregation, too, was heavily involved in all of this. Ultimately the artists were answerable to the Congrega­tion — which was responsible for hiring them and paying them — rather than to the Chap­ter. Once an artist had worked out his design, he generally displayed a modello or cartoon to the cardinals, and only after receiving their approval did he proceed with the painting. The cardinals could and sometimes did demand important changes to the composition.17 The St. Leo altarpiece is a case in point. Cesari d ’Arpino, having received the commission in 1627, prepared a cartoon, presumably based on the Chapter’s specifications, and exhib­ited it to the Congregation in 1629. The design was generally approved, but Cardinal Vidoni was nonetheless charged with notifying Cesari of certain changes required by the Congregation.18 W hat these changes were and why they were thought necessary we have no means of knowing. But the predicament in which Cesari found himself is strongly rem­iniscent of Vouet s a few years earlier, when the Chapter ordered him to paint the two Franciscan saints one w ay and the Congregation then ordered him to paint them another way. It was doubtless frustrating for these artists to find themselves working for two mas­ters at once, forced to satisfy the sometimes conflicting requirements of Chapter and Con­gregation. Still, the problems they faced should not be exaggerated. On the whole, the system worked smoothly enough, and the presence at the Congregation’s meetings of sev­eral leading canons, including Giorio himself, ensured that in most cases the details of the commissions were worked out in a manner acceptable to all.

THE A L T A R P I E C E S IN P L A C E : 1 6 2 6 - 3 2

Now that the dedications of the altars and the subjects of the altarpieces had been decided, a small army of painters from Rome and elsewhere descended on St. Peter’s to bring the proj­ect to fruition. Work proceeded at a feverish pitch. Between 1626 and 1632, in an extraordi­nary burst of activity, some fifteen altarpieces, all but two of those originally projected, were

15 Ibid. 16 See Cat. 18.17 For more on the preparatoiy process, see Chapter 9.18 [Jun e 27, 1629] “Fuit exhibitum, et visum modulum, seu Cartonum, quod dicunt, Historiae S. Leonis,

quae ab Equite Josepho Arpinate, et communiter approbatur. Verum quia circa eiusdem Historiae con- gruentiam aliquid in melius mutandum visum fuit, rogarunt Illustrissimum Dominum Cardinalem Vidonum, ut de mente Congregationis super hoc dictum Equitem informet . . (Poliak, no. 114, but note that 1 have amended his transcription in one or two places.)

* N x t i v r i w

T ext F ig. III. The a lta rp ie ce s com m issioned an d execu ted b etw een 1623 an d 1633

(1) Altar of St. John the Baptist. G aspare Celio, The Bap tu rn o f C hrist (1624—28). Oil on stucco

(2) A ltar of the Presentation of the V irgin . Domenico Passig­nano, The P resen ta tion o f th e Virgin (1627). Oil on stucco

(3) A ltar of the Choir. Simon Vouet, The C ross w ith Sts. F ran cis and A nthony o f Padua, God th e Father, a n d A ngels C a rry in g S ym bo ls o f th e P a ssion (1625—26). O il on stucco

(4) Altar of St. Gregory the Great. Andrea Sacchi, The M ira cu lo iu M ass o f St. G regory (1625 -27 ). O il on canvas

(5) A ltar of St. M artia l. Spadarino , St. Valeria o f L im oges C arries H er Head to th e A ltar W here St. M a rtia l I s C eleb ra tin g M iu s (1629—32). Oil on canvas

(6) A ltar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e . Agostino C iam pelli, Sts. S im on an d J u d e /M iracu lously Turn th e S erp en ts a g a iru t th e P er­s ia n M agicia n s (1626—29). Oil on canvas

(7) A ltar of St. Thomas. Domenico Passignano, The D oubtin g o f Thoma*i (1624—26). O il on canvas

(8) A ltar of the N avicella. Giovanni Lanfranco, Chr 'ut S um ­m on in g P eter to Walk on th e W ater (1627 -28 ). Fresco

(9) A ltar of St. M ichael. Giovanni Battista C alandra after Cav- aliere d ’Arpino, The A rchangel M icha e l (1627—28). M osaic

(10) A ltar of St. Erasmus. N icolas Poussin, The M artyrdom o f St. E ra sm iu (1628—29). O il on canvas

(11) A ltar of Sts. Processus and M artin ian . V alentin , The M artyrd om o f Sts. P ro ces s iu a nd M artin ian (1629—30). O il on canvas

(12) A ltar of S t. W enceslas. Angelo C aroselli, St. W enceslas (1627—30). Oil on canvas

(13 ) A ltar of the H oly Trin ity. P ietro da Cortona, The H oly T rin ity (1628—32). O il on stucco

(14) A ltar of St. Sebastian . Domenichino, M artyrd om o f St. Seba*itian (1628—31). O il on stucco

(15) A ltar of the C rucifix . C rucifix (late m edieval). Wooden sculpture

110

CHAP T ERS I X / T H E P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D E g 1 1 1

completed and installed in the new basilica. The plan given in Text Figure III provides a summary of the work accomplished during the first decade of Urban’s pontificate.

A D D I T I O N S , C H A N G E S , A N D S U B S T I T U T I O N S

These paintings were scarcely dry before additions and substitutions began to be made. Some of the changes had relatively little effect on the ensemble, as, for example, when one painting was replaced by another with the same subject. But other changes were more considerable, and contributed to a gradual erosion of the symmetrical relationships that formed the basis of the original program.

In 1630, the pope ordered the removal of Celio’s Baptism o f Chn.it from the first chapel on the left. The painting had never been considered satisfactory;19 but quite apart from its aesthetic shortcomings, the pope had another motive for getting rid of it. He had deter­mined to use the altar for the permanent storage and display of the Cathedra Petri.

The Cathedra Petri, believed to be the throne on which Peter sat as bishop of Rome, was among the most treasured relics in the possession of the basilica and was w idely per­ceived as a symbol of papal legitimacy and power.20 Until the 1630s, the chair was stored in the old sacristy; twice a year, on Jan uary 18 and February 22, the feast days of the Cathedra, it was carried into the basilica and exhibited to the public on a portable altar set up in front of the confeooio. There the faithful flocked to see and touch the relic.21 Pilgrims scrambled to rub it with their holy medals, rosaries, and cords of silk and gold, hoping to transfer some of its magical power to these trinkets which they then carried back with them to their homelands.22 Francis Mortoft, an Englishman who visited St. Peter’s on the eve of the feast of the Cathedra in 1659, was astonished by what he saw: “I dare affirme truely there were more beads touched the side of the chaire this day than would load a Cart.”23 The devotion of the pilgrims sometimes got a bit out of hand. On at least one occasion, the Cathedra had to be displayed on a high platform “so that the people might not reach it and carve pieces from it, as has happened many times before.”24 It was in order to make the relic more accessible to the pious, and at the same time to protect it from their excessive displays of zeal, that the pope directed the Congregation to accom­modate the chair in the main body of the church, safely enclosed within a shuttered

19 See Chapter 9 and Cat. 3 (a).20 For the literature on the Cathedra Petri, see Cat. 3 (b), n. 1.21 The Cathedra w a s believed to have miraculous powers of healing. Antonio Ricciuli, Archbishop of

Cosenza, expressed a w idely held belief when he wrote: “ut si sola Petri umbra proderat ad infirmos sanandos, utique multo magis Sedes ilia, quae Cathedra fuit Apostolicae praedicationis.” (Cited in Buo- nanm, 1696, p. 135.)

22 "Nel tempo del Pontificato della santa e felice memoria di Papa Urbano VIII, dal Capitolo e Cleno Vati- cano, due volte l ’anno, 18 Gennaro e 22 Febraro, con ogni solennita solevasi esporre processionalmente la Cathedra di S. Pietro sopra d un Altare portable eretto nel mezzo della Chiesa avanti la Sacra Con- fessione, cantandosi 1'inno Te Deum Laudamus, e cosi esposta stava sino a ll’Ave M aria, e dopoi si riportava da Sacerdoti nella Cappella, dove si conservano le Reliquie in Sagrestia; il che rendeva gran- dissima divozione a forastieri, e particolarmente oltramontani, che a gara concorrevano a far toccare alia detta Cathedra corone, e cordoncim di seta, et oro, che con divota consolatione, e sodisfattione riportavano alii loro paesi.” (AFSP, Piano 1— serie 1—no. 8, f. 269. The document dates from the pontifi­cate of Clement X [1670-76].)

23 Mortoft, 1925, p. 104.29 [Jan . 18, 1634] “La Catedra e stata messa avanti la Confessione un poco discosto, ma in un palco piu

alto del solito ad effetti che le genti non vi potessero arrivare, e tagliarne come e stato fatto molt'altre volte.” (ACSP, Duiri 11, p. 475.)

112 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

bronze reliquary, where it might be seen — but not touched - year round. The overall design of the reliquary altarpiece was entrusted to Bernini. He played no part in its actual execution, however, preferring to turn the job over to various assistants, including his brother Luigi. The work was begun in 1630 and was essentially completed by 1637, although casting continued until 1646 (Figs. 84, 87).25

The baptismal chapel may have been chosen as the site for the Cathedra Petri because of its prominent position near the entrance into the basilica, although the desire to do aw ay with Celio’s despised altarpiece was perhaps another factor in the decision. In any case, the installation of the chair effectively destroyed the subtle pairing that had existed between this chapel and the chapel of the Crucifix across the nave, a pairing based on the theological correlation of Christ’s baptism and crucifixion. For although the chapel on the left continued to house the font, its function as baptismal chapel was no longer expressed in its altarpiece; and after the Cathedra was placed over its altar, it was more frequently referred to as the chapel of the Cathedra. A lready by 1630, then, the fragile programmatic balance that the planners had been at such pains to establish was begin­ning to disintegrate.

Two new altars were built during the 1630s. One was a minor altar, tucked aw ay in the right alcove of the chapel of the Crucifix and dedicated to the Madonna della Febbre, whose miracle-working image served as its altarpiece.26 The other was a more significant addition. In the chapel of the Trinity, to the right of the main altar, the Congregation built a second altar, dedicated to St. Maurice. Begun in 1636 and completed in 1640, with an altarpiece by Carlo Pellegrini representing the M artyrdom o f St. M aurice and the Theban Legion, this was the last major altar built and decorated during the pontificate of Urban VIII (Figs. 103, 106).27 Barberini emblems are everywhere in evidence. In the stucco dec­oration of the vault of the alcove, in the frieze between the column capitals, on the column bases, and on the altar front, the bees, the coat of arms, and the name of the Barberini pope attested to his involvement in the altars creation. Few other altars were so emphati­cally identified with Urban VIII.

On the face of it, the decision to build the altar may seem surprising. The site was hardly appropriate. The space was narrow, restricted not only by the proximity of the more important altar of the Trinity, but still more by the tomb of Sixtus IV, which was transferred from the Chapel of the Choir and set up on the pavement just in front of the altar rail between 1636 and 1637 (Figs. 104—105).28 The tomb obstructed access to the altar and made it virtually impossible to hold mass there for more than a few communi­cants at a time. Furthermore, to construct an altar in this particular spot meant interrupt­ing the symmetry of the church, since no similar altar could be built in the corresponding Chapel of the Choir, on account of the position of the choir stalls. On the other hand, by 1636 space was at a premium, and if there was to be a new altar, this site was no more inconvenient than any other available site.

There was an altar of St. Maurice in old St. Peter's, and Alfarano mentions that it was richly endowed.29 But when, in 1626—27, the Congregation and Chapter sat down to work out the dedications of the altars in the new basilica, neither showed a particular interest in perpetuating the title. To understand why, ten years later, the title was revived, we need to consider its political, not just its liturgical, significance. The altar of St. Maurice in old St.

25 See Cat. 3 (b).27 See Cat. 7.29 Alfarano, p. 185.

26 See Cat. 2.28 Poliak, nos. 49, 849.

CHAP T ERS I X / T H E P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D 1 1 3

Peter’s was famed above all for its part in the ritual surrounding the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor, and Urban VIII is bound to have had this in mind when he gave orders to reestablish the altar in the new basilica.

Since the time of Charlemagne, it was traditional for the emperor, as well as kings and queens, to be crowned by the pope in St. Peter’s basilica.30 Over the centuries, the imper­ial coronation had developed into a complex ritual involving several distinct stages.31 Upon entering the basilica, the emperor first stopped at the altar on St. Gregoiy in the outer left side aisle [at no. 85 on the Alfarano plan], where he donned his ceremonial regalia. He then sat on a throne placed over the great porphyry rota, or disc, in the pave­ment near the center of the nave, to hear an oration and receive a blessing.32 Having prayed at the tomb of St. Peter, he next proceeded to the chapel of St. Maurice, where he was anointed by a cardinal bishop; "for at the high altar no one is anointed, no one is ordained, save only the Roman Pontiff. ”33 Finally, he approached the high altar and there received his crown from the hands of the pope.

From the Church's point of view, the ceremony symbolized the dominance of spiritual over temporal authority: in essence, the pope, as sp iritual leader, conferred on the emperor, Europe’s principal temporal leader, the right to rule. Predictably, the ceremony meant more to the pope than to the emperor. The journey to Rome was long and tedious, and more often than not the emperor did not bother to make it, but was crowned instead in his homeland, or wherever he happened to be. The last emperor to be crowned in St. Peter's was Frederick III in 1452.34 His son and successor Maximilian I obtained a legal dispensation. Charles V, for political reasons, agreed to be crowned by the pope, but rather than journey to Rome, he made the pope JfTcome to him in Bologna, where the cer­emony took place in the church of S. Petronio.35 After Charles V, no emperor ever again submitted to coronation by the pope. Nevertheless, in Rome the traditions and rituals associated with the coronation were staunchly upheld, and this accounts for the decision to reestablish the altar of St. Maurice, which had featured so prominently in previous coronations. The idea is developed in the following text, which can be dated to the decade between 1626 and 1636:

There was in the [old] basilica a very ancient altar dedicated to St. Maurice and his comrades in martyrdom, which was always held in great veneration, and which was especially renowned in rituals both ancient and modern, since it was there that the Holy Roman Emperor or Empress, kings and queens, were anointed with sacred oil by the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, [before being] crowned by the Holy Pontiff in front of the altar of St. Peter, and there that an honorable place [was provided] for the empress and queens while the Holy Pontiff celebrated mass at the high altar, on account of which our predecessors celebrated the solemn office [of St. Maurice]

30 Moroni, 1840—79, XVII, pp. 207-27; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 611—16, 732—43.31 Elze, 1960; Dykmans, 1980-82, I, pp. 122°-28°, 93-117.32 Andrieu, 1954; Glass, 1969, p. 389. When the new nave was built, the rota w as buried for a time

beneath its brick floor. Innocent X had it excavated and reinstalled near the central door. In addition to Andrieu (pp. 211—13), see Giithlein, 1979, pp. 186—88.

33 " . . . dum ad altare bead Petri nemo inungitur, nemo ordinatur nisi Romanus pontifex solus.” (Dykmans, 1980—82, I, p. 103.) See also Alfarano, p. 46; Grimaldi, p. 355; Elze, 1960, pp. 49 and passim.

34 La Baodica di S. Pietro, 1989, p. 262.36 Charles V's coronation reveals the Church’s obsessive insistence on ceremonial precedent. So that the

event in Bologna would replicate in evety detail previous coronations in Rome, S. Petronio was trans­formed into a surrogate St. Peter’s, complete with rota painted in porphyiy-colored paint on the floor of the nave (Andrieu, 1954, pp. 204—206).

TH E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

even up until our own times, [wherefore] our Masters of Ceremony say that it is necessary that a new altar be erected in the new basilica in the same place, as in the described ceremonies.36

The text is anonymous but was certainly written by a member of the Chapter, which sug­gests that it may have been the canons who first proposed reestablishing an altar to St. Maurice. This makes sense, considering their determination to maintain the traditional titles and the traditional rituals associated with their basilica. But the idea, whether or not initiated by the Chapter, must also have appealed to Urban VIII. For any observance con­nected with the imperial coronation contributed ultimately to his own prestige as well as to the prestige of the Church as a whole.

The pope cared deeply about such matters. Urban had little real power in international politics; his influence over the emperor, as over other Catholic rulers, was virtually nil. In fact, his pontificate was marred by increasingly strained relations between Rome and Vienna, as the emperor, more attuned to political and military considerations than to reli­gious ones, repeatedly ignored resolutions and policies communicated from Rome.37 Yet as his authority dwindled, the pope clung more firmly than ever to the symbols of power. By reinstituting the altar of St. Maurice, he was setting the stage for a public demonstra­tion of his leadership role in European politics.

It seemed that a chance to make use of that stage might come even before the new altar was finished. In March 1637, news reached Rome of the death of Emperor Ferdinand II and the succession of his son, Ferdinand III.-38 Urban hoped the new emperor would jour­ney to Rome to receive his crown, but was disappointed to learn that Ferdinand had no intention of doing so. After a delay of about a year and a half, Ferdinand finally sent an ambassador to Rome to convey his oath of loyalty to the pope, but he himself stayed away. The ambassador was received with an outward show of hospitality and friendship; yet there were tensions beneath the surface.39 The am bassador complained that he was treated without due honor by the pope. Among other insults that he claimed to have received, he particularly protested at Urban’s repeated references to Ferdinand as ‘King of the Romans."40 Urban was, of course, making a point by referring to the emperor as King of the Romans, the title he had held before his father’s death. In essence, he was call­ing Ferdinand “Emperor elect” instead of "Emperor,” on the grounds that Ferdinand had not yet undergone an official coronation. The diplomatic misunderstanding was eventu­ally smoothed over, but the incident sheds light on Urban’s preoccupation with maintain­ing at least the fiction of papal prerogative in the conferral of imperial power. It also lends

36 The learned ceremonialist Michele Longo expressed a similar view in a letter he addressed to the pope: “Most Blessed Father. Since Your Holiness is reestablishing in the new Vatican basilica all of the prin­cipal altars that were in the old one, I deem that it would be well to remember to restore along with the others the lamous altar of St. Maurice, in front of which by ancient custom the emperor was anointed, and which was removed in the time of Ju liu s II. For even if it seems that the emperors have abandoned the practice of being crowned in Rome, nevertheless it is not good that we should loose the memoiy of so important an altar, one that is named in connection with the coronation of the emperor in all the cer­emonials, old and new, of the Holy See.” (Both texts are transcribed in full in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 7.)

37 Pastor, 1924-53, XXVIII, pp. 197-321.38 Ibid., pp. 356—57. Ferdinand II died on February 15, 1637.39 Ibid., pp. 357-58.90 The diplomatic upheaval resulting from the meeting of the imperial ambassador, Prince Johann Anton

von Hlggenberg, and the pope is discussed in full in Rebvzione della Venuta del Principe d'Ecchemberyh . . . (BAV, Barb. Lat. 5322).

CHAPTER SIX / T H E P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D 115

weight to the hypothesis that the altar of St. Maurice was built not merely to accommo­date the traditional liturgy of St. Peter’s but also to evoke an ancient rite symbolic of the pope’s spiritual authority over the emperor.41

THE C O M P L E T I O N O F THE P R O J E C T U N D E R IN NO CEN T X A N D A L E X A N D E R VII

At the death of Urban VIII in 1644, every existing altar in St. Peter’s had been assigned a title and all but one - the altar of St. Leo - had been provided with a permanent altar- piece. Urban took pride in the achievement, which makes it all the more curious that he did not make the extra effort to complete the decoration of the last altar. The Leo altar- piece had been assigned to Cesari d ’Arpino in 1627, and he retained the commission until his death in 1640, although apparently without ever beginning the painting. Perhaps Urban VIII was unwilling to offend the respected and elderly artist by stripping him of the commission and assigning it to someone else. By the time Cesari died, freeing the com­mission, the momentum was gone. At least one eminently worthy candidate, Giovanni Lanfranco, offered to paint the altarpiece and even submitted a design for the considera­tion of the Congregation.42 But the cardinals did not follow up on this. Money was scarce. Since 1637, the Fabbrica had committed its resources to a massive new project, the con­struction of the cam pam li on the facade of the basilica.43 This project was enormously expensive, and over the next few years it swallowed up the greater part of the Fabbrica's revenues. Moreover, Urban VIII, in desperate need of cash to fund his costly w ar of Cas­tro, had taken to borrowing large sums of money from the Fabbrica, further limiting what could be spent on art.44 The price of a large altarpiece, set at around 1,000 jcudi, may sim­ply have been more than the Fabbrica could readily afford at that time.

Pope Innocent X Pamphili (1644-55) lost no rime in finishing off what his predecessor had

41 The altar of St. Maurice may have been conceived as part of a larger program of monuments alluding to the superiority of papal over imperial authority. Bernini's tomb of the Countess M atilda of Canossa, in particular, seems to bear a close relationship. It was begun just a couple of years before the Maurice altar and was completed at around the same time; it is situated in the right side aisle, immediately out­side the chapel in which the Maurice altar is located (Fig. 104); and the statue of M atilda is turned so that she laces the entrance to the chapel. The ideal visitor to the Maurice altar (i.e. the emperor) would find Matilda looking at him as he left the chapel on his w ay to receive his crown (Fig. 107). Seeing her dressed in semimilitaiy attire, holding the baton of command in one hand and the papal tiara and keys in the other, and surrounded by trophies, he would be reminded of her stalwart defense of the papacy and her famous decision to leave her lands and wealth to the Holy See. He might also glimpse the relief on the sarcophagus below her, representing the humiliation of the schismatic emperor H eniy IV, who kisses the feet of Pope Gregory VII, portrayed in the guise of Urban VIII. The fact that Bernini was responsible for the M atilda monument, while his trusted assistant Carlo Pellegrini was assigned the altarpiece ol St. Maurice, further supports the idea of a connection between the two commissions. On the Matilda monument, see Wittkower, 1981, pp. 201-202; Scott, 1985.

42 See Cat. 18.43 On the ill-fated bell towers of St. Peter's, see Poliak, nos. 159—370; Millon, 1962; Giithlein, 1979, p.

184; Von Berm/n bui Piran& ti1993, pp. 98—107, 156—61. Sarah McPhee is currently completing a doc­toral dissertation at Columbia University on the history of the project.

44 See, for example, the letter of November 4, 1643, signed by Urban VIII, in which he informs the Con­gregation ot his intention to borrow 40,000 .itv/d/* from the Fabbrica’s treasury: "Reverendissimi Cardi- nali Prefetti sopra la Fabnca di S. Pietro. Ricercando li presenti et urgentissimi bisogni della nostra Camera Apostohca di molta quantita di danaro, quale non potendo noi con la prontezza che e neces- sana cosi subbito mtieramente provedere, ci siamo resoluti nel modo in[frascr]ito valersi del danaro della detta Fabrica [. . .] sino alia somma di quarantamila scudi moneta per servirsene in detti nostri bisogni." (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1—no. 8, f. 304.)

116 TH E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

begun. With the campanili project canceled and the partially completed structure destined for demolition, funds were once again available for the interior of St. Peter’s.45 In 1646, the com­mission for the Leo altarpiece was entrusted to Alessandro Algardi, who completed his marble relief representing St. Leo Repulsing Attila with the AidofSt.u Peter and Paul in 1653 (Fig. 164).

It is safe to say that Innocent felt intensely competitive toward his predecessor. Not only did he give the commission to Alessandro Algardi, the recognized rival of Urban’s own favorite artist Gianlorenzo Bernini, he also elected to have the altarpiece executed in the extravagant medium of marble relief. According to Virgilio Spada, Innocent’s decision to commission a sculpture instead of a painting was a purely practical one:

His Holiness, informed that the pictures in the chapels and those above the doors, not only those that were painted but also one that was made of marble mosaic, could not withstand the condensation and the humidity of this great vessel, thought of experimenting with a picture in relief. . . ,46

Spada’s explanation sounds reasonable enough. But although marble's imperviousness to moisture was no doubt an important consideration, it is hard to believe that Innocent did not have another motive as well. The altarpiece was enormously expensive: the marble alone cost the Fabbrica around 2,000 ecudL, in addition to which Algardi was paid the huge sum of 10,000 acudi In other words, this one altarpiece cost the Fabbrica fully six times more than the most expensive altarpiece commissioned during Urban’s pontificate (the mosaic St. M ichael) and at least twelve times more than any other altarpiece in the church. In light of this, it seems clear that Innocent was making a statement. It was magnificence, at least as much as durability, that he was after. Whereas Urban VIII had commissioned altarpieces for nearly every altar in the basilica, Innocent commissioned only one, but he was determined that it should be the most splendid of all. With Algardi’s gorgeous marble relief installed over the last undecorated side altar in St. Peter’s, Innocent had the satisfac­tion of knowing that he had outdone Urban at Urban’s own game.

One final altar remained to be built. Although projected since the time of Urban VIII, the apse altar was constructed only during the pontificate of Innocent X ’s successor, Alexander VII (1655—67). Doubtless influenced by Bernini, his intimate adviser on artis­tic matters and the man to whom he entrusted the undertaking, Alexander decided to transfer the chair of St. Peter from the first chapel on the left of the nave, where Urban VIII had installed it, to the apse, and to place it in a reliquary altarpiece that would pro­vide a majestic focal point at the far end of the basilica’s main axis. The Cathedra Petri was completed between 1656 and 1666, at a cost of over 106,000 jcucli, making even the Algardi altarpiece seem cheap by comparison (Fig. 168).47 It is a mixed-media extrava­ganza. On a high socle of colored marbles, towering over the altar, four colossal Church fathers in gilt bronze support a throne-shaped reliquary, while above them, the Holy Ghost appears amid an explosive glory of gold, bronze, stucco, and glass. The sculpture fulfills its function as an apse altarpiece marvelously well, answering all the concerns raised by the canons some thirty years earlier. Because it features the throne of St. Peter, it alludes to the dedication of the church and of its high altar. Moreover, its design high­lights its intrinsic relationship to the high altar; several drawings by Bernini attest to the care he took to coordinate the Cathedra and the baldacchino, adjusting the proportions of

46 On Innocent's decoration of the nave, see Tratz, 1991-92.46 For the Italian text, see the Documents section at the end of Cat. 18. The translation is from Montagu,

1985, I, p. 139.47 See Cat. 19.

CHAPTER SIX / T H E P R O J E C T R E A L I Z E D E g 1 1 7

one so that it is first glimpsed as though framed by the spiral columns of the other. Finally, it affords an ideal backdrop to the pontifical choir. When the pope sits enthroned beneath the throne of his saintly predecessor, the image resonates, the meaning is clear. The Cathe­dra Petri is in this sense the supreme papal monument. Trumpeting its Petrine message throughout the church, it provides a splendid culmination to the outfitting of St. Peter's.

C H A P T E R S E V E N

THE SO PRAPO RTI

EARLY IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS over the altars and altarpieces ol new St. Peter’s, the Congregation of the Fabbrica conceived a plan to extend the cycle of Peter altarpieces begun by Clement VIII in the navi p icco le into the chapels of the newly

completed nave. Beginning in late 1623 or 1624, altarpieces representing episodes from the life of Peter were commissioned for at least three, and probably four, of the six nave chapels. In the second chapel on the left, Passignano began and nearly completed an image of Peter pulling the tribute money from the Fish’s mouth.1 Domenichino was instructed to depict the story of Peter and the centurion in the corresponding chapel on the right.2 (An alternate proposal for these two chapels, dating from 1626, called for a pair of pendant altarpieces illustrating, respectively, the Pa.ur Ove.i A/eav and the Giving of the Keys.) Simon Vouet produced designs for an altarpiece in the Cappella del Coro repre­senting Peter healing with his shadow.3 And although there is no documentary evidence that a fourth Peter story was intended for the chapel opposite the Cappella del Coro, in light of the emphasis throughout the decorative program on symmetry and pairing, this too seems plausible.

The Congregation’s plan to extend the Petrine cycle into the nave chapels was eventu­ally vetoed by the members of the Chapter of St. Peter’s, for reasons explored in a previ­ous chapter. But the cardinals remained intent on expanding the cycle elsewhere in the basilica. Indeed, the necessity of doing so was inherent to the program of paintings left behtnd by Clement VIII. No cycle of Peter stones — at least no papally sponsored cycle — could be considered complete without one or both of the two principal episodes and proofs of the Apostle’s primacy, namely, the Giving of the Keys and the “Feed M y Sheep. ’’ The fact that Clement VIII included neither of these scenes, far from indicating that he deemed them unimportant, suggests that he intended to continue the cycle over other altars in the church. In commissioning these and other Petrine subjects for the nave chapels, the Congregation was merely picking up where Clement had left off.

1 See Cat. 5 (a).3 See Cat. 8.

See Cat. 4.

118

CHAPTER SEVEN / T H E SOPRAPORTI 1 1 9

The cardinals and the canons soon reached a compromise solution. The former were determined to expand the Petrine cycle, and the latter had no objection, as long as no altars were involved. And so, in 1627, the decision was taken to shift the cycle from the chapels in the nave to the six door aediculas located in the navi p iccole opposite the four great crossing piers.

THE PE TR IN E C Y C L E C O N T I N U E D

In the navi piccole, to the left and right of the openings into the tribune and transepts, are six small doors, which provide access to various storage and utility rooms and to the spiral staircases leading to the upper reaches of the basilica [13, 19, 23, 27, 31, and 36]. Origi­nally, each of these six doors was set in a shallow, flat niche within a monumental aedicula consisting of two colossal columns supporting an entablature and pediment. A drawing at Windsor Castle records the appearance of two of the aediculas before they underwent alterations (Fig. 65). Within the aedicula, above the door and below the arched top of the niche, was a large empty space ideally suited for painting. This space, or more accurately the painting that occupies it, is referred to in the documents as a oopraporto, or over-door.4 Sopraporti, paintings specifically designed to go over doors or passageways in the wall, are not uncommon in Italian churches of the Baroque period, but they are usually small, hori­zontal in format, and relatively inconspicuous. The scale and magnificence of the six oopra- porti in St. Peter’s made them unique in this category. Over twenty feet tall and framed by precious antique columns of granite or marble, they were more like altarpieces than any­thing else.5

As a glance at the plan of the basilica will show, the six doors are situated directly opposite six of the eight altars erected by Gregory XIII and Clement VIII behind the crossing piers (Fig. 2). The aediculas surrounding the doors are identical to the aediculas surrounding the altars, and consequently the oopraporti are the same size and shape as the altarpieces.6 Indeed, the only significant difference between the altarpieces and the oopra­porti opposite them is that, whereas the altarpieces are integrally linked to the altars over which they stand and are supposed to reflect the dedications of those altars, the oopraporti

4 It may be helpful to comment briefly on the use of the word oopraporto, since there is often some confu­sion associated with it. The better Italian dictionaries include entries under hot\\ oopraporta (ooprapporta) (m.) and oopraporto (ooprapporto) (m.), each having the same definition. However, in nearly every docu­ment pertaining to the over-door paintings in St. Peter’s, the form oopraporto/i is used. I suspect the dis­tinction between oopraporta and oopraporto may have to do with size. In any case, I have opted to use the form of the word as it appears most Irequently in the documents.

5 The similarity of the oopraporti in St. Peter's to altarpieces was noted by several authors. One document refers to the oopraporti with the heading: "Per g l’altari in S. Pietro sopra le porte” — a slip of the pen, no doubt, but nonetheless revealing (ACSP, H55, f. 119v). Gasparo Alveri (1664, II, p. 171) described the over-door space to the right of the tribune as follows: "Qui si vede a ll’incontro un vano sopra una porti- cella circondato di marmi a guisa di Altare, dove andara la sua pittura corrispendente a g l’altri sopra­porti.’’

6 The dimensions of the only surviving oopraporto. Romanelli’s St. P eter H ealing with Hi< Shadow, are 618 X

416 cm. This is somewhat shorter than the large altarpieces, which measure approximately 720 X 420 cm. The discrepancy exists because Romanelli s oopraporto has been radically trimmed, especially along the bottom edge. The oopraporti were designed to extend down a foot or two on either side of the door. A comparison of Romanelli's painting in its present condition to a nineteenth-century engraved reproduc­tion made when the painting was still in the church reveals that the lower edge has been regularized bv the removal of these two extensions, resulting in a considerable reduction of the original dimensions of the work (Fig. 184).

120 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

are without liturgical function. It was to the six over-door spaces in the navi piccole, then, that the cardinals decided to transfer their project for a series of Petrine paintings.

It is by no means certain that the over-door spaces were originally designed to hold paintings. The existence of the door aediculas is already implied in Michelangelo's plan, but there is no indication of how he intended them to be used (Fig. A). Significantly, the aedicula next to the Cappella Gregoriana, which was the first of the six to be built, was initially occupied not by a painting but by a magnificent new organ, installed by Gregory XIII in 1580 as part of the outfitting of his chapel [13]. In 1609, when the demolition of the Constantinian nave made it necessary to find a home in the new basilica for the organ of Alexander VI, Paul V, following Gregory’s example, arranged to have it installed over the door in the Cappella Clementina, in a position precisely corresponding to that of the organ in the Gregoriana [36] 7 The symmetrical disposition of these two instruments, one on each side of the basilica, gave rise to a still more ambitious scheme involving the corre­sponding pair of door aediculas on the other side of the transepts [19 and 3 1].8 But the idea of having permanent organs installed not only in the Gregoriana and Clementina but also in the northwest and southwest corner chapels came to nothing. Additional organs were never commissioned, and the remaining over-door spaces were left empty for the time being.9

The decision to install the organ of Alexander VI over the door in the Clementina made good sense in 1609, for in that position it could be heard both in the Clementina itself and in the canons’ choir at that time temporarily set up in the south transept. In 1626, how­ever, the canons left the south transept and moved into their permanent chapel in the nave. At that point it became necessary either to build a new organ or to move the existing organ into the Cappella del Coro. In the end it was resolved to transport the existing instrument from its location over the door in the Clementina to the arched opening between the Clementina and the Cappella del Coro [40], At the same time, the organ was given a second face, so that it could be heard in both chapels at once.10 The complicated transfer and rebuilding were completed swiftly, and the newly refurbished organ was played for the first time on March 12, 1626.11

7 Lunelli, 1958, p. 79.8 The project is recorded in the introductory text by G. B. Costaguti to Martino Ferrabosco’s volume of

engravings, entitled Architettura M ia Baoilica d i San Pietro, published in 1620: “Sono in questa Ambu- lazione quadrata [i.e. the navi piccole] quarantotto Colonne, cioe ventotto in omamento di quattordici Altari, otto parimente in omato di quattro Organi, sotto de’ quali si entra nelle quattro Lumache piane, cioe le Scale maggiori . . . ” (p. xvii).

9 It is worth mentioning at this point one other proposal involving the aediculas in the navi piccole. On his plan of St. Peter’s from 1606, Cigoli labels the aediculas with the word oepolcro (Fig. 5). Evidently he planned to use them to house papal tombs. His idea was curiously prophetic: some half a century later Bernini had the same idea when he built the tomb of Alexander VII in the aedicula to the right of the south transept, thus starting a trend that resulted in the gradual replacement of the oopraporti with papal tombs. But Cigoli’s proposal was not quite as ahead of its time as it might at first appear. It is still to Bernini that credit must go for coming up with the revolutionary idea of placing the tombs over the doors (cf. Blunt, 1967 [b], p. 230). Cigoli instead planned to eliminate the doors, by setting up an alter­nate system of access to the spiral stairways and inner chambers via six small openings inconspicuously tucked beneath pulpits or cantorie in the transepts and tribune. Thus, the aediculas in the navi p iccole would have been empty and available for the more conventional type of wall tomb that Cigoli presum­ably had in mind.

10 Poliak, nos. 36, 41, 758—79; Lunelli, 1958, p. 86. The new facade, directed toward the Clementina, was built by Giovanni Battista Soria; it was adorned with garlands and putti and featured the coat of arms of Urban VIII. It survived into the nineteenth eentuiy, but was taken down shortly before 1823 to accommodate Thorvaldsen’s tomb ol Pius VII.

11 Poliak, no. 779.

CHAPTER SEVEN / T H E SOPRAPORTI g g 1 2 1

The relocation of the organ of Alexander VI shattered the symmetry between the Cap­pella Clementina and the Cappella Gregoriana. The Congregation, showing its usual predilection for uniformity and balance, immediately set out to remedy this by moving the organ in the Gregoriana to the arched opening between the Gregoriana and the New Sac­risty [10], This move was accomplished by 1627.12

With the organs permanently installed in their new locations, the Congregation turned its attention to the over-doors, all six of which now stood vacant. It is in August 1627 that we hear for the first time of a project to fill these spaces with a cycle of paintings.13 The Congregation and the Chapter seem for once to have been in complete accord as to what the cycle should represent. The theme is spelled out in a letter of Jan u ary 11, 1628, from Giovanni Battista Confalonieri to an unspecified member of the Congregation. Con- falonieri had consulted earlier with members of the Chapter, and was able to report that "the canons desire that the paintings destined to go over the six doors should represent the Primacy of St. Peter."14 From this we learn that a plan was already afoot to commis­sion a series of six oopraporti illustrating the primacy of St. Peter, or in other words, Peter’s preeminence as apostle, as pope, and as prince of the Church.

The decision to continue the Peter cycle over the doors in the navi p iccole was a good one, for three reasons in particular. First, as we have seen, it freed the chapels in the nave, which could now be used to accommodate a variety of titles from the old basilica. At the same time, the number of spaces available for Peter stories increased from four to six.

Second, it meant that the new Peter stories would appear in close physical proximity to the earlier series of Peter altarpieces commissioned by Clement VIII.15 Since the oopraporti were situated directly opposite Clement's altarpieces and were identical to them in shape and size, the two sets of paintings would inevitably be viewed together, as constituting a single unified cycle.

Third, it reinforced the Clementine concept of a cycle of Peter stories forming a ring around the tomb of the Apostles. It concentrated the Petrine imagery around the very spot where Peter himself lies buried. In light of these obvious advantages, the Petrine cycle took on renewed importance in the years 1628—29.

Once it was decided to transfer the Petrine cycle from the nave chapels to the over- door spaces in the navi piccole, the project was carried out with zeal. Artists were selected and provided with subject matter, and work began at once. In the Cappella Gregoriana, Giovanni Baglione painted the Washing o f the Feet [13]. The oopraporto located between the north transept and the northwest corner chapel was assigned to Agostino Ciampelli. When he died before he could begin work, the commission passed to Andrea Camassei, who depicted Peter Baptizing Hu< Jailer.t Proceoouo and M artinian between 1630 and 1634 [19], Andrea Sacchi was assigned the job of illustrating the Pa,ice Over Meao over the door to the right of the tribune [23]; and over the door to the left, Antonio Pomarancio painted the Giving o f the K eyv [27]. Between the chapel of the Madonna della Colonna and the south transept, Paolo Guidotti represented the Denial and Lamentation o f Peter, a work that was replaced a few years later by Gian Francesco Romanelli’s Peter Healing u'ith Hie Shadow [31], Finally, over the door in the Cappella Clementina, Pietro da Cortona was instructed to paint the Calling o f Peter and Andrew [36],

12 Poliak, nos. 41, 947-52; Lunelli, 1958, p. 89.13 Poliak, no. 96.14 . . . ho veduto desiderio in questi Signori Canonici che le pitture, che s ’hanno a fare sopra alle sei

porte, rappresentino il Pnmato di San Pietro." (Doc. Appendix, no. 17.)15 See Chapter 2.

122 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF NE W ST. PETER 'S

As one might expect, the subjects of the six paintings were chosen with care. Several proposals were drawn up,16 but none more elaborate than the one submitted, along with his letter of Jan uary 11, 1628, by Giovanni Battista Confalonieri. A doctor of theology and law, Confalonieri served for many years as an apostolic prothonotaiy and secretary to various high-ranking officials at the papal court; in 1626, Urban VIII appointed him director of the Archives of Castel Sant Angelo.17 He had close ties with St. Peter’s. In 1606 and 1607, he witnessed and documented the transfer of relics from the old church to the new.18 Also he was a member of the Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter’s.19 His recommendation concerning the oopraporti is entitled Ruitretto dell hu'torie p er la Baoilica d i San Pietro ca r ate dalli oa cri EvangelLfti, e . . . ordinate a l Primato di eooo Prencipe delh Apootoli In it he lists no fewer than twenty-six episodes (not including those already illus­trated in the Clementine altarpieces), all of which, he claims, “serve to prove the Primacy of St. Peter as ordained by Christ the Lord. ”20

Confalonieri’s proposal opens with a brief list of sixteen suggested "historie” appropri­ate for celebrating Peter’s preeminence. The episodes are drawn from the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and other sources, and include, for example, the Calling of Peter and the Pa,ice Oreo Afeao. Following this list is a second, expanded list, specifically intended “pro pictoribus,” which provides ampler explanations (“argumenta”) of the subjects already mentioned as well as additional subjects. This second list is especially illuminating because it demonstrates how certain episodes from the life of Peter were construed as proof of Peter's unique status among the apostles. For example, Confalonieri explains that the Washing of the Feet is an appropriate topic in a cycle of this kind because "Peter was the first to have his feet washed by Christ.” Or, again, a scene of Peter preaching demon­strates the saint’s primacy because "Peter was the first of all [the Apostles] to promulgate the Gospel”; and so on.21

Confalonieri’s proposal was apparently unsolicited and may or may not have received serious consideration from the Congregation. The fact that his list includes all but one of the six scenes ultimately selected is not necessarily an indication that it was followed, since the stories were, of course, well known to everyone. Nor is Confalonieri’s text particularly helpful in explaining why certain episodes were chosen over others. After all, he lists some twenty-six possible scenes, and only six were actually needed. The question remains, then, how were these six chosen?

With the exception of the pair flanking the entrance into the tribune, the oopraporti were not related to one another except generically, nor were they arranged in anything like a chronological sequence. Yet there was nothing random about the choice of subject matter of these six paintings. Each scene was picked not merely for its suitability within

16 See, for example, the list of topics and alternate topics under the heading "Concetti per sopraporti" in Doc. Appendix, no. 22.

17 For a summary of the career of Confalonieri (1562-1649), see Semmler, 1969, pp. 113-14; DBI, XXVII, pp. 778-82.

18 Grimaldi, pp. 93, 235.19 AASS, vol. 169 (D ecretidal 1608a tutto 1647), f. 154v. See also Cat. SP. 5 (a), n. 12.20 "Omnia sunt ordinata ad probandum Primatum Sancti Petri a Christo Domino institutum.” (Doc.

Appendix, no. 17.)21 A number of treatises on the subject of Peter’s primacy were published in the late sixteenth and early

seventeenth centuries. These include O. Panvinio, De prim atu P etri et apoetolicae eed ii potentate libri tree, Venice, 1591; F. Panigarola, Beati P etrigee la , Asti, 1591; K. Stengel, Commentarium rerum geotarum oancti apoetoliprmcLpie Petri, 1620 (the latter two cited by Male, 1932, pp. 52—53). Confalonieri almost certainly based his own compendium of Petrine imagery on one or more texts of this kind.

CHAPTER SEVEN / T H E SOPRAPORTI 1 2 3

the cycle as a whole but because it reinforced or contributed on a symbolic level to the identification of the part of the church in which it was located. Therefore, to understand how the selection was made, we need to consider each painting in the setting for which it was commissioned.

Christ’s Twin Charges to Peter

We begin with the two oopraporti on either side of the opening into the tribune. These were conceived as a pair. To the worshiper approaching from the papal high altar in the crossing, they would have been visible at a single glance and would have provided a kind of frame through which to view the apse (Fig. 65). The apse was the locus of the pontifical choir and the papal throne - the oedia pon tifica te - where the pope sat when­ever he officiated or attended services in St. Peter’s. Given their prominent position, it was only fitting that these oopraporti should be reserved for the two scenes symbolic of the pope’s pastoral role and of his status as the legitimate and unique successor to the Apostle Peter, namely, the Giving of the Keys and the Paoce Oreo Afeiuu These were the very scenes that had earlier been proposed for the altarpieces of the two central nave chapels. There they would have been glimpsed by visitors proceeding from the entrance of the basilica toward the high altar. But in their new position, flanking the space between the papal high altar and the pontifical throne, their significance was, if any­thing, enhanced.

The oopraporto on the left, representing Cbrio I G iving P eter the K eyo to the K ingdom o f Heaven, was assigned to Antonio Pomarancio, who completed it between February 1628 and March 1629.22 Pomarancio’s fresco was destroyed at the end of the seventeenth cen­tury to make w ay for the tomb of Alexander VIII. No preparatory drawings or related sketches are known. Fortunately, though, the composition is recorded in a veduta of the interior of St. Peter’s, executed by the Genoese view-painter Pietro Franceso Garoli in 1682, a decade or so before the fresco was destroyed (Figs. 180—181). Pomarancio’s oopra­porto is no more than a small detail in Garoli's veduta, yet so meticulously is it rendered that its basic compositional outlines are easily decipherable. St. Peter kneels on the left, with Christ approaching from the right, surrounded by apostles. With one arm Christ points up, toward heaven and toward the cluster of cherubs hovering overhead. Although not visible in Garoli’s work, we know from a written source that "symbols of the papacy” were also depicted in the sky.23 We may infer that the putti were shown holding the tiara and the crossed keys and that it was toward these objects that Christ directed his gesture, to indicate his conferral of apostolic power upon Peter.

The oopraporto to the right of the tribune, which was to have had as its subject the Paoce Oveo Meao, was entrusted in 1628 to Andrea Sacchi.24 He never completed it, but he did produce a number of drawings and at least one oil sketch for the projected work. The oil sketch, now lost, was at one time in the Barberini collection, where it was seen by Bellori, who described it as follows:

One can still see in Palazzo Barberini the beautiful preparatory model for the largepainting that Sacchi was supposed to execute in St. Peter’s, representing Christ say­ing to Peter "Pasce Oves M eas,” in which Christ is shown standing and addressing

22 See Cat. SP. 4.24 See Cat. SP. 3.

23 Baglione, 1642, p. 302.

124 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

him, with other apostles nearby and in the background, and with a vista out to sea, where the nets have been left on the boat.25

On the basis ol Bellori’s description, it is possible to identify a small group ol drawings, including one composition study in the Uffizi, as preparatory material connected with the jopraporto. The Uffizi study gives one a good idea of the general outlines of the planned composition (Fig. 179). Christ stands near the center and turns to face Peter, who kneels on the right. With a gesture of his right hand, Christ points toward the llock of sheep on the left. Four apostles stand immediately behind Peter, while the others are visible in the middle ground pulling in the catch.

In spite of the meagerness of the surviving visual evidence, it is obvious that the two frescoes were intended to complement one another, not only iconographically but also for­mally.26 In fact, they were to have been near mirror images. In Pomarancio’s design, Peter kneels on the left and Christ stands on the right, while in Sacch i’s, the figures are arranged in the opposite order. Christ’s gestures are complementary (in Pomarancio’s composition, Christ points up toward heaven; in Sacchi’s, he points down, indicating the flock of sheep), and in both cases, the gestures direct the viewer’s glance toward the side of the composition nearest the opening into the apse - that is, nearest the papal throne. The gestures thus take on a double significance, referring to both Peter and Peter’s suc­cessor, the pope.

The designs of the two jopraporti suggest a high degree of controlled planning and artis­tic coordination. Someone must have told the artists precisely what to paint and how to paint it in order to ensure that the frescoes would complement and balance one another across the vast space that separated them. It may be that Bernini had a hand in the scheme. The concept of a pair of paintings thematically and compositionally linked, flank­ing the opening into the pontifical choir, smacks somehow of Bernini, the master of coor­dinated theatrical effects. And given that Bernini was at work at the same time on the bal- dacchino, the crossing piers, and the apse (where he had already set up the tomb of Paul III and was in the process of creating a tomb for Urban VIII), it makes sense that he would also have been given a role in the production of one or both of the adjacent jopraporti, thus ensuring him full artistic control over the two principal centers of the basilica (the cross­ing and the apse) as well as over the processional space linking them.27

The Washing of the Feet

In the case of the previous two jopraporti, the choice of subject matter was relatively straightforward. The Giving of the Keys and the “Feed M y Sheep" are parallel themes, both involving Christ’s delegation of power to Peter and, by extension, to Peter's succes­sor, the pope. Designed as they were to frame the opening into the pontifical choir, the explicit allusion to papal authority would have escaped no one. On the other hand, the

25 Bellori, 1672 (1976), pp. 566—67. The Italian text is transcribed in the Sources section at the end of Cat. SP. 3.

26 Chappell and Kirwin (1974, p. 144) have detected a similar relationship between the pair of altarpieces directly opposite these two jopraporti. According to them, C igoli’s Peter H ealing the Cripple [26] and Baglione’s Peter R ailing Tabitha [22] “complemented each other thematically and visually . . . Their jux­taposition in the Petrine cyc le presum ably w as p lanned esp ec ia lly for v iew ing from the jed ia pontificate. . . ." The idea is reiterated in Kirwin, 1985, p. 11.

27 For more on the question of Bernini’s possible involvement, see Cat. SP. 3. See also Sutherland Harris, 1987, pp. 52-53.

CHAPTER SEVEN / T H E SOPRAPORTI 1 2 5

rationale behind the choice of subject matter for the remaining four sopraporti is less imme­diately obvious. These were not planned in pairs and are best considered individually. Proceeding counterclockwise from the right, we begin with the sopraporto in the nave piccolo. between the Cappella Gregoriana and the right transept.

The fresco, representing Christ Washing the Feet o f P eter and the Other Apostles, was painted by Giovanni Baglione between 1629 and 1630.28 It was destroyed in the mid-eighteenth centuiy to make w ay for the tomb of Benedict XIV (Fig. 169). Fortunately, two highly finished bozzetti by Baglione survive to provide a reliable record of what the lost work looked like (Fig. 170).

The episode of the Washing of the Feet, recorded in the Gospel of St. John, occurred at the outset of the Passover feast, when Christ wrapped a towel around his waist, knelt down, and began to wash his disciples’ feet. Peter protested when he realized what was happening and tried to prevent Christ from washing his feet, but Christ explained that in performing this menial task he was setting an example of humility and service for his fol­lowers to imitate.

There is a double logic for the subject of this particular sopraporto. In the first place, the original decoration of the Cappella Gregoriana, as undertaken by Pope Gregory XIII, included a large lunette-shaped marble relief representing precisely the same scene (Figs. 33—34). Carved by Taddeo Landini in the late 1570s, it was located over the door in the east wall of the chapel [10].29 Before the nave was built, this door was one of the principal entrances into the new basilica, providing access to and Irom the Vatican Palace; Landini’s relief was thus in a highly prominent position, being the last thing the pope would see before leaving the basilica. In 1615, with the demolition of the m uro chvi- sorio, Paul V had Landini’s relief removed from St. Peter’s and taken to the Quirinal Palace, where Maderno installed it in the Sala Regia, over the entrance to the Cappella Paola.30 Hardly more than a decade elapsed between the relocation of Landini’s lunette and the inception of Baglione s fresco. The memory of the earlier work was still fresh in the minds of those who commissioned the sopraporto and undoubtedly influenced their choice of subject matter.

To perpetuate an iconographic tradition established half a centuiy earlier was one rea­son Baglione was told to represent the Washing of the Feet. But there was another, more basic rationale for the subject matter of both Landini’s relief and Baglione’s fresco, and it had to do with the Gregoriana s designation as sacrament chapel.

Both Landini’s and Baglione's over-doors were commissioned during the half century or so when the Gregoriana was used to house the eucharist, and their subject alludes to the chapel’s function. The Washing of the Feet has specifically sacramental connotations because it occurred at the Last Supper, moments before the Institution of the Eucharist, when Christ identified the bread and wine as his own flesh and blood. So closely related are the two episodes, the Washing of the Feet and the Last Supper, that they are some­times illustrated together. For example, Livio Agresti included the Washing of the Feet in the background of his La,<t Supper (c. 1573) in the Oratory of the Gonfalone; and so that no one should fail to register its eucharistic significance, he framed the vignette between vined solomonic columns identical to those that embellished the high altar and the sacra­ment altar in old St. Peter’s (Fig. 171 ).31

28 See Cat. SP. 1. 29 See Chapter 2, n. 5230 Orbaan, 1919, p. 138; Hibbard, 1971, pp. 182, 197.31 In countless representations of the Lcutt Supper, the W ashing of the Feet is alluded to through the pres­

ence of such items as a basin of water, a pitcher, and a towel.

126 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

One could argue that, as subjects go, the Last Supper or the closely related Institution of the Eucharist are more explicitly sacramental than the Washing of the Feet, and would therefore have been more appropriate in a sacrament chapel. But these scenes would have been out of place within the Peter cycle as a whole. For neither ol them involves Peter specifically. Peter was present at the Last Supper, naturally, but he was merely one among the apostles. He was not singled out by Christ, and thus the episode does not exemplify his privileged role as prin cep j apodtolorum. On the other hand, the story of the Washing of the Feet does just this, for, according to the biblical text, it was Peter who was the first to have his feet washed, Peter who objected to Christ’s servile act, and Peter to whom Christ explained its symbolic significance.

Furthermore, unlike the Last Supper, the W ashing ol the Feet was a story with strong papal associations. Annually, on M aundy Thursday, the pope performed a cere­monial act of feet-washing in imitation of Christ. Thirteen priests and deacons were chosen to stand in for the apostles, and in a ceremony in the Sala Ducale of the Vatican Palace, the pope publicly displayed his humility by kneeling in front of them and wash­ing and drying their feet.32 Another event held annually on M aundy Thursday was the consecration of the eucharist in preparation for Good Friday. According to Church tra­dition, consecrations are not permitted on Good Friday, and therefore the eucharistic fare intended for consumption during the Good Friday mass is consecrated the day before.33 In St. Peter’s, the ceremony took place at the sacrament altar in the Cappella Gregoriana. Thus, Baglione s fresco reflected a complex network of ritual traditions, at once reinforcing the sacramental character of the chapel in which it was situated and reminding the viewer of an important annual ceremony symbolizing the pope’s role as Christ’s vicar on earth.

Peter Baptizing Hitt Jailer j Proce.Mue and Martinian

For the nave piccola between the north transept and the northwest corner chapel, the Con­gregation commissioned a jopraporto representing St. Peter baptizing Sts. Processus and Martinian in the Mamertine prison. The commission went first to Agostino Ciampelli, but he died in 1630, before he could begin work on it. Andrea Camassei took over from him and completed the fresco in 1635.34 Toward the end of the eighteenth century it was demolished to make room for Canova’s tomb of Clement XIII (Fig. 173). The composition is preserved in a full-scale copy, in oil on canvas, probably painted shortly before the fresco was destroyed (Fig. 174). In addition, a preparatoiy drawing and three oil sketches by Camassei have survived (Figs. 175—177).

Of the six Peter stories chosen for the jopraporti, this was the only one that was not based on a biblical text and the only one that had to do with Peter’s stay in Rome. Proces-

— Needless to say, the ceremony was purely symbolic. Those who were chosen to take part were told to present themselves the day before to the papal Jtufarolo, who gave them a thorough pedicure; and when they appeared before the pope, they wore white leather slippers. For more on the papal ceremony of the feet-washing and its symbolism, see Moroni, 1840—79, VIII, pp. 296—300.

A medal was issued annually to commemorate the ritual washing: it featured a profile of the reigning pope on the obverse and a representation of Christ washing his disciples’ feet on the reverse. See Bar- tolotti, 1967, pp. vm—ix.

33 Harper, 1991, pp. 143—45. 31 See Cat. SP. 2.

CHAPTER SEVEN / T H E SOPRAPORTI 127

sus and Martinian were soldiers in the emperors army who were ordered to stand guard over Peter in the Mamertine prison. Instead, they fell under the spell of his preaching and were converted. When they asked to be initiated into the faith, Peter found that he had no water with which to baptize them. Undaunted, he called forth a fresh spring from the rocky wall of his cell and baptized his jailers with its water. The story, which presents the Apostle as a kind of second Moses, with the power to strike water from the rock, was the most celebrated and popular of Peter’s Roman miracles. Protestants discounted the episode of Peter and his jailers; and even learned Catholics, like Baronius, must have had their doubts about the credibility of the sources.35 But this was one of those stories that Baronius was willing to accept on simple faith. Perhaps the truth is that he was unwilling to invalidate one of the few legends linking Peter with the city of Rome.36

The question of Peter’s presence in Rome was one of the most hotly argued issues dividing Catholics and Protestants. Naturally, the Catholic position was that Peter came to Rome, that he founded a church there, and that he died and was buried there. Indeed, the pope’s claim to unique legitimacy as Christ’s representative on earth was largely based on this supposed chain of events. Protestants, on the other hand, relying on scriptural texts to the exclusion of all others, found no evidence of Peter’s stay in Rome and conse­quently challenged papal authority.37 In terms of the iconography of the Peter cycle as a whole, then, the scene of Peter baptizing his jailers contributed a vital element, because it placed the Apostle in Rome and thus provided visual confirmation of his direct involve­ment with the Roman Church.

C am assei’s oop raporto w as in a position corresponding to B aglione’s, but unlike Baglione's, which was meant to be understood in connection with the Cappella Gregori- ana, Camassei’s was in no w ay related to the adjacent corner chapel. Instead it was linked iconographically to the north transept, where the principal a ltar is dedicated to Sts. Processus and Martinian and contains their bodies.

In light of the fact that Processus and Martinian were represented in the altarpiece over the transept altar, it might at first seem odd that the cardinals considered it necessary to commission a second episode involving these two saints. The explanation once again has to do with the role played by Peter. The altarpiece represents the saints’ martyrdom - an obvious choice of subject given the presence of their bodies in the altar below. But Peter was not present at their deaths and does not appear in the painting. Only by illus­trating the story of their baptism was it possible to emphasize the close connection between Peter and his jailers. And the connection was an important one. Since the trans­lation of their relics in the ninth century, St. Peter’s had become the center of the cult of Processus and Martinian; and in the new church their prestige was if anything enhanced by the fact that the altar containing their bodies was situated directly across from the altar containing the body of Peter. Camassei’s oopraporto, located roughly halfway between the high altar and the transept altar, provided a kind of visual and iconographic bridge between them. Once again, therefore, the oopraporto had a double significance, pertaining both to the Peter cycle as a whole and to the section of the church in which it was located.

35 Male, 1932, pp. 133—34. 36 Baronio, 1738—46, I, year 68, chap. 24.37 Protestant theologians wrote numerous sermons and treatises aimed at disproving popular myths con­

cerning Peter’s Roman sojourn and his establishment of the Church of Rome. See, for example, U. Velenus, In hoc Ubello. . . probatur Petrum Romam non veniooe, negue illict paooum, proinde oatio frivo lc, d teniere Romantic Pan I ifew or P etri oucceooorem iactat, d nominal, Basel, 1520; C. Carlile, A ditcouroe o f Peter,' lyfe, p ere­grination and death. Wherein it p la in ly p rov ed . . . that P eter woo never a t Rome . . . Furthermore that neither Peter nor the pope Li the head o f Chritteo church, London, 1582. See also Lamping, 1976.

128 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

The Denial and Lamentation of Peter and Peter Healing with Hut Shadow

We move now to the passage between the southwest corner chapel and the south transept. The oopraporto there has a rather complicated history, since it was painted not once but twice, by two different artists, with two different subjects, during the pontificate of Urban VIII. The first artist assigned the job was Paolo Guidotti, also called the Cava- liere Borghese, who painted the Denial and Lamentation o f P eter in 1628.38 Guidotti ’s fresco does not survive, nor have any related drawings or bozzetti come to light. Even the precise subject matter is open to question. Some sources record that the painting represented Peter denying Christ before a crowd of people in the house of Pilate; others say that the subject was Peter’s subsequent repentance and lamentation. Probably Guidotti conflated the two episodes, illustrating the moment when Peter, hearing the cock crow, suddenly realizes the enormity of his crime and, turning from his accusers, goes out to weep.

The story of Peter s betrayal of Christ was a favorite among the faithful, perhaps because it demonstrated the human frailty of the Apostle and made him accessible to the average sinner. During the Counter Reformation, the story took on added popularity.39 Intimately associated in the Catholic consciousness with the sacrament of confession, Peter’s denial and lamentation were frequently cited in response to Protestant rejection of that sacrament, as proof of the role of confession and penitence in the pursuit of grace.40 Because Peter confessed in his heart and repented, he was forgiven for betraying Christ and readmitted into a state of grace. For this reason, it was not uncommon to find the scene represented on confessionals.41

It was probably because of its association with the sacrament of confession that the sub­ject of Peter’s denial was chosen for this particular oopraporto. As early as 1612, and proba­bly before, the transept was designated the area in St. Peter’s where the sacrament of con­fession took place. Grimaldi, on his annotated plan of the basilica from around 1615, indicates confessionals only in the north transept.42 At the time, however, the temporary choir still stood in the south transept, obstructing the space. It is virtually certain that once the choir was dismantled confessionals were set up in the south transept as well.43

There is additional evidence linking the transept with the sacrament of confession. In 1612, the Congregation commissioned a raised throne of carved wood for the Penitenziere maggiore, or Chief Penitentiary.44 From this chair the Chief Penitentiary performed his cere­monial role, directing the priests who heard confession in St. Peter’s and hearing confession

58 See Cat. SP. 5 (a).39 It was the subject of numerous poems, the most famous of which was Luigi Tansillo’s Lagrime t)i S.

Pietro, published in 1585 and later set to music by Orlando di Lasso (1595). See also n. 54 below.90 Male, 1932, pp. 66—67; Knipping, 1974, II, p. 324.‘ Knipping (1974, II, pi. 311) illustrates a Flemish confessional of the mid-seventeenth century, with

wooden carvings of Peter and Christ, the one looking remorsefully toward the other, and with a rooster between them recalling Christ’s prophecy: "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice’’ (Matthew 26:34; M ark 14:30; Luke 22:34).

42 See Doc. Appendix, no. 1. In 1624, additional confessionals were located in the northwest corner chapel (see Doc. Appendix, no. 3).

43 They were certainly there by 1700 at the latest, when a set of thirteen new confessionals, commissioned by Cardinal Francesco Barberini the Younger in 1698, and executed by Guglielmo Verne and Padre Adriano Rancourt, were installed. (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 12, f. 817.)

44 [Dec. 20, 1612] "S e ordinato che si faccia una bella sedia di noce per servizio dell’Illustrissimo et Rev- erendissimo Signor Cardinale Borghese sommo penitentiero et si ponga in San Pietro nel suo destinato luogo." (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3—no. 159a [Decreta 1612—25], f. 7v.) The chair was carved by Gioseppe Bianchi, who was paid a total of 400,<r«di for his work (Orbaan, 1919, p. 124).

CHAPTER SEVEN / T H E SOPRAPORTI g g 1 2 9

himself on those occasions when prominent personages visited the basilica.45 Grimaldi indi­cates that the throne was placed against the east face of the northwest crossing pier, or just inside the north transept.46 At a later date, however, the chair was moved from the north transept to the corresponding location in the south transept, where it appears in old pho­tographs (Fig. 66).47 Although it is uncertain when the transfer occurred, again it seems likely that it was soon after the temporary choir was removed. That the chair was intended from the start for the south rather than the north transept is suggested by the fact that one of the altars in the south transept, that of St. Thomas, was under the official jurisdiction of the Cardinal Penitentiary. According to the terms of the altars original endowment, the Penitentiary had the right to say mass there whenever he wished and to appoint a protege to the altars chaplaincy.48 It stands to reason that the throne of the Penitentiary would have been positioned as near as possible to the altar associated with his office.49

In view of the proximity of the dopraporto to the transept, and the transepts associations with the sacrament of confession and with the office of the Cardinal Penitentiary, it is easy to see why Peter s penitence (his confession in pectore) was considered an appropriate subject. To someone approaching from the crossing, the Penitentiary's throne and the dopraporto beyond it would have been visible at a single glance; it made sense that they should be coor­dinated (Fig. 66). There is even reason to think that the Penitentiary himself was responsi­ble for this. Cardinal Scipione Borghese held the office when both the chair and the dopra- porto were commissioned, and he seems to have had a hand in the creation of each. In the case of the chair, his involvement is signaled by the Borghese eagles and dragons that deco­rate it.50 In the case of the fresco, it is the choice of artist that reveals Borghese s influence, for Paolo Guidotti was his protege and retainer and almost certainly obtained the commis­sion through him.51

45 The Chief Penitentiary was one of the highest-ranking officials in the Church hierarchy. A cardinal, he was appointed to the office for life. His duties included acting as confessor to the pope and heading the powerful Penitenzieria Apostolica, the tribunal that dealt with the internal affairs of the Church, such as the granting of indulgences and dispensations of various kinds. In addition, he directed the groups of priests (called penitenzieri) whose primary task was to hear confessions in St. Peters, the Lateran, and S. M aria Maggiore. For more on the office of the Cardinal Penitentiary, see Petra, 1712, pp. 90-112; Moroni, 1840-79, LII, pp. 61-69.

46 Doc. Appendix, no. 1.47 The chair is today in one of the octagonal storerooms in the upper level of the basilica.48 [M ay 19, 1624] "A sinistro [sic\ vero latere pari modo est altare sub Invocatione Sancti Thomae Apos-

toli, quod esse dicitur sacrae Poenitentiariae [. . .] Cardinalis Summus Poenitentiarius deputat Cappel- lanum pro celebratione missarum . . . ” (Doc. Appendix, no. 3.) See also Cat. 13. PxjZjDlP

49 In the position it occupied until the first half of this century, the chair stood directly beneath^Paolo Campi's statue of St. Giuliana Falconieri, one of the series of statues of founders of religious orders that fill the niches of the nave, transepts, and apse of St. Peter's. In a rare photograph that records the arrangement, one can see that a dramatic relationship existed between the statue and the chair (Fig. 66). The saint leans out of her niche, looking directly down and opening her arms as though in response to what she sees. One has to imagine the overall effect, with the Chief Penitentiary seated below, in full cardinalitial regalia, and a penitent, usually a person of distinction, seated or kneeling beside him, the whole splendid scene encompassed within the sain t’s tender embrace. If, as I am proposing, the sculptor took the position of the chair into account in designing his statue, then it fol­lows that the chair had been transferred to the south transept before 1732, when the statue was made. (On the statue, see Enggass, 1976, I, p. 181; II, pis. 184—85.)

Another piece of circumstantial evidence points to the presence of the throne in the south transept even earlier. When it came time to replace the old confessionals with new ones, thirteen were ordered for the south transept (in 1698) and fourteen for the north transept (in 1785). The presence of the Car­dinal Penitentiary's throne in the south transept would explain w hy there was one fewer confessional there. (See AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3—no. 12, ff. 814, 817.)

50 See n. 44 above. 51 See Chapter 8.

130 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

In 1635 Urban VIII ordered Guidotti's painting destroyed and replaced by a new Iresco by Gian Francesco Romanelli representing Peter Healing with Hu< Shadow. It is unclear what brought about this turn ol events. At the time, there were two oopraporti still to be executed. The fact that Romanelli was assigned neither ol these but one that had already been painted suggests that there was a specific objection to Guidotti’s picture. The fresco may have been damaged or ruined. If so, Guidotti would not have been the first to see his work deteriorate rapidly in the damp interior of St. Peter’s. Yet on previous occasions when a painting was removed because of damage, it was replaced by another with the same subject matter.52 Instead, Guidotti’s Lamentation was supplanted by an entirely different scene. Passeri hints at graver problems: "The oopraporto was first painted by Cavaliere Guidotti, but with another subject from the Acts of the Apostle Peter; and in order to justify the removal of that painting (per oneotare i lg e t l ito d i guella pit!lira), they gave Romanelli a differ­ent subject.”53 Passeri’s insinuation that the subject was changed primarily to provide an excuse for getting rid of the earlier work is tantamount to an accusation that Guidotti’s painting was condemned on other, presumably aesthetic, grounds. It remains a possibility, however, that the rejection of the picture had less to do with its physical condition or with its artistic shortcomings than with the implications of its subject matter.

As we have already seen, Peter’s denial of Christ was a popular subject in the seven­teenth century. Urban VIII himself, while still Maffeo Barberini, wrote a sonnet on the theme.54 Nevertheless, those vety aspects of the story that some found so appealing, oth­ers may have judged unsuitable for representation in the Apostle’s church. The Petrine cycle in St. Peter’s was intended to celebrate the superhuman, not the human, aspect of the saint’s career. It illustrated his leadership, his power, his miracles, and his special rela­tionship with Christ. In this context, Peter's denial of Christ may have seemed a singularly inappropriate episode, better omitted. The fact that the fresco was replaced by a represen­tation of one of the saint 's most heroic miracles lends credence to this possibility.

Romanelli’s work was commissioned in 1635 and completed in 1637, long after the other oopraporti (Fig. 184).55 The subject, Peter healing with his shadow, had once been intended for tbe altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir, but why the Congregation now set­tled on it for the new oopraporto is uncertain. Perhaps the idea was to set up a thematic link between the oopraporto and the nearby altarpiece by Cigoli representing a related subject, Peter Healing the Lame Alan [26] (Fig. 39). But the two paintings were located around a corner from each other, and it would have been difficult to see them together. In all likeli­hood, therefore, the choice was casual. Either the Congregation was no longer concerned about relating the oopraporti to their immediate surroundings, or else in this case they sim­ply found no convenient w ay of doing so.

The Calling of Peter and Andrew

The oopraporto located between the Cappella Clementina and the south transept was to have represented the Calling o f Peter and Andrew.56 The commission went in 1628 to Pietro

52 Bernardo Castello’s Peter Walking on the Water was replaced by a version of the same subject by Gio­vanni Lanlranco; and Passignano’s Preoentation o f the Virgin was replaced by Romanelli’s Preoentation o f the Virgin.

53 Passeri, p. 307. The Italian text is transcribed in the Sources section at the end of Cat. SP. 5 (a).54 Cited in Torrigio, 1644. The poem begins: "Poi che la colpa tua con pianto amaro/Lavasti, o PIETRO,

in te crebbe I’amore/Verso il culto di Cristo . . . ”55 See Cat. SP. 5 (b). 56 See Cat. SP. 6.

C H A PT E R SEVEN / T H E S O P R A P O R T I gg 1 3 1

da Cortona; but, like Sacchi, he never got around to painting the fresco, and the space remained empty for nearly half a century.

The story of the Calling is appropriate for a cycle of pictures celebrating Peter’s pri­macy, because it alludes to the belief that Peter was the first of the apostles to be called to Christ (Matthew 4:18—20) and that it was at the moment of his conversion that Christ gave him a new name, calling him Peter — the rock — an honor bestowed on no other apos­tle (John 1:42).5/ But the painting would have had additional significance in the site for which it was planned, for it would have been seen directly opposite Passignano’s altar- piece of the Crucifixion o f St. Peter [37] (Fig. 37). The idea was surely to create a thematic correspondence between the oopraporto and the altarpiece. Ju s t as Peter’s conversion marks the beginning, so his martyrdom marks the end of his Christian life on earth. All other Peter stories in the basilica fall chronologically between these two episodes; by jux­taposing them, the program planners were defining them as the alpha and omega of the Peter cycle as a whole.58

THE FATE O F THE PETR IN E C Y C L E

The cycle of oopraporti was nev er completed. The two most prestigious artists involved in the project, Andrea Sacchi and Pietro da Cortona, both failed to produce their assigned paint­ings. Toward the end of the pontificate of Urban VIII, the Congregation entertained peti­tions from Mattia Preti and Gian Domenico Cerrini, who were hoping to get commissions for the remaining frescoes.59 Urban’s death put an end to whatever expectations they may have had, and thereafter nothing was done about the oopraporti for nearly a quarter century. The urgency seems to have gone out of the planning. Innocent X had other priorities when it came to the decoration of St. Peter's. And perhaps it was already becoming apparent to some that the oopraporti could not remain permanent fixtures in the basilica. The space they occupied was simply too valuable and was needed to house the tombs of future popes.

Bernini was the first to replace one of the oopraporti with a sepulchral monument, the tomb of Pope Alexander VII. The development of his idea of converting a space over a door into a setting for a grandiose sculptural display can be traced through a sequence of preparatory drawings. Among other things, these drawings reveal that not until well into the project was a site for the tomb definitively settled on. The first surviving drawing, in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, represents an early idea for the tomb, which seems initially to have been planned for the over-door space to the right of the tribune, which had been left empty by Andrea Sacchi (Fig. 68).60 At this stage, Bernini still retained the original, flat- backed form of the niche, and owing to its shallowness, he was able to include only a single

57 See Doc. Appendix, no. 17.58 This type of narrative juxtaposition was common in Roman church decoration of the sixteenth and sev­

enteenth centuries. There are innumerable examples of chapels in which the side walls feature pendant images of the titular saint s birth (or conversion or investiture or spiritual initiation of one kind or another) and death. These include, to name but a few, the Contarelli chapel in S. Luigi dei Francesi, dedicated in honor of St. Matthew, with Caravaggio’s Calling and /Martyrdom o f St. M atthew on the side walls; the Polet chapel in the same church, dedicated in honor of St. Cecilia, with Domenichino’s St. Cecilia D istributing Her Worldly Poooeooumo and /Martyrdom o f St. Cecilia on the side walls; the Pelucchi chapel in S. M aria della Consolazione, dedicated in honor of St. Andrew, with the Calling and /Martyr­dom o f St. Andrew by an anonymous late-sixteenth-centuiy artist on the side walls; and the chapel of the Virgin in S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, with the Birth and Death o f the Virgin, by Agostino Ciampelli and Anastasio Fontebuoni respectively, on the side walls.

59 See Poliak, nos. 123, 124. 60 Fehl, 1986, pp. 114-15.

132 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

layer of figures. The next stage is represented by two drawings, one at Windsor Castle, the other in a private collection in the United States (Figs. 69-70). Philipp Fehl has shown that the Windsor drawing situates the tomb not in its present location, as is usually supposed, but over the door to the left of the tribune (i.e. in the space occupied by Pomarancio’s Giv­ing o f the K ey o).6x At this stage Bernini decided to cut back into the niche, making it deeper, and rounding it off with a perspective arch that makes it appear deeper still. This enabled him to add a second layer of figures, although the figures appear rather cramped. In the final stage, Bernini moved the tomb to the site where we see it today, over the door between the chapel of the Madonna della Colonna and the south transept. At the same time, he dispensed with the flat-backed niche altogether and replaced it with a deep, semi­circular niche better suited to accommodate sculpture (Fig. 67).62

Bernini’s decision to carve a semicircular niche out of the wall necessitated the removal of the oopraporto that occupied the space, Romanelli’s Peter Healing with Hu< Shadow. The eas­iest course of action would have been to cut straight through the fresco. But Cardinal Barberini, who had arranged for Romanelli to paint the oopraporto in the first place, was unwilling to see the work of his favorite artist obliterated. Bernini was told to go to what­ever lengths necessary to preserve the fresco; and so, in an operation that was as costly as it was delicate, he detached it from the wall and transported it to the empty over-door space beside the Clementina.

After the completion of the tomb of Alexander VII, it was a foregone conclusion that the other five over-door spaces would eventually be taken over for the same purpose. The first to follow was the tomb of Clement X (mid-1680s); then came the tombs of Alexander VIII (1700-1725), Benedict XIV (1759), Clement XIII (1784-92), and Pius VIII (c. 1857). Unfortunately, the builders of these tombs were not as respectful as Bernini had been of the works of art they replaced. One by one the oopraporti were destroyed, and thus it is that, of the original frescoes, only Romanelli’s — thanks to Cardinal Barberini’s inter­vention — survives to this day.

C O N C L U SIO N

Peter is the vital link between the historical Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. The popes inherit their apostolic prerogative from Peter, who in turn received it directly from Christ. Indeed, the prestige of the papacy is largely dependent on this supposed delega­tion of authority from Christ to Peter and from Peter to his successors, the popes of Rome. Under the circumstances, it was only natural that in St. Peter’s, the spiritual head­quarters of the papacy, Petrine imagery should play a prominent role. This was the case in old St. Peter’s, where there were at various times at least five different cycles of stories from Peter's life.63 In the new church the tradition was continued first by Clement VIII, who commissioned the six Petrine altarpieces in the navip iccole, and then by Paul V. The latter was responsible for the most exhaustive of all the Peter cycles, on the vault of the

»' Ibid., p. 115.62 Recent studies of Bernini’s tomb of Alexander VII include Schlegel, 1984; Bemstock, 1988; Montagu,

1989, pp. 109—14; Koortbojian, 1991; Zollikofer, 1994.63 These include a possible filth - c e n t u r y cycle on the left wall of the nave; a seventh-centuiy cycle in the

transept; a cycle beside the oratory of John VII; the bronze doors of Filarete; the marble reliefs on the ciborium of Sixtus IV; and a series of paintings by Federico Zuccaro in the portico. See Grimaldi, pp. 117—18, 167—79, 198—202, 389; Weis, 1963, p. 231 and fig. 23a; Waetzoldt, 1964, pp. 66—67, figs. 465-72; Tronzo, 1985, p. 105.

CHAPTER SEVEN / T H E SOPRAPORTI g g 1 3 3

great entrance portico of the basilica, as well as for the isolated image of the Giving o f the Key,i on the facade.64 Urban VIII picked up where his predecessors left off, commissioning a series of Peter altarpieces for the nave chapels, and when this proved impracticable, transferring the cycle to the over-door spaces in the navi piccole.

As it was planned and partially executed, the Peter cycle played an essential part in Urban’s scheme for the outfitting of St. Peter’s, for it was here that he was able to express critical themes having to do with the validity and power of the papacy. Urban’s cycle dif­fered somewhat in character from Clement’s cycle, of which it was in a sense a continua­tion. Of the six Peter paintings commissioned by Clement, all but one represented scenes that occur a fter the death of Christ, or in other words, after Peter has assumed the mantle of leadership. In Urban’s cycle, the ratio was exactly reversed: all but one of the scenes take place before Christ’s death and, indeed, involve Christ’s presence. The two exceptions - Castello’s (later Lanfranco’s) Peter Walking on the Water in the earlier cycle and Camas- sei’s Peter Baptizing Hit Ja ilerj in the later one - were positioned directly opposite each other, so that here too the relationship between the two cycles was maintained. Both cycles attempted to prove the fundamental tenet that Peter was Christ’s chosen successor. But whereas Clement's cycle did this by stressing the Apostle's god-given power to work miracles (a power he was endowed with only after Christ’s death), Urban’s cycle achieved the same by emphasizing Peter’s special relationship with Christ during Christ's life. With the exception of Peter Baptizing Hut ,Ja Here (and Peter Healing with Hui Shadow, added later), the scenes included in Urban's cycle were all derived from the Gospels. Their authenticity and historical accuracy were thus unquestionable and incontrovertible.

The six jopraporti were elegantly conceived in terms of their programmatic arrange­ment. We have seen how each scene was chosen for its relevance to the particular part of the church in which it was situated as well as for its suitability within the cycle as a whole. But the jopraporti should also be understood in a larger context, as belonging to the mono­graphic development of the crossing. At the time they were being commissioned, Bernini was at work on the monumental bronze baldachin over the papal high altar as well as on the niches and reliquaries in the four crossing piers. Positioned symmetrically around the central core of the basilica, the jopraporti, and the Clementine altarpieces opposite them, constituted the outer rim of a centrally conceived iconographic scheme that had at its heart the tomb of the Apostles and the high altar above (Fig. 71). By alluding to both Peter (in the tomb) and the pope (at the high altar), the Petrine cycle made explicit the multifaceted symbolism of the church.

M On the stuccos in the vault of the portico, which include no fewer than thirty-nine scenes from the life of St. Peter, see Sedlmayer, 1960, pp. 17—22. Paul V also planned to have Lanfranco paint the vault of the benediction loggia with a cycle of stories from the lives of Peter and Paul, but the project was aban­doned with the pope’s death in 1621. See Schleier, 1970, pp. 40—67.

P A R T T H R E E

The Commissions

C H A P T E R E I G H T

P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G THE BA R B E R I NI P ONT I F I C A T E

t o *

Under Urban VIII, some twenty-two artists received commissions for altarpieces or sopraporti in St. Peter’s .1 They were a heterogeneous group; among them were members of an older generation of mannerist painters, Caravaggists, Bolognese followers

of the Carracci, and younger exponents of a style that would come to be called High Baroque. In any other church one would expect to find a degree of stylistic diversity among its altarpieces, for where chapels are privately owned, their altarpieces reflect the artistic preferences of the individual patrons. But in St. Peter’s, where there was no pri­vate ownership of chapels, and where the altarpieces were assigned not by individuals but by a committee of cardinals, it comes as something ol a surprise to discover artists of such widely different stylistic tendencies working side by side. To understand how this came about, we need to consider who was responsible for distributing the commissions and the factors that influenced their choices.

THE N O M I N A TI O N A N D S E L E C T I O N O F A R T I S T S

The commissions for the altarpieces in St. Peter’s were handed out by the Congregation of card inals in charge of the Fabbrica. The Congregation included members such as Francesco M aria del Monte, Scipione Borghese, and Pietro Paolo Crescenzi, noted patrons and collectors in their own right, who knew the Roman art world intimately and who could be relied on to make competent assessments of the artists under consideration. When, as sometimes happened, no one on the committee could claim familiarity with the work of a particular candidate, one or more cardinals were assigned to investigate the

1 These included Giovanni Baglione, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Giovanni Battista Calandra, Andrea Camas- sei, Angelo Caroselli, Gaspare Celio, Giuseppe Cesari d ’Arpino, Agostino Ciampelli, Pietro da Cortona, Domenichino, Paolo Guidotti, Giovanni Lanfranco, Domenico Passignano, Carlo Pellegrini, Antonio Pomarancio, Nicolas Poussin, Guido Reni, Giovanni Francesco Romanelli, Andrea Sacchi, Spadarino, Valentin, and Simon Vouet. In addition, a number of reputable artists, such as Franceso Albani, Gio­vanni Domenico Cerrini, Baccio Ciarpi, Giovanni da San Giovanni, M attia Preti, Giovanni Serodine, and possibly Alessandro Tiarini, were either seriously considered for commissions or tentatively offered them, only to have them fall through lor one reason or another.

137

138 | | T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

candidate’s qualifications and report back to the others. In M ay 1627, for example, Cardi­nals Zacchia and Aldobrandini were appointed to check up on a small group ol artists who had been recommended to the committee, “[since] at the moment none of the cardi­nals has certain information as to their skill or quality. ”2 No doubt Zacchia and Aldobran­dini were expected to seek out and question the artists’ previous employers and visit the churches and palaces where their works were on view. That the committee bothered with such measures is a sign that it took its responsibilities seriously; and on the whole it proved itself well able to evaluate the candidates and to select the best among them.

It was understood from the beginning that a church as singularly prestigious as St. Peter's must have altarpieces by the most talented and renowned artists of the day. The cardinals were particularly anxious to secure the participation of Guido Reni, who was w idely regarded as the foremost painter in Italy. "The cardinals of the Fabbrica di S. Pietro consider it highly desirable that there should be among the paintings now being commissioned for St. Peter’s one by the hand of Signor Guido Rem, the most celebrated and famous painter of our times.”3 On October 17, 1626, Cardinal Ginnasi of the Congre­gation, himself a native of Bologna, wrote to Rem in Bologna to offer him a commission. Fearful that the notoriously temperamental artist might turn the offer down, Ginnasi took the precaution of writing additional letters to Girolamo Ravaglio, the Fabbrica’s agent in Bologna, and Cardinal Ubaldini, papal legate to that city, to ask their help in encouraging Reni to accept a commission:

The cardinals [of the Congregation] greatly desire that Signor Guido paint one of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s, and therefore they write to you to ask that you seek him out and if necessary urge him to accept this favor, pointing out to him the great honor that is done to him, in that the Congregation solicits his services and offers him that which is solicited by others and obtained only with difficulty.4

Ginnasi s tactics worked; Reni accepted the commission and came to Rome. But whether his heart was really in the project is another matter. In a letter to a friend, he claimed that he had agreed to participate only in order to avoid alienating his sponsor, Cardinal Francesco Barberini.5 He made exorbitant demands — insisting, for example, on being paid a monthly salary — and soon stirred resentment among the other artists and even among the members of the Congregation that eventually resulted in his losing the commission.6

Reni's case was exceptional. No other painter was courted so assiduously or offered

2 “Et quia adhuc pingendae supersunt Tabulae Altans Sanctorum Processi, et AAartiniam aliaeque duae Collaterales, pro quibus supradictl alij Pictores instant de illorum pentia, et qualitate aliqui ex Illustris- simis Dominis certam notitiam ad praesens non babentes, rogarunt Illustrissimos Dominos Cardinales Sancti Sixti et Aldobrandmum, ut de praemissis se diligenter inlorment, et deinde huic Sacrae Congre­gation! referant." (Poliak, no. 94.)

3 “A questi Ulustrissimi miei Signori della fabrica di S. Pietro par molto conveniente, che Ira le tavole, che tan pingere in S. Pietro se ne veda una di man’ del Signor Guido Arena tanto celebre et famoso Pittore di q[ues]ti Tempi . . .” (Poliak, no. 82.)

9 "Questi Ulustrissimi miei Signori desid[era]no grand[em ent]e che l'S ignor Guido pignesse una di q[ues]te Tavole in S. Pietro et percio gli scrivono l’a llig [at]a a V.S. accio lei lo ricerchi et bisogniando lo preghi ad accettar volentier di farli q[ues]to piacere mostrandoli esser’ grand’honor’ suo che di quello, che da altri vien pregato, et dilficilm[en]te concede preghi lui et li ofterischi q[ues]ta Cong[regazio]ne.. . ." (Poliak, no. 80.)

5 "Finalmente, per non disgustare il sig. card. Barberino, son restato per far la tavola di S. Pietro." The relevant portion of the letter, dated August 19, 1627, and addressed to Antonio Galeazzo Fibbia, is tran­scribed in the Documents section at the end ol Cat. 6. 1 am grateful to Anthony Colantuono for bringing the passage to my attention.

6 See Cat. 6.

CHAPTER EIGHT / P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G T H E B A R B E R I N I P O N T I F I C A T E 139

such enticements to take part in the project; and only Reni ol all those commissioned to paint altarpieces in St. Peter’s did not have to petition for the privilege but was instead petitioned by the Congregation to accept it. Artists less in demand than Reni could not expect the Congregation to come to them. If they wanted a commission, it was up to them to approach the Congregation.

The distribution of the altarpieces was not decided on the basis of formal competitions. Instead, artists appealed directly to the cardinals of the Congregation. In their letters of application, they did their utmost to present themselves as available, willing, and, above all, deserving of a commission. The letter Antonio Pomarancio wrote in 1626 to Cardinal Rivarola of the Congregation is a fine example.7 He began by reminding the cardinal that Cristofano Roncalli had been promised a (large) altarpieee in St. Peters, which he had been prevented from executing by his recent death.8 Having stressed his own relationship to Roncalli by appending "detto il Pomarancio” to Roncalli s name, he asked that he be allowed to inherit his adopted brother's commission. Modesty had no place in a letter of this kind; if for some reason Roncalli’s large altarpieee was no longer available, he contin­ued, he would be w illing to paint two small ones instead, “especially since there are a quantity of these to be done. ”9 Finally, he attached a list of the patrons for whom he had worked in the past and the locations where his paintings could be seen, thus touting his own credentials while also making it easier for the Congregation to check on them should it be considered necessary. Not all letters of application were as meticulous as Pomaran- cio’s. The virtually unknown Benigno Vangelini, art instructor to the sons of Taddeo Bar- berini,10 wrote so brief and unassuming a letter that one can only conclude that he recog­nized from the start his chances of securing a commission were slim:

The painter Benigno Vangelini humbly asks that the cardinals of the Congregation deign to honor him with one of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s, in the execution of which he hopes to give every satisfaction, by virtue of his skilled expertise in a pro­fession that he has long practiced both in and out of Rome.11

Sure enough, although as a matter of routine his name was placed on a list of artists being considered for commissions, he did not receive one. Giovanni Domenico M artiani, Flaminio Allegrini, Baccio Ciarpi, Girolamo Nebula, Pietro Paolo Bisante, Alessandro Vaiani, Alberto de’ Rossi, and probably many others of their modest stature submitted similar applicatrons and were stmilarly turned down.12 A more serious candidate was Gio­vanni Serodine, a Ticino-born Caravaggesque painter of outstanding talent and original­

7 Poliak, no. 62. It was not by chance that Pomarancio addressed his petition to Cardinal Rivarola. He had worked for the cardinal in the past - he designed the thesis broadsheet of the cardinal’s nephew, who defended in Philosophy at the Collegio Romano in 1623 - and he no doubt hoped to enlist Rivarola’s personal support by writing to him directly.

8 Roncalli died on M ay 14, 1626, at the age ol seventy-four. This is the only mention in the surviving documents of a second altarpieee having been assigned to him. (Earlier, ot course, he had painted one of the Petrine altarpieces commissioned by Clement VIII. ) Possibly Pomarancio was exaggerating Roncalli s claim in order to improve his own chances lor a commission.

9 “. . . in caso, che l ’O r[ator]e non la possi conseguir sia almen favorito di due delle piccole, mass[im]e che se s ’hanno da far molte. . . . ” (Poliak, no. 62.)

10 Baglione, 1642, pp. 366—67.11 "Benigno Vangelini Pittore supplica humil[men]te le SS. VV. 111.me a degnarsi honorarlo di uno delli

quadri da pingere per qualche Altare in San Pietro, nel quale spera, dar ogni conveniente sodisfatione per la buona peritia che ha nella professione da lui longo tempo essercitata in Roma, e luori.” (Poliak, no. 66.)

12 Poliak, nos. 94, 100, 107, 111; Doc. Appendix, nos. 24—26.

140 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

ity. Serodine wrote to the Congregation in September 1630 requesting an altarpiece, and apparently was given reason to think that he might expect one.13 Unfortunately, his pre­mature death three months later put an end to his chances.14 Giovanni da S. Giovanni, who had established his reputation in Rome with his spectacular fresco cycle in the apse of SS. Quattro Coronati (1623), addressed his petition to Cardinal Ginnasi.15 Perhaps because he felt more comfortable working in fresco than in oil, he asked to paint the vault of the chapel of the Crucifix rather than one of the altarpieces; nevertheless, his name too was added to the list of candidates for altarpieces, and he might have been assigned one had he not left Rome the following year.

In general, artists had a better chance of getting a commission if they had the backing of a powerful patron. Antonio Pomarancio, for example, was recommended by Lucretia Magalotti Vaini, the pope’s sister-in-law.16 Angelo Caroselli’s career had long been pro­moted by his loyal patron Monsignor Prospero Fagnani, and the latter, at least according to Passeri, helped him attain the commission for the St. Wenceslas altarpiece.17 Some­times, though, a patron s best efforts to assist his protege were in vain. The fact that Benigno Vangelini was recommended by Cardinal Giacomo de' Cavalieri was not enough to secure him an altarpiece.18 Cardinal Maurizio di Savoia tried very hard to get a com­mission for the Bolognese painter Giovanni Giacomo Sementi, who was in his service.19 He not only wrote to the Congregation himself on Sementi s behalf but also encouraged another of his proteges, the composer Stefano Landi, to use his position as a member of the Chapter of St. Peter’s to support the painter’s candidacy.20 Landi was chaplain of the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian, and it was in this capacity that he wrote to Cardinal Ginnasi, requesting that his altar be provided with a new altarpiece and recommending Sementi for the job:

I recommend to Your Eminence a most excellent painter called Giovanni Giacomo [Sementi] from Bologna, who belongs to the household of His Most Serene High­ness Prince Cardinal di Savoia, whom he serves as painter with a regular stipend, and who is certain to give complete satisfaction.21

Despite these maneuvers, Sementi was not awarded a commission. He may, in fact, have spoiled his own chances. According to Malvasia, the petty accusations he leveled at his for-

13 [Sept. 16, 1630] “Joanne Serodine Pictore peten[te] sibi pingenfdam] concedi aliquant ex tabulis huius Basilicae. Expectet.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 172, f. 65.)

14 Serodine died on December 21, 1630 (Serodine, 1987, p. 145).16 Poliak, no. 68.16 Poliak, no. 62. Lucrezia Vaini was the sister of Costanza Magalotti, who married the pope’s brother

Carlo Barberini and was the mother of Urban’s three nephews (see Pecchiai, 1949, p. 14).17 "Gli fu dato, col mezzo di Monsignor Fagnani, da dipingere uno de’ Quadri piccioli ne’ bracci del Tem-

pio di San Pietro in Vaticano. . . . ” (Passeri, p. 193.) The records of the Fabbrica contain partial confir­mation of Passeri’s statement, for they indicate the receipt of a letter written by Fagnani on Caroselli’s behalf. The letter itself seems not to have survived. See Cat. 12, n. 11.

18 [Nov. 4, 1626] “Son’ proposti a dipingere le Tavole non date [. . .] Benigno Ugolini dal Signor Cardi- nale del Cavaliere” (Doc. Appendix, no. 9.)

19 Sementi (1583—1636/42) came to Rome around 1626. He became court painter to Cardinal Maurizio di Savoia and, as such, resided in his palace and received a monthly stipend. See Baglione, 1642, pp. 344-45; Malvasia, 1841, II, pp. 249-50; Pellicciari, 1984.

20 See Cat. 11, esp. nn. 14—17.21 “. . . l'oratore propone a V.S. Ill.ma un pittore ecc.mo chiamato Gio. Jacom o Bolognese, che sta in casa

del Ser.mo S.r Principe Card, di Savoia, et lo serve di pittore con prov[isio]ne continua, che e sicuro che dara compita sodisf[attion]e.” (Poliak, no. 74.)

C H A PT E R EI GHT / P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G T H E B A R B E R I N 1 P O N T I F I C A T E g f 1 4 1

mer teacher Guido Reni contributed to the latter's decision to abandon his altarpiece and return to Bologna.22 The Congregation could have had little sympathy for the second-rate artist who had caused them to lose the services of the most admired painter in the land.

THE C A R D I N A L S OF THE C O N G R E G A T I O N

Painters who had one or more patrons among the cardinals of the Congregation had a dis­tinct advantage over those who did not. To have the support of one of these cardinals did not necessarily guarantee an artist a commission, but it certainly helped. In several cases, mediocre artists who would not otherwise have received serious consideration were awarded altarpieces through the influence of friendly members of the committee. There can be little question that Gaspare Celio, for one, benefited from this sort of favoritism.23 Celio was among the first artists assigned altarpieces following the election of Urban VIII: in Jan uary 1624, he was chosen to execute the Baptiim o f Chriot over the altar in the first chapel on the left of the nave.24 He was a painter of modest talent and reputation, and it is unimaginable that he would have been given such a prestigious commission had he not had two powerful allies on the Congregation. One was Cardinal Domenico Ginnasi. Gin- nasi had selected Celio to instruct his niece, the painter Caterina Ginnasi, and for this he paid him a monthly salary and showed him other marks of favor. Both Baglione and Passeri assert that it was Ginnasi who arranged for Celio to get the commission in St. Peter’s.25 But the documents suggest that another member of the committee may have played a more important role. Cardinal Pier Paolo Crescenzi’s connections with Celio were of long standing. He and his brother, the nobleman-painter and architect Giovanni Battista Crescenzi, received artistic instruction from Cristofano Roncalli, whose adopted father Niccolo had been Celio’s teacher. According to Baglione, the Crescenzi retained close ties to Celio and used their influence to secure him important assignments.26 In November 1623, less than two months before Celio received his commission, Cardinal Crescenzi was put in charge of deciding on a suitable w ay to decorate the baptismal chapel; under the circumstances, it stands to reason that he had something to do with the appointment.

Another second-rate artist who in all likelihood was given a commission in St. Peter's through the good offices of one of the cardinals on the committee was Paolo Guidotti.27 Guidotti had early on ingratiated himself with Cardinal Scipione Borghese and had subse­quently become a kind of gentleman retainer, knighted by Pope Paul V and granted the exceptional privilege of using the Borghese name as his own. Scipione Borghese was a loyal supporter of the "Cavaliere Borghese,” as he was known, and frequently commis­sioned works from him, including a couple of frescoed altarpieces for his titular church, S. Crisogono.28 So when it came to distributing the jop raporti in St. Peter’s, it is safe to assume that it was he who secured one for his protege, even though his name does not actually appear in any of the documents connected with the commission.

22 Sementi accused Reni of procrastinating at the expense of the Fabbrica. See Malvasia, 1841, II, pp. 26-27; Cat. 18.

23 For the literature on Celio, see Cat. 3 (a), esp. n. 8.24 See Cat. 3 (a). 25 Baglione, 1642, p. 379; Passeri, p. 257.26 Baglione, 1642, pp. 378—79.27 For the literature on Guidotti, see Cat. SP. 5 (a), n. 1.28 Baglione, 1642, pp. 303—304; Guide rionali, XIII, ii, pp. 202-203, 210.

142 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

Mediocre artists like Celio and Guidotti were not the only ones to benefit from know­ing a member of the Congregation. Younger artists who had not yet established reputa­tions had little chance of obtaining a commission in St. Peter's unless they were favored by someone who had a hand in the selection process. Andrea Sacchi was especially lucky in this respect. In 1625, he was only twenty-six years old and relatively little known in Roman art circles. But he had been discovered somewhat earlier by Cardinal Francesco M aria del Monte, who headed the Congregation of the Fabbrica. Del Monte, recognizing Sacchi’s potential, arranged for him to be offered one of the smaller altarpieces.29

Of course, not all the cardinals on the committee were as active or as influential as Del Monte, Borghese, Crescenzi, and Ginnasi. The Genoese painter Bernardo Castello prof­ited little from the sponsorship of his compatriot Cardinal Domenico Rivarola. Castello was in Genoa in the summer of 1626 when he learned that the altarpieee he had painted two decades earlier, Cbru<t Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water, was about to be replaced by another version of the subject by Giovanni Lanfranco.30 Distraught, he wrote immedi­ately to the Congregation, begging to be allowed to restore the painting or, if necessary, to replace it himself, at his own cost - anything to avoid the shame and dishonor of having it supplanted by the work of another. As it happened, Cardinal Rivarola was also in Genoa at the time, having retired there because of poor health. Castello, knowing him to be a member of the Congregation, sought him out and asked for his help; and Rivarola obliged by accompanying the painter’s petition with a brief note of his own addressed to an unnamed colleague on the committee;

You will see what it is that the painter who has written the enclosed letter is asking of the Congregation of the Fabbrica. His readiness to explain himself and to give satisfaction makes it seem that his request is on the whole justified. I warmly recom­mend his interests to you.31

Rivarola did what he could for Castello, but he was far from Rome and he was ill (he died six months later without attending another meeting of the Congregation). Besides, it was Pope Urban VIII who had recommended that the altarpieee be assigned to Lanfranco, and whatever Rivarola’s influence over the committee might have been, it could not rival that of the pope. Castello’s case reminds us that the cardinals were themselves the servants of another, and that, as helpful as it may have been to have their patronage, it was even more helpful to have the patronage of the pope.

U R B A N VIII

Although the cardinals of the Congregation were nominally in charge of screening the artists and distributing the commissions, the pope could and did intervene whenever he chose to. For this reason, artists who could claim any kind of acquaintance with the pope often applied directly to him for work in St. Peter’s, rather than to the Congregation. This was how Lanfranco obtained his commission. On August 13, 1625, he wrote to the pope as follows:

29 Cardinal Del Monte’s involvement in Sacchi's commission is recorded by Bellori, although the account he offers is admittedly a little confused. See Cat. 9.

30 See Cat. 17.31 The Italian text is transcribed in lull in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 17.

CHAPTER EIGHT / P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G T H E B A R B E R I N I P O N T I F I C A T E 143

Most Holy Father: the painter Giovanni Lanfranco, Your Holiness’s most humble creature, eager to put his talent to use in the Lord’s service and yours, asks most humbly to be assigned the altarpiece in the New Sacristy [. . .] He hopes, should he obtain this favor, to give satisfaction, and he will forever continue to offer God most ardent prayers that Your Holiness’s pontificate may be happy and long.32

As we have just seen, Lanfranco’s petition was successful, although instead of the altar- piece in the New Sacristy, Urban VIII assigned him the task of replacing Castello’s Christ Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water in one of the naoipiccole. Not all artists received such a positive response. Mario Balassi, a Florentine follower ol Domenico Passignano who had worked for the Barberini on several previous occasions, evidently had high hopes that their patronage ol him might extend to St. Peter’s.

Most Holy Father: Mario Balassi, Florentine, most humble servant of the Barberini house, begs most humbly that Your Holiness order the Congregation of the Fab­brica of St. Peter’s to assign him one ol the paintings which still remain to be done in the church ol St. Peter's. Mario promises to work with care and diligence, and above all to ensure that the picture will be as durable as mosaic. He served the late Signor Lord Carlo [Barberini], for whom he painted the altarpiece of the Transfigu­ration in the church of the Capuchins, and similarly he made a copy of Raphael’s Transfiguration in S. Pietro in Montorio; and more recently, on the orders of Your Holiness, he painted the altarpiece in the church of S. Caio, which represents the Noli m e tang ere.™

The letter is undated, but the reference to Balassi’s altarpiece in S. Caio enables us to place it in or soon after 1635, the year in which that church was built and decorated. By that time almost all the paintings in St. Peter's were in place. Only the altarpiece of St. Leo and two oopraporti remained to be done, and all three had already been assigned to other artists. Perhaps Balassi had heard of plans to build an altar in honor of St. Maurice in the New Sacristy (begun 1636) and was hoping to paint its altarpiece. If so, he was dis­appointed, for the commission went instead to Carlo Pellegrini.34 Had Balassi been in a position to apply for a commission ten years earlier, when the altarpieces and oopraporti were first being handed out, he might have had a chance of getting one; but by the time he wrote to the pope, the source had dried up. The assessment jotted on the outside of the letter by whoever forwarded it to the econonut of the Fabbrica tells the whole story: “Non vuol che si faccino piu quadri per adesso.”

The involvement of Urban VIII in the selection of artists to receive commissions in St. Peter's was probably far more extensive than can be positively confirmed on the basis of the existing documents. The fact that Domenico Passignano was assigned not one but two altarpieces - and those in addition to the altarpiece he had already painted under Clement VIII — was clearly due to Urban’s influence. Passignano, a Florentine, had long been one of Urban’s favorite painters. In 1604, he was chosen by the then Cardinal Maffeo Bar-

32 “B.mo P[ad]re. Giovanni I^anfranchi pittore et humiliss.a creatura della S. V., desideroso di spendere il suo talento in servitio di S. D. N.ri, et della S .ta V.ra, supp[li]ca humiliss[imamen]te, che li sia concesso il quadro di pittura da farsi nella nova Sacristia di S. Pietro in Vaticano, contro il novo choro; che spera, ottenendone la gratia, di dar soddisfat[io]ne, e restara con obligo eterno di porgere ardentissimi voti a Dio per lo leliciss.o et lungo Pontificato della S. V" (Poliak, no. 2277.)

33 Doc. Appendix, no. 26. The copy ol Raphaels Transfiguration, for which Balassi received \70 ocutti, was destined lor an altar in the church ol the Barberini-owned duchy of Monterotondo (M. A. I>avin, 1975,p. 3).

34 See Cat. 7.

144 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

berini to paint the altarpiece and frescoes in the Barberini family chapel in S. Andrea della Valle.35 He maintained his ties with the Barberini even after his return to Florence in 1616, and as soon as Maffeo was elected pope he wrote to them in the hope of obtaining an important commission, namely, the decoration of the benediction loggia at St. Peter’s.36 Although nothing came of that particular project, within months he was engaged to paint the altarpiece for the altar of St. Thomas in the south transept; and no sooner had he fin­ished that than he was commissioned to paint the altarpiece in the second chapel on the left of the nave.37 Passignano was the only painter to produce three altarpieces in St. Peter’s, an indication of the high esteem in which the pope held him. In none of the docu­ments connected with the later two altarpieces is it explicitly stated that it was Urban who ordered the Congregation to assign them to Passignano. But if he did not give specific instructions to that effect, he surely communicated his wishes through informal channels. The cardinals were well aware of Passignano’s standing with the pope, and needed no prompting to single him out for special honors.

Agostino Ciam pelli was another artist who obtained a commission in St. Peter's through the intervention of Urban VIII.38 He too was a Florentine, who benefited enor­mously from the election of a Florentine pope. When Urban restored the church of S. Bibiana beginning in 1624, it was Ciampelli who was commissioned to paint the side altarpieces and to fresco the walls of the nave with scenes from the saint’s life (later M ar­cello Sacchetti used his influence to secure half of that project for his young protege Pietro da Cortona).39 Ciampelli was also responsible for the decoration of Urban’s pri­vate chapel in the Vatican Palace. When it came time to distribute the altarpieces in St. Peter’s, Urban determined that one of them should go to Ciampelli. In September 1625, he sent word to the Congregation: "Having been notified by Cavaliere Bernini, the economo informs the Congregation that His Holiness has ordered that the painter Agostino Ciampelli be allotted at least one of the small altarpieces for the altars in St. Peter’s. ”40 The Congregation complied, assigning Ciampelli the altarpiece of Sts. Simon and Ju d e .41 Even before the altarpiece was completed, Urban secured Ciampelli another important commission: “I, the economo, am informed that His Holiness has in mind that, of the two small [ ! ] paintings called oopraporti, one should be painted by Pietro da Cortona, and the other by Agostino Ciampelli.”42 Other commissions quickly followed. Ciampelli worked on the fresco decoration of the subterranean chapels beneath the four crossing piers;43 he produced cartoons for the mosaics in the pendentives of the southwest corner chapel;44 he

35 D’Onofrio, 1967, pp. 69, 407-409.36 Poliak, no. 58. For earlier schemes to fresco the vault of the benediction loggia, see Schleier, 1970, pp.

40-67.37 See Cat. 13 and Cat. 5 (a).38 For the literature on Ciampelli, see Cat. 14, n. 6.39 Merz, 1991, pp. 113-39.40 “L’Economo a relat[ ion]e del Cavaliere Bernino riferi in Congregatione che N. S. ha comand[a]to si

concede a d ip in g [e ]re a lc fu n ja delle Tavole, a lm [en ]o del le m inori d eg l’A ltari di S. P ietro ad Agost[in]o Ciappello Pittore. . . .” (Poliak, no. 2141.)See Cat. 14.

42 [March 27, 1628] ‘‘Retuli ego Oeconomus mente[m] S.mi esse quod ex duabus parvis tabulis sopra porti nuncupatis una pingenda detur Petro Cortonesio et alia Augustino Ciampello. . . . " (Poliak, no. 104.) Ciampelli was assigned the oopraporto of Peter baptiz ing ProctMuo and M artinian. When he died before he could begin work on the picture, Urban once again intervened, directing that the commissiongo to Andrea Camassei. See Cat. SP. 2.

‘I3 Poliak, nos. 2108-2109. « Poliak, no. 2197.

CHAPTER EIGHT / P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G T H E B A R B E R I N I P O N T I F I C A T E g g \ 4 S

designed the stuccos in the chapel of the Crucifix;45 and, in 1629, he was named oopraotante of the Fabbrica.46 In short, until his death in 1630, Ciampelli was one of the artists most actively involved in the outfitting and decoration of St. Peters, a sure indication that he, like Bernini, had strong papal backing.

When Urban decided to have Ciampelli paint one of the altarpieces, it was Bernini who communicated his wishes to the Congregation. Much of the interaction between the pope and the committee of cardinals must have taken place on this relatively informal level, with trusted friends and advisers of the pope acting as go-betweens, who would report to him on the Fabbrica’s activities and pass on to the Congregation his reactions and instructions.47 The chain of communication sometimes had a number of links, as illus­trated by the following letter from Giacinto Massas48 to the economo of the Fabbrica, Carlo Ghetti.

The Cardinal Padrone has instructed me to let you know that this morning at the close of the Consistory Signor M arcello Sacchetti told him that His Holiness intends that Pietro da Cortona should paint one of the oopraporti in addition to the altarpiece he has already been assigned in St. Peter’s. However, you are to postpone distributing the other oopraporti, because whenever he sees him again, the Cardinal [Padrone] wants to have a couple of words with him [about them].49

In this instance, the pope’s instructions were conveyed to the Congregation through no fewer than four intermediaries. Urban first discussed his intention to have Pietro da Cor­tona paint one of the oopraporti with Marcello Sacchetti, a close personal friend and a high- ranking member of his staff. Sacchetti was Cortona’s chief patron at that time, having dis­covered him, employed him, and promoted his career throughout the 1620s.50 It can be no coincidence that Sacchetti’s name appears in connection with this commission. Almost certainly it was he who recommended Cortona for the job, which would explain why he was the first to learn of Urban’s decision. Having secured this plum for his protege, Sac­chetti immediately informed Urban’s nephew Francesco Barberini, the cardinal padrone, who in turn told Giacinto Massas, who passed on the news to Carlo Ghetti, who relayed it to the Congregation. Not long after, Cortona was assigned the oopraporto in the nave p iccolo between the south transept and the Clementina.51

This episode gives us a glimpse into the kinds of consultations that must have gone on backstage between the pope and his circle of artistic advisers. Chief among these was, of course, his nephew Cardinal Francesco; and Gianlorenzo Bernini also played an impor­tant part. But it is well to keep in mind that there were probably many others, whose roles are rarely documented but who nevertheless influenced to one degree or another Urban’s ideas about the distribution of the altarpieces.

45 See Cat. 2, n. 5. 46 Poliak, no. 10.47 The pope had other intermediaries who kept him in touch with the Chapter. Chief among them was

Angelo Giorio, who, as cupbearer to the pope on the one hand and a leading member of the Chapter of St. Peter’s on the other, was in an ideal position to shuttle back and forth between the two. See Chapter5 ,n .7 7 . ^

48 I have been unable^identify the author. His signature is difficult to decipher, and my reading of his lastname may be faulty. X J y i a x i r X o aJOu a AZucU+'jt c d Xluu> C d i c q W K.C ' * 'L5 .

49 Doc. Appendix, no. 18. X ^ d - "fchjL, 0^50 On M arcello Sacchetti (1586—1629) and his patronage of Cortona, see Haskell, 1980, pp. 38—39; y

Briganti, 1982, pp. 155—59; Merz, 1991, pp. 80—104. lG2~b51 See Cat. SP. 6. p ^

'JA?'UiAr^ h o .

146 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

C A R D I N A L F R A N C E S C O B A R B E R I N I

As involved as Urban was in the selection of the artists, there is reason to believe that his nephew Cardinal Francesco Barberini played an even more active role, especially after his return from his early diplomatic missions to France and Spain. Cardinal Francesco did not become a member of the Congregation until the end ol 1633, by which time most of the altarpieces were already in place. But long before then he demonstrated a keen inter­est in the Congregation’s business, frequently using his influence to sway its decisions. His word seems to have been just about as powerful as that of the pope in matters pertaining to the outfitting and embellishment of the basilica. For example, it was he who arranged for Giovanni Lanfranco to decorate the vault of the chapel of the Crucifix: “Signor Cardi­nal Barberini says that he wants the cartoons for the mosaics in the chapel opposite the baptismal chapel to be assigned to Lanfranco.”52 The cardinal was a constant supporter of Lanfranco. When Lanfranco wrote to the pope in 1625 to request an altarpiece, he did so on the recommendation of Francesco Barberini.55 In 1630, Barberini approved the car­toon Lanfranco had produced for one of the pendentives in the southwest corner chapel and gave the go-ahead for its conversion into mosaic.5'1 And later, in 1640, it was to Cardi­nal Barberini that Lanfranco addressed his petition for the St. Leo altarpiece, recently made available by the death of Cavaliere d ’Arpino. Lanfranco had been in Naples since 1633, where he had been engaged in several major fresco projects, but he was not happy there and was anxious to return to Rome.

In order to have avoided leaving Rome, 1 would have accepted any commission, however small. And for that reason, before 1 departed, I consulted with Cavaliere Bernini, to find out from him if the cupolas [of the side aisles] in St. Peters were to be painted. M y only goal in asking was then to be able to call upon the singular goodness of Your Eminence to grant me one of them. He told me that there were no plans for painting the cupolas, but added that, if I were to have requested the paint­ing of St. Leo and Attila, Your Eminence would have granted it to me. However, knowing that that same painting had already been assigned to Cavaliere Giuseppe [d ’Arpino], I did not think it right to apply for it, and so I came here [i.e. to Naples]. Therefore, now that the said Cavaliere Giuseppe has died, and the painting assigned to him has remained unexecuted, I judge that it is not inappropriate for me to address myself to Your Eminence, as 1 do most humbly, to ask that, as long as it has been given to no one else, the commission may be given to me. And if in your good­ness you will arrange this, I w ill first submit to Your Eminence an oil sketch, because I am aware of the difficulty of the invention. . .55

As an extra incentive, Lanfranco offered to restore (m ighora re) the altarpiece of Chriot Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water, which he had painted twelve years earlier. On this occasion, however, Lanfranco was out of luck: the Congregation was preoccupied with other projects, money was scarce, and the altar of St. Leo was left for the time being with­out an altarpiece.56

Lanfranco was not the only artist Francesco Barberini promoted. If his uncle favored the older generation of Tuscan painters, Francesco championed a group of younger

52 [Jan . 13, 1629] "II S .r Card. Barb[erin]o dice che desid[e]ria che li Cart[on]i della Capp[ell]a incontroa quella del battesimo si dessero al Lanfranchi per farli di musaico." (Poliak, no. 573.)

55 Poliak, no. 2277. 54 Poliak, no. 2201.55 The Italian text is transcribed in full in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 18.56 See Cat. 18.

C H A PT E R EIGH T / P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G T H E B A R B E R I N I P O N T I F I C A T E 1 4 7

artists, who were just emerging as major Iigures during the 1620s. Among them was Pietro da Cortona. We have seen that Urban VIII, probably at the urging of Marcello Sacchetti, arranged for Cortona to be assigned one of the six oopraporti. But even before that, Cardinal Francesco had seen to it that the painter was given a commission for an altarpieee: “The most Illustrious and Reverend Lord Cardinal Barberini has said that he very much wishes that one of the above-mentioned altarpieces which still remain to be painted should be assigned to the Bolognese [painter] Albani, and another to Pietro Berrettini of Cortona. ”57

From another document in which the artists’ names are listed next to their allotted paintings, we learn that Cortona was at first assigned the St. Erasmus altarpieee.58 Before he began work, however, an incident occurred that enabled his patron to secure him an even more prestigous commission. This was the departure in Jan u ary 1628 of Guido Reni, who, angered at perceived slights on the part of certain members of the Congrega­tion, left Rome in a huff, after first destroying all traces of the mural altarpieee that, according to Malvasia, he had already begun to paint.59 Cardinal Barberini, who had been instrumental in negotiating the huge salary Reni received for his services in St. Peter’s, could not have been happy to see him go. On the other hand, he saw no point in wasting the opportunity to advance another favorite. Scarcely a month after Reni left town, it was announced in Congregation: "Because of Reni’s departure his altarpieee remains to be given to another. Signor Cardinal Barberini proposes for the large altarpieee Pietro da Cortona, and for the small altarpieee which Cortona was previously assigned, Poussin.”60 Since the Erasmus altarpieee was one of the small altarpieces, whereas Reni’s was one of the large ones, the exchange amounted to a promotion for Cortona. It also made room for the inclusion of another of Barberini ’s proteges, Nicolas Poussin.

It was Poussin’s good fortune to be sponsored by several close associates of the Bar­berini, including Marcello Sacchetti and the card inal’s secretary Cassiano dal Pozzo. Through these connections Poussin had come to the cardinal’s attention soon after his arrival in Rome in 1624. Cardinal Barberini was a notorious Francophile and was proba­bly well disposed toward the French painter from the start, even before he knew much about him. But he soon had an opportunity to assess for himself the quality of Poussin’s art, for shortly after Poussin arrived in Rome, Cardinal Barberini left for Paris, on a diplo­matic mission on behalf of his uncle. He stayed in the French capital for nearly a year, and during that time he is bound to have seen examples of Poussin’s work. At the ve iy least, he must have seen the altarpieee representing the Death o f the Virgin, which Poussin had painted in 1623 for Framjois de Gondi, Archbishop of Paris, for an altar in Notre-Dame.61 Upon his return to Rome, Barberini commissioned Poussin to paint the Death o f Germani- ciu<, and the success of this work evidently confirmed him in his high opinion of the artist. Barely a week after the picture had entered his collection, he wrote to the cardinals in

57 [M ay 25, 1627] ‘Jllu stn ssim u s et Reverendissim us Dominus Card. Barberinus dixit quod valde cuperet, quod una ex supradictis iconis quae adhuc pingendae remanent pingenda consignaretur Albano Bononensi, et altera Petro Berrettino Cortonensi.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3-no. 171, f. 79.)

58 See Doc. Appendix, no. 14; Cat. 10.59 Malvasia, 1841, II, p. 27: ”. . . fatto scrostare al muratore una gloria d'Angeli principiata in quel fresco,

se ne parti d ’improviso, ritornandosene a Bologna." See Cats. 6 and 18.60 [Feb. 5, 1628] "Per la partita di Guido che resta a darsi ad altri la sua Tavola i) S .r Card. Barb[enn]o

propone per una Tavola grande Pietro Cortonese, et per la piccola ch ’aveva il Cortonese . . . Posino." (Poliak, no. 98.)

61 The cardinal was the archbishop’s guest during his stay in Pans. He lived in the archepiscopal palace next door to Notre-Dame and on several occasions visited the church in the archbishop’s company.

148 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

charge of the Fabbrica of St. Peter’s to ask that Poussin be assigned one of the altarpieces there.62

Passeri, Bellori, and Felibien all record that Cassiano dal Pozzo was involved in obtain­ing the commission for Poussin, whereas Bernini, in a conversation with Chantelou, claimed the responsibility for himself.63 But if either Cassiano or Bernini had anything to do with Poussin being assigned an altarpiece in St. Peter’s, it was in their capacity as artis­tic advisers to Cardinal Barberini, for, as the document cited above makes plain, it was Barberini who recommended Poussin to the Congregation and arranged for the artist to be awarded the Erasmus altarpiece.

Cardinal Barberini decided who would paint not only the altarpiece of St. Erasmus but also the two other altarpieces in the north transept. For the altarpiece of St. Wenceslas, he nominated Angelo Caroselli, who, as we have seen, had already been recommended to the committee by his patron Monsignor Prospero Fagnani.64 For the altarpiece of Sts. Proces­sus and Martinian, Barberini first proposed Francesco Albani.65 When nothing came of this suggestion, he settled on another of his proteges: "On the counsel of Cardinal Bar­berini, the cardinals [of the Congregation] have assigned the painting, or altarpiece, for­merly awarded to Albani, to the painter Valentin of Boulogne.”66 The fact of the cardinal’s involvement in all three of the altars in the north transept suggests that he may have had an arrangement with the Congregation whereby he was ceded artistic control over this corner of the church. Such an arrangement would not have been unheard of. Bernini was granted a similar privilege, on a smaller scale, when Urban VIII accorded him one of the aopraporti to do with as he saw fit: "His Holiness has ordered that one of the oopraportl . . . be given to Cavaliere Bernini, that he may dispose of it in whatever manner he decides.’’67

Like Bernini, Cardinal Francesco acted as an artistic adviser to his uncle. One can imagine the two conversing about the commissions being handed out in St. Peter’s, assess­ing the talent and experience of the artists who had been proposed to the committee, and making their own recommendations accordingly. One gets a sense of these behind-the- scenes discussions from a letter that the pope’s cupbearer, Angelo Giorio, sent to the economo of the Fabbrica, Carlo Ghetti, in 1628. After informing Ghetti of the pope's wishes concerning the removal and restoration of Giotto’s Navicella, he raises the subject of Flaminio Allegrini, a painter who had been recommended for one of the aopraportu68

62 The coincidence of dates is striking. Poussin received payment in full for the Death o f Germanicu.' on Jan u a iy 23, 1628 (M. A. Lavin, 1975, p. 28); and before February 5 he was recommended to the Con­gregation by Cardinal Barberini (Poliak, nos. 98, 2162).

63 See Cat. 10, esp. n. 20.64 See above at n. 17; and Poliak, no. 2158.65 See above at n. 57; see also Cat. 11.66 [M ay 9, 1629] "DD. Tabulam, seu Iconam alias Albano Bononiensi pingendum concessam contempla-

tione Ulustrissimi D. Cardinalis Barberini, Valentino de Bononia Pictori concesserunt.” (Poliak, no. 2167.) On Cardinal Francesco’s patronage of Valentin, see Cat. 11, esp. n. 22.

67 [Feb. 5, 1628] “N. Signore ordina che si dia uno dei sopraporti da dipingersi al Cavaliere Bernino, che ne disponghi a sue int[entio]ni.’’ (Poliak, no. 98.) In another copy of the document, in the margin next to this entry, the following note is added: "Domanda quello sopra la porta che va alia sacrestia.” (Piano 1—serie 3-no. 171, f. 121v.) See Cat. SP. 3 and Cat. SP. 6.

68 Allegrini had written to Cardinal Vidoni in February 1628, presumably to ask for a commission (Pol­iak, no. 100). On March 27, and again on Ju ly 11 and August 7, he was listed among those being con­sidered for oopraporti (Poliak, nos. 103, 107, 111).

Father of the better-known Francesco Allegrini, Flaminio (c. 1587—c. 1663) was stylistically allied to Cavaliere d'Arpino and may have been his student. See Saur, I, pp. 185—86; Prosperi Valenti Rodino,1991, pp. 232-33.

CHAPTEREI GHT / P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G T H E B A R B E R I N I P O N T I F I C A T E g g 1 4 9

As concerns the oopraporto claimed by Flaminio Allegrini, His Holiness leaves this up to the Congregation, and so does Cardinal Barberini, who points out that every effort should be made to assign these paintings to qualified artists; not that he excludes Allegrini on those grounds, for he does not know his work. Cavaliere Giuseppe d ’Arpino can give a full account, if the members of the Congregation should have any questions about Allegrini.69

Reading between the lines, one senses that neither uncle nor nephew was particularly enthusiastic about Allegrini; and Francesco’s pointed reminder that the cardinals take into account the artist’s proficiency, despite the disclaimer that follows, probably sealed Alle- grin i’s fate. In any event, the painter failed to gain a commission.70

By the time Francesco joined the Congregation as an offical member, toward the end of 1633, all but one of the altarpieces and oopraporti had already been handed out. But when in 1635 it was decided to remove Guidotti’s oopraporto representing the Denial and Lamenta­tion o f Peter and replace it with a depiction of Peter Healing with Hut Shadow, the cardinal saw an opportunity to promote y e t another of his proteges, the young Gian Francesco Romanelli. As Passeri in his life of Romanelli records:

To give him a debut that would raise him to the height of fame, [Cardinal Barberini] arranged that he be given the chance [to paint] a oopraporto in St. Peter’s. Esteemed artists with long experience had sweated to obtain these paintings, and yet it fell to Romanelli, who was young and little known, and as yet inexperienced, to paint it: such is the force of favor.71

Romanelli had worked for the cardinal in the Palazzo Barberini, where he assisted Pietro da Cortona in the fresco decoration of the chapel and gran oalone. But the oopraporto in St. Peters was the painter’s first major public commission, and it established his reputation throughout Rome.72 Indeed, so enthusiastically was the fresco received that scarcely a year after its completion Romanelli was at work on a second major commission in St. Peter’s, replacing Passignano’s badly deteriorated Preoentation o f the Virgin with an altar- piece of his own.73

B A R B E R I N I TASTE

At the outset of the chapter, the stylistic diversity of the altarpieces and oopraporti in St. Peter’s was remarked on. This diversity was in part a consequence of the process by which the artists were selected: with the pope, his nephew, the cardinals of the Congrega­tion, and other interested parties all promoting their own particular favorites, it was inevitable that the resulting works of art should reflect a wide range of taste. At the same time, it can also be argued that the altarpieces of St. Peter’s manifest the varied and het­erogeneous character of painting in Rome around the year 1630. This was a period in

69 Doc. Appendix, no. 19.70 Later, though, Cardinal Francesco must have grown fond of Allegrini, for the painter contributed

extensively to the decoration of the chapels and cloister of SS. Cosma e Damiano, as part of a Bar- berini-sponsored remodeling of the church (1629—33).

71 Passeri, p. 307. The Italian text is transcribed in the Sources section at the end of Cat. SP. 5 (b).72 See Cat. SP. 5 (b).73 See Cat. 5 (b). In the same year. Cardinal Francesco also arranged Romanelli's election as principe of

the Accademia di S. Luca (Haskell, 1980, p. 53).

150 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

which no single style was dominant: Roman mannerists, such as the elderly Cesari d ’Arpino, were still alive and active; Tuscan "Reform" mannerists, such as Domenico Passignano and Agostino Ciampelli, continued to work in a plain anecdotal style derived from Santi di Tito; Caravaggism remained a viable and accepted artistic idiom, although admittedly its practitioners were becoming fewer in number; the Carracci followers, including Domenichino, Lanfranco, Guido Reni, and Guercino, had matured in their sep­arate directions; and, meanwhile, a younger generation, led by Pietro da Cortona and Andrea Sacchi, were developing a classically inspired, visually opulent mode ol painting that would soon — but had not yet - become the prevailing fashion. The year 1630 has been called an artistic crossroads because of the many different styles that were practiced in Rome at that time;74 and if a single project may be said to embody that variety, it is the altarpieces and jopraporti of St. Peter's.

But when all is said and done, the outfitting of St. Peter’s was a Barberini undertaking, and reflects Barberini taste. Had Urban desired stylistic uniformity, no doubt he could have achieved it. Instead, he demonstrated his remarkable culture and eclecticism in artis­tic matters, giving his approval as St. Peter’s was transformed into a kind of gallery of contemporary art, where the best of a variety of different schools and styles could be admired and compared.

To assess the degree to which the altarpieces in St. Peter’s reflect the aesthetic sensibili­ties of the Barberini, it is instructive to compare them with another series of altarpieces begun about half a decade later for the Capuchin church of S. Maria della Concezione. Built between 1626 and 1636, this church was a Barberini establishment. Urban, whose brother Antonio was a Capuchin monk, had donated the property near the Palazzo Bar­berini, funded the construction of the new church and monastery, and furnished it as befitted its affiliation with the Barberini family.75 The monks, who took their vows of poverty especially seriously, insisted on the austerity of their surroundings, even when their insistence brought them into conflict with their overgenerous patron. They did man­age to convince Urban that the church should be of simple design, and they won a partial victory in a famous battle of wills over the altar surrounds, which were built of wood, rather than of marble as Urban would have preferred. But when it came to the altar- pieces, the pope put his foot down and lavished large sums on a splendid series of paint­ings by the best artists of the day. At S. Maria della Concezione there was no committee of cardinals, there were no private patrons other than the pope and his family; the selection of artists was therefore entirely in the hands of the Barberini.'6 And what did they do? In all but a few cases they chose exactly the same painters who had received commissions in St. Peter’s. Of course, not all the artists who had worked in St. Peter’s were still available. Simon Vouet had returned to France in 1627; Passignano, in advanced old age, had gone back to Florence; others had died (Antonio Pomarancio and Paolo Guidotti in 1629, Agostino Ciampelli in 1630, and Valentin in 1632). But a number of those who were still around were engaged to paint altarpieces or other works in S. M aria della Concezione.

74 Mahon, 1960. On the topic of painting in Rome c. 1630, see also Bonnefov. 1970: Bnganti, 1982, pp.37-81; Roma 16)0, 1994.

76 Isnello, 1923, pp. 78-92: Haskell, 1980, pp. 42-43.Hoping to ingratiate themselves with the pope, a number of distinguished personages, including the emperor and empress, asked to build private chapels in S. iMaria della Concezione. At first the pope agreed, but later revoked his permission. His reasons were echoed by his brother Antonio: “non giu- dico bene [. . .] che altri havesse parte in detta chiesa [. . .] ne ve si vedessero arma d ’altri, che della sua casata." Therefore: "ordino che le cappelle tutte fussero fabricate et ornate a spese de' Signori Bar­berini.” (Cited in Isnello, 1923, pp. 73—74.)

CHAPTER EIGHT / P A T R O N A G E D U R I N G T H E B A R B E R I N I P O N T I F I C A T E 1 5 1

One almost gets the impression that the Barberini were trying to turn their church into a small-scale counterpart of St. Peter’s, complete with a copy of Giotto’s Navicella on the interior facade. Among the artists involved in the decorative program were Guido Reni, Domenichino, Lanfranco, Pietro da Cortona, Andrea Sacchi, Andrea Camassei, and Angelo Caroselli. In addition, Baccio Ciarpi, who had been proposed for a sopraporto in St. Peter's but had failed to secure one, and Mario Balassi were brought in to fill the Tuscan slots vacated by Passignano and Ciampelli (we recall that Urban in particular tended to favor Florence-trained artists). In short, the altarpieces in S. M aria della Concezione, although fewer in number, were entrusted to many of same artists as those in St. Peter’s and consequently exhibit something of the same heterogeneity.

That the Barberini were keenly aware of the stylistic diversity of the paintings in St. Peter’s, and enjoyed that diversity for its own sake, is suggested by Cardinal Francesco’s distribution of the altarpieces in the north transept. In arranging for Nicolas Poussin and Valentin to paint adjacent altarpieces, he must have guessed that their works would be compared and contrasted. To begin with, they were both French and were the only non- Italians other than Simon Vouet to receive important painting commissions in St. Peter’s. Moreover, the sim ilarity of their subjects (m artyrdom s involving nude male saints stretched out horizontally on a rack or tressle), coupled with the dissim ilarity of their styles, made a paragone between them inevitable. Sandrart records that the cognoscen ti of Rome gathered in front of the two paintings to debate the relative merits of each.

. . . since everyone was eager to see such things, there was afterward a considerable debate, since some preferred one and some preferred the other. But unbiased con­noisseurs held both works in high esteem, and judged that neither yielded to the other, nor had cause to be praised above the other; and furthermore that where Poussin was preferred in the representation of the passions, in the expression of emotion, and in invention, Valentin excelled in true naturalism, strength, heightened tonality \Erhebung des Color its], and harmony of color. . . 77

Sandrart bears witness to the intense critical scrutiny to which the altarpieces were sub­jected. We are reminded that the paintings in St. Peter’s were appreciated not only for their religious content but also as works of art in their own right, each with its own dis­tinctive aesthetic qualities and characteristics.

For all their stylistic diversity, the altarpieces in no w ay clash with one another. Con­sider, for example, the two works described by Sandrart. Hanging side by side in the Vati­can Pinacoteca, Poussin’s St. Erasmus, with its bright, light color scheme, and Valentin’s Sts. Processus and Martinian, with its dramatic chiaroscuro, seem to have little in common. But when viewed in situ in the basilica, the overriding impression is one of harmony. This is largely owing to the highly structured and uniform setting in which they appear. In other words, the architecture itself imposes a sense of order and unity over all that it encompasses. The six transept altarpieces — including the two by Poussin and Valentin - are identical in size and are set in identical aedicular frames, over identical altars, in identi­cal chapels. Consequently, the viewer cannot help but read them as a series, visually, if not iconographically, coordinated. To the casual glance, the stylistic differences between the individual paintings are scarcely noticeable against the larger uniformity of their sur­roundings. The same is true of the large altarpieces in the navip icco le and nave chapels and of the small altarpieces in the corner chapels.

77 On the significance of this passage, see Cat. 10. The German text is transcribed in the Sources section at the end ol Cat. 11.

152 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

But the architectural environment alone does not account for the visual agreement of the altarpieces. Another factor at least as important is their common subject matter. Old- fashioned, static formulas such as .tacre converjazwrn were avoided. Instead, with the excep­tion of the altarpieces of the Cathedra and of the Crucifix, all of the altarpieces considered in this study were dramatic narratives, principally stories of miracle working, revelation, and martyrdom. There were established conventions for handling such scenes, and they were adhered to by all of the artists working in St. Peters. Whatever their individual styl­istic propensities, these artists shared a common rhetorical language, a language of broad gestures and vivid expressions meant to convey the powerful emotions - amazement, fear, horror, wonder, joy — that result from the encounter of the human and the divine. In the end, it is this theatricality, this consistent use of a ffe tti to create a mood of heightened reli­gious drama, that more than anything else binds the altarpieces into a cohesive group.

The altarpieces in St. Peters constitute the first major painting project undertaken dur­ing the pontificate of Urban VIII. Rising to the challenge, the pope and his nephew Francesco directed the cardinals of the Congregation to assemble a group of artists of the highest quality ("i piu eccellenti Pittori di questa Corte ”78), whose works transformed the basilica into a showcase of contemporary painting. St. Peter’s had always been a center of spiritual pilgrimage; under Urban VIII it became a center of artistic pilgrimage as well, and the cradle of the new “secolo d ’oro di Pittura” that Passeri credits Urban with having engendered.79

78 Poliak, no. 672. 79 Passeri, p. 293.

C H A P T E R N I N E

THE A R T I S T S AT W O R K

Once an artist had been officially appointed by the Congregation of the Fabbrica to paint an altarpiece or jopraporti) in St. Peter’s, he normally received an initial pay­ment of 50 to 100 ocudi as a token of good faith and to cover the preparatory costs. The

balance was paid him in installments after he had begun work on the painting, with the final installment paid only when the painting was finished and in place. Sometimes (if the dedication of the altar and hence the subject of its altarpiece had not yet been determined at the time of the commission, or il the artist was under obligation to complete a previous engagement before beginning his assignment in St. Peter’s), an interval of a year or more could separate the initial payment from subsequent payments. Domenichino, for example, was assigned the altarpiece in the second chapel on the right of the nave and given a down payment of 70 .truck on March 26, 1625. At the time, the altar’s dedication had not yet been decided; over the next couple of years various titles were proposed, but not until one was finally settled on could Domenichino begin work on his painting. He did not receive a second payment until Ju ly 15, 1628, well over three years after the first.1

TH E PR E P A R A T O R Y P R O C E S S

Given the unique importance of St. Peter’s, the symbolic seat of the papacy and show- place of the Catholic Church, it comes as no surprise that the altarpieces were monitored at eveiy stage in their production to ensure iconographic orthodoxy and to maintain high artistic standards. As we have seen in a previous chapter, the artists were given detailed instructions about what to paint and how to paint it. Moreover, before they were allowed to begin their altarpieces, they were expected to show the Congregation preparatory drawings or oil sketches, or, in the case of mosaics, full-scale cartoons. These were care­fully scrutinized, and only if they earned the approval of the committee were the artists given the go-ahead. In 1625, Celio exhibited his designs for the mosaics in the baptismal chapel, to which the cardinals reacted (or so the artist claimed) “con applauso grande.”2 Similarly, Antonio Pomarancio and Paolo Guidotti submitted their bozxetti to the Congre­

1 See Cat. 4. 2 Poliak, no. 480; Cat. 3 (a).

154 H T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

gation on February 26, 1628, and were given permission to proceed immediately with their oopraporti.''' In contrast, when Cesari d ’Arpino showed his design lor the St. Leo altar- piece, although it was admired, he was nevertheless told to make certain changes.'1 What those changes were we have no w ay of knowing, but it is likely that they were of a formal rather than an iconographic nature, for it was generally acknowledged that the story of the meeting of Leo and Attila was an especially difficult one to adapt to the tall, narrow format of an altarpiece. When Giovanni Lanfranco applied for the same commission some twelve years later, following Cesari’s death, he alluded to the problems posed by the com­position and offered to submit an oil sketch of his own that would demonstrate how he proposed to solve them.5

Whether the cardinals of the Congregation and the representatives of the Chapter judged the bozzetti on their own or passed them on to the pope or his nephew for their stamp of approval is unknown. But it is noteworthy that many of the bozzetti ended up in the Barberini collection. Sketches for the altarpieces by Caroselli, Cesari d ’Arpino (St. Michael), Ciampelli, and Poussin, and for the oopraporti by Baglione, Camassei, Romanelli, and Sacchi, are all listed in the family inventories.6 Urban no doubt prized these sketches not only as works of art in their own right but as a record of his own outstanding acts of patronage in St. Peter’s.7

In several cases more than one bozzetto has survived for a single composition. It could be that the artists, knowing that the sketches they presented to the Congregation might be donated to the pope, sometimes made a second version for their own use. But it could also be that some of the bozzetti that have come down to us are not preparatory works at all, but small-scale copies after the finished paintings. For instance, three oil sketches have

3 Poliak, no. 101; Cat. SP. 4 and Cat. SP. 5 (a). 1 Poliak, no. 1 14; Cat. 18.5 Poliak, no. 116; Cat. 18.6 Angelo Caroselli: "Un Quadro con un Santo Annato con Angelo che li sporge la corone con cornice

tutta d ’oro di Angelo Carozello.” [3 X 1 '/y pa lm i] (M . A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 148, 297, 346, 407.)Giuseppe Cesare d ’Arpino: "Un quadro con San Michelangelo [con Lucitero alii piedi] di man’ del

Cav.r Gioseppino cioe lo schizzo di quello di Musaico di S. Pietro alto p[al]m i 11 largo 8 incirca." (Ibid., pp. 100, 247.)

Agostino Ciampelli: "Un quadro di p[al]m i 5 inc[irc]a rappresentante il Miracolo di S. Simone e Giuda, mano del Passignano, con Cornice dorata." (Ibid., pp. 299, 431.)

Nicolas Poussin: "Un Quadretto con Sant’Erasmo [con manigolti che li caccioni le budelli] cioe lo schizzo di quella di S. Pietro con cornice tutta dorata di mano di Monsu Posino." [4 X 3 palm i] (Ibid.. pp. 99, 198, 369, 403,422.)

Giovanni Baglione: "Un Quadro di quando N.S. lava li Piedi a San Pietro e h altn Appostoh con prospettive [e Angeli in Cima] e comice nere Arabescate doro mano de Cav.e Baglione.” [ 9 Vy-12 palm i high, 6—7 pa lm i w ide] (Ibid., pp. 99, 191, 267, 371.)

Andrea Camassei: "Un quadretto di S. Pietro che battezza nella prigione il soldato [con diverse figure e glorie di Angeli] con comice intagliata, e dorata, e tonda per di sopra." [2 l/y X 1 '/y palm i] (Ibid., pp.193, 378, 404.)

Giovanni Francesco Romanelli: "Un Quadro con comice d ’albuccio intagliata tutta dorata figura in tela S. Pietro quando libera una spiritata [con diverse figure] alto palmi tre e largo palmi due di Sig.re Romanelli.” (Ibid., pp. 245, 355, 419.)

Andrea Sacchi: "Un quadretto [mezzo tondo in cima] di p.mi 2'/2 di Altezza rappresentante Christo che che [<ie] Dice a S. Pietro Pasce Oves Meas et altri Apostoli mano di Andrea Sacchi." (Ibid., pp. 297, 368, 404.)

7 Urban’s fondness for drawings and oil sketches connected with the paintings in St. Peter’s was appar­ently recognized by his contemporaries, for of those that he owned at least one (Camassei’s Peter Baptiz­in g Hi< Jailer.i) he obtained not from the Fabbrica but as a gift from his cupbearer Giovanni M aria Roscioli, who had acquired the picture in 1635 (Corradini, 1979, p. 193). See also Ferrari, 1990, esp. pp. 32—33.

CHAPTER NINE / T H E A R T I S T S AT W O R K i f 1 5 5

survived in connection with Camassei’s oopraporto of Peter Baptizing Hut Ja ilero .8 One of these, in the Vatican Pinacoteca, is close in most details to the copy of the fresco made in the eighteenth century shortly before the original was destroyed: the prison window is on the right rather than on the left, but the glory of putti above is virtually identical, as are the poses and gestures of the figures below (Figs. 174—175). In the other two sketches, the window appears on the left, as in the copy, but otherwise there are major compositional discrepancies — in particular, the inclusion of the figure of Christ who hovers over the scene supported by putti, and the position of the seated prisoner in the lower left corner (Figs. 176-177). Assuming the eighteenth-century copy to be accurate, Christ was not represented in the oopraporto. One might be tempted to conclude that the two bozzetti in which he appears record an earlier idea for the composition, which Camassei later aban­doned: but this is unlikely, since in both bozzetti the position of the window is the same as it is in the copy. A more plausible explanation is that only the Vatican bozzetto is prepara­tory, whereas the other two are variants of the design, produced by Camassei after the fact. The oopraporto in St. Peter’s was the single most important commission in Camassei's career, and it is hardly surprising if he wanted to milk it for all it was worth, by producing copies and variants to sell or give away.

M E D IU M

Once the iconography and the composition had been approved, it remained only to decide on the medium in which the picture would be executed. The majority of the altarpieces and all of the oopraporti were done in one of three media: oil on canvas, oil on stucco, and fresco. This is not to say that the cardinals did not entertain the idea of employing less conventional media, such as marble relief and mosaic. The earliest recorded project for altarpieces in new St. Peter’s is, in fact, that of the sculptor Guglielmo della Porta, who in 1569 offered to create a set of three large images in marble relief, representing the Giving of the Keys, the Deposition, and the Pentecost, to go over three unspecified altars. Della Porta even went so far as to produce w ax models of the compositions in an effort to secure the commission.9 At the time, of course, the basilica was far from completion, and the Fabbrica was in no position to give serious thought to its altarpieces. Yet the idea of furnishing the interior with a series of giant narrative reliefs proved an enduring one, and might have been realized had it not been for the inordinate expense it would have involved. Urban VIII contemplated only one altarpiece in relief, for the altar in the apse (the choice of medium in this case was intended to signal the altar’s special importance); but the project was never realized.10 However, Urban’s successor, Innocent X, made it one of his first acts in St. Peter's to commission a relief altarpiece. On October 9, 1645, the fol­lowing resolution was recorded in the Acts of the Congregation: "Lately it was decreed that the next altarpiece to be made for whichsoever of the altars shall be carved of marble, in baooo rilieoo, to use the common terminology.”11 Eiarlier the suggestion was made that in commissioning a relief altarpiece Innocent was intentionally rivaling Urban’s spectacular accomplishments in St. Peter's. The phrasing of the passage just quoted is revealing in this

8 See Cat. SP. 2. 9 See Chapter 2, n. 39.See Cat. 19.

11 "Ulterius fuit ordinatum quod prima Tabula in aliquo ex altaribus facienda fiat sculpta in marmore utdicuntur di baooo rilievo." (AFSP, Piano 1—ser. 3—no. 162 \Decrela eJR eoolu tioneo I6~t2—5J\, f. 68 v.)

156 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

respect, for it indicates that Innocent had no particular altar in mind when he conceived the idea ol a marble altarpiece. It was the medium per se that appealed to him; where the image would go and what it would represent were secondary concerns. In fact, more than three months elapsed following this initial decree before Algardi received the commission for the St. Leo altarpiece (Fig. 164).12

Mosaic was another luxury medium that greatly appealed to those responsible for commissioning the altarpieces. Mosaic was introduced into the new basilica by Gregory XIII, who used it to decorate the lunettes, pendentives, and cupola of the Cappella Gre­goriana. At the time the art of mosaic was all but forgotten in Rome. Skilled artisans had to be summoned from Venice, where mosaic-making had been kept alive in the work­shops of S. M arco .13 W orking under the direction of the Venetian-born Girolamo Muziano, these artisans produced images of such subtlety and refinement that, according to one contemporary source, they almost seemed painted.14 Gregory may have had sev­eral motives for going to the trouble and expense of ornamenting his chapel with mosaic. As is often pointed out, the medium was associated with the early Church, and its use reflects the fascination and reverence for all things Early Christian engendered by the Counter Reformation.15 More specifically, the decoration of the Gregoriana was proba­bly meant to evoke the decoration of old St. Peter’s. It should be noted that when the chapel was being outfitted, the apse and a portion of the nave of the old basilica still stood, both sumptuously adorned with mosaics. The continuity of medium between the old and new basilicas would thus have been particularly striking at the time, underlining the identity of the two buildings. Finally, practical considerations may have played a part. Although the Gregoriana itself was more or less complete, the rest of the basilica was still unfinished and open to the elements. Mosaic, more durable than painting and less susceptible to damage caused by moisture and temperature extremes, must have seemed a sensible choice under the circumstances. Clement VIII, following Gregory’s lead, was responsible for the mosaics in the vault of the Cappella Clementina as well as those in the main dome and pendentives. Paul V had his coat of arms emblazoned in mosaic above the nave;16 he also considered placing a mosaic depiction of the Giving o f the Keyo over the central door of the facade, although in the end he opted for a marble relief of the same subject.17 But for all their extensive use of the medium, none of these popes seems to have had the idea of commissioning altarpieces of mosaic. It was Urban VIII who first introduced this possibility.

According to some sources, Urban so appreciated the brilliance, preciousness, and dura­bility of mosaic that he toyed with the idea of having all the altarpieces done in this medium. In fact, one of the first altarpieces commissioned during his pontificate, Celio’s BaptLnn o f Chriot in the first chapel on the left of the nave, was originally meant to be of mosaic. The cost soon proved prohibitive, however, and Celio switched instead to oil on stucco.18 But Urban remained intrigued by the idea of mosaic altarpieces, and in 1627 the Congregation engaged Cavaliere d ’Arpino and the mosaicist Giovanni Battista Calandra to

12 See Cat. 18. 13 DiFederico, 1983, p. 6.14 Borghini, 1584, p. 577: ’’. . . tutti i musaici, che vi sono con tanta bella maniera composti insieme, e con

tant’arte, che parono dipinti col pennello, e con 1 colon.”15 DiFederico, 1983, pp. 5—6. lf> Orbaan, 1919, p. 135.17 [April 30, 1611] ". . . [si deve] in un luoco lasciato vacuo sotto la loggia, che si fa da dar la beneditione

al popolo, fare di musaico un Christo, che da la chiave a San Pietro.” (Cited in Orbaan, 1919, p. 100.)18 [Before Ja n . 21, 1626] ". . . hora dicono [i Cardinali] soprasedere [ l ’opera] per penuria di dinaro, ricer-

cando il musaico sontuosa spesa.” (Poliak, no. 480.) See Cat. 3 (a).

CHAPTER NINE / T H E A R T I S T S AT W O R K 1 5 7

collaborate on an image of St. Michael to adorn the archangel’s altar in the northwest cor­ner chapel (Fig. 155). That this altar was singled out for special treatment was no doubt due in part to the fact that Michael was Urban VIII’s patron saint. But even before the dedication was decided, it had been proposed that a mosaic altarpiece might be appropriate for this particular altar, since it would harmonize better than a painted one with the altar- piece of marble intarsia over the altar of the Madonna della Colonna directly opposite.19

Predictably, it was not the design of the St. Michael altarpiece but its medium that most impressed seventeenth-century viewers. In several early guidebooks and descrip­tions of St. Peter’s, the work is accorded a whole paragraph of praise, whereas the painted altarpieces are passed over with barely a mention or no mention at all. The following pas­sage from the travel account of Francis Mortoft, who visited Rome in the 1650s, is typical:

At the upper end of the Church, on the right hand is a piece made of Mosaicke worke, and set over an Altar, representing the Archangel fighting with the dragon.It is so rare and lively a worke, that it is esteemed a piece incomparable, being not painted, but only certain little stones of al colours set so artificially together, that it would astonish any person to thinke how any man could be capable to represent life so much, as is to be seene in the representation of the Picture.20

John Evelyn, too, singled out Calandra’s altarpiece for praise:

. . . the body of the Church . . . [is] adorn’d with an infinity of Statues, Pictures, stately Altars, & Reliques innumerable, & not indeede to be reckoned: onely the Altar-piece of st. Michael being of Mosaique I could not passe without particular note; because certainely one of the best of that kind in the Earth.21

Several early sources reveal that the St. Michael altarpiece was commissioned in part as an experiment, to see whether mosaic would prove a viable medium for other altarpieces in St. Peter’s. But although the work was clearly well received, the experiment was not con­sidered an unqualified success. In his life of Calandra, Pascoli offers the following account:

Pope Urban VIII, always seeking to increase the adornment of this most beautiful church, thought to find some w ay of preserving the altarpieces from the humidity, which was doing them serious damage, even as it continues to do today; and finding no w ay of preserving them, it occurred to him to have them all made from mosaic.He therefore ordered Giuseppe d'Arpino to make a start by designing one of the smaller altarpieces, which could then serve as a model for the larger ones [. . .] But when it came time to make the decision to transform all the altarpieces into mosaic, there was some disagreement and hesitation. For some claimed that the excessive luster of finish, which is an unavoidable characteristic of the tesserae, would cause a displeasing glassy reflection, and that it would be impossible for the eye to perceive from up close the whole flat surface [of the picture] free from those shimmerings which would prevent an enjoyment of the entire composition. Others argued that it would cause confusion to have such a quantity of mosaics, and that their value would be diminished, since their value stemmed from their rarity, and if they were all over the place they would no longer be rare. Still others said that it would be bet­ter to exchange the altarpieces for marble reliefs, which would be more venerable

19 "La Cappella di S. Anna di musaico per accompagniar la Cappella di contro della Madonna nella Colonna, c ’ha l’omamento intarsiato di marmo." (Doc. Appendix, no. 9.) See also Doc. Appendix, no. 7 and Cat. 16.

20 Mortoft, 1925, p. 80.21 Evelyn, 1959, p. 138. See also the citations by Grangier de Liverdis (1667) and Piazza (1687) in the

Sources section at the end of Cat. 16.

158 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

and more lasting, and would cost less, [. . .] and which could be finished more quickly because of the abundance of skilled artisans who were available at that time. Others said that it would not do to deprive the painters of their living, and that as the original paintings fell into disrepair, they should be replaced by the best painters of the day; that for the price of a single mosaic, it would be possible to commission an entire set of new paintings every time this occurred, so that every time one would see something new and original, rather than copies.22

For any or all of these reasons, or perhaps simply because of the phenomenal expense that would have been involved (the small St. Michael altarpieee cost twice as much as one of the large altarpieces and fully five times as much as any of those of comparable size), no more mosaic altarpieces were commissioned during Urban’s rule. It was not until the fol­lowing century that the project Pascoli attributed to Urban, to replace all the painted altarpieces with mosaic replicas, was finally begun in earnest.

One of the chief advantages of both marble relief and mosaic was, of course, their durability. The interior of St. Peters was notoriously cold and damp; in such an environ­ment, painted altarpieces often deteriorated quickly, especially in the early years, before the building was fully weatherproofed. By the time Urban came to the throne, the Petrine altarpieces commissioned by Clement VIII a quarter centuiy earlier were in a terrible state of repair. They had been painted on slate in an effort to minimize their susceptibility to moisture, but to no avail. The joints between the slabs of stone had loosened, allowing humidity to seep through and stain the surface. And the situation was made still worse by the frequent and vigorous scrubbings to which the pictures were subjected. In 1624, Passignano described his Crucifixion o f St. Peter as being “completely ruined by the cracks between the slates, and by repeated washings which have abraded the colors.’’23 Nor was his the only altarpieee to suffer in this way. Others of the original team of artists returned on several occasions to perform emergency restorations of their dilapidated paintings.24

Clement’s successors learned from his mistakes, and no more pictures were made on slate. Guercino’s St. Petronilla, the only altarpieee commissioned during the pontificate of Gregory XV was painted in oil on canvas. Subsequently, though, the Congregation must have decided that canvas was too fragile and vulnerable a support for the large altarpieces and gave orders that “the basilica’s altarpieces shall be painted on the wall, either in oil on

22 Pascoli, 1730-36, II, pp. 25—27: “Andava in tanto meditando il pontefice Urbano, che sempre piu proc- curava d ’omare quel bellissimo tempio, di trovar qualche modo di conservare i quadri degli altari dal- I’umido, da cui ricevevano notabil detrimento, siccome anch’oggi lo ricevano; e non avendolo potuto rinvenire penso di farli far tutti di musaico. Ordino percio a Giuseppe d ’Arpino, che facesse il disegno d ’uno de’ piu piccoli per darvi principio, e prender da questo norma per i grandi. [. . .] Consideratosi in tanto in faccia del luogo il partito che s era preso di far tutti i quadri degli altari a musaico non ebbe tutta l ’approvazione, e si principio a incagliare. Poiche dicevano alcuni, che il lustro soverchio dell’in- vernicato, che devono per necessita ritener quelle pietre non avrebbe troppo soddisfatta la vista a quel riflesso cristallino, e che 1’occhio non si sarebbe mai potuto appagare nel vedere di presso in un gran voto, e piano que' barlumi, che non avrebbero mai senza dispiacere lasciato goder tutto l ’insieme del composto. Altri dicevano che la quantita di tanti musaici avrebbe cagionata non piccola confusione, e tolto loro il pregio acquistato; che derivando dalla rarita non sarebbe stato piu raro quel che era troppo comunal da per tutto. Altri dicevano, che meglio sarebbe anche stato, e di maggior venerazione, e durata, e di minore spesa, [. . .] il farvi in cambio i bassi rilievi di marmo, e si sarebbero piu presto finiti per l ’abbondanza che v ’era allora di bravi artefici. Altri dicevano che non si doveva torre il guadagno a ’ pittori, e che di mano in mano che si guastavano i quadri si dovevano far rifare da ’ piu esperti, e col prezzo d un sol musaico si sarebbero ogni volta, che succeduto fosse il caso, rifatti tutti, ed ogni volta vedute cose nuove, ed original!, e non copie.’’ See also Passeri, pp. 165-66; Buonanni,1696, p. 11.

23 [Before March 19, 1624] ". . . la tavola . . . era tutta guasta per le comissure delie lavagne et perche era stata lavata molte volte che avevano portato via i colori." (Poliak, no. 936.)

24 See Chapter 3, n. 11.

CHAPTER NINE / T H E A R T I S T S AT W O R K 1 5 9

stucco or in fresco, and not on canvas; and the painters who are to produce these altar- pieces shall be so notified."25

In terms of medium, the altarpieces commissioned under Urban VIII displayed a fair degree of uniformity. Most of the large altarpieces were painted in oil on stucco; all of the oopraporti were painted in fresco; and most of the small altarpieces, including the six transept altarpieces and the altarpieces of St. Gregory and St. Maurice, were painted in oil on canvas.

Oil on stucco was widely used in church and palace decoration in the sixteenth and sev­enteenth centuries, perhaps more so than is often recognized today. In Chapter VIII of his introduction to the Liveo, Vasari gives a detailed description of the technique involved.26 Oil on stucco offered several advantages over fresco. Because the entire ground was prepared in advance, the artist could transfer his design to the wall and then paint directly over his drawing, rather than onto an intervening layer of fresh plaster. He could work at his own pace, and on more than one area at a time, free from the restrictions imposed by giornate. And because he worked with oil rather than water-based pigments, he could achieve richer colors and deeper shadows, and he could build up his composition in layers, using glazes and varnishes to attain subtle ofuniato effects. On the other hand, there were certain disad­vantages to the medium. Above all, the initial preparation of the ground was painstaking and time consuming. After it was applied, smoothed, and treated, the stucco had to be allowed to dry thoroughly before the paint was applied. Ideally, the surface was left for sev­eral months or even a year, so that any cracks caused by the contraction and expansion of the wall as the result of temperature and humidity changes could be spotted and filled in ahead of time. When properly executed, oil on stucco is a highly durable medium (when the Florentine Mario Balassi petitioned to paint an altarpieee in St. Peters, he promised that his work “would last as long as mosaic”27)- But if an artist was careless in preparing the ground or too impatient to allow it sufficient time to dry, the results could be disastrous. Passignano completed his Preoentation o f the Virgin in record-breaking time, between M ay and December 1627; but in his haste he apparently failed to take the necessary precautions, and within a decade the painting was so badly deteriorated that it had to be removed.28

Guido Reni came to Rome at the Congregation s invitation to paint one of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s, but he was anxious to return to his native Bologna as soon as possible. Per­haps this was the reason for his apparent unwillingness to execute his assigned altarpieee in oil on stucco: he wanted a faster medium. Not long after his arrival he made his preferences known: “Because oil on stucco must be left to dry for a year, Guido Reni [suggests] that he could very well paint his altarpieee in St. Peter’s on panel made of seasoned wood.”29 The

25 [Aug. 2, 1627] "Item denuo mandarunt Ieonas in Basilica pingi in muro, vel ut dicitur a stucco ad olio vel a fresco, nullo modo autem in Tela, et notificari Pictoribus a quibus dictae leones et Tabulae pingen- dae sunt.” (Poliak, no. 95.)

26 Vasari-Milanesi, I, pp. 187-88.27 [c. 1635] "Si obliga detto Mario servire con ogni studio, e diligenza, e particolarmente fare, che la Pit-

tura si conservi eterna quanto il Musaico." (Doc. Appendix, no. 26.)28 See Cat. 5 (a).29 [Jun e 21, 1627] "Guido Rena, che la tavola da farsi di stucco ad olio lassi asciug[a]re per un anno, che

si potra lar bene in Tavola stagionate di legno, che in S. Pietro." (Poliak, no. 85.)In fact, Reni would not have had to wait a whole year, since the stucco ground had already been laid

by Simon Vouet, who had been promised the altarpieee before Reni. This we learn from a letter Vouet wrote shortly before M ay 10, 1627: . . ha dato I’im prim itura ad un a ltra Tavola incontro aliasopradetta del Coro nuovo, a sue spese” (Poliak, no. 734). Vouet must have completed the preparatoiy work by April 17, 1627, lor on that date he intormed the Congregation that he was relinquishing the commission and returning to France (Poliak, no. 733). Thus the stucco had been d iying at least two months when Reni started negotiating with the Congregation over medium. Still, had he agreed to work in oil on stucco, he presumably would have had to wait a while longer belore beginning the )ob.

160 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

cardinals did not accept this proposal; but unwilling to risk losing Reni’s services, they did eventually agree to let him work in fresco, a medium that requires only minimal advance preparation. It had been a while since Reni had painted in fresco, and there may have been some concern that he was out of practice. Steven Pepper has suggested that it was to allay any uneasiness on this score that he produced a small scrap of fresco, representing a sleep­ing putto daringly foreshortened, which was then acquired by Cardinal Barberini and is still today in the Barberini Palace.30 If Reni painted the putto with the intention of demonstrat­ing his technical competence, his plan very nearly backfired, for according to Bernini the work was seriously flawed; Reni did not allow the plaster sufficient time to dry, with the result that the surface was spoiled in several places.31 The episode had no repercussions, however, since Reni retained the privilege of painting his altarpiece in fresco.

The only other altarpiece executed in fresco was Lanfranco’s ChrLit Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water.32 This replaced one of the Clementine altarpieces in the navi piccole. Since the others in the series were painted on slate, which had proved such an unsatisfactory support, uniformity of medium was not possible in this case, and Lanfranco may have been free to choose whatever medium he preferred.

The oopraporti, being of lesser consequence than the altarpieces, were painted in fresco, which, besides being a faster medium, was also much cheaper than oil on stucco. Accord­ing to the Congregation’s estimate, the production cost of a fresco was about half that of a comparably sized painting in oil on stucco.33 Fresco was also the medium traditionally asso­ciated with pictorial cycles, making it especially appropriate for a series of Peter stories.

Finally, the small altarpieces, with a couple of exceptions, were painted on canvas. Although on the whole it was more prestigious and more profitable to be assigned one of the large altarpieces, the small altarpieces offered one important advantage: they could be produced in the comfort of the artist’s studio, far from the icy temperatures and prying eyes that plagued those who had to work on site in St. Peter’s.

SI TE A N D L I GHT

In working out their designs, the artists obviously took into account the setting in which their altarpieces would be seen. In particular, the light (its direction, strength, and quality) played an important part in their thinking. Whenever possible, they tried to coordinate the fictive light in their pictures with the real light from a nearby window. Andrea Sacchi, for example, recognizing that the window in the adjacent wall to the left would be the chief source of illumination for his Miraculouo M o m o f St. Gregory, manipulated the light in the painting so that it appears to come from the same direction (Fig. 122). Real and painted light are here combined to wonderfully dramatic effect: the crucial action - St. Gregory stabbing the cloth — is underlined by the strong, diagonal shadow that his arm casts across his body.34

30 Pepper, 1984, pp. 30, 257—58.31 Chantelou (1885, p. 256) gives a somewhat garbled account of the episode: "Le Guide ayant ete appele

a Rome pour un ouvrage a faire a fresque a Saint-Jean de Latran ou Sainte Marie-Major, se trouvant hors d ’exercice, avait fait enduire un morceau de maqonnerie, sur lequel il avait peint un enfant dor­mant pour s ’essayer, et que cela etoit peint avec une franchise admirable, que le Cardinal Barberin guardait encore ce morceau, quoique gate en plusieurs endroits, pour ce que l’enduit n'avait pas eu le temps de secher qu ’il aurait ete necessaire.”

32 See Cat. 17. 33 See n. 49 below.34 See Cat. 9.

CHAPTER NINE / T H E A R T I S T S AT W O R K 1 6 1

A letter from Angelo Caroselli to the cardinals of the Fabbrica bears witness to the artist’s preoccupation with the lighting conditions under which his painting would be seen. In this letter Caroselli asks for additional payment, citing the following reason:

Angelo Caroselli, your humble servant, was honored to paint the St. Wenceslas altarpiece in St. Peter's. However, he was originally assigned the altar opposite that of St. Thomas with its altarpiece by Passignano, and for that altar he produced col­ored designs, and even started work on the painting itself. But having then been ordered to paint the same altarpiece for the altar opposite the St. Erasmus of Mon­sieur Poussin, he was forced because o f the difference in ligh ting [italics added] to make new drawings, and to repeat his labors.35

Because of a mix-up of some sort, Caroselli had been under the mistaken impression that his painting was intended for the left altar in the south transept [34] rather than, as was in fact the case, for the right altar in the north transept [15]. Adapting his composition from one site to the other involved significant revisions. What those revisions consisted of we can guess by looking at the painting (Fig. 142). Like Sacchi, Caroselli wanted to link fictive and real light sources. The north transept is illuminated by three large windows, one over each of the three altars. The Wenceslas altar, being on the right, is lighted predominately from the upper left, and Caroselli composed his picture accordingly, so that it too has its light source in the upper left. Had the picture been placed over the left altar in the south transept, as the painter originally anticipated, the painted illumination would have to have been reversed to achieve the same effect, for the real light striking that altar comes predom­inantly from the right. Thus, a seemingly simple change of location from one side of the church to the other in fact necessitated a fundamental reworking of the composition.36

Large windows are located over each of the altars around the outer perimeter of the church. Most of these windows face either north or south and admit a relatively diffused light. But the windows over the three altars on the western side of the church (i.e. the apse altar and the altars of St. Leo and St. Petronilla) face directly into the setting sun, and the light that pours through them in the late afternoon can be blinding. For the artists commis­sioned to produce altarpieces for these three altars, the windows presented a serious prob­lem of contraluce, or backlighting, which threatened to render their pictures virtually invisi­ble at certain times of the day. Of Guercino's St. Petronilla, for example, Passeri commented: “This work is not well lit, for it is located in one of the corner chapels of that great church, and is right beneath the window which illuminates the chapel in a manner disadvantageous to the painting.’’37 Passeri made a similar observation about the St. Leo altarpiece, which he described as “sottoposto ad un lume alquanto infelice.”38 There was not much that Guer­cino or any of the several artists who were assigned the St. Leo altarpiece could do to rem­

35 [1632] "Angelo Caroselli servitore humillissimo dell’Eccellenze Vostre riceve g r[a ti]a di dipingere il S. Vincislao in S. Pietro, et gli fu pero destinata la Cappella incontro a quella di S. Tomasso dipinta dal Passignani, et ne fece i disegni colorati col pnncipio dell'opra. M a havendo dopo havuto ord[in]e di dipingere il quadro med[esim]o nella Cappella incontro a S. Erasmo di Monsu Possino, fu forzato per la varieta del lume far nuovi disegni, et nuove fatiche. . . (Poliak, no. 2161.)

36 The bozzelto in the Museo di Roma is lighted, like the finished altarpiece, from the left (Fig. 150). Assuming this small sketch in oil on paper is indeed a preparatory work rather than a version after the finished altarpiece, it must have been produced after Caroselli was informed that his painting was to go over the altar in the north transept. See Cat. 12.

37 Passeri, p. 351: "Quest’opera non e molto favorita da lume a proporzione, essendo situata in una delle quattro cuppolette di quella gran Chiesa et e sotto la finestra, che illumina quel sito, tanto che non ha favorevole l ’illuminazione.” See Cat. 1.

38 Ibid., p. 94. See Cat. 18.

162 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

edy the situation. Only Bernini found a w ay of turning it to artistic advantage. By incorpo­rating the window over the apse altar into his design for the Cathedra Petri, he reduced it in size, fitted it with tinted glass, and was thus able to control the influx of afternoon light, transforming an irksome glare into a glo iy of divine illumination (Fig. 168).39

Apart from taking into account the real lighting conditions under which their works would be seen, the artists tried other ways of linking their paintings to their immediate surroundings. In his Presentation o f the Virgin, Romanelli included on the far left the lower portion of a green porphyry column, which, in its proportions and in the distinctive profile of its base, exactly matches the colossal porta santa columns that flank the altar (Figs. 94-95).40 From the direction of the priest’s gesture, we are given to understand that this column denotes the portal of the temple. Thus a visual analogy is implied between the temple of Jerusalem and St. Peter’s, and by extension between the Old and New Testa­ments that they embody.

Poussin made use of a similar device in his /Martyrdom o f St. Erasmus (Fig. 127).41 The pagan temple in the upper right corner of his composition features colossal fluted columns of yellow marble, identical to the columns that flank the neighboring altar of Sts. Proces­sus and Martinian (Figs. 42, 132). These monolithic columns of qiallo antieo, along with the matching pair in the south transept, were among the prized possessions of St. Peter’s. By including them in his composition, Poussin not only linked the altarpiece with its architectural surroundings, but also drew attention to the religious significance of the columns as spolia. Ju s t as the columns in his painting belong to a temple of Hercules, so too the real columns originated in a pagan building (specifically, the Forum of Trajan); but in St. Peter’s these same columns are converted and reerected in a Christian cause.

On a more purely visual level, Valentin used color to establish a harmonious relation­ship between his altarpiece and its setting (Figs. 132—133). The porphyry-colored pan­taloons of the executioner on the right exactly match the precious porphyry columns of the altar surround. It may well have been this that Sandrart was thinking of when he praised the painting for, among other things, its "Harmonia der Farben.”42

PAYMENT

It is unclear whether the Congregation stipulated in advance the precise amount the artists would be paid for their services. If contracts were drawn up, they have not sur­vived or have not yet come to light.43 But perhaps there was no need for contracts, since payment was generally decided on the basis of the size and medium of the paintings and within these parameters tended to be fairly uniform. Thus the standard payment for alarge altarpiece was 800 to 1,000 scudi, for a small altarpiece 300 to 400 sank, and for asopraporto 700 to 800 scud i (the sopraporti, although nearly the same size as the large altar- pieces, cost less to produce because they were painted in fresco, a cheaper medium than oil on stucco).

39 See Cat. 19. 99 See Cat. 5 (b).91 See Cat. 10. 42 Sandrart, 1925, p. 257. See Cat. 11.43 The records of Paolo Roverio, notary of the Fabbrica, are preserved in the Archivio di Stato, Rome.

They include a number ol contracts between the Fabbrica and various artisans, including stuccoists,masons, and so on. But the only similar document involving one of the painters who worked in St. Peter’s is a contract with Gaspare Celio, in which the Fabbrica agrees to pay him 150 scud i in partial payment for his work in the baptismal chapel. See Cat. 3 (a).

CHAPTER NINE / T H E A R T I S T S AT W O R K 1 6 3

The sum the artist received was to cover his costs as well as his labor. The Fabbrica supplied him with a scaffold, but just about everything else he had to provide for himself. There were exceptions. The Fabbrica supplied the canvas and stretchers for the small altarpieces; and Algardi was obviously not expected to buy the marble for his St. Leo altarpiece. On the other hand, Calandra was paid nearly 1,800 scud i for the St. Michael altarpiece, on the understanding that he would arrange for all his own materials, including the costly glass tesserae imported from Venice.44

Clearly, whatever arrangements were made in advance, the Congregation had some leeway when it came to deciding how much an artist should be paid. For example, the documents suggest that the cardinals initially planned to pay Poussin 300 scudi, but upon the successful completion ol his altarpiece, they rewarded him with not one but two sepa­rate bonuses, each of 50 scudi, bringing the total to 400 scudiI45 Passignano was better paid than any other painter. For his small St. Thomas altarpiece he was given 850 scu d f more than twice the maximum standard fee; and for his large Presentation o f the Virgin, in addition to the maximum standard fee ol 1,000 scudi, he was awarded a gold chain worth 200 scudi. One can only assume that it was his special standing with the pope that accounts for his having been paid so generously, just as it accounts for his having been awarded two such prestigious commissions in the first place.46

Guido Reni's case was even more exceptional. So anxious were the cardinals to retain his services that they agreed to pay him a monthly salary rather than the set fee that every other painter had to be content with. With the consent of Cardinal Barberini, it was agreed that Rem would receive an initial sum of 400 scnd i as soon as he began work on the painting and thereafter a stipend of 300 scud i a month until he completed it.47 At that rate, he would have exceeded the maximum standard fee of 1,000 scud i after the first three months. In a letter to a friend, Reni explained that the arrangement was supposed to last only five months, but even so, he could count on earning as much as 1,600 scndi.48 No wonder the members of the Congregation were worried that the special treatment he received might stir up envy among the other artists, who might in turn try to demand equal pay. In agreeing to Reni’s terms, they noted: "We would be well advised to arrange payment in such a w ay that the other painters will not feel encouraged to make similar claims. This is especially important because Reni will be working in fresco, and will have only half the expenses of those working in oil on stucco.’’49 In the end, the deal Reni cut may have been his own undoing. For the sources agree that what led to his eventual rup­ture with the Congregation were the accusations of procrastination that were leveled at him by one or more of its members.60 Had Reni been willing to work for the standard fee of 1,000 scudi, he probably would have been left alone. No one would have minded if an artist who was paid a set fee took a month or a year to complete his altarpiece. But an artist who was paid on a monthly basis was expected to produce on schedule; any delay on his part looked too much like greed. Reni responded with self-righteous indignation to the insinuations that he felt were being made against him. Insisting that genius cannot be

44 Poliak, no. 2297. 45 Poliak, nos. 2163-66.46 Poliak, nos. 2135-36; 670-71. 4' Poliak, no. 87.48 See the Documents section at the end ol Cat. 6.49 "Si pone in consid[eration]e che se li diafno] in maniera, che li altri Pittori non possano haver la

med[esim]a preten[sion]e, mass[im]e che il ping[er]e a fresco come fara Guido e di minor spesa lameta, che ping[er]e a stucco ad olio.” (Poliak, no. 87.)

50 Passeri, p. 94; Bellori, 1672 (1976), p. 531; Malvasia, 1841, II, pp. 26-27.

164 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

forced but must wait on inspiration, he returned all the money he had received so far and immediately left Rome.

If the Congregation was free to pay some artists more than the standard rate, it was also free to pay others less. Angelo Caroselli received only 250 ocudi for his St. Wenceslas altarpiece, 50 ocudi less than any other painter (Fig. 142). Possibly the work was consid­ered inadequate. More likely, though, Caroselli was paid so little because of the relative simplicity of his composition, which includes only two figures (one and a half, strictly speaking) and involves almost no action. Caroselli could hardly be blamed for this, since he based the composition on the instructions given him by the canons. Still, his altarpiece is undeniably tame compared with the neighboring altarpieces by Poussin and Valentin, with their dramatic subject matter and complex, multifigured compositions, and one can see why it was considered fair that he should be paid less than they.

Another artist who received less than the norm was Paolo Guidotti. For his sopraporto representing the Denial and Lamentation o f Peter, he and his heirs were paid only 525 ocudi In this case, the Congregation may have decided on the amount because of the poor qual­ity of the work. The fresco is lost, so we cannot judge for ourselves on this point. But there is reason to think that it was not well received, for it was removed within a decade of completion.51

No matter how much they were paid, many artists ended up petitioning the Congrega­tion for additional compensation. Vouet was given 800 ocudi for his altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir, but he thought he deserved more and sent the Congregation and the pope a detailed list of the reasons.52 Domenichino, too, was not content with the 800 ocudi he received for his /Martyrdom o f St. Selw.ition, and this despite the fact that he had left the work unfinished and himself admitted that it was seriously flawed.53 One might have thought that Guercino would have nothing to complain about, having been paid the maxi­mum standard fee of 1,000 ocudi for his St. Petronilla altarpiece, but this did not stop him from asking the Congregation for 1,500.54 One almost gets the impression that it was expected of the artists to complain and petition for additional money. Nor were their motives for doing so entirely venal. The amount an artist was paid was an important indi­cation of what the Congregation thought of his work. A gold chain or a bonus of 50 ocudi was a mark of approval, and benefited the artist not only financially but also in terms of his reputation.

THE P U B L I C R E A C T I O N

The general public had other means of showing approval or disapproval. There was widespread interest in the ongoing decoration of the basilica, and the unveilings of new paintings, as far as one can tell, were well attended. These unveilings were scheduled in several instances to coincide with the feasts of the saints for whose altars the paint­ings had been created. Guercino’s B uria l o f St. P etronilla was installed over the altar on

51 See Cat. SP. 5 (a). 52 See Cat. 8.53 See Cat. A.54 In two letters requesting payment, Guercino makes reference to a certain “decreto di Papa Paolo V.”

He does not specify the content of this mysterious decree, but from the context of his letters it seemsthat it set a limit on how much the artist could be paid. Thus he asks for 1,500 ctcudi “non ostante un asserto decreto di Paolo Quinto” (Poliak, no. 2271), or again "derogando ad un decreto di Papa Paolo V” (Poliak, no. 2275). The reference is tantalizing, but no additional information that might explain it has so far come to light.

CHAPTER NINE / T H E A R T I S T S AT W O R K 1 6 5

M ay 29, just two days before the sain t’s feast day.55 C alandra’s St. M ichael, too, was put in place just in time to be unveiled on September 29, the feast of the archangel.56 A week before the feast of the Presentation (November 21), a red damask curtain was hung in front of Passignano’s Presentation o f the Virgin, which was described at that time as being finished;57 probably those who attended mass at the altar on that day were given a preview of the painting, although it seems that the official unveiling took place a month later.58

Often we know little of the public reaction to the newly unveiled paintings. The avvisi where notices of several of the unveilings appear are uninformative, usually providing only a few stock phrases of praise. In reporting the unveilings of Passignano's Presentation on December 22, 1627, and Guidotti ’s Denial and Lamentation o f St. P eter on September 17, 1628, the author of one set of a w is i used identical language, describing both works as painted “con gran maestria. ”59

On occasion, however, we do get an indication of the intensity of public interest in the altarpieces and of the sometimes extraordinary ways in which it manifested itself. Torrigio records that after the unveiling of Guercino's St. Petronilla, numerous verses in its praise were posted on the walls next to it. One of these poems, addressed to the painter, is cited in full in Torrigio’s notes.60 M essages of this kind, written in verse or in prose, and attached to the walls of the chapels, must have been a common sight in St. Peter’s. They provided a medium for the expression of opinions about the quality of the works of art on view. They were not always complimentary; in the tradition of the Roman pasquinade, they could be downright satirical and derisive. Gaspare Celio was the victim of one such attack. Shortly after the scaffolding was taken down and his altarpiece representing the Baptism o f Christ revealed for the first time, a notice was posted on the wall of the chapel lambasting the work and apparently also denouncing the Congregation for its poor judg­ment in having hired Celio in the first place. The incident was reported to Cardinal Borghese in the following letter from an unnamed officer of the Fabbrica:

A few days ago a notice was posted in the baptismal chapel, recently decorated by Cavaliere Celio, which said in substance, that the work was poorly made and by an incompetent artist. The notice was discovered by Giulio di Pietro, one of the Fab­brica s masons, who took it down so that it would not be seen, and kept it himself. I was told that the note not only criticized the painting, but also blamed the Congre­gation and its ministers. So I ordered that it be shown to me, and having found that this was indeed the case, I told Giulio to preserve the notice, and to show it to no one, in case the members of the Congregation decide to take measures to discover and punish the author.61

55 See the Documents section at the end of Cat. 1. 56 See Cat. 16, n. 7.67 Poliak, no. 1131. 58 Poliak, no. 672.69 Poliak, nos. 672 and 2285.60 See Chapter 3, n. 47.61 [Oct. 18, 1628] "Illustrissimo et Reverendissimo Signor mio Osservandissimo. Pochi giorni sono, fu

attaccata una scrittura dentro la Cappella del battesmo finita ultimamente di dipingere dal Cavaliero Cel- lio, la qual conteneva in sostanza, che 1 opera fusse malfatta, et da artefice poco sufficiente, et haven-dovela trovata Giulio di Pietro uno dei muratori della fabrica, la stacco, accio non fusse veduta, et la ritenne app[ress]o di se, et sendomi stato detto, che la scrittura non solo conteneva poco bene dell’opera, ma biasmo della Congregazione, et suoi ministri, ordinai che si vedesse, et sendosi trovato che non con­teneva altro, fu ordinato a detto Giulio, che la conservasse, ne la mostrasse ad altro, accio parendo cost a questi 111.mi miei Signori vi si potesse far sopra qualche dihgenza per scoprirne et gastigarne l ’auttore.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1-no. 216, f. 94. A second copy is in Piano 2-serie armadi—no. 152, f. 214v.)

166 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Freedom of expression, it seems, was allowed only to those who could maintain their anonymity. It would be intriguing to know the exact wording of the message - it must have been more than a little rude to have caused such a stir — but unfortunately the text has not survived.

As for the cognoscen ti and eruditi of Rome, the unveiling of the altarpieces in St. Peter's provided them with a perfect opportunity to show off their skills. Sandrart tells how they debated at length the relative merits of the paintings by Poussin and Valentin; and it is reasonable to suppose that other altarpieces inspired similar discussions and appraisals. Nor did these self-appointed critics limit themselves to judging the works on aesthetic grounds, but analyzed and evaluated the iconography w ith equal zeal. In a letter addressed to the pope, the learned courtier Michele Lonigo offered his assessment, at inordinate length, of two recently completed altarpieces, Passignano’s Presentation o f the Virgin and Sacchi’s M iraculous Alass o f St. G regory (Fig. 122).62 The letter opens with an elaborate image of the basilica as the bride of Christ. That it may be said of it “Tota pul- chra est, et macula non est in te,” it is important that its altarpieces, the loveliest orna­ments of the bride, be in every w ay edifying and pure, and that above all they instruct the simple and contain nothing to scandalize the educated. He continues:

I tell this to Your Holiness with my usual humility, because in the past months I have seen and carefully studied the two altarpieces, one of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, the other of St. Gregory, recently made for St. Peter’s, and it seems to me that the painters were little concerned with accuracy, and failed to observe the rules which the sainted Fathers have prescribed in such matters; that they took excessive liberties in interpreting their subject matter, and showed themselves to be uninformed about ancient rites, relying too much on their imagination rather than on the solid foundation of scripture.

Lonigo then proceeds to catalogue the numerous errors and historical inaccuracies he found in the two paintings. These range from the age of the Virgin and the vestments of the priest in one to the candelabra, tiara, dove, and even the physiognomy of the saint in the other. He concludes:

I pointed out these errors, most Holy Father, to various accountable persons, so that they could bring them to Your Holiness’s attention, and arrange to have them recti­fied as soon as possible — they all acknowledged these lapses and claimed to agree with me that they should be remedied. But because I see that up to now no one has taken it upon himself to do so, I have summoned up the courage to describe them to you in this letter. . . .

No one seems to have taken Lonigo’s criticisms too seriously, and his call to have the offending passages corrected or removed was ignored. Nevertheless, his letter gives us an idea of the intense scrutiny to which the pictures were subjected, and of the almost impos­sibly high standards to which they were held.

An artist could make or lose his reputation on the basis of what he accomplished in St. Peter’s. Celio, an experienced and modestly talented master, never fully recovered from the violent criticisms leveled at his work in the baptismal chapel, not only by the anony­

62 For the complete text of Ixmigo’s letter, see Doc. Appendix, no. 23. Ixmigo was a papal archivist and master of ceremonies under Paul V, and the author of several treatises on antiquarian subjects, includ­ing one on the con fessis in old St. Peter’s (I. Lavin, 1968, p. 14 and n. 62). His letter to Urban VIII was kindly brought to my attention by Jo rg Merz; for a detailed analysis of the text, see Herklotz, 1996.

CHAPTER NINE / T H E A R T I S T S AT W O R K 1 6 7

mous author of the scurrilous notice posted to the chapel’s wall but apparently by many others as well.63 Romanelli, on the other hand, was virtually unknown to the public at large when he received his first commission in St. Peters, but sucb was the success of his Peter Healing with Hit Shadow that his fame and fortune were permanently secured (Fig. 184).64 A commission in St. Peter’s brought with it an excellent opportunity for self­advancement, but it also brought a potential danger. In so public and prestigious a forum, the artist was uniquely exposed. Honor and glo iy were his if he lived up to the standards imposed by the setting; but if he did not, if his work was considered unworthy of St. Peter’s, he was subject to censure and ridicule.65

The artists who received commissions in St. Peter’s were thus doubly motivated to excel, and the works they produced, with few exceptions, were of superb quality. Of the surviving altarpieces, the percentage of acknowledged masterpieces is extraordinarily high. What survey of seventeenth-centuiy Italian art would be complete, after all, without some mention of Guercino’s St. Petronilla, Sacchi's M iraculvuo Afao.t o f St. Gregory, Poussin’s St. Eraomuo, Valentin’s /Martyrdom o f Sto. Proceoouo and Martinian, A lgardi’s St. Leo and Attila, and Bernini’s Cathedra Petri, to name only the most famous? These are works that had a tremendous impact on the development of Roman Baroque art, and even today continue to influence our understanding and appreciation of the subject.66

63 For the scathing comments of Baglione and Bellori on Celio’s paintings in St. Peter’s, see Cat. 3 (a), esp. nn. 10 and 11.

64 Passeri, p. 307.65 The idea that a painting had to be ol exceptional quality to be worthy of St. Peter’s is succinctly

expressed in an anonymous text from the end of the centuiy, in which Carlo M aratta’s Baptutm o f Chri.0 (1696) is criticized for being good, but not good enough for St. Peter’s: ’’In somma dicono che il quadro sia passabile, ma non per San Pietro.” The document is cited and interpreted by Dowley, 1965, pp. 74-81, esp. n. 115.

66 At least one scholar has attempted to define the seminal influence of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s on the evolution of seventeenth-century Roman painting: "It is perhaps to the fact that all the great creative minds of the new generation of artists were employed at the same time at S. Peter ’s between about 1625 and 1631 that the Baroque styl e in Rome owes a certain unity which one would not expect from the diversity of individual temperament and theory found in its major figures.” (Waterhouse, 1969, p. 45.)

E P I L O G U E

tea

IN HIS TEA1P10 VATICANO of 1694, Carlo Fontana gave St. Peter’s the epithet “Scola delle Arti. The basilica had become a mecca for artists, who came from all

over Italy and beyond to study and copy the many masterpieces it contained. Above all, they were interested in the altarpieces and jopraporti, which together constituted the most complete compendium of Italian seventeenth-century religious art anywhere to be found. It became a standard part of the education of any young painter to spend long hours in St. Peter’s with sketchbook in hand, mastering the rudiments of his art by carefully reproducing the images he found there. The Neapolitan Paolo de’ Matteis was typical in this respect:

Paolo was then in Rome, and devoted himself to studying and drawing the works of the great masters of the Roman school, especially in the churches, and hoping in this w ay to improve his skills, he produced some fine drawings neatly touched with crayon, and so boldly delineated that they were praised even by the masters them­selves. And that was how his career began, because one day while he was copying a painting in St. Peter’s, he was observed by Don Gaspar de H aroy Gusman, March- ese of Carpio, the Spanish Ambassador to Rome, who was extremely fond of paint­ing. After watching the artist with pleasure, and praising his drawing, he commis­sioned him to make copies for him of various other paintings, both in St. Peter’s and in other churches in Rome.2

None of Paolo de’ M atteis’s drawings after paintings in St. Peter's has so lar been identi­fied, but similar drawings by other artists are commonplace, and more will doubtless be

1 Fontana, 1694, p. 406.2 De’ Dominici, 1742, III, p. 519: "Dimorando adunque Paoluccio in Roma, si diede ad osservare, e dis-

egnare lopere de’ migliori Maestri della Romana Scuola, e per lo piu nelle Chiese, e cercando in tal modo avanzarsi nell arte, fece de’ buoni disegni toccati di matita con pulizia, e con Franchezza tale, che eran lodati anche d a ’ medesimi Professori. E quindi ebbe cominciamento la sua fortuna, poiche un giorno disegnando egli un quadro in S. Pietro, fu osservato da D. Gaspar de Haro, y Gusman Marchese de Carpio Ambasciadore in Roma del Re Cattolico, Signore dilettantissimo della pittura, il quale dopo aver con diletto osservato, e lodato quel disegno gli ordino, che disegnasse per lui alcuni altri quadri, tanto di quelli esposti in S. Pietro quanto in altre Chiese di Roma.”

E P I L O G U E § § 1 6 9

identified in the future. Leo Steinberg published a seventeenth-century copy of Guer- cino's St. Petronilla altarpiece, which in its clumsiness looks very much like the work of a beginner.3 A pair of drawings, executed in red chalk on the recto and verso of a single sheet, were recognized by Erich Schleier as figure studies after two different altarpieces in St. Peter’s, Lanfranco’s Navicella and Vouet’s lost altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir; Schleier suggested that they are by a follower of M aratta, from around 1700.4 Didier Bodart attributed a drawing representing Peter H ealing with Hit Shadow in the Thomas Ashby collection to Pietro de' Pietri, but failed to notice that it is a copy after Romanelli’s oopraporto of the same sub ject.5 Another copy of Rom anelli’s composition is in the Albertina in Vienna.6 Painted copies of several altarpieces have also survived.7

The abundance of copies, both drawn and painted, points to the admiration, even rev­erence, that these works inspired in later generations of painters. L ike established favorites such as Michelangelo’s Sistine ceiling and Raphael’s frescoes in the otanze, the altarpieces and oopraporti of St. Peter’s were so well known that, for a while at least, they formed part ol the common repertory of images that made up the visual culture shared by all but the most provincial of artists.

If the paintings did not retain this lofty status for long, it was because of a combination of changing circumstances and changing tastes. Within fifty years of their completion, the works were already in poor condition, blackened by soot and dust and damaged by expo­sure to damp and cold.8 The general situation can be illustrated by the particular case of Poussin’s St. Erasmus altarpiece, about which a good deal of information has come down to us. In 1677, a Frenchman visiting St. Peter’s observed of Poussin’s painting: "It is a pity that the colors are beginning to fade, and that the painting has become dull.”9 Indeed, already by the middle of the century, the picture had so darkened that the composition could hardly be made out. Andrea Sacchi (who died in 1661) is said to have told the fol­lowing story, which sheds fascinating light on the picture’s condition at that time. One day Bernini came upon a group of Northern (presumably French) painters in St. Peter's, who were studying Poussin’s altarpiece. He said to them: “You see how this painting has become so dark that it is almost indecipherable? Yet I myself watched it being created by Poussin, and he kept it rather lighter than not.”10 In warning his listeners about the dan­gers of long-term exposure in a setting like St. Peter’s, Bernini seems to imply that Poussin used light colors precisely because he anticipated that they would darken over the course of time, in other words, that he compensated in advance for the inevitable effects of

3 Steinberg, 1980, fig. 9. 4 Schleier, 1968, p. 574 and figs. 51 and 52.5 Bodart, 1975, pp. 87-88.5 Kerber, 1983, p. 38 and fig. 24.7 A copy of Pietro da Cortona’s Trinity altarpiece, possibly by Carlo M aratta or someone in his circle, is

in the Palazzo Corsini (Fig. 98). A small version ol Poussin’s St. Eraomuo, in the Galleria Nazionale in the Palazzo Barberini, is sometimes identified as an autograph bozzetto but is more likely to be a copyafter the finished painting. There are several painted copies after Sacchi's St. Gregory. A lgardi’s St. Leo, to o , spawned a number of small relief reproductions.

8 In 1644, the painter Guidobaldo Abbatini was paid for cleaning and restoring the eight altarpieces in the navi p icco le (Poliak, nos. 2469—74). Twelve years later, in 1656, he was again at work, this time restoring various other altarpieces throughout the church: [M arch 6, 1656] “Guido Baldo Abbatino pro restauratione plurium iconarum temporis iniuria in templo Vaticano in aliquibus partibus . . .”(AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 163, f. 73).

9 “C ’est dommage que les couleurs commencent a se passer et que le tableau demeure mat.’’ (Specchio di Roma barocca, 1991, p. 23.)

10 The passage is cited in full in the original Italian in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 10.

170 H T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

aging. If Poussin’s painting, which started out so blond, was already blackened by mid­century, one can image how much darker and dingier the other paintings in the basilica must have been.11

Despite their deterioration, the altarpieces were so respected that for nearly a hundred years no action was taken to remove or replace them. Only two significant changes were made to the program during the second half of the seventeenth centuiy. First, an altar in honor of St. Nicolas of Bari was erected in the chamber to the right of the chapel of the Crucifix and furnished with a mosaic altarpieee by Fabio Cristofari.12 Second, the bap­tismal chapel underwent a complete remodeling by Carlo Fontana (1692-98), entailing the removal of the original Cathedra altarpieee (made redundant in any case by the cre­ation of the new Cathedra altarpieee in the apse) and the installation of a new altarpieee by Carlo Maratta, which depicted, like Celio’s altarpieee before it, the Baptism o f Chriot (Figs. 88 -89).13

By the first quarter of the eighteenth century, the condition of the paintings had degen­erated to such an extent that something clearly had to be done if they were to be pre­served. It was at this point that the Congregation made the momentous decision to trans­form all of the painted altarpieces into mosaics. The task was an ambitious one, but the Vatican otudio dei mooaici had grown in size and experience since Urban’s day and could now take on a project of this scope. The operation took more than a hundred years, con­tinuing even into the present century.

The campaign proceeded in three distinct phases, which followed one another in roughly chronological order, although with some overlapping. The Congregation’s initial policy was to preserve the original scheme of the altarpieces as much as possible. Thus, the first phase involved only the straightforward translation of the existing paintings into the more permanent medium of mosaic. The Vatican mosaicists were already familiar with this sort of exercise, having replaced Sacchi's four small altarpieces in the subterranean chapels beneath the crossing piers with mosaic reproductions in the 1680s, and they quickly learned to apply their skills on a larger scale.14 The first of the altarpieces in the basilica proper to undergo conversion was Valentin ’s M artyrdom o f St). Proceooito and M ar­tinian (1709—after 1711; Fig. 132).13 In the 1720s and 1730s others followed, including Lanfranco’s Navicella (1721-26; Fig. 156), Roncalli's Death o f Sapphira (1725-27; Fig. 36), Romanelli’s Preoentation o f the Virgin (1726—28; Fig. 94), Guercino's St. Petronilla (1728—30; Fig. 72), M aratta s Baptiom o f Chri.it (1730—34; Fig. 89), Domenichino’s M artyrdom o f St. Sebaotian (1730—36; Fig. 90), Poussin’s M artyrdom o f St. Eraomno (1737-39; Fig. 124), Caroselli’s St. Wenceolao (1739-40; Fig. 141), and, somewhat after the others, Sacchi’s M iraculouo Maoo o f St. G regory (1770- 72; Fig. 121).16

In the second phase of the campaign, the mosaics, instead of being based on the origi­nal altarpieces, were based on cartoons commissioned by the Congregation from various contemporary artists. In most cases the subject matter remained the same or virtually the same as in the original painting, but the composition was, so to speak, updated to suit eighteenth-century tastes. Most of the altarpieces in the navip icco le (which dated from the

11 Poussin’s painting was restored by Raffaele Vanni in 1662. (Passeri, p. 326, n. 1.)12 Cat. 2 and DiFederico, 1983, pp. 28, 73, fig. 122.13 Dowlev. 1965. 14 DiFederico, 1983, pp. 28, 77.15 Ibid., p. 74. Painted in a typically dark, Caravaggesque palette, Valentin’s altarpieee may have suffered

more than its neighbors from the darkening that affected them all to one degree or another, which mayexplain why it was the first to be translated into mosaic.

>« Ibid., pp. 73-79.

E P I L O G U E 1 7 1

time of Gregory XIII and Clement VIII and must therefore have seemed particularly old- fashioned in comparison with some of the more recent works) were supplanted in this way. In fact, the Clementine altarpieces were in such poor condition by then that it may have been technically impossible to make adequate copies of them to serve as cartoons for the production of mosaics. Thus, over the course of the next several decades, Muziano’s St. Basil Celebrating the M o m (Fig. 30), Cigoli’s St. P eter Healing a t the Golden Gate (Fig. 39), and Baglione’s R ailing o f Tab it ha (Fig. 40) were replaced by new versions of the same sub­jects by Pierre Subleyas (1748-51; Fig. 31), Francesco Mancini (1744—48), and Placido Costanzi (1757-60) respectively.17 Francesco Vann is Death o f Simon M agus was scheduled for replacement by Pompeo Batoni’s version of the same scene, but for some reason this particular substitution never took place.18 Finally, in 1805-22, Passignano’s Doubting o f Thomas over the right altar in the south transept was replaced by a version of the same subject by Vincenzo Camuccini (Figs. 147—148).19

Meanwhile, the third phase of the campaign was already under way. In this phase, even greater liberties were taken with the original program, for the Congregation now began replacing the remaining paintings with mosaic reproductions of famous altarpieces in churches other than St. Peter’s. As early as 1730—33, Muziano’s St. Jerom e altarpiece was supplanted by a mosaic copy of Domenichino’s Laot Communion o f St. J erom e in S. Girolamo della Carita (Figs. 28—29). Then, in 1756—58, the St. M ichael altarpiece by Cesari d ’Arpino and Calandra was replaced by a reproduction of Guido Reni’s celebrated St. M ichael in S. M aria della Concezione (Figs. 154—155). In this case, the original altar- piece was itself a mosaic, so there was surely no technical need to replace it, but only a desire to install a more famous and fashionable composition.

After that, the Congregation no longer felt obliged even to retain the original subject matter. It set out to transform St. Peter’s into a kind of museum of mosaic reproductions of the great masterpieces of modern religious painting, with no regard for the original pro­gram, or indeed for the dedications of the altars for which these images were intended. A copy of Raphael’s Iran, figu ra tion in S. Pietro in Montorio replaced Roncalli’s Death o f Sap­phira (Fig. 35), which in turn replaced Passignano’s Crucifixion o f St. Peter. Mosaics after R en i's C ru cifix ion o f St. P e te r in S . Paolo a lle Tre Fontane (1 7 7 9 -9 4 ; F ig . 152), Domenichino’s Ecstasy o f St. Francii in S. M aria della Concezione (1795—1801; Fig. 103), and Caravaggio’s Entombment in the Chiesa Nuova (c. 1806—21) were placed over the altars formerly dedicated in honor of Sts. Simon and Jude , Sts. Martial and Valeria, and St. Maurice respectively, and in each case the original altarpiece was removed from the church. The changes have continued even into the present centuiy, with the additions of Carlo Muccioli’s Chritt o f the Sacred Heart Appearing to St. M argaret M ary Alacoque (1919-25), which replaced Francesco Vanni’s Fall o f Simon M agus, the last of the original Clementine altarpieces, and Achille Funis St. Joseph Patron o f the Universal Church (1961—63; Fig. 149), which replaced the mosaic reproduction of Reni’s Crucifixion o f St. Peter over the middle altar in the south transept.

With the third phase, we witness the final disintegration of the thematic and artistic program conceived and largely realized under Urban VIII. The visitor to St. Peter’s today will find only three of the original seventeenth-century altarpieces still in situ — Cortona’s Trinity, Algardi’s St. Leo, and Bernini’s Cathedra Petri — along with mosaic reproductions

17 Ibid., pp. 75-76.19 Ibid., pp. 77-78.

18 Ibid., p. 76.

172 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

of about half a dozen others. Of the altarpieces and jopraporti considered in this study, the majority survive, but relegated to museums and churches in Rome and elsewhere. Guer- cino’s St. Petronilla forms the centerpiece of the Pinacoteca Capitolina. Two other large altarpieces, Domenichino's St. Sebaotian and Romanelli’s Presentation o f the Virgin, are in S. M aria degli Angeli, one of the few churches in Rome big enough to accommodate them. Lanfranco’s fresco representing Chritf Sum m oning P eter to Walk, on the Water was badly damaged in the process of removal, but the lower half is preserved in the benediction log­gia of St. Peter’s, along with the sole extant oopraporto, Romanelli’s St. P eter Healing with Hit Shadow. The Vatican Pinacoteca houses Poussin’s St. Eraomuo, Valentin's St.t. Proce.t.tM and Martinian, and Sacchi’s St. Gregory. The Fabbrica retains ownership of Ciampelli’s St.t. Simon and Jude and Pellegrini’s St. M aurice; and Spadarino’s St. M artial and Passignano’s St. Thonuut are on view in the Sala Capitolare of the sacristy of St. Peter’s. The mosaic St. M ichael by Cesari d ’Arpino and Calandra was presented by Pope Clement XIV to the town of Macerata and today hangs in the Duomo. Caroselli’s St. WenceoLut is the farthest afield. Sometime between 1740 and 1804 it entered the imperial collection in Vienna, pre­sumably as a papal gift, and is today in the Kunsthistorisches Museum.

Once integral parts ol a unified ensemble, these works can be viewed today only in iso­lation, hung in alien places, separated from their altars and from the relics of the saints whose lives and m iracles they celebrate. Torn from their Petrine setting, they have inevitably lost something of their meaning and much of their impact. But by focusing on their collective history — by imaginatively rehousing them in St. Peter’s, in the ritual and artistic contexts for which they were conceived — we can perhaps come close to recaptur­ing the ensemble’s original splendor and significance.

Catalogue

The catalogue entries are conceived as a series of essays on the individual altars and their altarpieces. Each entry is followed by an inventory of preparatory drawings, sketches, or other related visual materials such as copies, a “Documents” section, and a “Sources” sec­tion. “Documents” includes texts or parts of texts directly relevant to the subject of a par­ticular entry; documents and other archival and manuscript materials that have a bearing on more than one altarpiece, or that shed light on the campaign as a whole, are instead included in the Documentary Appendix at the end of the book. “Sources” includes pas­sages from early printed texts. It is not intended to be comprehensive but includes only those passages judged to be particularly useful or informative. References in the body of a catalogue entry to materials included in the "Documents” and "Sources” sections at the end are not generally footnoted.

174

C A T A L O G U E 1

ALTAR OF ST. P E T R O N IL L A [2 1 ]Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, called Guercino, Buritil

and Reception in Heaven o f St. Petronilla (1621—23)Oil on canvas; approximately 720 X 420 cm Capitoline Museum; mosaic replica in situ Inscribed in the lower left corner: G R E G ° XV P ONT

MAX/ l O: F R A N C B A R B E R I V S CENTENS/FAC1EBAT/

MD C X X I I I .

(Figs. 72-74)

The body of St. Petronilla was brought from the cata­combs of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus to St. Peter’s basilica during the pontificate of Paul I (757—67) and was placed in an altar dedicated in her honor in one of the two Early C hristian rotundas ju st outside the south transep t. Petronilla having been named patron saint to the royal house of France by Paul’s predecessor Stephen II, her a ltar soon became a center of French worship in St. Peter’s. In 1471, King Louis XI established two chaplain­cies for the regular recital of masses there; and in 1490, Pope Innocent VIII officially granted the French kings the ju o patronatuo, a privilege they retained even after the altar was moved into the new basilica.1

In the course of the sixteenth century, the altar was relocated several times. First, when the rotunda was demolished to make w ay for the construction of the south transept of the new basilica, the body of the saint was moved into the neighboring chapel of S. M aria della Feb- bre, already used at that time as the basilica's sacristy. In 1574, Gregory XIII had the relic brought from the sac­risty to the old nave and placed in one of the altars built against the dividing wall, known as the altar of the Cruci­fix on account of a much venerated wooden crucifix that stood over it (Fig. 22).2 Finally, in 1606, Paul V trans­ferred both the relic and the crucifix to one of two altars in the northwest corner chapel of the new basilica.3 A year later, the altar of St. Petronilla was named one of the seven privileged altars.4

The Petronilla altar has the distinction of having been the first altar to receive a permanent altarpiece following the completion of the new basilica. The painting was the only major work of art produced for St. Peter’s during the short pontificate of Pope Gregory XV (1621—23). The commission went to Guercino, a favorite of both Gregory and his nephew Cardinal Ludovico Ludovisi.5 The artist received a first payment of 200 ocudi on December 18, 1621. A little over a y e a r later, on December 22, 1622, he was paid a second installment of 300 ocudi. By then he must have been hard at work, for he finished the painting by M ay 29, 1623, when it was set up over the altar in St.

Peter’s. Not long after, on Ju ly 8, Pope Gregory XV died. Guercino had written to him earlier, asking for a total pay­ment of 1,500 ocudi plus expenses, but apparently he had still not received his money by the time Gregory died, nor was the Fabbrica authorized to distribute so large a sum during the period of the oede vacante when papal accounts were generally frozen. In early October, immediately after the coronation of the new pope (September 29), Guercino addressed himself to the cardinals of the Congregation, reminding them of the long delay in payment and again asking for a total of 1,500 ocudi plus expenses. The sum he requested was exorbitant, and in the end he had to make do with the maximum standard fee of 1,000 ocudi, plus a bonus of a gold chain valued at 60 ocud i6

The painting represents the B u ria l and R eception in Heaven o f St. Petronilla (Fig. 73)7 In the lower half of the composition, the saint is lowered into the grave by three men, one of whom is almost entirely hidden from view inside the grave. The bier on which she has been carried to the cemetery is visible on the left, draped in a black pall patterned with a funerary motif of crossed bones. Around the bier women and children are gathered in mourning, while at the right, three men appear from their gestures and expressions to be discussing the event they witness. In the upper half of the picture Petronilla kneels before C hrist, who is supported and surrounded by angels. As Christ opens his arms to receive Petronilla into his embrace, a putto flies toward her, bringing her the crown of sainthood.

It should be emphasized that Guercino did not mean the painting to be understood as a continuous narrative: we do not see Petronilla twice, at two different points in time, but rather we see her lifeless body below and her eternal soul above. Guercino took pains to contrast these two very different states of being using pictorial means. The saint below is material and weighty: her head falls back, and the men lowering her into the grave strain to support her mass. The saint above is incorporeal, and the clouds she kneels on bear no impression of her weight.8

G uercino's composition em phasizes the close link between the altarpiece and the altar. As Donald Posner has observed:

. . . Guercino has used the lower frame as the near edge of the grave, so that when the painting was in its original loca­tion in St. Peter’s, the saint seemed to be lowered out of the picture and into the altar-tomb that actually enshrines her remains. Thus, for the communicant at the altar, the divine vision was united with the mysteiy of the Mass through the sacrifice of the saint, and belonged at once to the world of painted illusion and miraculous reality.9

The body and the grave into which it is being lowered are positioned at a pronounced angle to the picture plane. Yet when one views the composition in situ, the reason for

176 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

this obliquity becomes clear. The width of the altarpiece exceeds the length of the altar, extending beyond it a cou­ple of feet on either side. Given the colossal scale of the figures in the foreground, the only w ay Guercino could create the impression of the sain t’s body being poised directly over the altar was to turn the body in space and foreshorten it. The need for such foreshortening was envisaged from the outset. All of the preparatory draw­ings for the lower half of the composition show the saint ’s body at an angle to the picture plane. In the drawings, however, the body is positioned to one side. Only in the final version is the illusion made explicit: the body is shifted to the center of the lower edge of the composition, and seems to be disappearing into the altar (Fig. 72).

In 1980, Leo Steinberg proposed a radical reinterpre­tation of the subject of Guercino’s painting, according to which the work can be read alternatively as a scene of exhumation.

Needless to say, the still image itself offers no certain clues. Nothing in the action of the gravediggers tells whether they are raising the body or letting it down. Equally neutral is the bier at the left - it may have deliv­ered its burden, or else may be standing by to take the exhumed body away. And though a lament over a recent death seems to be indicated by the presence of weepers, who knows the proximate cause of their tears? At the discovery of a young life cut off in its flower, yet still abloom and incorrupted in a beautiful corpse, weeping would not be ill-timed.10

Steinberg does not deny that the painting represents the saint’s burial, but he argues that the opposite interpreta­tion is equally valid. He would have it that Guercino, indulging in conscious "ambiguation,”11 painted two sto­ries in one, representing on the one hand the saint’s death and burial, and on the other the exhumation of the saint’s relics that took place in the mid-eighth century, when the body was brought from the catacombs to the basilica of St. Peter’s. Steinberg is equivocal in his identification of the graybearded man on the right as Peter, who, accord­ing to popular legend, was Petronilla's father, and of the young dandy beside him as Flaccus, the pagan who drove her to her death by insisting that she m arry him. He acknowledges that neither figure acts like the individual he associates him with, but explains that

the persons of St. Peter and Flaccus had to be under­played [. . .] to enable us to discount their presence. Pre­sent they are (or may be) insofar as the occasion of St. Petronilla’s funeral is represented. Where the picture evokes the saint’s exhumation seven centuries later, both characters retreat from the scene.12

The reasoning here is labyrinthine and counter to the ele­gant simplicity of Guercino’s narrative. Nothing in the

image supports the assertion that the painting represents a scene of exhumation as well as a scene of burial. For a start, when Petronilla was exhumed in the eighth century, her body was not discovered to be incorrupt, nor would so important a distinction have been glossed over in the paint­ing. Second, if she had been found incorrupt, so miracu­lous an event would certainly not have called forth tears on the part of the bystanders but rather expressions of won­der and joy. Third, the translation of Petronilla’s relics was a major religious event, sponsored by the pope, who would certainly have been in attendance: and yet neither the pope nor a priest of any kind is present in Guercino’s depic­tion.13 If one compares Guercino’s painting with a bona fide scene of exhumation, such as the Exhumation o f St. Hubert (c. 1437) by the workshop of Rogier van der Wey­den, the differences are obvious (Fig. 75).H St. Hubert #w found incorrupt when his body was removed from its sep­ulcher about a hundred years after his death; indeed, this was one of the principal miracles with which he was asso­ciated. There are no tears in the Netherlandish painting. The people rejoice; behind the screen the bystanders are literally grinning with gladness. Moreover, the action is presided over by a bishop and his priests, whose bright vestments contribute to the festive atmosphere of the scene. In their different idioms, the small fifteenth-century panel and Guercino’s huge canvas have in common a stan­dard of narrative clarity. These may be still images, as Steinberg terms them, but an observant viewer can tell with certainty in which direction the bodies are moving, because of the meticulous care with which the artists have spelled out the narrative situations.

Despite the fact that neither Jacobus de Voragine's Golden Legend nor any other popular account of Petron­illa ’s life refers to the saint’s funeral, it has generally been assumed that Guercino relied on some such source in for­mulating his composition. Thus, many who have written on the altarpiece have identified the young dandy on the right as Flaccus,15 while some have also tried to single out one or another of the old men as St. Peter.16 Yet these identifications, too, go against the grain of Guercino’s story-telling. The artist was certainly familiar with the legend that Peter was the father of Petronilla and Flaccus her spurned lover. But he must also have been aware that the legend had been discredited by Baronius, Fran§ois de Sales, and others, for he carefully omitted any reference to it.17 His is a pared-down narrative, which alludes on the one hand to the sainthood of Petronilla, by illustrating the simultaneity of her death and entrance into heaven, and on the other to the presence of her body in the altar below, by representing the interm ent of her earth ly remains. The group gathered to bu iy the saint includes no recognizable faces. The old man on the right, between the dandy and the man with the turban, cannot be St.

C A T A L O G U E 1 g S 1 7 7

Peter: his face, hair, and beard are plausibly Petrine, but his bare legs, his gaze directed aw ay from the saint, and above all his subordinate placement within the composi­tion preclude the identification. As for the dandy, he is a stock figure in G uercino’s art; one can compare, for example, the elegant bystander on the right in the Suicide o f Dido (1630—31) in the Galleria Spada in Rome.18 A fig­ure so obviously uninvolved in the action simply cannot be a principal player.

As soon as one accepts the anonym ity of the sec­ondary figures, the composition resolves itse lf into a model of formal clarity. Following an established conven­tion, G uercino has d iv ided the bystanders into two groups. On the left are women and children, whose reac­tion to the scene is emotional, while on the right are men (the three of them, incidentally, exemplifying the three ages of man), who respond to w hat they see w ith a colder, more intellectual concern. Ju s t as the bystanders are divided between left and right, so too the composition as a whole is divided between lower and upper halves, with Petronilla appearing in each half, in each of her manifestations anchored to the central vertical axis. An early composition study contains most of the elements found in the finished work, but organized in a looser and p o ten tia lly m islead ing m anner (F ig . 74). Petron illa appears twice, but whereas her soul is positioned on the central axis, her body is tucked into the lower left corner; in the painting, the body is moved to the center, under­scoring the contrast between the saint's two states of being, while at the same time enhancing the implied link between the painting and the relic in the altar below. Near the center of the drawing a bearded man points to the body of the saint; he is a secondaiy character, but his central position has led some to suppose that he plays a major role.19 In the painting, Guercino included a compa­rable bearded man pointing to the body, but confined him to the right margin, so that his status as an anonymous bystander is unambiguous. Finally, in the drawing, Guer­cino coped with the verticality of the composition by rep­resenting the figures in the foreground seated or crouch­ing (or, in the case of the child, who is short, standing), whereas the figures in the middle ground are standing or seated on horseback, so that they are raised above the others and are visible behind them. In the painting, the artist opted for a sim pler and more elegant solution, inserting a single step, parallel to the picture plane, which not only raises the figures in the middle ground but also effectively separates the mourners from the physical act of burial, thus clarifying their choruslike role as observers rather than principal participants in the event. Much has been made of the changes that occur between the compo­sition study and the finished painting. Denis Mahon, in particular, has argued that the artist made a major stylis­

tic leap from an earlier, "baroque” conception toward a more "classic” ideal.20 But Mahon’s analysis of the evolu­tion of the composition is perhaps oversophisticated. Guercino’s goal was to convey a simple stoiy simply, and as unambiguously as possible: each of the modifications he introduced can be understood as contributing to the narrative clarity of the whole.

In arriving at his final solution, Guercino may have been influenced by Alessandro T iarin i’s M artyrdom and Reception in Heaven o f St. Barbara, painted between 1607 and 1611 for a chapel in the church of S. Petronio in Bologna (Fig. 76).21 Guercino worked in Bologna at the same time and in the same artistic circles as Tiarini and must have known the painting well. His altarpieee and Tiarini’s have in common the sharp division between lower and upper halves, a division symbolizing the separation of earth from heaven, and of flesh from spirit. In both works the saint appears twice, her lifeless body below and her eternal soul above. The poses of the two saints as they are received into heaven are virtually identical: both kneel on clouds, their arms dem urely folded over their chests, their bodies inclined toward their welcomers (Christ in the case of G uercino ’s pain ting , the V irgin M ary in the case ol Tiarini’s). Below, the bodies of both Petronilla and Barbara are positioned at a strong angle to the picture plane, with their heads thrust close to it. The similarities are striking and suggest that Guercino, given the task of representing a comparable subject, harkened back to Tiarini's composi­tion and borrowed important elements from it.

The division between upper and lower halves is even more marked in Guercino’s painting than in T iarin i’s. Only in the right quarter of the picture, where the three men are standing, is there any overlapping of forms. If one were to draw a horizontal line from a point just above the turbaned head of the young woman on the far left to a point just above the gesturing hand of the man on the far right, the line would not interrupt a single form with the exception of the head of the young dandy on the right. This suggests that Guercino may have painted the altar- piece one half at a time, perhaps adding the face of the dandy once the two halves had been joined.22 We know from Simon Vouet, who lived just around the corner from him, that Guercino painted the altarpieee in his studio, not in St. Peter’s. Unless his studio was palatial in size, it probably could not have accommodated upright a paint­ing over seven meters high. That the work was produced in separate halves is to some extent confirmed by the existing drawings. With one exception, all are studies for one half or the other. The exception, the composition study already discussed (Fig. 74), differs so markedly from the finished work that we can only assume that Guercino produced it at an early stage, before he had begun to grapple with the logistics of production.

178 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

If it is true that Guercino painted the canvas one half at a time, he deserves all the more credit for linking the two halves so successfully. The figures are placed along simple diagonals that have the effect of leading the eye through the composition. Beginning with the mourners on the left, the eye moves down through a series of diago­nals to the lifeless body of the saint, from there up to the discussants on the right, and from them through the saint to Christ, whose pose as he inclines toward her echoes the upper curve of the frame.

Ju s t as the placement of the figures helps to unify the composition, so the architecture in the background pro­vides a link between lower and upper zones. The saint in the upper zone hovers over a broken column in the lower zone; and the portion of a building that we see on the far right, with its single Ionic pilaster, we read as belonging to both zones.23

These simple architectural elements have been passed over virtually without comment in previous discussions of the painting. Yet not only are they important composi­tional elements linking the two halves of the picture, they also contribute on an iconographic level. The Ionic pilaster is a motif that shows up in other works by Guer­cino, such as the 1620 Ecotaoy o f St. Francio in the Louvre, where again it helps to unify a vertical composition.24 But the pilaster in the Petronilla altarpiece is exceptionally well defined and may have an additional, metaphoric sig­nificance, given the w ay its capital is precisely alligned with Petronilla's head. The Ionic order, Vitruvius tells us, is modeled on the proportions of a beautiful woman, slen­der like a woman, and its capital has volutes "like grace­ful curling hair, hanging over right and left.”25 Moreover, the Ionic order has another, more specific connotation. It was used for the first time, Vitruvius explains, in the con­struction of one of the wonders of the world, the temple of Diana at Ephesus. Guercino was probably aware of the association between the Ionic order and the virgin goddess and may have included the pilaster in allusion to it, taking an architectural form developed in antiquity to celebrate the goddess of chastity, and adapting it in a Christian context to serve as a backdrop to a latterday Diana, a martyr who died to protect her virginity.26

As for the broken column, its position, exactly between the two images of the saint, already suggests that it may have particular significance. In fact, its meanings are mul­tiple. Most obviously, given its broken and ruinous condi­tion, it symbolizes the fall of the Roman empire. Like a shattered statue or a toppled altar, the broken fragment of classical architecture belongs to a standard vocabulary of religious painting, and refers to the inevitable downfall of pagan rule and the advent of a new, Christian era.

There is an additional irony here, however, for this is no ordinary column, but a triumphal column, like the

columns ol Trajan and M arcus Aurelius. This we can deduce from its isolated position (it does not appear to belong to any building), from the w ay it is raised up on a high pedestal, and, above all, from its torus in the form of a lau re l g ar lan d . In an tiqu ity , the lau re l torus was reserved for triumphal columns. It appears at the bases of the columns ol Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, where, like the laurel wreath it imitates, it symbolizes triumph and the immortality that is born of fame (Fig. 77). Guercino was certainly aware ol the significance of the motif, for it was used by countless Renaissance artists before him. A laurel torus forms the base for D onatello’s victorious David.27 Closer to home (for Guercino), the festival deco­rations erected in honor of the ceremonial entrance of Pope Clement VIII into Bologna included a victory col­umn with a laurel torus at its base;28 and an historiated triumphal column, with, again, a prominent laurel torus, looms over the action in Ludovico Carracci’s Calling o f St. /Matthew.29 But how is one to interpret the motif as it appears in Guercino's altarpiece? Evidently, the artist meant to contrast this crumbling symbol of pagan tri­umph with the image of Christian triumph - namely, the reception of the immortal soul into the bosom of Christ.30 The position of the column directly over the open tomb into which Petronilla is being lowered adds an extra twist, recalling the biblical passage: "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?’’31

Another important motif is that of crowns and crown­ing. In death, Petron illa w ears a gorgeously painted crown of flowers. Because of the w ay the body is angled, the wreath is thrust right up to the picture plane just above the lower edge of the canvas. It is the closest object to the viewer and consequently tends to catch the eye. Like the broken column stump, the flower wreath can be interpreted in more than one way. In antiquity, corpses were decked with flowers; thus the wreath can be inter­preted as an archaeologically accurate detail included for the appreciation of the more learned viewer. The wreath of flowers is also a symbol of v irg in ity and hence an appropriate ornament for a virgin saint.32 And it has yet another significance: it is an attribute of brides, and in the context of Guercino's painting alludes to Petronilla’s role as the bride to Christ.33

Flowers, moreover, were traditionally associated with the liturgy surrounding the cult of St. Petronilla in St. Peter’s. In his ceremonial diary, in which he chronicles the Chapter’s activities, Andrea Amici records the following arrangements for the saint ’s feast day in the year 1620:

. . . over the middle of the altar, in front of the cross, was placed the saint’s head, beautifully adorned with flowers, as w ere also the cand lesticks, the altar, and the balustrade; the whole Choir was full of sweet-smelling flowers and greenery.34

C A T A L O G U E 1 g g 1 7 9

Here a word of explanation is called lor. The saint’s body, as we know, is interred in the altar. But in 1574, the skull was separated from the rest of the body. It was stored in a reliquaiy in the sacristy and was brought into the main body of the church only on special occasions, such as the saint’s feast day. This reliquary is now lost, but we know about it from various sources. It was made in 1589 by Antonio Gentili, a leading sculptor in precious metal, and like most skull reliquaries it was shaped like a bust.36 In a seven teen th -cen tu ry inven to ry of re liq u arie s in St. Peter’s, it is described as follows: “A silver bust on a silver base, containing the head of St. Petronilla Virgin. On her head is a diadem of gilt metal, her blouse is trimmed with gilded silver, and the ribbon around her neck is also of gilded silver.”36 When Amici says that the sain t’s head was “beautifully adorned with flowers,” he is referring to this silver bust, and he presumably means that it was dec­orated with a wreath of flowers, rather like the one worn by the saint in Guercino’s painting.

The ceremony that Amici describes took place not at the altar of St. Petronilla but in the canons' choir, then temporarily installed at the altar of Sts. Simon and Jude in the south transept. This w as exceptional, however. Normally, the feast day was celebrated at the saint’s own altar, by the chaplains entrusted with this duty.37 It was there that the public, and in particular the members of the French com munity in Rome, partic ipated in the annual services in the sa in t’s honor.38 Unfortunately, Amici does not describe how the altar of St. Petronilla was decorated on her feast day in other years, but we can safely assume that it was decorated in much the same w ay as the altar in the canons’ choir in 1620, with its mensa, crucifix, candlesticks, and balustrade decked with “sweet-smelling flowers and greenery.” If Guercino saw the altar dressed in this fashion (and a man of his pious nature is likely to have attended the annual celebration in honor of the saint whose altarpiece he had been commis­sioned to paint), may not this have inspired him to give Petronilla her crown of flowers? Did he perhaps visualize the painted flowers merging with the real flowers on the altar, reminding the viewer all the more emphatically of the connection between the a ltarp iece and the altar, between the scene of burial above and the relic enshrined below?39 Guercino had special reason to consider the impression that his painting would make on the saint’s feast day, for, as he w as sure ly aw are, the work was scheduled to be unveiled to the public on that v e iy day.

Flowers, like flesh, bloom and fade. They are transient things, and thus refer to the brevity of life on earth. The ephemeral crown of flowers that adorns the corpse of Petronilla is contrasted pointedly with the crown of gold and jewels that a winged putto is about to place on the head of the saint in heaven. This crown is a lasting one: it

is the crown of sainthood, symbolizing Petronilla’s heav­enly glory. By contrasting the saint’s earthly and heavenly crowns, Guercino was using a poetic image that would have been perfectly intelligible to a seventeenth-centuiy audience. Only a couple of decades later, King Charles I of England employed sim ilar rhetoric. On the scaffold aw aiting execution, he is supposed to have said: “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown.” Guercino has depicted Petronilla, like Charles I, passing from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown.

It may not be going too far to see the laurel garland at the base of the triumphal column as yet another crown, perhaps symbolizing the immortality of the soul. If this analysis is sound, the iconography of the altarpiece bears a generic resemblance to that of the frescoes that Guer­cino had recently finished in the Casino Ludovisi. There, on the vault of the ground floor, Aurora receives a crown of flowers from a putto hovering overhead, while on the vault of the piano nobile, another putto is about to present the figure of Fame with crowns of laurel and gold.40 The motif appears again in another fresco painted by Guer­cino around 1621 on the vault of a room on the ground floor of the Palazzo Lancellotti. The central figure, prob­ably Glory, holds up two golden crowns, while a putto offers her wreaths of laurel and flowers.41

Guercino’s canvas was restored by Giuseppe Montano in 1694 42 It remained in St. Peter's until 1730, when it was replaced by a mosaic reproduction by Pietro Paolo Cristo- fari.43 The original was transported to the Quirinal Palace. In 1797, it was seized by the French and taken to Paris.44 When it was returned in 1815, it was installed in the Capi- toline Museum, where it has remained ever since.45

D R A W I N G S

A total of nine preparatory drawings for the Petronilla altarpiece are known. These include five sheets in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle (one of which has stud­ies on both recto and verso), one in the Witt Collection of the Courtauld Institute in London, one in the Thorvald­sen Museum in Copenhagen, one in the Hessesches Lan- desmuseum in Darmstadt (recto and verso), and one in the C ooper-H ew itt M useum in New York. For an exhaustive analysis of their significance, evolution, and order, see Mahon and Turner, 1989, pp. 11-15, figs. 21—26. See also Mahon, 1969, pp. 93—98, figs. 87—91; Steinberg, 1980, pp. 222—26, figs. 3-6 ; Stone, 1991, p. xxiii and fig. X; G iovanni F ranceoco Barbieri, i l Guercino, 1591-1666. Dioegni, 1992, pp. 64-72. (Fig. 74)

D O C U M E N T S

1621, Dec. 18: "A Gio Battista fo ie j da Cento pittore, scutiducento moneta a conto della pittura da farsi a S.Petro.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie armadi—no. 236, f. 33)

180 TH E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

1622, Dec. 22: "A Gio Battista da Cento pittore, scuti tre­cento moneta a conto della pittura da farsi a S. Pietro, e seli pagano d ’ordine di Nostro Signore dato al Illustris­simo et Reverendissimo Signore Cardinale del Monte.” (Ibid., f. 73)

1623, before April 26: Guercino writes to Cardinal del Monte, requesting the sum of sc. 400. (P. 2272)

1623, May 6: Payment of sc. 200 to Guercino. (P. 2273. Possibly the artist never received this payment, for on Oct. 27 he is recorded as having been paid only sc. 500.)

1623, after May 29: “[La cappella] gia [added] del Croce- fisso, e [deleted] sara [added] di S. Petronilla. [. . .] l’anno 1623 adi 29 di Maggio vi fu posto un raro quadro di val­uta scudi mille dipinto da Giovanni Francesco Barbiere da Cento fatto alle spese della fabrica e vi si scorge quando essa santa fu data alia sepoltura.” (Vat. Lat. 9907 [F. M. Torrigio, Compendia delle grandezze della Saerivaneta Basilica Vaticana . . . written c. 1623 but with marginal notes added until c. 1627], f. 189v)

1623, after May 29 (but before Gregory XV’s death on Ju ly 8): Guercino writes to the pope. “11 Pittore Gio. Francesco Barbieri di Cento ha finito, e posto al suo luogo il Quadro di Santa Petronilla, fatto d ’ordine di V. Santita per uno de gli altari di San Pietro.” The artist has received sc. 500, but asks to be paid a total of sc. 1,500 plus sc. 137 to cover his expenses. (P. 2271. Poliak assumes that the letter, which is undated, was written in April; however, since the painting was set up in St. Peter’s on May 29, as Torrigio records, the letter must have been written after that date.)

1623, June 17: Payment of sc. 8 b. 16 to Fausto Pucci "per l ’indoratura del giro al quadro di S. Petronilla.” (P. 2274)

1623, before Oct. 6: Guercino writes to the Congregation, asking to be paid in full after the long delay caused by the cede vacante. (P. 2275)

1623, Oct. 27: Payment of sc. 560 to Guercino “resto de sc. 1060 per il quadro de pittura de S. Petronilla . . . cioe sc. 1000 per la sua fattica e sc. 60 se li danno per una catena d’oro.” (P. 2276)

1624, May 19: "Supra altare nuper apposita fuit Imago depicta, quae obitum sanctae illius Virginis repraesen- tat.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 3)

1627, before M ay 10: In a letter to the Congregation, Simon Vouet complains of the conditions under which he produced his altarpiece for the Cappella del Coro: ". . . gli [i.e. Vouet] e bisognato lavorare nel muro, et luogo proprio, nel rigor del vemo, con grandissimo disa­gio, et incommodo, il che non e intervenuto al Guercino, il quale ha lavorato in tela, a casa sua, et con tutte le sue commodita” (AFSP, Piano 1-ser. 1-no. 2, bus I a 5, tran­scribed in full in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 8).

Date uncertain: “De Ecclesia et Cappella S,ac Petronillae

Ludovicus XIII Tabulam a Guercino depictam fieri fecit.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 2)

S O U R C E S

Bellori, 1672 (1976), p. 541: “Era Andrea [Sacchi] per- venuto all’eta dell’anno decimo ottavo con molto maggior concetto del saper suo e sufficienza nel condur bene i lavori ed i quadri ch'egli studiosamente e con maturita risolveva; onde seguitandosi in quel tempo a far le tavole per gli altari della nuova Basilica Vaticana venne in pen- siero al cardinal Del Monte di proporlo e farlo concorrere co’ primi maestri che allora fiorivano in Roma, e come egli era uno de’ primi cardinal! della congregazione della fab­rica, facilmente ottenne che Andrea fosse eletto alia tavola grande di Santa Petronilla nel consentimento di tutti per eccitare maggiormente il giovanetto ad un insigne sforzo dell'ingegno ed ad un obbligo di rendersi in quella eta piu ammirabile. Ma quando quel buon cardinale penso di aver fatto un gran favore ad Andrea con promoverlo ad opera si illustre, in un tempio il maggiore ed il piu celebre fra’ cristiani, trovo d’Andrea molto diversa l’intenzione, il quale nulla sapendo del trattato si rammarico a tal novella, e per non avere ambizione e pretenzione di se stesso, rifi- uto immediatamente l ’invito, affermando che quella tavola era dovuta al merito di qualche gran maestro, e non a lui, che non era bastante a tanto peso per lo poco sapere e per l ’imbecilhta degli anni. Non pote mai quel signore per- suaderlo, ed indurlo in modo alcuno, onde lodando tutti la sua modestia, accrebbe a se stesso l’amore e la stima; . . . onde l[a tavola] grande di Santa Petronilla fu conferita a Gio. Francesco Barbieri da Cento.”

Passeri, pp. 350-51: “Perche il Card. Ludovisi resto di lui sodisfatto, con ordine del Papa gli fu data una delle tav­ole grandi della Chiesa di S. Pietro [. . .] Nel medesimo tempo termino il Quadro grande, come dissi, di San Pietro, il quale e quello di Santa Petronilla figlia di San Pietro. Rapresenta la Santa morta, che viene seppellita dai ministri di questa funzione, e finge, che uno gia calato nella tomba stende le braccia per prendere il suo cadavero, ed un altro vecchio, havendolo legato con un lenzuolo, il sostiene, ed aiuta a calarlo nel sepolcro. Vicino e la bara, et alcune figure di Donne e putti piangenti per la perdita cosi deplorabile et alcune altre figure spettatrici di cosi mesta funzione. Nell’alto sopra le nuvole vi e l ’anima di lei vestita in forma d ’abito ter- reno la quale in atto d ’umilta si presenta genuflessa avanti Giesu Christo nostro Salvatore il quale, assiso in un Trono di nuvole, con le braccia aperte la riceve assis- tito da alcuni Angioli, et Amorini Celesti, et al di sotto e accompagnato il componimento da colonne, e pilastri

C A T A L O G U E 1 181

dimostrando il di dentro d un Tempio. Quest opera non e molto favorita da lume a proporzione, essendo situata in una delle quattro cuppolette di quella gran Chiesa et e sotto la finestra, che illumina quel sito, tanto che non ha favorevole l’illuminazione. E dipinto in quel suo stile di tinte, e di costume, che mai non s’accomodo ad un certo decoro, e convenienza di nobilta, ne di forme leggiadre di attitudini, e di panneggiamenti arteficiosi; ma si poso sempre in quella schiettezza del naturale; ma nella piu vile. Le figure principali sono di gran proporzione assai maggiori del naturale a m isura della Tavola che e grande; ma la Santa in gloria, il Christo e gli Angioli sono d'assai minor proporzione: ma non sono un punto diminuiti nella forza dell’ombre, e della tintura, sicche non bene s’adatta quel componimento alia ragione del chiaro, e scuro, e tanto piu rapresentando una gloria nella quale deve apparire la dolcezza, e suavita degli splendori; tuttavia il tutto, in molte parti, non riesce dis- caro alii buoni Professori, li quali guardano le opere degl'altri con occhio purgato, e fuori d’ogni passione.”

De’ Dominici, 1742, 111, p. 317: [Vita of Mattia Preti] ". . . fu esposto nella Basilica di S. Pietro il quadro della Santa Petronilla dipinta dal Guercin da Cento, che non solo rapi l'animo di Mattia, e del fratello Gregorio, ma di tutti i Pit- tori che si trovavano in Roma, e di chiunque lo vide; imperciocche comparve questo quadro dipinto con tale forza di lumi, ed ombre, con tinta cosi fresca di carna- gione, con si eccellente, e corretto disegno ed ammirabile componimento, ch’empi di stupore, non che di maraviglia anche i Professori di prima riga, tanto essi rimasero incan- tati ed attoniti a quella nuova maniera, ed a quella magia di colori non piu veduta, talche il Cavalier Lanfranco (Pittore quanto insigne, altrettanto audace non che ardito) ebbe a dire, che quel solo quadro bastava ad atter- rir piu Pittori. In somma d’altr’opera in quel tempo non parlavano i Professori, che di questa di Gio: Francesco Barbieri, e parea che d’ogni altra dimenticati si fussero.’’

N O T E S

1. The history of the chapel is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. For the previous literature on the subject, see Chapter 3, n. 25.

2. Grimaldi, p. 92.3. Ibid., pp. 93—94.4. Ibid., p. 53.5. Bellori (p. 541) claims that the commission went first to

the young Andrea Sacchi, on the recommendation of his patron, Cardinal del Monte, who was in charge of the Congregation at the time. Bellori goes on to explain that Sacchi turned the commission down, out of a modest recognition that he was not yet ready to take on so impor­tant a job. Such an unlikely version of events need not be taken too seriously. As Sutherland Harris has suggested (1977, p. 3), Bellori was probably confusing the Petronilla

altarp iece w ith the oop raporto next to the Petronilla altar- p iece, w hich did indeed go to Sacch i, although only several y e a rs later. For more on the oopraporto, which w as to have represented the P aoce O vcoM cao, see Cat. SP. 3.

6. See C hapter 9, n. 54.7. Sa lerno , 1988, pp. 174-76 (and his b ib liography for the

previous literature); Stone, 1989, pp. 378—93; M ahon and Turner, 1989, pp. 11-15; G uercino e le co/ lezioni cap ito lin e, 1991, pp. 18-26; G iovann i F ra n ceo co b a rb ie r i , i l G uercino, 1991, pp. 145—49; G iovann i F ran ceo co B arb ieri, i l G uercino, 1591-1666. D ioegni, 1992, pp. 64-72.

8. For related observations, see Stone, 1989, p. 392.9. Posner and Held, 1971, p. 102. Guercino w as, of course,

not the first pain ter to establish this kind of a connection between altarp iece and altar. To cite but one earlie r exam ­p le w ith w h ic h he c e r ta in ly w a s fam ilia r , D an ie le d a Volterra employs a sim ilar conceit in his Aooumption in the D e lla R o vere ch ap e l in S . T r in ita d e i M o n ti (V asa r i- M ilanesi, VII, pp. 60-61, cited by D. Davies, 1990, p. 239, n. 110).

10. S teinberg, 1980, p. 209.11. Ibid., p. 225.12. Ibid., p. 230.13. For other argum ents again st Steinberg 's central thesis, see

Salerno, 1988, p. 176; M ahon and Turner, 1989, pp. 14-15.14. M . Davies, 1945, pp. 113-15.15. For ex am p le , M a le , 1932, p. 138; M ahon and Turner,

1989, p. 15.16. The gray-haired man second from the right has been pro­

posed as St. Peter by Steinberg, 1980, pp. 226—27 (equivo­ca lly ) and Stone, 1989, p. 387, n. 63.

17. On the hagiography of Petronilla, see C hapter 3.18. Illustrated in Salerno, 1988, p. 229.19. Steinberg, 1980, pp. 222-23.20. M ah o n , 1947, pp. 83-92; M ah o n , 1968, pp. 112-18;

M ahon and Turner, 1989, pp. 13-14.21. La p ittu ra em iliana d e l ‘600, 1982.22. In exam in ing the canvas from ground level, I have been

unable to distinguish a seam at this point in the composi­tion. But even if Guercino began w ith the canvas in one piece, he could have folded or rolled it up, one half at a time, in order to facilitate his w ork.

23. Stone, 1989, p. 380.24. Illustrated in Salerno, 1988, p. 151.25. V itruvius, De a rch itectu ra , IV. i. 7-8.26. Cfi Cropper, 1976, p. 383. For the use of the Ionic order as a

symbol of aristocratic femininity, see ffolliott, 1989, p. 141.27. Illustrated in Pope-H ennessey, 1985, pi. 30.28. The colum n is recorded in an engrav ing by Guido Reni,

reproduced in The I llu o tra ted Bartoch, XL, p. 179.29. Illustrated in Ludovico C a rra cc i 1993, p. 143.30. A revealing com parison is afforded by Domenico Passig-

nano’s The B ody o f St. S chool inn R ecovered fr o m th e C loaca M ax ­ima, painted in 1602 (F ig. 78). In the background of Passig- nano’s composition, d irectly behind the sa in t’s body, stands a pagan trium phal column, its spiral pattern unm istakably reca lling o f the colum ns o f Trajan and M arcus A urelius. Here, as in G uercino’s w ork, the column sets up a pathetic

182 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

contrast between pagan and Christian concepts of triumph. (On Passignano s altarpiece, see The Age o f C aravaggio, 1985, pp. 164—66; II S eicen to fio ren tin o , 1986, pp. 123—25.)

31. I Corinthians 15:55.32. Ripa, 1603, p. 504: “[L a] V irginita . . . ha il capo cinto di

fiori, perche, come dicono i Poeti, la v irg in ita non e altro, che un fiore, il quale subito che e colto, perde tutta la gratia, e bellezza.”

33. Cf. F reedberg , 1981, p. 132. In Poussin ’s depiction of a m arriage cerem ony a l l ’a n tica , from the second series of Sacram ents, both M a iy and Jo sep h w ear flower w reaths.

34. ". . . sopra l ’A ltare si e posta la Testa di d etta S an ta in mezzo avanti la Croce assai ben ornata di fiori, non solo la Testa, ma anco li candelieri, a ltare, b a laustrata , e tutto il Coro era pieno di Fiori odoriferi, e di v e rd u ra .” (ACSP, D iari 10, p. 549.)

35. Chadour, 1982, pp. 182-83.36. “S. Petronilla Vergine. Busto di argento con sua base sim ­

ile che custodisce il capo di S. Petronilla Vergine: nel capo si e il d iadem a di metallo dorato, e di argento dorato e il bordo d e lla cam icia , e la fasc ia che pende dal collo . S i legge nel rovescio del busto il nome dell'artefice, e l ’anno: OPVS ANTON1I GENTILIS FAENTINII 1589. Nel mezzo della base e un ’ovato guarn ito di fiori con due g ig li e un cheru- bino, e den tro vi e a ltr a re liq u ia d e lle m edesim a san ta verg ine; a i lati sono due cartocci in forma di menzole, e nella parte posteriore e incisa la seguente iscrizione: + S. PETRONILLAE VIRG. CAPIT. HIC INCLUSO BASEM ARGEN-

TEAM EX SUO LEGATO ADIUNXIT PAULUS BIZONUS ROM. OLIM CANONICORUM DECANUS PARTEM FEMORIS EIUSDEM

VIRG. CONTINENTEM ANNO DOMINI MDCXLIII. II p iano sotto la base e di metallo dorato. II busto compreso la base e alto palm i 3'/2. . . .” (AFSP, P iano 1 -serie 3 -no . 12, f. 439.) Another catalogue of reliquaries, assem bled by Gia­como Grim aldi, includes a sm all sketch of the bust of St. P e tr o n i lla (BA V , A C S P , H 2 , f. 3 1 v ., r e p ro d u c e d in Chadour, 1982, fig. 80).

37. See, for exam ple, ACSP, D iari 10, p. 9: [M a y 31, 1603] "N e ll’o ttava del C orpo d i C hristo occorse la festa d i S. P e tro n illa V erg ine, che fu d i S ab b ato , si can to rno due M esse . . . a l l ’a ltare del Crocifisso [i.e . di S. P etron illa ];’’ p. 121: [M ay 31, 1608] ". . . fu fatto . . . la M essa . . . nel- l ’altare di detta San ta [Petron illa] . . . fu portata la Testa al detto a lta re ;” pp. 263-64 : [M ay 31, 1615] ”. . . fu can tata la M essa so lenne a l l ’A lta re del S an tiss im o C ruc ifisso per esservi dentro il Corpo di S . Petron illa .”

The a lta r of St. Petron illa w as serviced by two chap­lains, who received the income from the endowm ent estab­lished by King Louis XI and his son King C harles VIII in the late fifteenth cen tu iy . These chap lains w ere responsi­ble for say ing mass at the a lta r three tim es a w eek and on the an n ive rsa iy of the death of Louis XI (A ugust 31). On the sa in t’s feast (M ay 31), they w ere obligated to perform “officium solemne cum m issa con ventua li.” B y 1624, the income from the endowment had apparen tly dw indled (it w as then estim ated at 200 gold j c u d i per y e a r ) , m aking it n ecessa ry to com bine the tw o ch ap la in c ie s in one. See Doc. Appendix, nos. 3 and 5.

38. S erv ice s on the feast d ay o f St. P etron illa continued to a ttract a French aud ience even into the present century. Emile M ale w as present at one such service and w rote a touching account: “Chaque annee, le 31 mai, jour de la fete de sain te Petron ille, une messe est dite dans sa chapelle pour notre pays et les Fram jais de R o m ey sont invites. J ’y a i assiste , il y a quelques annees. La cerem onie fut sans pompe, mais non sans beaute. La France y etait representee p ar M . de Fontenay, alors am bassadeur aupres du Saint- S iege, par l ’abbe W etterle, conseiller canoniste de l ’ambas- sade, p a r l ’abbe de Solesm es, p a r q u e lqu es F ran^ais et quelques re lig ieu ses. Les lilie s de sain t V incent de Paul, m ains jo intes, agenouillees sur les dalles, restaient immo- b iles. L eu r costum e, p lebeien p a r le bas, s ’e leva it tout a coup a une haute sp iritualite; les vastes a iles b lanches de leur cornette faisaient penser a des oiseaux de mer prenant leu r vol pour des clim ats inconnus . . . Et nous etions la, nous, fils de la Gaule, sous ces voutes imperiales, assistant a cette messe qu i se dit depu is Pepin le Bref, perdus dans l ’im m ensite de l ’esp ace et d an s l'im m en site du tem p s .”(M ale, 1942, pp. 44—45.)

39. El Greco made use of a sim ilar device in his A uum ption for the O balle chapel in San Vicente: the bouquet of roses and lilies at the low er edge of that altarp iece seems c learly to a llude to the floral decoration of the a lta r below. (See D. Davies, 1990, p. 239, n. 111 and fig. 134.)

40. Salerno , 1988, pp. 161-66.41. Ibid., p. 168.42. Buonanni, 1696, p. 118.43. D iFederico, 1983, p. 75.44. Tittoni, 1991.45. Salerno, 1988, p. 174.

C A T A L O G U E 2

A L T A R O F T H E C R U C I F I X [ 1 ]

Crucifix (13th/14th c.)Wooden sculptureSt. Peter’s, present Chapel of the Crucifix [4](Figs. 79-83)

The chapel of the Crucifix, known today as the chapel of the Pieta, is located just inside the porta oanta, directly opposite the baptismal chapel (Figs. 79—80). The dedica­tion to the crucified Christ was already determined by November 1625, when the chapel was referred to in a document as "la Cappella del Santissimo Crocefisso.”1 In describing the chapel in St. Peter’s, Fioravante Martinelli observed that it was common practice to exhibit a cruci­fix near the entrance of a church.2 But the dedication should also be understood in connection with that of the chapel opposite. Given that Christ’s baptism and his cru­cifixion are theologically parallel events (both instrumen­

C A T A L O G U E 2 g g 1 8 3

tal in man's salvation), it would seem that the baptismal chapel and the chapel of the Crucifix were conceived as pendants.3

The baptismal chapel on the left and the chapel of the Crucifix on the right were originally identical in design. The baptismal chapel was later transformed through a major remodeling by Carlo Fontana, but the chapel of the Crucifix was never significantly altered and gives us a good idea of what both chapels once looked like. The space within the chapel is narrow and closed off from the side aisle by walls with screenlike apertures that enable visitors to peer into the chapel without actually entering it. O ver the a lta r is a re c tan gu la r expanse of w all, recessed and topped by a lunette-shaped window. On the left and on the right, the chapel opens onto small side chambers. The main area of the chapel is vaulted with a handkerchief vault, while the side chambers are vaulted with segments of barrel vaults. The entire ceiling is deco­rated with bands of elaborate gilded stucco work, which divide the surface into fields appropriate for fresco. The stucco work, in keeping with the dedication of the chapel, incorporates a full range of Passion motifs (the column and ladder, the lance and sponge, the Sudarium, and so on), as well as a multitude ol Barberini bees.'* The design for the stuccos was provided by Agostino Ciampelli.5

In J u ly 1626, the Tuscan painter Giovanni da San Giovanni petitioned the Congregation to fresco the vault of the chapel.6 Although he seems to have had the sup­port of the pope’s nephew Antonio Barberini, he was not awarded the commission. No one could start on the fres­coes until the stucco work was complete, and the stucco work was not even begun until the end of 1628. By the time it was finished, in the spring of 1629, Giovanni da San Giovanni had left Rome, and Antonio Barberin i’s brother Cardinal Francesco was anxious to promote a candidate ol his own, Giovanni Lanfranco.7

At first the cardinals of the Congregation toyed with the idea of decorating the vault with mosaic. Five years earlier, in 1624, they had commissioned Gaspare Celio to design mosaics for the baptismal chapel, but this had proved too expensive, and in the end Celio had worked in oil on stucco. Now, having it seems learned nothing from the experience, they repeated the mistake. In Jan u ary 1629, they hired Lanfranco to produce cartoons and Gio­vanni Battista Calandra to execute them in mosaic, pay­ing each of them an initial sum of 100 .tcttdifi By Septem­ber, the plan had been abandoned , and L anfranco received fresh instructions to decorate the vault with frescoes, which he did between 1629 and 1632.9 The frescoes, like the stuccos, relate to the dedication of the chapel. In the main vault, Lanfranco painted a glory of angels adoring the cross, which is being born aloft by cherubs (Fig. 81), and in the barrel vaults and lunettes

over the side chambers, he painted scenes of C hrist’s Passion.10

As for the a lta rp iece , the C ongregation in it ia lly planned to have Bernini design and cast a large crucifix “ex Metallo” to be hung on the wall over the altar. The scheme was first proposed in November 1626 and was still ve iy much alive half a year later, at a meeting of the Congregation on M ay 14, 1627: “The statue of our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross [is] to be cast in metal by Cav- aliere Bernini, and placed in the chapel of the Crucifix near the porta oanta." Nothing came of this plan, however. Another year passed and no progress was made toward providing the altar with a suitable altarpiece. It may be that Bernini, scrounging for bronze for his great bal­dachin, was loathe to spare any of the precious metal for a lesser project such as this; or perhaps he simply had no time to w ork on the crucifix . W hatever the circum ­stances, the Congregation eventually opted for another solution.11

There was in the possession of the basilica a much venerated wooden crucifix traditionally ascribed to Pietro Cavallini (Fig. 5 1 ).12 This crucifix had stood over the altar of Sts. Simon and Jud e in the old basilica.13 It sur­vived the Sack of Rome and profanation by drunken sol­diers, who dressed the figure of Christ in the uniform of the imperial arm y.14 Later it was moved to one of the altars built against the dividing wall (Fig. 22 ).15 In the first decade of the seventeenth century it was transferred to the new b asilica and p laced over the a lta r of St. Petronilla in the northwest corner chapel [21]. When Guercino’s altarpiece was installed in 1623, the crucifix was moved to the adjacent altar, later of St. Michael [20], Then, in 1628, when the Michael altar was provided with an altarpiece of its own, the crucifix was moved yet again, this time to the over-door space in the nave piccola between the Cappella Gregoriana and the north transept [13 ],16 This again proved a temporary arrangement. In March 1629, the sculpture was moved to the right side aisle, where it hung on the interior face of the porta oanta, just outside the chapel of the C rucifix .17 Since the wooden crucifix would have looked redundant in such proximity to Bernini’s bronze one, we may assume that by this time the Congregation had given up the idea of commissioning a new crucifix and w as p lann ing instead to use the medieval one as the chapel’s altarpiece. It was hung on the porta oanta, rather than over the altar in the chapel, because the chapel was not yet ready to receive it; with Lanfranco at work on the frescoes in the vault until 1632, the chapel was presumably full of scaffolding, and no fit place for a brittle wooden sculpture that could easily have been damaged by falling beams or dripping paint. No sooner were the frescoes finished than work began on accommodating the crucifix over the altar. Between 1633

184 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

and 1634, the sculpture was modified to fit the site and then installed agaist a background of colored marbles(Fig. 79).18

There was another altar built in — or rather immedi­a te ly ad jacen t to - the chapel of the C rucifix . It is referred to in the account books of Giovanni Battista Soria: on Jan uary 17, 1634, Soria records work done on “un telaro per il paleotto all'Altare della Madonna nella Cappelletta acanto al Crocifisso dove era la porta ser- rata.”19 Poliak cites no further documents relating to this altar, but we find out a bit more about it from Gasparo Alveri, who wrote in 1664:

There is in the chapel of the Crucifix another altar [. . .] with an image of the Blessed Virgin called "della Febbre.” Above the door of this tiny chapel or altar the following words are inscribed in marble: “The venerable and ancient image of Mary, holy mother of God, called "della Febbre," was placed in this chapel for the devotion of the faithful by Urban VIII in the year of our Lord 1643.”20

From this we learn that the altar was built to house the holy image of the Madonna della Febbre and that it was completed toward the end of the Barberini pontificate. Alveri mentions an inscription over “la porta di detta Cappelletta o Altare.” There is a door in the wall of the side chamber to the right of the main chapel. It is sur­mounted by a large frame emblazoned with bees, clearly designed to hold an inscription, although the inscription itself has since been replaced by a window. It was pre­sumably here that the altar of the Madonna della Febbre was situated (Fig. 82).21 The altar had only a brief exis­tence. Already by 1656 it was slated for demolition, as the following decree of the Apostolic Visitation to St. Peter’s in that y e a r makes plain: “The altar of S. M aria della Febbre is to be taken down . . . and because of the devo­tion of the people, the image and its onera are to be trans­ferred to another altar in the main crypt, which is under the same invocation."22 In later guidebooks and descrip­tions of St. Peter’s, there are no references to an altar of the Madonna della Febbre in or near the chapel of the Crucifix. Instead, there are references to an altar of St. Nicolas of Bari, supposedly designed by Bernini, with a mosaic altarpiece executed by Fabio Cristofari.23 Since the altar of the Madonna della Febbre and the altar of St. Nicolas are never mentioned together, it is probable that the latter replaced the former. This is more or less con­firmed by Raffaele Sindone, who, writing in 1744, speci­fied that the altar of St. Nicolas was located “in dextero memoratae Cappellae Sanctissimi Crucifixi latere.” Else­where we learn that the altar of St. Nicolas was conse­crated in 1672.24 On the basis of these fragments of evi­dence, it seems that the a lta r of the M adonna della Febbre existed for fewer than thirty years.

A certain amount of shuffling took place in the chapel of the Crucifix during the later part of the seventeenth and the eighteenth century, and this makes it especially difficult to envisage the chapel’s layout. A passage in the 1763 Bottari edition of Titi only adds to the confusion: “Inside the chapel of the C rucifix are two tiny side chapels, hardly remarkable except for devotional pur­poses. [. . .] The doors of these two little side chapels are designed by Bernini and are quite lovely and graceful.”25 Bottari records two doors, not one, in the chapel of the Crucifix. Yet the documents transcribed by Poliak refer to a single door, and there is only one door in the chapel today. It is, of course, possible that the author simply made a mistake, assuming a symmetrical arrangement of two doors when, in fact, there was only one. However, the bee-emblazoned frame over the door on the right is mirrored by an identical one on the left, and a passage of some kind between the chapel of the Crucifix and the oval cham ber to the left of it is ind icated on some (although not all) plans ol the basilica from the second half of the seventeenth centuiy. So the precise arrange­ment of the chapel at the time that the a lta r of the Madonna was in existence remains somewhat obscure.

The holy image of the Madonna della Febbre, once believed to have miraculous healing powers, is a Trecento fresco fragment detached from the wall of a chapel in one of the two Early Christian rotundas outside the south transept of old St. P ete r’s [no. 172 on the A lfarano plan].26 The rotunda, taking its name from the image, was known as the Cappella della Madonna della Febbre. At some point in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuiy, the image was moved to the Secretarium, the large chapel to the left of the entrance to the Constantinian nave, henceforth also referred to as the Cappella della Madonna della Feb­bre [no. 142 on the Alfarano plan].27 It was moved again when the Secretarium was demolished to make w ay for Maderno’s nave, probably to an altar in the ja cr e gro tte.28 Its subsequent histoiy is not easy to trace, but apparently it remained at the center of an active cult of veneration. In 1631, the M adonna w as given a golden crown by order of the Chapter of St. Peter’s, a distinction conferred only on proven miracle-working images.29 This added to the prestige and popularity of the image and may have prompted Urban VIII, a few years later, to establish a proper altar for it in the main body of the basilica and to issue a plenaiy indulgence to all who prayed there on cer­tain feasts. When the altar of the Madonna della Febbre was replaced by the altar of St. Nicolas of Bari, the image was relocated, first to an altar in the Mere grotte, where Buonanni records it still in 1696,30 and then, in 1697, to the sacristy of St. Peter’s — that is, to the rotunda where it originated.31

The small side chambers of the chapel of the Crucifix

C A T A L O G U E 2 1 8 5

housed other venerated objects besides the M adonna della Febbre. The co lonna aanta, surrounded by a high railing of marble and bronze, stood in the middle of the chamber on the right from before 1656;32 and the sar­cophagus of Probus was installed in the chamber on the left when, in 1694, it ceased to function as the basilicas baptismal font.33

The a lta r of the C rucifix , containing re lics of the martyr saints Boniface, Victoria, Clementia, and Fortu- nata, was consecrated in 1672 and again in 1727.34 In 1749, M ichelangelo ’s P ieta was moved here from the Chapel of the Choir.35 The medieval crucifix was rele­gated to the left-hand alcove of the chapel. (At a later date it was moved to the small oval chamber to the left of the chapel of the C rucifix , which has since been transformed into the papal elevator shaft.) In its place a plain white cross of inlaid marble provides a backdrop to the Pieta. The frescoes and stucco decoration were preserved intact, since they relate almost as well to the P ie ta as th ey d id to the C ru c if ix .36 The P ie ta has remained in the chapel to this day. In 1972, it was muti­lated by a lunatic brandishing a hammer. It has since been restored, but must now be viewed across a barrier of thick, shatterproof glass.

D O CUM EN TS

For the documents relating to the decoration of the chapel of the Crucifix, see Poliak, nos. 554-607.

1626, Nov. 4: "11 Crucifisso et S. Michel Arcangelo di Rilievo al Cavaliero Bernino.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 9)

1627, May 14: "Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Cruci affixi statuam ex Metallo fundendam, et collocandam in Cap­pella eidem Salvatori dedicanda prope portam Sanctam per Equitem Berninum.” (P. 94)

1628, Sept. 25: Nails are issued "per inchiodare il Christo ch’era dove e S.to Michel Archangelo di Musaico et messo dove era prima l ’organo alia Gregoriana.” (P. 953)

1629, March 15 or 16: Nails are issued "per atacare il Cru- cifiso (un Cristo) alia Porta Santa.’’ (P. 553)

1632, March 6: Account of G. B. Soria "Per haver dato giunta alia Croce del Christo che stava sopra alia Porta Santa per la parte di dentro alia Chiesa per metterlo alia Cappella.” (P. 47)

1634, Jan . 18: Account of G. B. Soria “per haver fatto le Cornici attorno al quadro di marmoro dell’AItare del Crucifisso . . . fatto li treangoli nelle teste della Croce fatti tondi a mano scorniciati dentro a fora con molti resalti . . . , che attacca con il quadro e gira intorno alia d[ett]a Croce . . . disfatto una volta e scortata la Croce per fare l ’Incrostature tornatole a rimetter in opera et aggiustarle slungata la Croce da piedi e scurtata da capo . . . sc. 50.” (P. 47)

S O U R C E S

Bralion, 1655—59, I, pp. 192-93: "La premiere Chapelle qui se rencontre a main droite en entrant, est dediee a la sainte Croix. II y a a l ’Autel un Crucifix de bois vers lequel il y a grande devotion. II estoit dans l ’ancienne Eglise, & est ancien de plus de trois cens ans; car on tient qu’il fut fait par un nomme Pierre Cavalino, Sculpteur & Peintre Romain, personnage d une signalee piete, qui vivoit en mesme temps que lotto. . . . L’ouvrage de pein- ture a Frais de la voute de cette Chapelle, qui represente les mysteres de la Passion, est du Chevalier lean Lanfranc Parmesan. Au coste droict de cette mesme Chapelle il y a une Colonne qui est en grande veneration, parce qu’on tient qu’elle estoit au Temple de Salomon, & que Nostre Seigneur s'appuya souvent contre, lors qu’il y preschoit:& ceux qui sont travaillez du malin esprit s en approchent pour estre delivrez ou soulagez.”

N O T E S

1. Poliak, no. 554.2. Martinelli, 1707, p. 119: "E antico istituto esporre nell’in-

gresso delle Chiese un Christo Crocifisso; e qui a man dritta ne sta uno antichissimo, e devotissimo, creduto di mano di Pietro Cavallini." See also Buonanni, 1696, p. 108.

3. See Chapter 5.4. See Poliak, nos. 559—571. The stucco decoration is charac­

teristic of the period; for comparison, see the stucco deco­ration of the Sacchetti chapel in S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, which dates from the first half of the 1620s. The Sacchetti chapel offers other parallels to the chapel of the Crucifix in St. Peter's: it too is dedicated to Christ crucified, has a large sculptured crucifix over the altar, and is frescoed with Passion scenes by Lanfranco.

5. [April 7, 1629] "Ad Agostino Ciampelli sc. dodici moneta pel disegno fatto per la Cappella del Santissimo Crocifisso che si deve fare di stucco.” (AFSP, Piano 1—ser. 4—no. 21, f. 724)

6. Poliak, nos. 68-69, 94.7. Ibid., no. 573.8. Ibid., nos. 574—75.9. Ibid., nos. 582-92.10. Schleier, 1983, pp. 141-49 and figs. 129—39; G.-P. Bernini,

1985, p. 80 and color plate 1-B. Lanfranco was paid a total of 2,000 acudi for the frescoes.

11. Although Bernini never produced this large crucifix, at a later date he did produce a series of smaller ones for other altars in St. Peter’s. On Bernini’s "Candelieri e Crocifissi per altari," commissioned by Alexander VII between 1657 and 1661, see Battaglia, 1942; B ern in i in Vaticano, 1981, pp. 270-73; Schlegel, 1981; Wittkower, 1981, pp. 228-32.

12. The traditional attribution has been doubted by modern scholars; indeed there is no convincing evidence that Cav­allini ever worked as a sculptor. See Hetherington, 1979,pp. 161-62.

13. Grimaldi, p. 69.14. Chastel, 1983, pp. 106—107.

186 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

15. Alfarano, pp. 69, 188.16. Poliak, no. 953.17. Ibid., no. 553.18. Ibid., nos. 47, 581, 600—607. See also ACSP, D iari 11, p.

410: [M ay 3, 1633] “Dopo Terza da Benefitiati et C leric i al Santissim o Crocifisso con consenso d e ’ S ignori Canonici, essendosene prim a parlato in Capitolo, et ad istan tia del S ignore . . . [ s i c ] quale ha fatto la spese del parato, e della cera di buona qualita , e con altre spese in abellim ento di detta Cappella, et A ltare del Santissim o Crocifisso vicino a lia Porta Santa, si e cantata la M essa delflnven tione della Santissim a Croce con musica, ed organo, e con incenso da principio, e sopra VAltare si e stato esposto il Tabernacolo del Santissim o Legno della Croce portatavi da Sacristan i questa m attina a buon hora p rivatam ente.”

19. Poliak, no. 47.20. A lveri, 1664, II, p. 176: "Si ritrova in questa cappella [del

Crocifisso] un 'altro A ltare, [. . .] dove e un ’Imagine della B. Vergine detta della Febre. Sopra la porta di detta Cap- p e l le t ta o A lta re si leg g o n o s im ilm e n te in m arm o le seguenti parole: V enerabilis ac vetusta sanctae Dei Gen- etricis M ariae Imago de febribus nuncupata hac in aedic- u la U rban o O ctavo P. M . Pidelium devotion i exp o s ita Anno. Sal. M D C X L III.”

21. The door, w hich dates from 1632 to 1634, is u sua lly attr ib ­uted to Bernini, because of its fanciful and stylish design (F ig . 83). See Poliak, nos. 593—97; M . and M . Fagiolo del- l ’Arco, 1967, no. 56; Blunt, 1982 (b), p. 134.

22. Doc. Appendix, no. 27.23. Buonanni, 1696, p. 108; Sindone, 1744, p. 5. On Cristo-

fa r is altarp iece, based on an im age of the saint preserved in the basilica of S . N icola in Bari, see D iFederico, 1983, p. 73 and pi. 122.

24. ACSP, H96, p. 86.25. Titi, 1763, p. 9: "Dentro in questa cappella del Crocifisso

sono d u e p ic c io le c a p p e ll in e la t e r a l i , non p e r a lt ro riguardevoli, che per la divozione. [. . .] Le porte delle due m entovate cappellette la te ra li sono d isegno del B ern ino assai vaghe, e g raz io se .”

26. On the M adonna della Febbre, see above all C ancellieri, 1786, III, pp. 1283—1314. The M adonna and Child o rigi­nally formed part of a larger composition, surrounded by an adoring host of popes, cardinals, bishops, emperors, kings, queens, and other noble suppliants (Alfarano, p. 143).

27. A lfa ran o , pp . 119—20 , n. 9. P ro b a b ly th e im ag e w as rem oved at around the tim e th a t the ro tunda w as con­verted into the sacristy of St. P eter’s. At some point after that conversion took place, a private p assagew ay w as con­stru c ted to a llo w the m em bers o f the C h ap ter to pass d ire c tly from the sac r is ty into the C hapel o f the Choir. S ince the passagew ay cut straight through the a lta r w all of the chapel of the M adonna della Febbre, its construction is a term inus for the removal of the fresco.

28. C ancellieri, 1786, III, p. 1307.29. Ibid., pp. 1308-11; Dejonghe, 1969, pp. 229-30 .30. Buonanni, 1696, p. 154.31. Galassi Paluzzi, 1975, p. 320. The M adonna della Febbre

can still be seen in the sacristy, enshrined w ithin D onatello’s marble tabernacle. According to Galassi Paluzzi, the image

and the tabernacle w ere combined in 1784, shortly after the completion of the new sacristy; H. W. Jan so n (1957, I, pp. 96-97 ), on the other hand, suggests that the two works may have been joined at an earlier date, perhaps when the image w as first moved into the Secretarium .

32. Doc. Appendix, no. 27. See also Busiri-V ici, 1888.33. Buonanni, 1696, p. 122; Busiri-V ici, 1888.34. ACSP, H96, p. 85; Sindone, 1744, p. 4.35. See Cat. 8.36. According to Titi (1763, p. 9), the stuccos in the left side

ch am b e r w e re re s to re d in the e ig h te en th c e n tu ry on designs by Luigi Vanvitelli.

C A T A L O G U E 3 ( a )

A L T A R O F S T . J O H N T H E B A P T I S T ( B a p t i s t e r y ) [ 4 7 ]

Gaspare Celio, The Baptism o f Christ (1624—28)Oil on stucco Destroyed (Figs. 84-85)

At a meeting of the Congregation on April 26, 1623, the decision was taken to place the baptismal font in the first chapel on the left of the entrance and to designate this chapel as the baptistery of new St. Peter’s .1 In November, Cardinal Pietro Paolo Crescenzi, a member of the Con­gregation, undertook to study the chapel and come up with a plan for its decoration. On December 19, it was announced that the chapel w ould be adorned w ith mosaics, and by Jan uary of the following year, Gaspare Celio had been appointed to design and produce them. Celio presented his draw ings to the Congregation in M arch and, having received its approval, set about preparing the full-scale cartoons on which the mosaics were to be based. The cartoons were ready in 1625, and, according to the artist, were received by the Congrega­tion "con applauso g ran de.” Afterward, however, the commission fell into question. The Congregation shied away from the enormous expense of decorating an entire chapel with mosaic and was on the verge of canceling its arrangement with Celio. The artist had reason to be dis­turbed by this turn of events.2 After nearly two years of work, he had received only 50 Mudi, on the understanding that the rest of his payment would follow upon the com­pletion of the chapel. If the Congregation canceled his commission, he stood to lose not only a prestigious appointment but also a great deal of money. Anxious to avoid this, he asked to be allowed to carry out the decora­tion of the chapel in the less expensive medium of paint­ing, and on Jan uary 21, 1626, the Congregation agreed to his request. Celio took more than two and a half years to complete the task, beginning with the altarpiece, and

C A T A L O G U E 3 ( a ) g f 1 8 7

moving on, in the summer of 1627, to the vault and flank­ing lunettes. The work was finished and on public view by the middle of October 1628. The painter was paid a total of 1,050 ocudi, but it seems that he was not satisfied with this, for as late as 1638 he wrote the Congregation asking for additional payment, but without result.

Celio worked in oil on stucco. Over the altar he repre­sented the Baptiom o f ChrL<t, and in the vault, God the Father surrounded by putti and angels, with angels in the lunettes on either side.3 Neither the altarpiece nor the vault has survived. The altarpiece was destroyed in 1630. A drawing attributed to Celio may be connected with the lost work: it represents the a lta r w all of a baptismal chapel, w ith an a ltarp iece of the Baptism of Christ, flanked by Old Testament prophets holding tablets (Fig. 85). As for the vault, it was destroyed in the 1690s when Carlo Fontana remodeled the chapel, but it probably looked something like the cupola of the Albertoni chapel in S. Francesco a Ripa, where Celio frescoed concentric rings of music-playing angels around a figure of God the Father in the lantern (Fig. 86). Celio probably tried to suggest a direct correspondence between the figure of God in the vault and the scene of baptism over the altar. Such a solution would have been in keeping with the bib­lical text, which tells that when Jesu s was baptized in the river Jordan “the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and light­ing upon him. And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’’4

The baptismal chapel w as the first of the six nave chapels to have both its function and its dedication decided, perhaps because there was nothing controversial or problematic about either. Long tradition established the first chapel, left or right, as the usual place for the font in churches without separate baptisteries.5 Carlo Borromeo, the chief authority of the Counter Reforma­tion on the planning and outfitting of churches, was adamant on this point. In his Inotructioueo Fabricae et Supel- lectilio Eccleoiaoticae, published in Milan in 1577, he speci­fied that the baptisteiy, which he called the Chapel of St. John, "should be constructed inside close to the main door on the Gospel side.'6 As for the altar and its altar- piece, Borromeo’s Inotructioueo are once again explicit: “Provided there is sufficient space in this chapel, [a sin­gle] altar should be erected [. . .] On the wall above this altar there should be the sacred representation of St. John the Baptist baptizing Christ the Lord.’’7

It seems at first surprising that so important a commis­sion was awarded to Gaspare Celio, a relatively minor figure better known today as the author of a guidebook to the churches and palaces of Rome than as a painter in his own right.8 But Celio had two important allies on the Congregation, Cardinal Ginnasi and Cardinal Crescenzi, and it was doubtless they who used their influence to

secure him the assignment.9 In the end, though, the com­mission brought him only d ishonor and m isfortune. Baglione reports that Celio’s work was not well received (“non diede gusto’’), and although Baglione is known to have been hostile to the artist,10 his statement in this case is amply corroborated. A few days after the chapel was unveiled, Cardinal Scipione Borghese received an urgent report concerning an anonymous piece of scurrilous writ­ing pinned up on the chapel wall that criticized Celio’s work as "malfatta, et da artefice poco sufficiente.’’ Still more scathing was the judgment of Bellori, who jotted down concerning Celio’s altarpiece: "Opera goffissima fu gran fortuna fusse levata via. ”u

C elio ’s Baptuun o f Chruit w as destroyed w ithin two years of its completion. In its place, work began in 1630 on an altarpiece of a very different kind: a reliquary to house the Cathedra Petri.12

D R A W I N G S

1. Florence, Uffizi, Inv. 11810F. A study for the altar wall of a chapel with an altarpiece of the Baptuun o f Chruit, the drawing has been attributed to Celio and associated with the St. Peter’s commission. See Dowley, 1965, pp. 68-69: Celio, 1638 (1967), p. 74. (Fig. 85)

2. London, British Museum, Department of Prints and D raw ings, Inv. 1963-4-20-10 & 11. Two sim ilar drawings, each featuring a pair of angels holding a vase or urn. These drawings have been attributed to Celio, but not associated with any known project (Gere and Pouncey, 1983, I, p. 49 and II, pis. 56-57). It is here suggested that they may have been prepara­tory for the angels in the lunettes of the baptismal chapel. If so, the urns would refer to the waters of baptism. It is worth noting that, in one of his early projects for the new baptismal font in St. Peter’s, Carlo Fontana included an angel pouring water into the basin from an urn similar in shape to those held by the angels in the British Museum drawings (illus­trated in Buonanni, 1696, pi. 42, and Dowley, 1965, fig. 5). Celio’s lunettes were still intact when Fontana produced this design: in borrowing the motif of the urn-bearing angel from Celio, Fontana’s intention may have been to draw the paintings in the vault and the sculptures down below into a single iconographic and decorative scheme.

D O C U M E N T S

1623, April 26: "II battisterio si accomodi nella prima cap­pella alia mano manca nell’entrare della chiesa, in modo che non dia fastidio all’altare che dovera farvisi.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 159a, f. 58)

1623, Nov. 15: "L’lllustrissimo Cardinale Crescendo si con­tend veder la cappella prima a man sinistra nell’entrare

188 TH E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

dove e destinato mettervisi il battisterio, e risolva il modo di omarla . . (Ibid., f. 62v)

1623, Dec. 19: "la Cappella dove si vuol mettere il battes- imo si adorni di musaici, che pero si facciano fare li dis­egni da Pittori." (Ibid., f. 63v)

1624, Jan. 12: “LTllustrissimo Signor Cardinale dal Monte si contend sripulare l ’instrumento con il Cavalier Gaspar Cellio Pittore per li cartoni e disegni da farsi di musaico nella prima cappella a man manca, dove si vuol mettere il battesimo, secondo le conventioni, che fumo fatte con il Cavalier Gioseppe Cesare per la cuppola grande, et altri ad arbitrio di Sua Signoria Illustrissima.” (Ibid., f. 64)

1624, Feb. 5: . . si sono letti li capitoli sottoscritti dalCavalier Gaspar Cellio Pittore sopra l ’adornamento di musaico da farsi nella cappella dove si vuol mettere il battisterio et per parte della fabrica sono stati approvati, et ordinato che si osservino.” (Ibid., f. 64)

1624, before March 13: Celio writes to the Congregation, submitting a modified design (lost) and asking for an initial payment for his work on the cartoons. (P. 478)

1624, March 13: “A1 cavalier Gasparo Cellio che deve fare l ’istorie di musaico nella cappella dove va riposto il bat­tisterio, si diano cinquanta scudi di moneta a conto di detto ornamento, acci6 possa tirar avanti li quadri di pit- tura secondo li disegni portati in congregatione, quali sono piacciuti.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3-no. 159a, f. 67v)

1624, April 2: Payment of sc. 50 to Celio "a bon conto dell’ ornamento e quadri di pittura che deve fare per l ’istorie di musaico nella cappella dove va reposto il battisterio et secondo li disegni portati in detta S. Congreg[azione].” (P. 479)

1624, May 5: By order of Urban VIII, the baptismal font is to be moved into the first chapel on the left. (P. 477)

1624, May 8: "N. S.re domenica mattina di buon’hora calo in san Pietro; et vi diede alcuni buoni ordini, et in parti- colare che si trasporti il fonte del Battesimo nella prima Cappella a man sinistra dell’entrar nella Chiesa.” (E. Rossi, XIV, 1936, p. 97)

1625, Feb. 2: "Decreta S. Visitationis iussu Sanctissimi Domini Nostri PP. Urbani VIII in Basilica Principis Apostolorum

Novus fons Baptismalis, quanto citius extruatur, in sacello iam designato, sed eius formae exemplum antea Congregationi deferatur ostendum, an Sanctissimo placeat.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 5. Poliak [no. 65] tran­scribes a later copy of this document, which explains why he mistakenly dates it June 3, 1626.)

1625: Celio writes to Cardinal Francesco Barberini, explaining the status of his commission. He has com­pleted the cartoons, and they have been well received by the Congregation. He has been paid only sc. 50, how­ever, on the understanding that the remainder of his

payment will follow upon the completion of the work. But now the Congregation is threatening to cancel the commission, owing to the expense of the projected mosaics. Therefore Celio asks to be allowed to execute his designs in “pittura a olio,’’ observing that this will save time as well as money. (P. 480)

1626, Jan . 21: The Congregation gives Celio permission to decorate the baptismal chapel with painting instead of mosaic. (P. 481)

1626, Feb. 27-Nov. 27: Four payments of sc. 350 to Celio "a bon conto delle pitture che deve fare per la Cappella dove si mettera il battisterio.” (P. 482)

1626, March 16: Payment contract between Celio and the Fabbrica, drawn up by the Fabbrica’s notary Paolo Rove- rio: “In meis etc. Illustris Dominus Eques Gaspar Cellius [. . .], cui in lista Venerabilis Fabricae Sancti Petri de Urbe ultimo loco facta, et transmissa ad bancum Illustrissimo- rum DD. Depositariorum eiusdem Fabricae solvi man- dantur scuta Centum quinquaginta monetae ad Compu- tum pictures per ipsum faciendes in Ecclesia S. Petri, et Cappella quae dicitur del Battisterio . . . ” (ASR, 30 Notai Capitolini—Ufficio 38 [Paulus Roverius], vol. 11, ff. 399-399v.)

1627, Jan . 30—Nov. 16: Seven payments of sc. 350 to Celio. (P. 484)

1627, Ju ly 13-17: A scaffolding is erected in the baptism chapel. (P. 485—86)

1628, March 1—Aug. 15: Five payments of sc. 300 to Celio. (P. 487)

1628, Oct. 9: The scaffolding is taken down. (P. 489)1628, Oct. 18: “Illustrissimo et Reverendissimo Signor mio

Osservandissimo. Pochi giorni sono, fu attaccata una scrittura dentro la Cappella del battesmo fmita ultima- mente di dipingere dal Cavaliero Cellio, la qual con- teneva in sostanza, che l ’opera fusse malfatta, et da artefice poco sufficiente, et havendovela trovata Giulio di Pietro uno dei muratori della fabrica, la stacco, accio non fusse veduta, et la ritenne appresso di se, et sendomi stato detto, che la scrittura non solo conteneva poco bene dell’opera, ma biasmo della Congregazione, et suoi ministri, ordinal che si vedesse, et sendosi trovato che non conteneva altro, fu ordinato a detto Giulio, che la conservasse, ne la mostrasse ad altro, accio parendo cosi a questi lllustrissimi miei Signori vi si potesse far sopra qualche diligenza per scoprime et gastigarne l ’auttore.’’ (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1—no. 216, f. 94. The letter is addressed to Cardinal Scipione Borghese. A second copy is in Piano 2—serie armadi—no. 152, f. 214v.)

1638, before Feb. 25: Celio writes to the Congregation, asking for additional payment for his work in the bap­tismal chapel. (P. 492)

1638, Feb. 25: Celio’s petition is forwarded to Bernini. (P. 493)

C A T A L O G U E 3 (b ) g g 1 8 9

S O U R C E S

Celio, 1638 (1967), p. 73: "La pittura ad olio sopra il muro nella Capella del Battistiere della cornice in su, e sotto la fenestra con Christo battezzato da S. Giovanne, e di mano di Gaspare Celio dell’abito di Christo.”

Baglione, 1642, p. 379: "Finalmente gli fu concesso dal Car­dinal Ginnasio la prima cappelletta a man manca in S. Pietro Vaticano, ov’e la Fonte del Battesimo, nella cui volta egli fece un Dio Padre con diversi Agnoli, e Puttini, e nelli mezi tondi ne’ fianchi della volta v ’ha dipinto alcuni Angeli grandi, coloriti a olio sopra lo stucco; & anche formo nel quadro dell’Altare S. Gio. Battista, che battezzava N. Signore con Agnoli, ma perche non diede gusto, fu l’opera dell’Altare cancellata, & in cambio cji fu posta la Cathedra di S. Pietro, Principe de gli Apostoli."

Bralion, 1655-59, I, pp. 193-94: "La Chapelle qui est a l’oppo- site de cette premiere, a main gauche en entrant, fut pre- mierement dediee a S. lean Baptiste, parce que les fons bap- tismaux de S. Pierre, qui est paroisse, y sont. Aussi le Tableau qui estoit a l’Autel representoit le Baptesme de Nos- tre Seigneur; & en la voute il y avoit plusieurs figures appar- tenantes a cette histoire peintes en huile par Gaspar Celi.”

Passeri, p. 257: ", . . oltra la sua mesata ordinaria, ottenne dal Cardinale [Ginnasi] l’opera della prima Cappella a sinistra di San Pietro in Vaticano, e molti altri favori singolari. . . .”

Titi, 1674, p. 15: “. . . la prima Capella, che vi e, era dedi- cata alia Catedra di S. Pietro con la sua Volta ornata di Stucchi, le Pitture della quale sono di Gasparo Celio.”

N O T E S

1. Throughout most of the sixteenth century, the Early Christian sarcophagus of Probus Anicius served as the baptismal font in St. Peter’s; it retained this function in the new basilica until it was replaced at the end ol the seven­teenth century by a large modern font designed by Carlo Fontana. Alfarano, pp. 49-50, 52; Busiri-Vici, 1888; Dow- ley, 1965, pp. 57-81; Braham and Hager, 1977, pp. 39-51; Montagu, 1985, II, pp. 392-93.

2. This would not have been the first time that Celio suffered the indignity of having a major commission in St. Peter's taken away from him at the last moment. A quarter of a century earlier, during the pontificate of Clement VIII, Celio was recommended by Ranuccio Farnese, Duke of Parma, to paint one of the Peter altarpieces in the navipie- cole. According to Baglione (1642, pp. 377—78), the direc­tors of the Fabbrica agreed to give Celio the commission out of respect for the duke, but later, when they learned that the duke was ill satisfied with the work that Celio had done for him, they canceled his appointment and gave the commission instead to Domenico Passignano.

3. Baglione, 1642, p. 379. The vault was adorned with bands of elaborately molded and gilded stucco work, which divided the central section from the segments of barrel vault on either side. A similar arrangement can still be seen

in the corresponding chapel of the Crucifix (now of the Pieta) on the opposite side of the nave. For the documents concerning the stucco work, see Poliak, nos. 494-99.

4. Matthew 13:16-17.5. The first chapel on the left was already designated "Sacel-

lum Fontis Baptismatis" in one of the early projects for the nave of St. Peter’s, from around 1607 (Buonanni, 1696, p. 103; Hibbard, 1971, p. 157 and pi. 48d). It should be noted, however, that on the Mademo plan of 1613, it is the oval chamber between the first and second chapels on the right of the nave that is identified "Battisterio."

6. Voelker, 1977, pp. 258-59.7. Ibid., pp. 248-49. Borromeo repeated these instructions

elsewhere (pp. 261, 274, n. 6).8. For more on Gaspare Celio (1571—1640), see Baglione, 1642,

pp. 377-81; G. V. Rossi, 1645-48, I, pp. 228-31; Celio, 1638 (1967), pp. v-xiv; Zocca, vv "Gaspare Celio, ” DBI, XXIII, pp. 423-25; Gere and Pouncey, 1983, I, p. 48; Melasecchi, 1990, pp. 281—302. Celio’s Alemoria belli norm dell’artefici belle pitture, che Mtut in atcune ehieve, facciate, e palazzi di Roma was written in 1620, revised, and published in Naples in 1638.

9. For more on Celio’s relations with Ginnasi and Crescenzi, see Chapter 8.

10. According to Bellori, Baglione was spurred to write the Liveo "per vendetta contra Gasparo Celio, il quale . . . non nomino mai il Baglione." (The comment appears in the margin of Bellori’s own copy of Baglione, p. 377.)

11. Bellori’s remark appears in the margin of his copy of Baglione’s Liver, p. 379.

12. See Cat. 3(b).

C A T A L O G U E 3 (b)

ALTAR OF THE C ATH ED RA PETRI (B a p t is te r y ) [4 7 ]

Gianlorenzo and Luigi Bernini, Cathedra Petri (1630-37)

Reliquary altarpieee: gilded bronze, marbleDestroyed(Figs. 84, 87)

After the body of Peter himself, the Cathedra Petri - the throne on w hich the sain t is believed to have sat as bishop of Rome — is probably the most treasured relic in the possession of the basilica, and a potent symbol of papal authority.1 In old St. Peter’s, the chair was pre­served in a marble reliquary in the oratory of St. Hadrian in the south transept [at no. 15 on the Alfarano plan].2 When the transept was torn down, it found a temporary home in the sacristy.3 Twice a year, on the two feasts of the Cathedra, it was carried into the basilica and exposed to the enthusiastic devotions of the faithful at a portable altar set up in front of the eonfeoviod

190 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

In 1630, Urban VIII decided to remove the Cathedra from the sacristy and to accommodate it over one of the altars in the main body of the church. The baptismal chapel was chosen as the site of the new Cathedra altar, probably because its prominent position near the door of the basilica made it ideal for the d isp lay of the relic, although the desire to do aw ay with C elio ’s despised altarpiece may have been another factor in the decision.5 Gianlorenzo Bernini was the obvious candidate for the job of designing a reliquary altarpiece for the display and protection of the chair.6 But Bernini was already fully occupied with his work on the baldacch'uio and the statue of Longinus, as well as with his many duties as Architect of the Fabbrica, and it is unlikely that he devoted much time to the commission. Certainly he played no part in the execution of the project. This fell to his brother Luigi and a handful of workers in marble and bronze.

The ensemble, largely completed between 1630 and 1637, was a simple enough affair, at least in comparison with the reliquary altar that Bernini was to design for the Cathedra Petri a quarter century later (Fig. 84). The wall above the altar was set back a foot or two and provided a shallow recess for the chair.7 It was inlaid, like a painting in stone, with alabaster and colored marbles shaped like clouds surrounding a yellow sunburst.8 A gilded bronze dove emanating gilded bronze rays was affixed to this sun­burst.9 The relic itself was encased in a gilt bronze throne adorned with cherubim, garlands, vines, urns, and bees.10 The throne featured three pairs of hinged doors that could be opened to reveal the chair inside; it was raised on a mar­ble pedestal, inscribed with the words HIC CATHEDRA S.

PETRI ASSERVATUR, and set up over the altar.11On each side of the Cathedra, winged putti, sculp­

tured in marble by Luigi Bernini, knelt in eternal adora­tion.12 The putto on the right held a pair of gilt bronze keys, the one on the left a tiara, symbols obviously meant to underline the papal significance of the Cathedra by making reference to Peter’s role as the first of the popes.

The Cathedra remained in the baptismal chapel for the next thirty years and continued to be displayed twice annually in front of the confeooio. Then, in 1656, Alexan­der VII decided to install the Cathedra in the apse and commissioned Bernini to design a re liquary altar that would serve as a focal point of the basilica’s principal axis (Fig. 168).13 Bernini’s second Cathedra, although incom­parable to the first in scale and grandeur of conception, nevertheless shares many motifs with it. For example, Bernini retained the idea of a pair of putti carrying the tiara and keys (they appear directly over the chair), of a yellow sunburst (the tinted window), and of the dove of the Holy Spirit hovering over the chair and emanating gilded rays that seem to dispel the clouds. The modest display that Bernini designed for the altar in the bap­

tismal chapel turned out to contain the seeds of ideas that later flourished into one of his greatest masterpieces.

The baptism al chapel w as com pletely remodeled beginning in 1692 by Carlo Fontana (Fig. 88).14 An elab­orate baroque basin replaced the simple Early Christian sarcophagus that had served as the font until then; and over the a lta r Carlo M aratta represented, like Celio before him, the BaptLun o f Chru<t (Fig. 89).15 Of the origi­nal reliquary altarpiece, little survives. The bronze throne that contained the chair is lost; only the wooden scale model made by Giovanni Battista Soria bas been pre­served (F ig . 8 7 ) .16 As for the m arble putti by Luigi Bernini, tbey were left behind when the Cathedra was moved, and apparently remained in the baptismal chapel until as late as 1694.17 Ten years later, they are mentioned in an inventory of bozzetti, modelli, and other sculptures in the possession of the Fabbrica.18 What became of them afterward is unknown.19

D O C U M E N T S

For the documentation concerning the Cathedra Petri, see Poliak, nos. 118, 507—46. In addition, the following unpublished document is of interest:

1646, April 6: "Misura, et stima dell’Indoratura a foco fatta sopra l ’lntagli, e Cornici della Sede di metallo dentro la quale si conserva la Cathedra di S. Pietro posta nella Cappella detta del Battesimo nella Sacrosanta Basilica Vaticana, e del indoratura fatta a tutte spese, e robba di Maestro Girolamo Grippa Spadaro [. . .]

Per la Sopradetta Sede di Metallo come sopra che e alta nel mag[gio]re palmi \03A - larga nel mag[gio]re palmi 6, nelli fianchi palmi 4 lA, nelli quali e compartita come in faccia con suoi pilastrini intavolati, ed cimase, et basamenti che ricorrono, et dentro festoncini, e nelli fondi con diversi fogliami a rabeschi, e cosi nelli quattro sportelli, et suoi bracciali a menzoloni intagliati, che reg- gono la sua Cimasa, che forma frontispitio tondo, e nel timpano intavolato et intagli nel fondo, et dalle parti sopra detti bracciali due Vasi con suoi maniche, e fiamme, il tutto dorato a foco, e limato [. . .]” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 1—no. 21, f. 138.)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 379: “Finalmente gli [Celio] fu concesso dal Cardinal Ginnasio la prima cappelletta a man manca in S. Pietro Vaticano; . . . formo nel quadro dell’Altare S. Gio. Battista, che battezzava N. Signore con Agnoli, ma perche non diede gusto, fu l’opera dell’Altare cancellata,& in cambio ci fu posta la Cathedra di S. Pietro, Principe de gli Apostoli."

Torngio, 1644, p. 122: “Urbano VIII ha nella Basilica Vati­cana eretto un nobilissimo Altare dedicato alia Cathe­

C A T A L O G U E 3 (b ) 1 9 1

dra, la quale accio si habbi con maggior decoro, e vener- atione a conservare ha desrinato racchiuderla in un’altra tutta di bronzo mirabilmente lavorato."

Bralion, 1655—59, I, p. 194: . . Urbain VIII, iugeantraisonnable que la Chaire de S. Pierre, qui est une des plus notables Reliques de cette Eglise, y eut sa Chapelle pour y estre conservee dans cette nouvelle corame elle l’avoit este dans I’ancienne, & en lieu plus public que la Sacristie ou elle estoit, au lieu de ce Tableau de l’Autel qui fut oste, y fit accommoder sur le mesme Autel un ornement de marbre capable de contenir & couvrir cette pretieuse Chaire qui a servy dans les fonctions sacrees au premier Vicaire de Iesus-Christ, & laquelle n est pourtant que de bois taille fort grossierement, sans fa^on [. . .] Cette place pour la mettre en cette Chapelle se preparoit encore a mon depart de Rome, qui fut vers la fin d ’Avril de l'an de mil six cens quarante-un, & elle se conservoit encore lors dans la principale Chapelle de la Sacristie.”

Mortoft, 1925, p. 104: "Januaiy 17th [1659], wee went to St. Peter s Church in the Vatican, where saw another Ceremony. On this day it is held that St. Peter came first to Rome, for which cause his Chaire, which stands upon an altar on the left hand as one goes in the Church, and was exposed to publicke view, where all Persons that came into the Church were very Ambitious to have their Beads and Chaplets touch the side of the Chaire, which was two or three persons worke to doe from Morning to night. And I dare affirme truely there were more Beads touched the side ol the chaire this day then would load a Cart. There were also, the more to Honour St. Peter, about 25 Cardinals to heare Masse, and also very excel­lent Musicke made by at least 20 Eunuchs, whose voyces made such melody that one’s eares received larr more contentment with hearing that Melodious and har­monious Musicke, then one does with beholding St. Peter’s pretended Chaire."

Alveri, 1664, II, pp. 177-78: “. . . hoggi [la cattedra] e guarnita, e rinchiusa in un modello di bronzo vagamente intagliato, e parte messo ad oro, e nel suo piedestallo si legge: Hie Cathedra S. Petri asservatur. La volta della sudetta Cappella o Altare e ornata di stucchi messi ad oro, e di pitture fatte da Gasparo Celio. ”

Titi, 1674, p. 15: . . la prima Capella, che vi e, era dedi-cata alia Catedra di S. Pietro con la sua Volta ornata di Stucchi, le Pitture della quale sono di Gasparo Celio.”

Fontana, 1694, p. 395: “Nella Cappella ove risiedeva la Catedra. Era ornata intorno con Putti, e mischij, fatti fare da Urbano VIII B arberin i, con disegno del Bernini, e la volta dipinta dal Cavalier Gasparo Celio. Li Putti, che ora si vedono di marmo, fatti sotto la cura del Bernini; & ora un fianco di questa Cappella serve di Fonte Battesimale."

N O T E S

1. On the h isto iy of the relic, see Battaglia, 1943, pp. 237—14; M accarrone, 1971, pp. 3 -70 ; Nees, 1991 and 1993; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 719—22, 750—51; and additional bibliography cited in Schiitze, 1994, p. 268, n. 166.

2. A lfarano, pp. 41 -42 ; B laauw, 1994, II, p. 570.3. A lfarano, pp. 141, 169.4. O n the p o p u la r v en e ra tio n o f the C a th e d ra P etr i, see

C hapter 6, esp. nn. 21-24 .5. O ther possible exp lanations for the decision to install the

cath ed ra in the baptism al chapel are proposed by M ac- carone, 1971, p. 41.

6. Bernini is not mentioned in an y of the docum ents as the designer of the first C athedra re liquary . Several scholars have tried therefore to deny his involvement, argu ing that the invention is too m ediocre to be associated w ith him (e.g. Battaglia , 1943, pp. 65 -6 6 ). But A lveri, Fontana, and a num ber of other seventeenth-century authors assert that Bernini w as indeed responsible for the overall design, and th is seem s to be con firm ed by the p a rtic ip a tio n o f h is brother Luigi in the execution of the project. See M . and M . Fagiolo d e ll’Arco, 1967, no. 55.

7. I. Lavin (1980, I, p. 35, n. 49) suggests the niche m ay have been illum inated by a hidden light source.

8. Poliak, nos. 533-35 . Bernini must have liked the effect of th is b ackd rop , for he la te r used an id en tic a l system ol polychrom e m arbles in laid to resem ble clouds and a sun­burst (or jp lendore) in each of the four re liq u a iy niches in the piers o f the crossing.

9. Poliak, nos. 52, 536—41.10. A full-scale wooden model of the chair w as completed in

1636 and w as installed over the altar. The bronze casting was done piece by piece and took another ten years to complete.

11. See A lveri, 1664, II, p. 177 (tran scr ib ed in the Sources section at the end of the en tiy ) .

12. Poliak, nos. 53, 507-12 .13. See Doc. Appendix, no. 27 and Cat. 19.14. D owley, 1965, pp. 5 7 -81 ; Braham and Hager, 1977, pp.

39 -51 .15. M aratta painted the a ltarp iece between 1696 and 1698. In

the 1730s, it w as replaced by a mosaic reproduction by G. B. Brughi and P. P. C ristofari, and the original w as moved to S . M a r ia d eg li A n ge li, w h ere it rem ain s today . See Dowley, 1965; D iFederico, 1968, pp. 194—97; D iFederico, 1983, p. 79.

16. P o liak , nos. 48 , 5 2 4 —25; B ern in i in Vaticano, 1981, pp. 261-62 .

17. See Fontana, 1694, p. 395 (transcribed in the Sources sec­tion at the end ol the en tiy ) .

18. [J a n . 2, 1704] "Due Angeli di marmo, che stavano di qua, e di la della C atedra, dove si e fatto il Fonte Battesmale. (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 3, f. 73)

19. In 1924 a p a ir o f m arb le a n g e ls , d e sc r ib e d s im p ly as "baroque in s ty le ,” are listed in the catalogue ol the M useo Petriano (Cascio li, 1924 (b), p. 29). These are almost cer­ta in ly to be identified w ith a pa ir of m arble putti recently red iscovered, cleaned, and now disp layed on the ground

192 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

floor of the sacristy. Although sim ilar in pose to those by Luigi Bernini, they are ev iden tly later in style, and cannot be connected with the C athedra altar.

C A T A L O G U E 4

A L T A R O F S T . S E B A S T I A N [ 2 ]

Domenichino, M artyrdom o f St. Sebaotian ( 1628-31)Oil on stucco; approximately 720 X 420 cmS. M aria degli Angeli; mosaic replica in situ

(Figs. 90-93)

When in March 1625 the Congregation of the Fabbrica commissioned Domenichino to paint an altarpiece in the second chapel on the right of the nave, the dedication of the chapel had not yet been determined. At that point the cardinals were planning to extend the Petrine cycle into the nave chapels; they therefore decided that Domeni­chino should paint an episode from the life of St. Peter and initially settled on the subject of Peter and the centu­rion (Acts 10:25-48). The story involves the Roman cen­turion Cornelius, who had a vision in which the angel of the Lord told him to summon Peter to his home in Cae­sarea. Peter came, preached the Gospel, and later con­verted and baptized the centurion and his household. The episode is significant because the centurion was a Gen­tile: "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Paul is usually credited with having been the first to bring the word of God to the Gentiles; but the episode of Peter and the centurion proves that Peter deserves at least equal credit for this accomplishment.1

After the Chapter had vetoed plans for a Peter altar- piece in the Chapel of the Choir, the card in a ls still maintained that at least the middle pair of nave chapels should feature Peter stories. To heighten the dramatic impact of the two altarpieces, they recommended dif­ferent subject matter. Instead of the story of Peter pull­ing the tribute money from the fish ’s mouth for the altar on the left, and the story of Peter and the centurion for the altar on the right (scenes that, apart from the fact that both involve St. Peter, are otherwise unrelated), they now favored the Pa.<ce Oreo Afeao for the altar on the left and the Giving of the Keys for the altar on the right, parallel scenes involving Christ’s delegation of apostolic authority to Peter and, by extension, to his successor, the pope.2 The Congregation proposed the new subject mat­ter in October 1626; and in a document dated November 4, Domenichino is listed as having been assigned the altarpiece in the "Cappella S. Petri Tibi dabo Claves.”3

The Chapter opposed the Congregation’s plans for the central nave chapels on the grounds that the nave altars were needed for other important dedications carried over from the old basilica. They also pointed out that the Con­gregation had given no thought to the matter of relics. Thus, most of the major relics in the possession of the church were concentrated in the centralized portion of the building, where Paul V had deposited them, whereas all but one of the nave chapels were lacking in relics. The canons therefore proposed dedicating the second chapel on the right in honor of St. Sebastian, and the second chapel on the left in honor of the Presentation of the Virgin, and pro­viding each chapel with a major relic, the body of St. Boni­face IV in one case and the body of St. Leo IX in the other.4

The early histoxy of the altar of St. Sebastian in old St. Peter’s is not easy to trace. According to Alfarano, an altar dedicated in honor of St. Sebastian, and of Sts. Gorgonius and Tiburtius, may have once stood in the outer left side aisle, near the entrance of the church [between nos. 79 and 80 on the A lfarano p lan ].5 But this altar, long since destroyed and all but forgotten, was not the one the canons had in mind when they proposed the title of St. Sebastian for the altar in new St. Peter’s. They were probably think­ing of another altar dedicated to the saint, which had stood in the south transept near the entrance to the rotunda of St. Petronilla until it was moved in the sixteenth century to a side chapel of the Secretarium, just to the left of the entrance of St. Peter’s [no. 144 on the Alfarano plan]. This altar, which Alfarano describes as "antiquissimum,” was restored and richly endowed by Cardinal Cristoforo de’ Iacobazzi, a canon of St. Peter’s, in 1501.6 The endowment was sufficient to support a chaplain whose duties included saying a w eek ly mass at the altar. After the altar was demolished along with the rest of old St. Peter's, the chap­lain had nowhere to perform the requisite mass. In 1625, by decree of the Apostolic Visitation of that year, the chap­laincy was officially transferred to the altar of the Crucifix­ion of St. Peter [37] 7 The Chapter did not view this as a permanent solution, however, and two years later, as we have seen, they petitioned to reestablish the altar of St. Sebastian in the second chapel on the right.

The cardinals were not opposed to the idea of reestab­lishing the title of St. Sebastian in new St. Peter’s. Even before the canons submitted their counterproposal, the cardinals had recommended dedicating one of the small altars in the south transept in the saint’s honor.8 But the canons felt that the dedication was important enough to merit one of the large chapels in the nave. Perhaps to gain his support for their petition, they played on the pope’s personal attachment to the saint. "St. Sebastian should have dedicated to him not merely a simple altar, but one of the principal chapels, if for no other reason than that this saint seems to exact signal and exceptional honors from Your Holiness.” This is a remarkable state­

C A T A L O G U E 4 @3 1 9 3

ment, and one wonders what exactly the Chapter meant by it. Urban VIII may indeed have been more than usu­ally devoted to St. Sebastian. The Barberini family chapel in S. Andrea della Valle, purchased, decorated, and richly endowed by Urban before he became pope, is built over the spot where, according to legend, the body of the saint was retrieved from the sew er into which it had been dumped by his executioners.9 In a small recess in the left wall of the chapel is an altar dedicated in honor of Sebas­tian, with an altarpiece by Domenico Passignano repre­sen tin g L ucina R e tr i e v in g th e C orp se o f S t. S eb a s t ia n (1612—16).10 Maffeo Barberini commissioned two other works of art, a painting by Ludovico Carracci of a similar and equally rare subject, the Body o f St. Sebastian B eing Thrown into the Cloaca M axima, and a marble statue by Bernini of the martyred saint, both of which he seems to have intended for the same side altar in the Cappella Bar­berini but which in the end he retained for the family col­lections.11 His special devotion to Sebastian may also be indicated by his decision in 1626 to restore the church of S. Sebastiano al Palatino, built on the legendary site of the saint's m artyrdom .12 Decades after his death, his nephew Cardinal Francesco built and decorated a mag­nificent chapel in honor of St. Sebastian in the basilica ol S. Sebastiano fuori le mura, over an altar in the cata­combs near which relics of the saint had recently been discovered.13 That all three principal Sebastian sites in Rome received Barberini patronage would seem to point to a consistent personal and familial devotion. It is, of course, possible that the "insignes et praecipuos honores” referred to by the Chapter took other forms as well, in particular, religious services and ceremonies. This indeed seems likely, given that Sebastian was venerated first and foremost as a plague saint and that the second half of the 1620s was a time when Rome was living in fear of the plague.

In 1625, news reached the c ity of an outbreak of plague in Palermo. For the next nine or ten years, the epidemic held Italy in its grip. It decimated some cities while leaving others unscathed. In Florence, for exam­ple, some 10,000 people died of the disease, and the city considered itself fortunate that the m ortality had not been higher.14 The plague flared up and died down and flared up again according to the season. Each time there was a report of a new outbreak, Rome trembled. The pope took what precautions he could to protect the city. He posted guards at the city gates to prevent the influx of visitors from infected areas. To discourage pilgrims and tourists from leaving the city limits to visit the great basilicas fu o r i le mura, he transferred the privileges asso­ciated with those basilicas to other churches within the w alls.15 He also ordered special masses and prayers for the cessation of the p lague. In the end, Rome w as spared. But it would hardly be surprising if, during these

years, the cult of St. Sebastian increased in popularity, contributing to the decision to reestablish the Sebastian altar in St. Peter’s .16

Domenichino w as awarded the commission for the altarpiece by March 26, 1625, when he received an initial payment of 70 ocudi. No further payments were made until J u ly 15, 1628. Evidently, Domenichino had the good sense to wait until the dedication of the chapel was settled before beginning the altarpiece. He worked on the painting until his departure for Naples in 1631. When he left Rome, the painting was not quite finished. Writing to his friend Francesco Angeloni in 1638, he confided: “To tell you the truth, I wanted to do some clouds but I did not have time, having had to leave in a hurry for Naples as I did, without seeing it in its entirety from below with­out scaffolding, and without touching it up, and leaving someone to do the varnishing for me.”17

Perhaps it was because he left Rome without putting the finishing touches to the altarpiece that the Fabbrica paid him only 800 ocudi, the minimum standard fee for a large altarpiece. Domenichino later claimed that the Fab­brica owed him money and wrote on several occasions requesting additional payment. Even after his death his heirs continued to petition the C ongregation . They claimed that Domenichino had been promised 1,500 ocudi for the work. This was almost certainly an exaggeration - no painter received such a fee for an altarpiece in St. Peter’s — and if Domenichino’s heirs hoped to convince the Congregation otherwise, they were disappointed.

The painting represents the M artyrdom o f St. Sebastian (Fig. 91 ).18 The saint, a bearded man of middle age, is tied to a tall wooden post at the top of which a Roman so ld ier affixes a sign that reads S E B A S T I A N V S C H R I S -

T I ANVS . The composition is crowded, with Sebastian at the center surrounded by a milling throng of onlookers, soldiers, and executioners. On the right a general on horseback tries to disperse the crowds with his baton. He gestures downward, to where a group of women, chil­dren, and old men huddle in apparent fright. Balancing the mother and daughter in the lower right corner is the figure of an executioner in the low er left corner. He glances toward the general as though for orders, as he and the shadowy colleague behind him reach for their bows and quivers. Directly above them three soldiers are securing the saint to the post. Two of them stand on lad­ders, and while one works on the sign, the other reaches down for the coil of rope being passed to him by the third. Above Sebastian an angel swoops down to bring him the crown and palm of martyrdom. In the sky above Christ is borne in by cherubs, his arms held wide open as though to receive the soul of the martyr into his embrace. To the left of Christ a group of angels aim their trumpets toward the event below, signaling the theme of Christian triumph.

194 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

As Emile Male has shown, the decision to include the inscription S E BAS TI ANVS C HR I ST I A NV S indicates that either Domenichino or his advisers were familiar with Baronius’s M artyrology, according to which the saint was martyred beneath a sign identifying him as a Christian.19 In spite of this learned reference, the iconography of Domenichino’s composition is muddled. Sebastian underwent two sepa­rate martyrdoms. In the first martyrdom, he was shot with arrows, but he did not die and was later nursed back to health by Irene. In the second martyrdom, he was beaten with rods and killed, and his body was dumped in the sewer. In the visual arts, it is almost always the first mar­tyrdom that is represented. But Domenichino’s treatment is ambiguous. At first glance it seems that he too chose to represent the first martyrdom: the executioners in the lower left corner reach lor bows and arrows, and the saint is bound to a vertical support as he is in countless earlier versions of the scene. On the other hand, Passeri believed that Domenichino had represented the second martyrdom, and Passeri's opinion must be taken seriously, lor he claimed to have studied the work on more than one occa­sion in the company of the artist.

He painted St. Sebastian, a knight of the imperial court, when, after the ordeal of arrows, and after having been cared for and cured by St. Irene, he appeared at a win­dow in front of the Emperor Diocletian; who, thinking him already dead, angered at seeing him again, and judg­ing that he was being scoffed at by him, ordered that he should be arrested again, and killed; and especially because he heard [the saint] call him tyrant, cruel, and impious, to feel such hate for the Sacred Faith of Christ.. . . [Below are] two archers, who seem to be preparing their bows and quivers; but these are only here to remind us of the first martyrdom that the saint suffered, and not to shoot him once again with arrows; because in this sec­ond martyrdom he was killed by clubs.

Passeri’s explanation sounds lame. It is understandable if he was confused by Domemchino's painting, however, for the artist has in fact conflated elements of both martyr­doms. The bows and arrows, and the pose and position of the saint, are characteristic of the first martyrdom, but the indications of the saint’s imminent death (the pres­ence of Christ, and especially of the angel with the crown and palm) suggest the second, fatal martyrdom.

Domenichino’s depiction of the figure of Sebastian is also unusual. Sebastian is typ ica lly represented as a young man, slender and beardless. But here he is shown as a m idd le-aged man in his p rim e, m u scu lar and bearded. It would seem that Domenichino did not opt for this figure type on his own but was instructed to paint the saint in this way, probably by a member of the Congrega­tion or Chapter. A large number of the artist’s prepara­tory studies have survived; in the early studies Sebastian is young and beardless (Figs. 92—93), and only in the

ve iy last studies does he take on the physical characteris­tics he has in the painting. There may have been more than one reason for the change. In medieval depictions, Sebastian is frequently shown as a mature man, and some Counter-Reformation hagiographers maintained that this was a more authentic w ay of portraying him. In a manu­script catalogue of relics in the possession of St. Peter's, for example, next to the entry concerning the relic of St. Sebastian, a note in the margin recommends that the saint be represented "senex, iuxta antiquissimas picturas quae hodie cernuntur in Ecclesia S. Petri ad Vincula, S. Agathae in Suburra, et alibi fortasse.’’20 But another rea­son for altering the figure of Sebastian was, surely, to make him look more like Christ. Everything about the composition emphasizes the christological associations of the saint’s martyrdom. The sign over the martyr's head not only juxtaposes the names of Sebastian and Christ but also recalls the sign nailed above the head of the cru­cified Christ: “This is Jesus the King of the Jew s .” The post to which the saint is bound is in the form of a squared beam of wood reminiscent of the cross. The sol­diers on ladders recall similar figures in countless repre­sentations of the Crucifixion and Deposition. Above all, the physical resemblance between Sebastian and Christ - both nude but for a white loincloth, both bearded and long-haired — drives the theological point home: the mar­tyr suffers death in imitation of Christ. Martyrdom is a reenactment of C hrist’s sacrifice on the cross, and as though to u n d er lin e th is fun dam en ta l p recep t, Domenichino represents Christ with arms outflung in a crucifixion pose, displaying the wounds in his hands and feet to the saint below.

Many, if not all, of these iconographic details must have been suggested to Domenichino by learned advis­ers. If we examine the early composition studies, we find that Domenichino began with a very different picture in mind (F igs. 9 2 -9 3 ). In these draw ings, Sebastian is youthful and beardless, even girlish; he is tied to a tree rather than to a beam; there are no figures on ladders; and Christ does not hold his arms in a crucifixion pose, nor does he appear to display his wounds.

Domenichino's A lartyrdom o f St. S eb a jt ia n was not received with universal acclaim. Some people criticized the picture for being too crowded.21 Passeri observed that it was not up to Domenichino’s usual standards, and apparently even Domenichino agreed. “Every time I vis­ited St. Peter’s with him,” Passeri wrote, “he turned to it, and prayed that it would soon show signs of deteriora­tion, and he would g lad ly have rebuilt the scaffold in order to rework the painting.”

On June 2, 1672, the relics of the martyr saints Inno­cent, Victor, Candidus, and Laureatus were deposited in the altar, which was then dedicated. Domenichino’s altarpiece was restored by Giuseppe Montano in 1694.22 In 1736, it

C A T A L O G U E 4 1 9 5

was detached from the wall and transported to the church of S. Maria degli Angeli.23 In St. Peter’s it was replaced by a mosaic replica executed by Pietro Paolo Cristofari.24

D R A W I N G S

1. Paris, Louvre, no. 35784. Black chalk on yellowed beige paper; 201 X 119 jtims. See Spear, 1967, pp. 150-52 and pi. 14. c

2. Windsor Castle, Royal Library. A group of thirty-six d raw in g s re la ted to the a lta rp ie c e . W hen Domenichino died, he left the contents ol his studio to his student Francesco Raspatino . Among his effects were a number ol drawings, including some fifty-three drawings connected with the St. Peter's altarpiece. The bulk of these draw ings were later acquired by Carlo M aratta; they were bought by Pope Clement XI Albani, and eventually, in 1762, by King George III of England. The thirty-six drawings for the St. Peter s altarpiece preserved at Windsor all share this provenance. Most ol them are studies of arms, legs, drapery, and so on. Only two of the draw­ings are composition studies. No. 939 is an early study for the lower half of the composition; no. 940 is a study for the whole composition. See Pope-Hen- nessy, 1948, nos. 939-17, 948 [? ], 949-56, 958-75, pi. 19, and figs. 42—43. (Figs. 92—93)

D O C U M E N T S

1625, March 26: Initial payment ol sc. 70 to Domenichino "a conto del quadro de pittura alia cappella di mezo della nave grande verso palazzo." (P. 690)

Date uncertain (c. Oct 1626): “[Cappella] sub literam ‘T’, in qua historia Cornelij Centurionis pingenda est, magis congruere videretur historia traditionis Clavium Regni Coelorum.

Et licet in anteriori parte ecclesiae in marmore sit sculpta dicta traditionis clavium historia, non repugnat, quin multo magis in medio ecclesiae insigne hoc misterium, illiusque memoria a tidelibus profusis praecibus, et immen- sis gaudijs perpetuo celebretur.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 8)

1626, Nov. 4: “Nota delle Tavole delle Cappelle in S. Pietro da dipingersi et dei Pittori:

Domenichino......................Cappella S. Petri Tibi daboClaves”

(Doc. Appendix, no. 9)Date uncertain (c. 1626): “S. Processo et Martiniano” (Doc.

Appendix, no. 10)Date uncertain (c. Jan. 1627): “Quod vero S. Sebastiano,

non simplex Altare, sed unum ex his sacellis primarijs dedicetur, haec modo ratio sufficiat quod hie Sanctus est in quasi possessione exigendi a Sanctitate Vestra insignes, et praecipuos honores. Poterit hoc Sacellum decorari

Corpore S. Bonifatij Mart, cuius etiam titulus poterit cumulari. Hoc Corpus modo repositum est sub Altare S. Thomae quod non est ex principalibus, sed id factum fuit quia tota Basilica non erat perfecta.

Sacellum S. Sebastiani Mart, cui addi poterit etiam titu­lus S. Bonilatij Mart.

Corpus eiusdem S. Bonifatij.Cappellanus unus. DomenichinoLampas accensa.”

(Doc. Appendix, no. 11)1627, M ay 14: Domenichino is recorded as having the

commission for the altarpiece in the second chapel on the right. (P. 94)

1628, Ju ly 15: Payment of sc. 70 to Domenichino “a bon conto della pittura a tavola che fa.” (P. 691)

1628, Aug. 19-Oct. 10: Two payments of sc. 200 to Domenichino. (P. 692)

1632, Oct. 9: Payment of sc. 300 to Domenichino via "suo legittimo Procuratore [. . .] a bon conto della tavola che ha fatto di S. Bastiano." (P. 693)

1633: Domenichino writes to the Congregation, asking for full payment for his work on the altarpiece. (P. 694)

1633, Jan . 22: Payment of sc. 160 to Domenichino. (P. 695)1635, belore March 22 and again before June 30: Dome­

nichino writes twice to the Congregation, claiming that he has vet to be paid in full for the altarpiece he com­pleted four years previously and asking that this situa­tion be rectified. (P. 696—97)

1638, June 12: Domenichino in Naples writes to Francesco Angeloni in Rome: "L'awiso che mi da nell’altra sua della tavola di San Pietro non dicono bene della troppo robba nella parte da basso, perche cosi richiede l’osservazione e’l costume del rappresentare tal soggetto. Nella parte di sopra possono ben dire qualche cosa; perche a dire a V.S. la verita, voleva farvi certe nuvole; non ebbi tempo, dovendo venire di fretta a Napoli, come feci, senza ved- erla da basso tutta insieme senza il palco, e senza ritoc- carla, e lasciai uno che per me le dasse la vernice.” (Bel- lori, 1672 [1976], p. 371)

1643: Domenichino’s heirs write to Cardinal Lante and to the Congregation, asking to be paid the amount still owed Domenichino lor his work on the altarpiece in St. Peter’s. Domenichino was paid sc. 800 in all; the heirs claim that he was owed a total of sc. 1,500. (P. 698)

1672, June 2: The altar is dedicated and consecrated; in it are relics of Sts. Innocent, Victor, Candidus, and Laure- atus. (ACSP, H96, p. 84)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 384: "Fece nella Chiesa di s. Pietro in Vaticano il quadro a olio sopra lo stucco, dov e il mar- tirio di s. Sebastiano, con intervento di numeroso popolo, e d un’ Angelica Gloria con Giesu Cnsto.”

196 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Bralion, 1655—59, I , p. 198: “La seconde Chapelle a main droite est de S. Sebastien. Le Tableau de l'Autel est lort grand & peint a huile sur le stuch dont est couvert le mur; il est de Dominique Sampieri, dit le Dommicain Boulon- nois. 11 y a grand nombre de Figures pour representer le martyre de ce Saint qui y est peint, non pas leune comme on le represente ordinairement par erreur, mais age con- formement a l’opinion des Doctes, & notamment de Baro- nius, laquelle est authorisee par une figure de Mosai'que qui est a Rome en l’Eglise de S. Pierre aux Liens [. . .]"

Bellori, 1672 (1 9 7 6 ), p. 363 : “L’altra tavola e una delle grand! della Basilica Vaticana col Martirio di San Sebas- tiano, legato ed esposto ad un trave, con l'anello di ferro in cima da cui pende la fune avvolta alle congiunture della braccia; e nel sollevare il braccio destro ritira la gamba sinistra, avvinto 1 uno e I'altro piede. Dietro da una scala un soldato gli affigge sopra il capo il titolo del supplicio SEBAST1ANVS CHRISTIANVS, ed avanti un altro soldato armato di maglia, asceso sopra una colonnetta, appunta il ginocchio al trave del supplicio, e ritenendo l’avanzo della fune addita sotto in terra e chiede alcuna cosa ad un giovine, che gli porga altre luni. S ’aprestano due arcieri, raccogliendo da terra la laretra e l'arco; e dal contrario lato sinistro s’inalbera il cavallo del capitano, che alza il bastone per allontanare il popolo, abbassan- dosi e ritirandosi alcuni con timore; un angelo porta la palma ed awicina la corona alia testa del Santo, e sopra apre le braccia il Signore portato ed accompagnato da altri angeli che suonano il trionfo.”

Passeri, p. 51: “Nel medesimo tempo hebbe da fare uno de’ Quadri grandi nella Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano, a mano destra delle Porte maggiori nel secondo Altare. Dipinse in quello San Sebastiano Cavaliere della Corte Imperiale, quando, doppo il tormento delle frezze, curato, e guarito da Santa Irene, essendo comparso in una fenestra avanti a ll’Imperatore Diocletiano, che lo credeva gia morto, sdegnato di rivederlo, e stimandosi da lui schernito, ordino, che di nuovo fusse preso, e fatto morire; e tanto piu sentendosi da lui chiamare tiranno, crudele, e dispietato, in havere con tanta fierezza in odio la Santa Fede di Christo. L’ha espresso, quando dai manigoldi vien legato al patibolo per martirizzarlo; et uno di loro espone un cartello, nel quale e scritto SEBAS-

T1ANVS CHRISTIANVS, come quello fusse l’accusa del suo delitto, per lo quale veniva, come reo, condannato alia morte. Nell’alto a sinistra g l’apparisce Christo portato da un Coro d ’Angioli, per riceverlo nella sua Gloria, et un Angioletto gli prepara la Corona, e la Palma. Nel foro vi e un concorso, una turba di gente, per vedere lo spettacolo; et un Sergente a cavallo, ma piu distante, che reprime il popolo tumultuante, tra il quale alcune donne con fanciulli, e fanciulle, con due Arcieri, che sembrano preparare gl’archi, e le faretre; ma questi non fanno altra ftgura, che dichiarare il primo Martirio, che il Santo sof-

ferse, non per esercitare l'offitio d ’Arciere di nuovo con- tro di lui; perche in quella seconda volta fu fatto morire con bastoni. Per quanto potei argomentare, questa gran Tavola non era di tutto genio del Giampieri; perche ogni volta ch’io sono entrato seco in San Pietro, ci si voltava, e lo pregava, che si guastasse presto, et haverebbe volen- tieri rifattoci il palco per lavorarci di nuovo.”

Silos, 1673, p. 8 : “ D. SEBASTIANVS

in Vaticano Templo.

Dominici Zamperij, vulgo Dominichini Opus.

Bellica nil virtus Divo, nil profuit aula,Quin dira caderet saeva per arma nece.

Relligio dat firma animos: stat pectore nudo,Alite iam penna Cressa sagitta volat.

Collimat non una manus: certamine duro Pectora milleno vulnere tela petunt.

Horret dira sinu seges, & lethalis arundo Telorum in sylvam visa abijsse trucem.

Perfacilis pinxisse labor: cruor ipse colorem Fecit, peniculus missa sagitta fuit.”

N O T E S

1. The stoiy of Peter and the centurion was later illustrated in one of three large canvases, all representing scenes of baptism, that adorned the newly remodeled baptismal chapel. Painted by Andrea Procaccini between 1710 and 1711, the work was hung on the left wall of the chapel until it was replaced in or shortly before 1736 by a mosaic replica by G. B. Brughi and P. P. Cristofari. The original is now in the church of S. Francesco in Urbino. See DiFed- erico, 1968, pp. 194-97; DiFederico, 1983, p. 79; Guerrieri Borsoi, 1989, p. 32.

2. See Chapter 5 and Cat. 5 (a).3. The Giving of the Keys, like the story of Peter and the

centurion, was ultimately represented elsewhere in the church. See Cat. SP. 4.

4. During the translation of relics in 1605 and 1606, Paul V consigned the body of St. Boniface IV to the right altar of the south transept [33], and the body of St. Leo IX to the left altar of the south transept [34]. Despite the canons’ proposal to move these relics to the nave chapels, they remained in the transept altars throughout the seventeenth centuiy.

5. Alfarano, p. 85 and n. 1.6. Ibid. pp. 120, 197.7. Doc. Appendix, no. 5.8. Doc. Appendix, no. 8.9. D’Onofrio, 1967, pp. 65-75, 404-23.10. Ibid., pp. 418-19; Nissman, 1979, pp. 308—309; II Seicento

fiorcntino, 1986, p. 124.11. Ludovico Carracci, 1993, pp. 152—54; Wittkower, 1981, p.

174 and pi. 5. The Barberini family inventories include ref­erences to as many as thirty different images of St. Sebast­ian, an impressive number even given the widespread pop­ularity of the saint (M. A. Lavin, 1975, passim).

12. In 1630, the Barberini acquired the property on which the

C A T A L O G U E 5 ( a ) 1 9 7

church stands from the C apran ica family, and it remained in their possession until 1920. See Guide rionali, X.iv, p. 12.

13. M ontagu, 1970, p. 288.14. On the p lague in Florence, see G. C alvi, 1984. A lessandro

M an zo n i’s I p r o m eo j i opooi con ta in s a fr igh ten in g ly v iv id description of the p lague in M ilan.

15. Gigli, 1958, pp. 86, 109, 111, 113, 117-19, 127, 133. See also ACSP, D iari 1 1, p. 269: [O ct. 31, 1625] "E piu con d etta occasione di peste N ostro S ign ore ha o rd inato le sette chiese tutte dentro di Roma, che sono, S . Pietro, S. M aria in Trastevere, S . G iovanni Laterano , S . Croce, S. M ar ia M agg io re , S . M a r ia del Popolo, e S . Lorenzo in L ucina.” A little later, S . Gregorio al Celio w as substituted for S . Paolo f.l.m . (see Forcella, 1869-84, II, p. 129).

16. The basilica had in its possession the sku ll of St. Sebastian, but it is important to point out that the a lta r w as not estab­lished in order to house this precious relic. The sku ll w as kept in the sacristy , both before and a fte r the a lta r w as built, and w as brought out and exhibited in the main body of the church only on special occasions, such as the sa in t’s feast. See ACSP, Diari 10, p. 469: [J a n . 20, 1619] "Q uesta m attina [. . .] si e m essa la Testa di S . Sebastiano sopra I’A ltare .” Ju ra t 19, unfoliated: [ J a n . 20, 1630] "C aput S. Sebastiani fuit portatum [. . .] et expositum super A ltare." Diari 11, p. 376: [J a n . 20, 1633] "Q uesta m attina li Sac- ristan i hanno portato la Testa di S . S eb astiano in Coro [. . .] A ltri volevano si portasse in C hiesa a lia sua Cappella, che sarebbe stato bene se vi si cantasse la M essa, ma per- che la M essa si canta in Coro si e risoluto ab b assarla .”

17. The translation is from Spear, 1982, I, p. 268. For the Ital­ian text, see the Documents section at the end of this en tiy .

18. Spear, 1967, pp. 150-53; 1982, I, pp. 268-69 .19. M ale, 1932, p. 128.20. ACSP, H2 (Catalogue oacrarum R eliguiarum alnuie Vaticanae

Baoilicae . . . Pau/a Bizona, c3 M arco Aurelia Maraldo . . . ocrip/uo, 1617), f. 35v. Baronius had argued along sim ilar lines.

21. See D om enichino’s 1638 letter to Francesco Angeloni in the Documents section at the end o f this entry.

22. Buonanni, 1696, p. 118.23. On the delicate operation of transfer, see Spear, 1982, I, p.

268 and pi. 322.24. Spear, 1982, I, p. 268; D iFederico, 1983, p. 73.

C A T A L O G U E 5 (a)

ALTAR OF TH E PRESE N TA TIO N OF THE V IRG IN [4 5 ]

Domenico Cresti, called Passignano, The Preoentation o f the Virgin (1627)

Oil on stucco; approximately 720 X 420 cmDestroyed(Fig. 94)

In the spring of 1626, the cardinals of the Fabbrica com­missioned Domenico Passignano to paint the altarpiece in

the second chapel on the left of the nave. As in the case of the corresponding chapel on the right, they wanted the altarpiece to represent a scene from the life of St. Peter. At first, they assigned the story of Peter pulling the tribute money from the fish ’s mouth. Later they had second thoughts, deciding that it would be theologically more appropriate, and visually more striking, to treat the cen­tral pair of nave chapels as pendants, by providing them with com plem entary altarp ieces representing the two great mysteries on which the papacy founded it claim to authority, the Police Oreo Afeao and the Giving of the Keys. The Congregation proposed the change of subject matter in October 1626; soon after, in a document dated Novem­ber 4, Passignano is listed as having been assigned the altarpiece in the "Cappella S. Petro Pasce oves meas.’’1

In or around Jan u ary 1627, the Chapter vetoed the Congregation’s idea of dedicating the chapel in honor of Peter, and suggested instead that it be dedicated in honor of the Presentation of the Virgin. The title advo­cated by the Chapter was made official soon afterward, and at the meeting of the Congregation that took place on M ay 14 of that year, Passignano was issued fresh instructions to paint an altarpiece representing the Pre­sentation of the Virgin.

To understand why the Chapter insisted on this partic­ular dedication, one needs to consider the chapel’s com­plex histoiy and its connection with the chapel of Inno­cent VIII in the old basilica. That chapel was founded by Pope Innocent VIII (1484-92) and realized after his death by his cousin Cardinal Lorenzo Mari Cibo. Situated near the high altar, in the southwest corner of the nave [no. 38 on the Alfarano plan], it was among the most splendid sights in old St. Peter’s (Fig. 20). It consisted of a classically inspired marble tabernacle, surmounted by a ciborium that housed the famous lance of Longinus, which Innocent had retrieved from the infidel Turk and presented to the basilica in 1492.2 The chapel was con­structed of the costliest materials: the balustrades were of bronze, and the gilded marble tabernacle was carved with elaborate grotesques and decorated with marble roundels with busts of Evangelists and Church fathers, as well as with coats of arms of the Cibo family. In addition, the chapel featured two major works of art, an altarpiece by Pinturicchio, representing the Virgin and Child in G lory Appearing before Pope Innocent VIII, and the tomb of Inno­cent, a masterpiece in bronze by Antonio Pollaiuolo (Fig. 96).3 More will be said later about both of these.

Cardinal Cibo not only financed the construction of the chapel, in 1499 he also established an endowment gener­ous enough to maintain four priests in perpetuity, whose duties included saying mass at the altar sixty times each month and celebrating Sundays and feast days as well as the anniversary of Innocent’s death on Ju ly 26. These four priests, called the cappellani Innocenziani in honor of

198 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

the founder of the chapel, were members of the Chapter and had a rank equivalent to that of the beneficiati

The chapel of Innocent VIII did not remain intact for long. In 1507, when the old transept was demolished, it was deconsecrated, and its relics, including the lance of Longinus, were removed. Eventually the chapel itself was taken apart and reassembled toward the middle of the outer right side aisle [at no. 108 on the Alfarano plan]. In 15-48, it was reconsecrated, enabling the cappellam Innocen- ziani once again to say masses there. But on Jan uary 22, 1606, the chapel was disassembled once more, this time in preparation for the demolition of the old nave.9 The relics and the altarpiece by Pinturicchio were taken to the sac­risty for safekeeping, the coffin containing the body of Innocent VIII was placed in the wall at the entrance to the Clementina, the bronze tomb was temporarily installed in the right-hand niche of the apse, and the chapel itself, or rather, marble bits and pieces of it, were moved to the pro tie below, where they can still be seen today.5

For the following two decades, the cappellani Innocen- ziani were once more without an altar they could call their own. In 1613, we learn that the anniversary of Pope Inno­cent VIII was celebrated in the canons’ choir (i.e. the south transept), because the cappellani Innocenziam had still not been assigned a chapel in the new basilica.6 Clearly the Chapter considered this a serious problem, but they were not yet able to propose an alternate solution.

Meanwhile, a circumstance arose that was to be of great significance for the history of the chapel of the Pre­sentation of the Virgin. At a meeting of the Congregation on November 16, 1617, Cardinals Francesco del Monte and Maffeo Barberini were assigned the job of finding a fitting location in the new basilica for the tomb of Pope Innocent VIII (Fig. 96)7 It is easy to understand why this tomb was one of the few papal tombs from old St. Peter’s to be remstalled tn new St. Peter’s: Innocent’s exceptional generosity to the basilica and the exceptional artistic merit of the sepulcher were both excellent reasons for its mcluston.8 But another factor in the decision to give Innocent’s monument a permanent home in the new basilica may have been the intervention of the pope’s descendant Albenco Cibo Malaspina, Prince of Massa, who seems to have become involved in the proceedings around this time.9 On December 6, 1619, the Congrega­tion of the Fabbrica issued the following decree: "It has been arranged that the Prince of M assa may have the tomb of Pope Innocent VIII of the Cibo family trans­ported to the location chosen for it by the Most Illustri­ous Cardinals Del Monte and Barberini. ”10

The site chosen by Del Monte and Barberin i was behind the second pier dividing the nave from the left side aisle [opposite 44]. For reasons unknown, probably having to do with the fact that the nave was still under construc­

tion, the transfer of the tomb was delayed for a couple of years.11 It finally took place, according to the inscription on the tomb, in 1621.12 The entire operation was underwritten by Alberico Cibo. Specifically, he paid 600 ocudi, which covered the costs of transportation and installation and of the inscription.13 This was one of the rare instances of non- papal private patronage in the new basilica.

If by 1621 the tomb of Pope Innocent VIII had found a permanent home, the same cannot be said of the cappel- lan i who bore his name. In that year they once again cele­brated the anniversary of the pope "in Coro” for lack of a designated a lta r .19 Then, in 1625, they w ere finally granted an altar of their own. On February 2 of that year, following one of several Apostolic Visitations, the vuitatori recommended that the chapel nearest the tomb of Inno­cent VIII (i.e. the second chapel on the left of the nave) be set aside for the use of the cappellani Innocenzuini:

The duties \ontu\ associated with the altar of the blessed Vir­gin founded by Innocent VIII, which are undertaken by his cappellani, are to be transferred to the altar of the chapel situ­ated opposite the tomb of the said Pope Innocent, which altar will retain the original title [i.e. of the blessed Virgin.]

The document goes on to say that until the chapel is com­pleted and decorated, the cappellani must continue to per­form their duties in various other chapels in the basilica and sacristy.

But what has all of this to do with the eventual dedica­tion of the chapel in honor of the Presentation? Accord­ing to the bull of foundation, the chapel of Innocent VIII was dedicated to the Virgin M ary.15 No more specific title is mentioned in any source before the seventeenth cen­tury. Alfarano calls it "sacellum beatae M ariae Virginis Innocentij V III;’’16 Grimaldi records the dedication as merely “Dei genetrici M ariae V irgini.”17 Yet clearly, at some point the title was qualified to that of the Presenta­tion of the Virgin, for by the mid-1620s the chapel was being referred to as "Sacellum Innocentij viii sub invoca- tione Praesentationis Beatae V rg in is ,” "Cappella Inno­centij sub titolo Praesentationis Beatissimae Verginis," and so forth. When precisely the title of the Presentation was first invoked is not clear. It may have been Innocent himself who decided on the dedication, perhaps to indi­cate his approval of the decision of his predecessor, S ix­tus IV, in 1472, to establish the Presentation of the Virgin as an official feast in the Roman calendar. But in this case it is surprising that the Presentation is not among the feasts cited in the bull of foundation and that none of the early sources mentions the dedication.18

There are, however, repeated hints that a connection between the altar of Innocent VIII and the feast of the Pre­sentation did exist from an early date. For example, the day chosen for the deconsecration of the chapel in 1507,

C A T A L O G U E 5 ( a ) g f 1 9 9

preparatory to its transfer into the nave, was November 22, one day after the feast of the Presentation.19 The date sug­gests that the deconsecration was scheduled to allow for the celebration of an important annual feast. Furthermore, the opening lines of the prayer that the faithful were supposed to recite at the altar ol Innocent VIII were identical to the opening of the invocation for the feast of the Presentation.20 Finally, there is the fact that the original chapel of Innocent VIII was known familiarly as the chapel of S. Maria de Con- ventu or S. M aria m Conventu. According to Alfarano, it acquired this designation because of its proximity to the old choir, where the canons met (convenentur) to recite the daily office. But even if this unlikely sounding derivation is cor­rect, it is easy to see how the epithet might have been inter­preted differently, as the chapel of S. M aria “of the con­vent" or “in the convent.” The feast of the Presentation celebrates M ary ’s entrance into the temple, where she remained cloistered from the age of three until her wed­ding. Thus, by popular association, S. M aria de Conventu may have become S. Maria of the Presentation.

The fact that the chapel of Innocent VIII was never called the chapel of the Presentation until the seventeenth centuiy may have something to do with the vicissitudes of the feast itself. The Presentation had not been long estab­lished in the Western liturgy. In fact, it entered the Bre­viary only in 1472, when Sixtus IV, Innocent’s immediate predecessor, made it an official feast of the Roman calen­dar.21 Because the Presentation of the Virgin is an episode known only from late apocryphal sources, the feast lost prestige during the Counter Reformation, when potentially spurious aspects of the cult were vigorously weeded out, and in 1568 Pope Pius V effectively had it suppressed.22 But in 1585, it was reinstated by Pope Sixtus V, who raised it to the rank of a required feast. Clement VIII brought the fortunes of the Presentation to a high point when he raised the feast to the rank o f Duplex nuiiiui.23 In the years that fol­lowed, the feast of the Presentation reached the zenith of its popularity. Perhaps it was only after Clement's action that the link between the Presentation and the chapel of Innocent VIII was made official. The main point, in any case, is that by the 1620s the link existed.

In 1625, then, the vuulatori called for the second chapel on the left of the nave to be handed over to the cappellam Innocenziani for the performance of their duties as soon as it was completed and decorated. Obviously they chose this particular chapel because of its proximity to the tomb of Innocent VIII. Indeed, it is probable that as early as 1621, when the tomb was installed in the left side aisle, a plan was already afoot to procure the adjacent altar for the cappellam Innocenzuim . This would explain w hy the tomb was reassembled the w ay it was. The tomb consists of two effigies of the pope in bronze. One represents him alive and enthroned, with the lance of Longinus in his left

hand and his right hand raised in a gesture of blessing; the other shows him deceased and laid out as though on his funeral bier. Originally, the image of the living pope was placed beneath the image of the dead pope (Fig. 19).24 But as the tomb w as reconstructed in the new basilica, their positions were reversed. This cannot have been done out of clumsiness or ignorance. When one stands at the altar rail directly in front of the altar of the Presentation and looks toward the tomb, the reason for the transposition becomes instantly clear. From his loftier perch, the living pope seems to look directly toward the viewer, and his gesture of blessing takes on a personal significance (Fig. 96). The ideal viewer is thus the priest officiating at the altar of the Presentation, for it is he who, under normal circum stances, stands in the privileged spot. For the four ca p p ella n i Innocenzian i, the illusion would have had obvious resonance: they earned their liv­ing by saying masses on behalf of the soul of the founder; each time they turned to face their congregation, there he would be, watching them and blessing them and remind­ing them by his presence of their perpetual duty.

The recommendation of the vu ita tori to grant the nave chapel to Innocent's chaplains does not seem to have been well publicized, for in the spring of 1626, as we have already seen, the Congregation commissioned Passignano to paint a representation of Peter pulling the tribute money from the fish’s mouth, a subject obviously inap­propriate for an altar dedicated in honor of the Virgin. The cardinals acknowledged the urgent need of the cap­pellan i Innocenziani for an altar, but they do not seem to have registered the fact that the second altar on the left of the nave had already been offered to them. Thus, in their proposal of 1626, they made the following suggestion:

Among the altars in the old, now demolished basilica were two, one in honor of the Blessed Maty “of pregnant women” and the other in honor of the Presentation of the Holy Virgin, both of which had chaplains attached to them, who performed the rite on prescribed days; and since there is not enough space for any more altars [ . . . ] , so that the pious memoiy [of these two altars] may not be neglected over the course of time, and so that the chap­lains may carry out their duties at other altars, [we pro­pose], if it pleases Your Holiness, that the title of S. Maria Praegnantium be united to the altar of S. Maria del Soccorso in the Cappella Gregoriana [. . .], and that the title of the Presentation be united to the altar of S. Maria della Colonna [ . . . ] , [since] at both of these altars the memory of the blessed Virgin can appropriately be retained and venerated.

In other words, the Congregation believed that there were not enough altars in the new basilica for the cappel­lan i Innocenziani to have one of their own and urged that space would be saved by combining the altar of Innocent

200 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

VIII with another altar dedicated to the Virgin, that of S. M aria della Colonna.25

It was no doubt the cardinals’ recommendation that spurred the Chapter as a whole, and the cappellani Inno­cenziani in particular, into action. The realization that the nave chapel might be taken aw ay from them, and the title of their altar subsumed under the title of another altar, must have galled the cappellani And so, in early 1627, the Chapter responded with the argument that “the honored memory of the chapel of Innocent VIII will be entirely blotted out if it is not provided with its own individual chapel, but is instead made accessory to another title; to wit, if its duties are transferred to the altar of S. M aria della Colonna." The Chapter continued:

Everyone agrees that the chapel of Innocent VIII, which goes by the title of the Presentation of the Virgin, should be reestablished [in the new basilica]. This was the pope who instituted four chaplains with the rank of beneficiati to perform the rite at the altar [he founded] and to serve in the Choir on feast days, and who also left money lor lamps. This was the pope who brought the sacred lance [of Longinus] to the basilica, and who paid so generously for a chapel and ciborium for the conservation of that relic. For these reasons, and in accordance with his right, the Prince of Massa has frequently interposed and asked that such a distinguished monument of his family be preserved. With the greatest praise, therefore, will Your Holiness substitute this chapel [i.e. the nave chapel] for the old one.

This document informs us, among other things, that the Prince of Massa was as deeply involved in the negotia­tions concerning his ancestor’s chapel as he had been in arranging the transfer and reinstallation of his tomb.26 Spurred on by the cappellani Innocenziani, with whom he was in contact, the prince himself addressed the following letter to the Congregation:

Most Illustrious and Reverend Sirs. This Sacred Congre­gation last year assigned to the chaplains of the holy memory of Pope Innocent VIII an altar in St. Peter’s, so that they might celebrate and fulfill the masses and other obligations entrusted to them in the foundation of the chapel built by that holy pope.

And because it is now desirable to have an altarpiece made for this altar, so that mass can be celebrated there, the Prince of Massa and the above-mentioned chaplains ask that Your Most Illustrious Lordships be so kind as to order that the subject of this altarpiece shall be the Holy Madonna of the Presentation, in memory of the Madonna that was in the chapel of Innocent in the old basilica, and in the same manner.

The letter, dated 1627, is in one respect problematic. The Prince of M assa asks that the altarpiece to be commis­sioned for the chapel of the cappellani Innocenziani depict

“la santissima Madonna della Presentatione in memoria di quella che vi era alia Capella del sudetto papa in San Pietro vechio, e nel medesimo modo.” The text implies that the altarpiece in the original chapel of Innocent VIII represented the Presentantion. Yet this was simply not so. The old altarpiece was a painting on panel by Pin- turicchio. It represented the Madonna and Child appear­ing to Innocent VIII, who was portrayed kneeling on the ground with his tiara beside him (Fig. 20).27 The painting hung over the altar until the chapel was torn down in 1607, when it was transferred to the sacristy. To make matters still more complicated, in February 1627, the Prince of Massa requested the painting for himself, and his request was granted by order of Pope Urban VIII.28 Given his interest in Pinturicchio’s altarpiece, it is incon­ceivable that the prince could have been ignorant of its subject. Why, then, did he refer to it as an image of the "Madonna della Presentatione”? Or was there perhaps a second painting in the chapel of Innocent VIII, of which no other record survives, that did represent the Presenta­tion? Whatever the answers to these questions, the letter does reveal that both the prince and the cappellani Innocen­ziani wanted the altarpiece in their new chapel to repre­sent the Presentation of the Virgin.

In their counterproposal of 1627, the canons further recommended combining the title of St. Anne with that of the Presentation. They justified this by pointing out that the altarp iece of the Presentation would in any case include an image of St. Anne, since it was she who deliv­ered her daughter to the temple. But they almost cer­tainly had an additional motive for wanting to link the two titles. One of the principal obligations of the cappel­lan i Innocenziani was to perform a memorial mass for the soul of Innocent VIII on the anniversary of his death, Ju ly 26, the feast of St. Anne. The coincidence of dates may, indeed, explain how the title of the Presentation came to be associated with the altar of Innocent VIII in the first place, since the Presentation is a scene that involves both the Virgin, to whom the altar was originally ded icated , and her mother, whose feast fa lls on the anniversary of the death of the a lta r ’s founder. In the past, the anniversary was often postponed a day or two, or shifted to another date altogether, in order to avoid a conflict with this important feast.29 By fusing the title of St. Anne with that of the Presentation, the canons were perhaps trying to arrange things so that the feast of St. Anne and the anniversary of Pope Innocent could be commemorated jointly at a common altar. But the pro­posal came to nothing; the title of St. Anne was never officially combined with that of the Presentation, and was eventually assigned to an altar in the sacristy.30

We turn now to the altarpiece. As has already been mentioned, Passignano was awarded the commission in

C A T A L O G U E 5 ( a ) 2 0 1

the spring of 1626.31 He w as told to illu strate Peter extracting the tribute money from the fish's mouth, and he set to work at once, evidently unaware that the dedi­cation of the chapel had yet to be determined with any degree of finality. He made rapid progress, and by the spring of 1627 the altarpiece was far enough along to be referred to in the documents as a finished work: “la Cap­pella . . . gia dipinta dal Passignano.” By then, of course, the dedication had been changed to the Presentation of the Virgin, and Passignano had no choice but to start all over again on a new altarpiece.

On M ay 10, 1627, Passignano exh ib ited his new design to the Congregation and received the go-ahead. He worked with lightning speed, and on December 22, the painting was unveiled. Passignano was paid a total of 1,000 scudi plus an honorarium of 200 scudi, the honorar­ium perhaps intended as recompense for the time and cre­ative energy wasted on the Tribute Atoney. But Passignano’s Presentation o f the Virgin fared little better than his Tribute Aloney. Within a decade it was peeling and fading, and the Congregation decided to replace it with a new version of the same subject by Gian Francesco Romanelli.32

The rapid deterioration of Passignano’s altarp iece comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with his career. The artist seems never to have mastered fully the tech­nique of oil painting, either on canvas or on stucco, and time and time again his works were reported to be in ruinous condition w ithin a few y e a rs of completion. There are several possible explanations for Passignano’s poor track record. Joan Nissman believes the extreme darkening of many of his paintings may have been caused by “his use of a dark primer, which may have resulted from a misunderstanding or misuse of the Venetian tech­nique of using dark underpa in t.”33 Baldinucci offers another explanation, which has to do with the chemical composition of the imprimatura he used:

He [Passignano] wished to paint the altarpiece in oil on stucco, but the work soon deteriorated [. . .] And truly it is very obvious that the variety, indeed the total disparity in nature of the compounds, on which this work was painted, could not have permitted it to last for long (quite apart from the additional effects of air and drafts and the humidity in the wall and in the plaster base); for these compounds react badly with oil and varnish and pigment and so on, so that various side effects are produced, according to the diversity of the nature of these materials, and the results include peeling, shrinking, spotting and fading, retention of humidity, oozing, cracking, and a thousand other inconveniences. . . .

In the case ol the Presentation altarpiece, another major cause of deterioration may have been the extreme speed with which Passignano worked. When painting in oil on stucco, the artist must let the stucco d ry com pletely

before applying the paint. Ideally, the stucco should be allowed to d ry for months, so that cracks caused by shrinking or expanding due to temperature changes can be detected and filled in before the surface is painted. Passignano clearly did not have time do this. In his haste to complete the enormous painting between M ay (when he exhibited his design) and November (when the paint­ing was described as “fatta ultimamente”), it is likely that he began applying the paint without allow ing enough time for the stucco to d iy thoroughly.

A drawing representing the Presentation of the Virgin and inscribed with Passignano’s name is in the Thomas Ashby collection in the Vatican Library.34 On the back of the mount an inscription in English reads: “Presentation of the Virgin M aty. Domenico Passignano [. . .] has left three capital performances in St. Peter’s at Rome. Namely this. The Crucifixion ol St. Peter. St. Thomas putting his hand into Christ’s side.” Despite the inscription, the draw­ing is probably unrelated to the lost altarpiece. Nissman considers the attribution to Passignano unconvincing.35 Moreover, the drawing, which is squared for transfer, is rectangu lar in format, w hereas the altarp iece had an arched top. Apart from the Ashby drawing, no drawings or bozzetti relating to the altarpiece have been identified.

But we do have a partial record of what the composi­tion looked like, in the form of a diatribe written against it by Michele Lonigo shortly after the picture was unveiled.36 The text, addressed to the pope, purports to expose “alcuni errori di momento fatti da Pittori in due Altari della Basil­ica Vaticana,” the two paintings in question being Passig­nano’s Presentation and Andrea Sacchi’s AliraculoM At ass o f St. Gregory. On Lonigo’s criticism of the latter, see Cat. 9. As for the Presentation, Lonigo claimed the picture revealed the artis t’s grievous ignorance of ancient customs and dress. For example, the Virgin was made to look too old, whereas she was probably no more than two or three when she was presented at the temple. Her costume, con­sisting of a cloak or mantle over a tunic, was not authentic looking: it would have been better to depict her wearing a simple white tunic suggestive ol her youthfulness and vir­ginity. The priest, instead of wearing the typical headdress of an Old Testament rabbi, was depicted wearing “un vero e real Turbante all’usanza Turchesca, che fa stomacho a chi lo vede.” The priest's vestments were also inaccurate, as were the costumes of his two assistants, who were shown without head coverings of any kind, in contradiction to ancient custom. Lonigo’s critique is that of an antiquarian pedant. It is useful because it records details of the lost composition (details that may one day facilitate the identifi­cation of preparatory drawings or bozzetti) and because it exemplifies the kind of scholarly scrutiny to which the paintings in St. Peter’s were subjected by certain members of the Roman intelligentsia. But how seriously it was taken

202 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

at the time it was written is questionable. When Romanelli replaced Passignano’s altarpieee, he made no effort to incorporate Lonigo's suggestions - if indeed he was even aware of them. His priest does wear the rabbinical head­dress and vestments, but his Virgin is clearly older than three; she wears a mantle over her tunic; and the priest’s assistants are bareheaded, just as they were in Passignano’s version.

D O C U M E N T S

1625, Feb. 2: “Altaris Beatae Mariae ab Innocentio 8° erecti onus quod per eius Capellanos impletur, ad Altare Sacelli erecti e regione depositi eiusdem Innocentij Pontificis quod eius denominationem retinebit, transferat[ur] sed quousque fuerit completum ac omatum, alijs in Altaribus eiusdem Basilicae, vel sacristiae celebrando onera impleantur” (Doc. Appendix, no. 5).

Between 1624, April 24, and 1627, March 12; Account ol G. B. Soria: "Per una scala alia Iratesca [. . .] serve per il Cavalier Passignano per dipingere in S. Pietro la Tavola dell’Altare fatta per ordine del soprastante.” (P. 36)

1626, April 4-Nov. 27: Six payments of sc. 450 to Passig­nano for work on “la Tavola che fa per S. Pietro alia sec- onda Cappella a man manca all’Entrata” (P. 2132).

1626, May 9—Ju ly 2: Three payments to Betto Albertini and Borromini for work on 'TAltare della Presentatione” (P. 659). This is presumably a later faircopy of the account, in which the title of the chapel has been changed or added.

Date uncertain (c. Oct. 1626): "Cappella [. . .] in qua nunc delineatur imago Apostolorum Principis extrahentis ex ore Piscis monetam pro tributo solvendam, potius d icanda v ideretu r eidem Princip i Pascenti Oves Dominicas [. . .]” (Doc. Appendix, no. 8)

1626, Nov. 4: Nota delle Tavole delle Cappelle in S. Pietro da dipingersi et dei Pittori

Cavaliero Passignano Cappella S. Petro PaxtOve,iAfetui

(Doc. Appendix, no. 9)Date uncertain (c. 1626): Cappella di Innocentio/ S. I eon

Nono (Doc. Appendix, no. 10)Date uncertain (c. Jan. 1627): Illustrissimi et Reverendis-

simi Signori. Questa Sacra Congregatione sin dal anno passato, assigno alii Capellani della santa memoria di Papa Inocentio viii un altare in san Pietro, accio vi potessero celebrare, et satisfare alle messe, et altri oblighi impostoli nella fondatione della lor Capella che fece quel santo Papa.

E perche di presente si tratta voler far il quadro per il sudetto Altare a questo effetto, che vi si possi Celebrare, supplica le Signorie Vostre Illustrissim e il Signor Prencipe di Massa, et li sudetti Capellani a farli gra[zia] ordinare, che si dipinga in detto quadro la santissima

Madonna della presentatione, in memoria di quella che vi era alia Capella del sudetto papa in San Pietro vechio, e nel medesimo modo. Che si ricevera dalla benignita delle Signorie Vostre Illustrissime . . .” (AFSP, Piano 1—ser. 1—no. 8, f. 231. Cited but not transcribed by Niss- man, 1979, p. 361.)

Date uncertain (c. Jan . 1627): "Restitutio Cappellae Inno­centij sub titulo Praesentationis Beatae Verginis omnino videtur facienda. Is enim Pontifex fuit qui quatuor Cap- pellanos ad [. . .] Beneficiatorum instituit, qui et Cappel­lae sacrum fac[iunt], et Choro festivis diebus inserviunt, nec non pecuniam pro luminibus legavit. Is etiam fuit qui ferrum sacratissimum lanceae in Basilicam detulit, et in sacello et Ciborio pro illo conservando multum impendit. Unde iure suo Princeps Massae saepius inter- pellavit, et rogavit ne tarn praeclara suae familiae monu- menta periant. Cum maxima igitur laude Sanctitas Sua hoc Sacellum veteri surrogabit, quod condecorare poterit Corpore Leonis 9 Sanctissimi Pontificis qui modo non est sub aliqua Altari ex pnncipalibus, sed repositum fuit sub Altare ad latus SS. Simonis et Judae cum tota Basilica non esset perfecta.

Pro S. Anna optime eius veneratio continget in sacello Innocentij 8 cuius antiquus titulus est Praesentationis Beatae Virginis cum in hac historia debeant depingi imagines Parentum Beatissimae Virginis videlicet S. Joachim, et S. Annae, qui puerulam deducunt ad Tem- plum. Et debet observari quod Altare S. Annae non est antiquum in nostra Basilica, sed ex mera devotione fuit erectum a Parafrenarijs neque habet ahquod onus.

Sacellum Innocentij viii sub invocatione Praesentationis Beatae Virginis, S. Annae, et S. Leonis 9

Corpus S. Leonis 9.Cappellani quatuor. PassignanoLampas accensa.

(Doc. Appendix, no. 11)1627, May 10: Passignano “exhibuit delineamentum pin-

gendum in Icona Cappellae prope Chorum” (P. 667). 1627, May 14: "La Cappella vicina al Battesmo gia dipinta

dal Passignano che deve mutarsi

Cappellam prope Chorum, in qua alias ab Equite Passig­nano pingenda erat imago Principis Apostolorum extra­hentis ex ore Piscis Monetam pro Tributo exsolvendo, quae nunc Presentation! Gloriosissimae Virginis, ac Sanctae Annae dedicanda est, pingi per eundem Equitem Passignanum." (P. 94)

1627, Ju ly 3: payment to Passignano of sc. 100 "a bon conto della tavola della presentatione della madonna che deve fare in S. Pietro.” (P. 668)

1627, Nov. 16: payment for curtain to hang in front of "la

C A T A L O G U E 5 ( a ) 2 0 3

tavo la fa tta u ltim am ente da l P ass ign ano d e lla p resenta- tione d e lla B eata V erg in e .” (P. 1131)

1627, D ec. 6: Passignano to be paid sc. 1,000 p lus gold chain w orth sc. 200 “pro pretio Iconae P reasentation is Sanctis- sim ae V irg in is M ar iae per eum [. . .] f a c ta [e ] ’’ (P. 670)

1627, D ec. 22: The p a in tin g is un ve iled . (P. 672)1628: In an open letter addressed to U rban V III, M iche le

Lon igo c ritic iz es w h a t he con sid ers to be g ra v e icono- g rap h ic e rro rs in P ass ign ano ’s pain ting. (D oc. A ppendix, no. 23)

S O U R C E S

B ag lio n e , 1642, p . 333 : “P u re g li fu d a to a fa re la g ra n tavo la in s. P ietro Vaticano, entrovi la P resen tatione de lla M ado n na al Tempio con molte figure, & egli su la ca lc ina a o lio form olla; m a in b reve sc ro sta ta , d a lla p o lvere , e d a l l ’hum ido si sconcia e d ivenuta , che hora d a altro M ae ­stro rifassi."

B a ld in u cc i, 1 8 4 5 -4 7 , III, p . 4 4 0 : “V en u to l ’an n o 1625, essendo egli molto avan zato in eta, si porto di nuovo a R om a co ll'o ccasion e de ll'an n o san to , e seco porto una p icco la tavo la di su a m ano d un san Tomm aso, che pone il d ito nel costato del S ign ore : o p era bella , che fu posta in S . P ietro so p ra uno deg li a lta r i d e lla trav e rsa , e con ta le o ccas io n e g li fu d a ta a fa re u n a g ran ta v o la p e r qu e lla basilica , n e lla q u a le con g ran d e artifiz io e ottim o co lorito esp resse la sto ria d e lla p resen taz io ne di M a r ia V erg ine a l tem pio, con m olte figure: e q u es ta vo ile dip- ig n e re a o lio so p ra c a lc in a , m a q u e s t ’o p e ra in b rev e tem po si consum o, onde in luogo di q u e lla v i fu posta a ltr a p ittu ra d ’a ltro m aestro . Ed in vero ch ia riss im a cosa e, che la v a r ie ta , an z i la to ta le d isp a r ita d i n a tu ra dei com posti, sop ra i q u a li ta l opera fu lavo rata , non poteva la s c ia r la lun go tem po d u ra re , co n c io ss ia c o sach e a ltr i e ffe tti facc ian o l ’a r ia e i v en ti e l ’u m id ita nel m u ro e n eg l’in tonachi, che non fanno n e ll’olio, n e lla vem ice , nei colori, e sim ili, onde conviene, che nelle m aterie si prod- u c a n o a c c id e n t i d iv e r s i , se c o n d o la d iv e r s i t a d i lo r n a tu ra e di qu i procedono lo scro stare , il r it ira re , il m ac- ch iars i e consum arsi, l ’a t tra rre um id ita , il b u tta r fuori, lo screpo lare , e m ille a ltr i inconven ienti, che noi vegg iam o occorrere a lia g io rn a ta a lle p ittu re , la cu i im p rim itu ra e com posta d i cose assa i v a r ie fra d i lo ro .”

N O T E S

1. On the C on gregatio n ’s p lan to extend the Petrine cyc le into the nave chapels, see C hapters 4 and 5; Cat. 4.

2. G rim aldi, p. 104; O livetti, 1991, pp. 7—24; B laauw , 1994, II, pp. 7 0 4 -7 0 5 . On the a c q u is it io n o f the lan ce , see Grim aldi, pp. 113-115.

3. On the tomb, see Ettlinger, 1978, pp. 54—56, 151-55; Frank, 1992.

4. Grim aldi, pp. 103, 133.

5. Ibid., pp. 103, 215; and for the position of the tomb, see n. 11 below.

6. [Nov. 12, 1613] “Fu fatto in Coro l'A nniversario di Papa Innocenzo VIII [. . .] per non essersi ancora stato asseg- nato a detti C appellan i I’A ltare in luogo di quello che era nella C hiesa vecch ia .” (ACSP, Diari 10, p. 170.)

7. “A ll’Illustrissim i Signori C ardinali Dal M onte e Barbarino si e comesso, che faccino accomodare il deposito, o sepolchro di Papa Innocento Ottavo, nella chiesa di San Pietro nel luogo che piu li parera megliore per la dispositione di esso sepolchro.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3-no. 159a, f. 27v.)

8. S im ilarly, the tomb of Pope S ix tus IV (1471-84) w as rein­stalled in the new basilica. S ix tu s had been an important benefacto r o f S t. P e te r ’s, p ro v id in g the C hap ter w ith a magnificent chapel o f its own, decorated w ith frescoes by Perugino; in m em ory of this d isp lay of generosity, it w as decided to set up his tomb in the new "coro de canonici." The great bronze floor tomb, also by Pollaiuolo, occupied the center of the Chapel of the Choir until 1636. It w as then moved across the nave into the chapel of the Trinity, where it stood until the early part of this century (F igs. 104-105).

9. On A lberico Cibo M alasp ina (1553—1623), see DBI, XXV, pp. 261-65 . The Cibo fam ily had a long-standing, v irtually dynastic relationship w ith the C hapter of St. Peter’s, a fact no doubt connected w ith the huge endowm ent established by C ard inal Cibo (see C hapter 1, n. 30).

10. "Si e ordinato che il Prencipe di M assa possi far porre la sepultura di Papa Innocentio Ottavo di C asa Cibo nel luogo destinato daH’Illustrissim i S ignori C ard inali Dal M onte e Barberino.” (AFSP, Piano 1—ser. 3—no. 159a, f. 33v.)

11. According to Torrigio (1635, p. 215), the tomb w as moved to its present location not from the entrance to the C ap­pella C lem entina, w here G rim aldi records that the body of Innocent VIII w as tem porarily stored (see n. 5 above), but from the right-hand niche in the main apse: “. . . essendo stato posto incontro a lia n icchia, dove hora e il sepolchro di Paolo III in capo de lla Basilica, indi fu levato, e posto dove adesso si vede . . . ” This is the only reference I know to the tem porary presence of the tomb of Innocent VIII in the apse of St. Peter’s. It is a tantaliz ing coincidence that one of the card inals charged w ith finding a su itab le loca­tion for it w as M afleo B arberin i, who w as to commission a tomb for him self in that very spot w ithin a few years .

12. Forcella, 1869—84, VI, p. 146. Torrigio (see the previous note) g ives the precise date of the transfer and installation of the tomb as Septem ber 10, 1621.

13. A lfarano, pp. 57-59 .14. [N ov. 11, 1621] “. . . fu fatto da S ign o ri B enefiz iati et

C leric i in Coro con m usica l ’ann iversario di Papa Inno­cenzo V III.” (ACSP, D iari 11, p. 75.)

15. Collect innut Butlarurn, 1747—52, II, pp. 291-317 .16. A lfarano, p. 193.17. G rim aldi, p. 115.18. To add to the confusion, the ann iversary of Innocent VIII,

a lthough com m em orated annually , w as not a lw ay s com ­m em orated on the date of h is death ( J u ly 26). To avoid conflict w ith the feast of St. Anne, it w as sometimes post­poned a d ay or two and sometim es moved to a different

2 0 4 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

date altogether, usually November 11 or 12, and at least once November 14. Although these dates cannot have been arbitrarily chosen, 1 have been unable to trace the reason­ing behind them. The feast of the Presentation occurs some days later, on November 21. See nn. 6 and 14 above and 29 below.

19. Alfarano, p. 58.20. Panvinio, 1570, p. 78: 'AH’Altar della Madonna d’lnnocen-

tio viii. Pater Noster. Ave Maria. Antiphona. Salve sancta parens, enixa puerpera regem, qui caelum terramque regit in saecula saeculorum . . Cf. M iooale Romano.

21. Kishpaugh, 1941, p. 129.22. Ibid., pp. 130-31.23. Ibid., p. 132.24. Frank, 1992, pp. 321-22.25. Doc. Appendix, no. 8. The idea of combining the altar of

S. Maria della Colonna and the altar of Innocent VIII may date back to the time of Paul V. Grimaldi (p. 115) men­tions that a marble inscription formerly in the chapel of Innocent VIII in the old basilica was moved “pone aram beatae Virginis in Columna." In a marginal note, he adds that the inscription was later moved to the grotte.

26. The title of Massa was now held by Carlo Cibo Malaspina (1581 — 1662), who inherited it from his grandfather Alberico in 1623. On Carlo Cibo Malaspina, see DBI, XXV, p. 268.

27. Grimaldi, p. 104: "Icona altaris lignea tota inaurata cum imagine Deiparae Virginis ulnis filium gestantis, ac Inno- centii VIII genuflexi supplicibus manibus ante illam, nudato capite, pluviali induti, ac thiara humi deposita."

28. See Poliak, nos. 856—57. See also ACSP, Decrett 12, f. 108: [J u ly 9, 1627] "Attenta fidi Domini Caroli Ghettis Oeconomi Reverendae Fabricae S. Petri in Capitulo exhibita quod in Congregationi generali eiusdem fabricae habita die lunae septima Junij presenti fuit ex mente Sanc­tissimi di qua dicitur relationem, fecissi Illustrissimus Dominus Cardinalis Gymnasius ordinatum Excellentis- simo Domino Principi Massae consignari debere Tabulam seu Iconam in qua extat depicta Immago Beatissimae Vir- ginis, ac Innocentij PP. VIII nunc existenti in Sacrestia nostra, luit viva omnium voce decretum Tabulam presen- tam omnino consignari iuxta ordinationem presentam, ac mentem Sanctissimi et de dicta consignationi fieri receputa ad perpetuam rei memoriam.’’ Diari 2, unpaginated: [July 15, 1627] 'Fede della Congregazione della Fabrica di S. Pietro che si debba consegnare il quadro esistente in Sagrestia con la Madonna et effigie di Papa Innocenzo 8 [di] santa memoria aU’Eccellentissimo Signor Principe di Massa, con la ricevuta di detto quadro fatta dal Cavaliere Matteo Piligrini Agente di detto Signore Principe. . . . ”

I have been unable to trace the present location of the altarpiece by Pinturicchio, if indeed it has survived. In the 1720s, a group of paintings were taken by Camillo Cibo from Massa to his residence in Rome. Among these was listed a "Beata Vergine col Bambino, del Pinturicchio," which may possibly have been the work in question. (Cf. Giampaoli, 1979, p. 51.)

29. [Ju ly 28, 1623] “Dopo Prima in Coro da Benefitiati, et

Clerici, con la solita musica si e fatto l’Anniversario di Papa Innocenzo VIII, che era solito farsi il di di S. Anna, quale per la causa in quel giorno detto fu trasferito in questo giorno dalli Cappellani di detto Papa . . ." (ACSP, Diari 11, p. 161.) Also see n. 18 above.

30. Sindone, 1744, pp. 78-80.31. This was Passignano’s third major commission in St.

Peter’s. At the beginning of the centuiy he painted the Cru­cifix ion o f St. Peter over one of the altars in the navi piccole; later, under Urban VIII, he painted the Doubting o f Thomao for the right altar in the south transept. For more on these works, and the bibliography on Passignano, see Cat. 13.

32. See Cat. 5(b).33. Nissman, 1979, p. 88.34. Bodart, 1975, pp. 80-81.35. Nissman, 1979, p. 362.36. Doc. Appendix, no. 23. See also Herklotz, 1996.

C A T A L O G U E 5 (b)

ALTAR OF THE PRESE N TA TIO N OF THE V IRG IN [4 5 ]

Giovanni Francesco Romanelli, The Preoentation o f the Virgin (1638-42)

Oil on stucco: approximately 720 X 420 cmS. M aria degli Angeli; mosaic replica in situ(Figs. 94-95)

In 1638, Giovanni Francesco Romanelli was commis­sioned to paint a new altarpiece for the chapel of the Pre­sentation of the V irgin.1 His altarpiece was intended to replace Domenico Passignano’s crumbling Preoentation o f the Virgin a t the Temple, completed about a decade earlier, and w as to represen t the sam e su b jec t.2 Rom anelli received an initial payment of 50 ocudi on March 22, 1638. Payments resumed about a yea r later (M ay 28, 1639), and followed regularly after that. By August 29, 1642, the painting was finished and unveiled. The last payment was made on November 13, 1642, when Romanelli received the balance of a total of 1,000 ocudi.

Romanelli created a pleasing composition, in which the architecture provides a stage and backdrop for the figures (Fig. 95). On the right is St. Anne, the mother of the Vir­gin, and behind her is Joachim, her husband. With a tender gesture, St. Anne urges the Virgin forward, although the lit­tle girl needs no encouragement as she mounts the steps of the temple, her hands folded piously over her heart. The high priest stands at the top of the steps to receive her, dressed in the sumptuous vestments of an Old Testament rabbi.3 Behind the priest are two youthful acolytes carrying candles in tall candelabra, as well as a couple of other men who assist in the ceremony. Gathered around to witness the

C A T A L O G U E 6 2 0 5

scene are the usual group of extras, women and children bearing offerings to the temple, including what appears to be a covered basket of food, an ornamental urn, and a dove, a symbol of the Virgin’s purity. Above the figures, in the upper quarter of the composition, an angel and four frolick­ing putti attend the solemn event.

St. Anne is traditionally included in depictions of the Presentation, but the unusual prominence she is given in Romanelli’s composition may have been dictated by the canons, who had earlier proposed dedicating the altar jointly in honor of the Presentation and of St. Anne. For a full account of the history of the altar, see Cat. 5 (a).

The architecture in the background adds to the solem­nity of the proceedings. Grandiose and monumental, it resembles the architecture of St. Peter’s itself. Romanelli used the painted architecture to link the composition with its setting. The smooth shaft and Corinthian base of the green porphyry column on the far left echo in scale and profile the real columns of portaoanta marble that flank the altarpiece (Fig. 94). The possible iconographic sig­nificance of this visual correspondence is discussed in Chapter 9.

The altar was invested with the relics of the martyrs Menna and Margaret, and consecrated in 1666 by Cardi­nal Francesco Barberini. The altarpiece, restored in 1694 by Giuseppe Montano,4 remained in place until 1728, when it was replaced by a mosaic reproduction by Pietro Paolo Cristofari, based on a cartoon by Luigi Vanvitelli.5 The original was transported to S. M aria degli Angeli, where it can be seen today.

D O C U M E N T S

1638, March 22: payment to Romanelli of sc. 50 "a conto dell’Historia della rappresentatione della Madonna, che il detto ha da dipingere [. . . ]” (P. 673).

1639, May 28 and June 2: payments to Romanelli of sc.100 “a conto della pittura che detto fa della rappresenta­tione della Madonna.” (P. 674)

1641, Nov. 28—1642, Ju ly 29: Five payments to Romanelli of sc. 550 (P. 675-76).

1642, before Aug. 29: Romanelli writes to the Congrega­tion, noting that his painting is finished and unveiled, and asking for payment in full. (P. 677)

1642, Aug. 29—Nov. 13: Three payments to Romanelli of sc. 300, bringing the total for the altarpiece to sc. 1,000 (P. 679-85)

1666, Ju ly 25: Cardinal Francesco Barberini dedicates and consecrates the altar “ad laudem, honorem, et gloriam Omnipotentis Dei, Deiparaeque Virginis, atque omnium Sanctorum, nec non ad nomen, et memoriam Sanctorum Mennae Martyris, et Margaritae Virginis et Martyris quorum reliquiae in medio suprascriptae Arae reposuit.. . . ” (ACSP, H96, pp. 43-44)

S O U R C E S

Passeri, p. 309: . . non molto tempo doppo dipinse nellemedesima Basilica un altro Quadro di quelli grandi ad oglio, ed e quello che viene all’incontro del San Sebas- tiano del Domenichino. Figuro in quello quando la Vergine Santissima essendo Fanciulla si presento al Tempio con accompagnamento di Architettura, e di veduta di paese nel suo stile usato.”

Titi, 1763, p. 19: “L’altare, che immediatamente si trova nella cappella, che segue, ha il quadro della Presen- tazione al Tempio di M aria Vergine, p ittura delle migliori di Gio. Francesco Romanelli.”

N O T E S

1. Romanelli had previously painted the oopraporto represent­ing St. Peter Healing with Hio Shadow in the nave piccola between the southwest corner chapel and the south transept. For more on that commission, and the bibliogra­phy on Romanelli, see Cat. SP. 5 (b).

2. On the earlier history of the chapel and Passignano’s altar- piece, see Chapter 5 and Cat. 5 (a).

3. Nearly identical versions of this costume are worn by Silla Longhi's Aaron (1599), S. Giovanni in Laterano; Nicolas Cordier’s Aaron (1609-12), Cappella Paolina, S. Maria Maggiore; Joachim in Andrea Sacchi's Joachim and the Angel (1636—45), Lateran Baptistery; and can be found in countless other works of the period.

4. Buonanni, 1696, p. 118.5. Di Federico, 1983, p. 79.

C A T A L O G U E 6

ALTAR OF THE T R IN IT Y [5 ]Pietro da Cortona, The Trinity (1628—32)Oil on stucco, approximately 720 X 420 cm In situ(Figs. 97-98, 102)

The third chapel on the right of the nave was originally intended as the basilica’s sacristy. It was thus paired with the Chapel of the Choir directly opposite, both reserved for the private use of the Chapter; and to emphasize the correspondence between the two chapels, the Congrega­tion apparently planned to provide them with comple­mentary altarpieces illustrating scenes from the life of St. Peter.1

In August 1625, Giovanni Lanfranco asked the pope for the altarpiece in the New Sacristy. Simon Vouet had already been assigned the altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir, representing Peter healing with his shadow, and Lanfranco evidently hoped to paint its pendant.2 Lan-

2 0 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

franco had reason to believe that his application would be granted, since it was accompanied by a recommendation from his loyal patron and promoter Cardinal Francesco Barberini.3 But instead, the pope assigned him the job of replacing Bernardo Castello’s Chruit Sum m oning P eter to Walk on the Water in one of the navi piccole.A It is possible that Urban had already promised the altarpiece in the New Sacristy to another. Around the time Lanlranco submitted his petition, Urban gave orders for Michelan­gelo’s Pieta to be placed over the altar in the Chapel of the Choir. This meant that the subject ol Vouet s altarpiece had to be changed; instead of a Peter scene, he was now told to paint what amounted to a backdrop for the sculp­ture.5 Vouet had spent over a year preparing a composi­tion representing Peter healing with his shadow and was understandab ly frustrated that his efforts should be wasted. Before September 1625, he wrote to the pope, asking to be allowed to execute his original composition over another altar in St. Peter’s.5 The pope's reply is not recorded, but seems to have been positive. Vouet, at least, w as under the impression that his request had been granted, and that he had been assigned the altarpiece in the New Sacristy. He even prepared the ground ("ha dato I’imprimitura"), at his own expense, apparently con­fident of having secured the commission.

The pope may have had a private understanding with Vouet, which may explain why he responded to Lan­franco’s request as he did. But in reality the commission for the altarpiece in the New Sacristy was still very much up in the air. In 1626, the altar was assigned a new title, that of the Trinity, and since an altar dedicated in honor of the Trinity could not have as its altarpiece an image of Peter healing with his shadow, Vouet s preparatory stud­ies and cartoons became once again obsolete. Further­more, soon after the new title was proposed, both Guido Reni and Cavahere d Arpino were nominated as possible candidates for the commission, whereas Vouet s name appears in none of the relevant documents. Vouet was still in town while all this was going on and must have been disappointed to see so prestigious a commission slip­ping away from him. Had the pope simply forgotten his promise of a yea r before? Or did the altarpiece s new subject m atter invalidate V ouet’s claim s, which had depended on the fact that he had a Petrine composition ready and waiting to be executed? W hatever the case, Vouet was probably thankful when, in 1627, he received an invitation from the king of France to return to Paris. Seizing the opportunity to resign rather than be fired, he informed the Congregation that, because of his depar­ture, he was unable to execute the second altarp iece assigned to him; and thus he left Rome with his reputa­tion unsullied and his dignity intact.

The title proposed by the cardinals of the Congrega­

tion was that of the Trinity and All Saints. The Trinity provided a neat iconographic counterpart to the Pieta over the altar in the chapel opposite, and thus accorded well with the cardinals’ scheme to pair the nave chapels by means of complementary dedications and/or icono- graphically related altarpieces. Moreover, the title was conveniently all-encompassing. The cardinals hoped to accommodate at this one altar a variety of titles carried over from the old basilica, such as those of St. Martial and St. W enceslas, combining them under the titu lar umbrella of "All Sain ts.” The members of the Chapter approved of the cardinals’ proposal to dedicate the chapel in honor of the Trinity, but did not agree to combine other titles with it, and perhaps for this reason the “All Saints” was eventually dropped.7

With the title decided, the Congregation set about commissioning the altarpiece. In October 1626, Guido Reni was invited to Rome to paint one of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s. By November, his name had already been put forward in connection with the altarpiece of the Trin­ity.8 The commission remained undecided, however, for another few months. Indeed, it seems that upon his arrival in Rome, Reni was first allocated the St. Leo altar- piece, whereas the Trinity altarpiece was entrusted to Cavaliere d ’Arpino. But by M ay 1627, their assignments had been switched, and Reni was at work on the Trinity.9

Reni made hefty demands, to which the Congregation acceded out of fear of losing his services. They allowed him to work in fresco, although most of the other large altarpieces were being painted in oil on stucco. They also agreed to pay him a monthly salary rather than a set fee: he was to receive 400 ocuiH at the start, and thereafter 300 oeutli per month, guaranteed for four months.10 The scaf­fold went up, and hidden behind its curtains Reni began work on a glory of angels, presumably in the upper por­tion of the field. But things soon turned sour. Rumors cir­culated that he was procrastinating, accruing a fat salary while working at a snail’s pace. Called upon to explain himself, Reni reacted with indignation and, having first mutilated the completed portion of his fresco, returned to Bologna. The money he had been paid up to that point was returned.11

Cardinal Barberini had been eager to engage Reni’s services, but upon his departure he gave instructions that the painting was to go to another of his favorites, Pietro da Cortona.12 Cortona did not get Reni’s privileges: he agreed to work in oil on stucco, and for the standard fee. He began work in 1628 and completed the painting four years later. He was paid a total of 1000 ocudi

Cortona’s painting features, in the upper half, the Trin­ity, with God the Father and Christ the Son seated side by side on clouds and the dove of the holy spirit in a glory of light between them (Fig. 97). In the lower half a

C A T A L O G U E 6 g f 2 0 7

circle of angels support and turn a celestial orb. Star- spangled and ringed with a zodiacal band emblazoned with the sun and moon, this great ball is transparent, and through its crystal surface the terrestrial globe can be seen at its core, with Italy, the Mediterranean, and Africa turned toward the viewer. Both God and Christ look down toward the orb, God with one hand raised in a powerful gesture of creation or control, Christ with a scepter in his right hand, and his left hand raised in bene­diction, revealing the wound in his palm.

In devising the composition, Cortona may have con­sulted Reni’s preparatory drawings or bozzetti. One of Reni’s composition sketches for the Trinity altarpieee has survived and provides an interesting comparison with Cortona’s finished work (Fig. 99). It too shows the Trin­ity enthroned on clouds, and it too includes an orb car­ried by angels, although the orb is smaller and confined to the upper half of the composition. In the lower half Reni included a concert of angels, with instrument-play­ing angels seated on clouds in the foreground and a choir of angels standing just behind them, reading from a score supported by three central putti.13 Cortona omitted the concert of angels, but seems to have borrowed the upper half of Reni’s composition, spreading it out and enlarging it to fill the entire field. Reni and Cortona faced a com­mon problem: how to accommodate the assigned subject, the Trinity, to the tall, narrow field defined by the altar surround. To solve this, they each made use of a similar device. The concert of angels in Reni’s composition, and the orb in Cortona’s, are in a sense fillers, elements that have no direct bearing on tbe dedication of the altar but that are included to adapt an essentially horizontal sub­ject to a vertical field.

In 1638, a sacrament tabernacle was set up over the altar of the Trinity, effectively blocking the lower half of Cortona's painting from view .14 The tabernacle had been designed by Bernini in 1629, and for nearly a decade had stood over the sacrament altar in the Cappella Gregori- an a . 15 Its re location in 1638 signaled an im portant change, for from then on it was the chapel of the Trinity, and not the Gregoriana, that housed the sacrament. It was no longer referred to as the New Sacristy but as the chapel of the Holy Sacrament; and its new function was confirmed several decades later when the tem porary ciborium of 1629 was replaced by a second, permanent one in gilt bronze and lapis lazuli, executed by Bernini between 1673 and 1675 (Figs. 97, 102) . 16

By the time the temporary ciborium was moved to the altar of the Trinity in 1638, Cortona’s painting was, ot course, already finished. As early as 1626, however, there had been a movement afoot to turn the New Sacristy into the sacrament chapel. This introduces a critical issue. Clearly, our understanding of both the formal and mono­

graphic content of Cortona’s painting depends to a large extent on whether or not the artist was aware of such a plan. Did Cortona have reason to believe that he was painting an altarpieee for a sacrament altar? Is the sub­ject of his painting explicitly eucharistic? And is the com­position purposely designed to accommodate the taberna­cle that stands in front of it and, in fact, obscures its lower half?

Previous scholars have come up with widely differing answers to these questions. The interpretations of Karl Noehles and Jo rg Merz are of particular interest, although the reader is advised that the arguments set forth by each are far too subtle and involved to be summarized here in anything other than the broadest terms.17 According to Noehles, Cortona knew that the Trinity altar was des­tined to become the sacrament altar and therefore created an altarpieee with strong sacramental connotations. The Trinity is, of course, trad itionally associated with the eucharist, witness Raphael’s Dutputa. But more signifi­cantly, by depicting God and Christ as crea tor e t oalvator mundi, Cortona gave expression to the theological concept of Divine Providence, which holds that God created the earth and simultaneously offered his son for earth’s salva­tion, knowing in advance that Adam and Eve would intro­duce sin into the world. The subject of the creation is thus intimately associated with the theme of Christ's interces­sion on man’s behalf, and with the eucharist, which repre­sents his sacrifice. Noehles further suggests that Cortona must have been aware that a tabernacle would be placed over the altar, but that he probably envisaged a relatively small one that would not seriously intrude into the field of his painting. When it became clear that the tabernacle designed by Bernini in 1629 would obstruct the lower half of his composition, Cortona protested. As a consequence, the tabernacle was relegated to the Gregoriana, and plans to cast it in bronze were canceled.

Merz too assumes that Cortona knew that the New Sacristy was destined to become the sacrament chapel, and he too interprets the painting’s iconography as sacra­mental. But whereas Noehles posits that Cortona rejected Bernini’s tabernacle because it threatened to hide a large portion of his composition, Merz suggests that the two artists worked in collaboration. According to Merz, Cor­tona developed his composition in the certain knowledge that the lower half would be overlapped by the taberna­cle. The relationship between the painting and the taber­nacle was thus meant to echo the relationship between Vouet’s altarpieee and Michelangelo’s Pieta in the Chapel of the Choir: in both instances, the painting was planned primarily as a backdrop to the sacred object that was to stand in front of it.

Noehles and Merz base their interpretations on a com­mon assumption, namely that by 1628, when Cortona

2 0 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

began work on the altarp iece, the Trinity chapel was already designated as the sacrament chapel. This assump­tion must, however, be questioned. It is true that in 1626 the A rchconfratern ity of the Holy Sacram ent in St. Peter’s submitted a petition to the cardinals of the Con­gregation, in which they pointed out that the Gregoriana was unsuitable for the preservation and distribution of the eucharist, and asked that these functions be shifted to the New Sacristy.18 But it does not necessarily follow that they got what they wanted. On the contrary, in their pro­posal of c. October 1626, the cardinals of the Fabbrica made it plain that they opposed the idea of moving the sacrament into the New Sacristy .19 The Archconfrater­nity had the support of the Chapter in this matter,20 but the card inals had the more important support of the pope. On February 19, 1627, Urban sent word that he w ish ed the locatio n of the sac ram en t to rem ain unchanged .21 So categoric an instruction cannot have been ignored and must have put an end, at least for the time being, to all plans for moving the sacrament into the New Sacristy.22

It is, admittedly, no easy task to trace the precise loca­tion of the sacrament during the period under considera­tion, because the sacrament was often moved from one altar to another, for a variety of devotional or practical reasons.23 Until 1638, the Cappella Gregoriana was the official sacrament chapel of St. Peters. It was there that the eucharist was preserved, and most of the time it was there that the faithful went if they wished to take commu­nion in St. P eter’s. Twice annually, however, special eucharistic observances sometimes made it necessary to move the regular distribution of the sacrament (“la Com- munione del popolo ”) from the altar in the Gregoriana to some other altar in the basilica. The first of these events w as the Q uaran t’ore celebration, when the host was exhibited to the faithful for a period of three days. In St. Peter’s, the Quarant’ore occurred during the last days of Carnival, or in other words just before the beginning of L ent. N orm ally , it took p lace in the C ap p e lla Gregoriana.24 There the host was displayed, probably in a monstrance of some kind, amid an ephemeral apparato, and lighted by a multitude of lamps.25 The second event occurred during the last three days of Holy Week, when the consecrated host was hidden from view in a tomb, or jepolcro, to be symbolically “resurrected” on Easter Sun­day. The jep o lc r o d isp lay w as probably sim ilar to the Quarant’ore display (except that the host was hidden in a sealed pyx rather than exposed in a monstrance); and, like the Quarant’ore, it normally took place at the altar in the G regoriana ,26 a lthough on at least one occasion another altar was used.27 When the altar in the Gregori­ana was set up for one or the other of these eucharistic displays, it could not be used for the distribution of the

eucharist to the faithful, so this function had to be shifted to another altar, usually the altar of Sts. Processus and M artinian .28 The same was true whenever the Gregori­ana was encumbered for any other reason, as for example when it was used to display the body of Pope Gregoiy XV,29 or when the organ was moved from the north to the east w all of the chapel and scaffolding obstructed the a l t a r .30 A lw ays , as soon as the en cum b ran ce w as removed, the eucharist was restored to the Gregoriana.31

The early 1630s saw two developments of significance for the future of the Trinity chapel. (1) In 1631, for the first time, the Quarant’ore apparato was set up over the a lta r of the Trinity, rather than in the G regoriana .32 T hereafter this seems to have become the custom .33 There were exceptional years — in 1636 the Quarant’ore was celebrated in the Chapel of the Choir34 - but appar­ently the spectacle never again took place in the Gregori­ana. (2) Most years, the jepolcro continued to be housed in the Gregoriana.35 But whereas earlier whenever the altar in the Gregoriana was encumbered with the jepolcro the "Communione del popolo” had been moved to the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian, beginning in 1633 it was moved instead to the chapel of the Trinity.36

These developments prove that even before Bernini's tabernacle was transferred there in 1638, the chapel of the Trinity w as associated in people’s minds with the exhibition and distribution of the sacrament. But how much if any of this is reflected in Cortona’s altarpiece? The dates are critical. The new tabernacle was commis­sioned in 1629 and completed in the following year (with a few sculptural components added as late as 1632). The altar in the chapel of the Trinity was installed one year later, in 1631. If the sacram ent tabernacle had been intended from the start for the chapel of the Trinity, it would stand to reason that the Trinity altar would have been built large enough to accommodate it. But it was not. This we know because in 1638, when the tabernacle was finally moved to the Trinity chapel, payments were made "per allungare et allargare l’Altare che era corto.”37

The obvious implication is that by 1631 there was still no plan to transform the Trinity chapel into the sacrament chapel. It follows that C ortona’s a ltarp iece w as not intended either to convey an explicity sacramental mes­sage or to be partially hidden behind the tabernacle.

Both Noehles and Merz offer a good deal of circum­stantial evidence in support of their hypotheses. To begin with, they both point out, quite rightly, that the Trinity is a subject often associated with the eucharist. But the fact that an altarpiece has eucharistic significance does not necessarily mean that it was designed for a sacrament altar. It is especially misleading in this case to point to the p icture’s subject matter as evidence that when it was painted the chapel was already destined for the eucharist.

C A T A L O G U E 6 g g 2 0 9

For the title of the Trinity was first proposed not by the canons, who favored the idea of turning the New Sacristy into the sacram ent chapel, but by the card inals, who opposed it. The cardinals, at least, cannot have consid­ered the Trinity an explicitly eucharistic subject.

Noehles’s theory that the altarpieee illustrates the doc­trine of Divine Providence is at first glance rather more compelling. Sandrart identifies the subject of the altar- piece as "die Vorsehung Gottes” (i.e. the providence of God), and several other early sources describe it as a cre­ation scene, all of which supports Noehles’s elegant inter­pretation. The doctrine of Divine Providence has to do with the creation and salvation of the earth, however, and it is on this point that Noehles’s theory falters. For Cor­tona did not depict the creation of the earth alone, but of the whole cosmos. This crucial distinction undermines the sacrificial and salvational aspect that, according to Noehles, would have made the painting ideally suited to adorn a sacrament altar.38

Merz is particularly subtle in his interpretation of the preparatory drawings. On the basis of Reni’s one surviv­ing study, he concludes that Reni, too, was aware that a tabernacle would be placed over the altar and consciously organized his composition to accommodate it (Fig. 99). He points out that the figures at the lower edge of the drawing are arranged in two separate groups, one on the left and one on the right, with a space between them where the tabernacle was to overlap the pictorial field. The problem with Merz's analysis of the drawing emerges in his misidentification of these figures as “Engeln und Patriachen.”39 They are, in fact, music-playing angels, as described earlier. The distinction has an important bearing on whether or not the image can be interpreted as sacra­mental. For whereas a depiction of the heavenly hier- achies (such as one finds in Titian's Gloria, Diirer's Trinity, and Raphael’s Duiputa) might indeed provide a sober and fitting accompaniment to a tabernacle, a concert of angels is an unequivocally joyous subject and would surely be out of place in a sacramental context.

A drawing by Cortona formerly in the Chatsworth col­lection, representing the Trinity with the Virgin interced­ing on behalf of mankind, is identified by both Noehles and Merz as a preparatory drawing for the altarpieee in St. Peter’s (Fig. 101). There are obvious affinities between the drawing and the altarpieee - the representation of the T rin ity is v ir tu a lly id en tica l in both, and, as M erz observes, the adoring angels who kneel on either side of the Virgin are strikingly similar to the angels in the Wind­sor drawing (Fig. 100) - but does this necessarily mean that the ex-Chatsworth drawing was produced in prepa­ration for the Trinity altarpieee? I consider this highly improbable. Apart from the fact that the proportions of the drawing are incompatible with those of the altarpieee,

the Virgin’s prominent role in the composition implies that this is a design produced in connection with an altar dedi­cated in her honor.40 To have placed such an image over the altar in the New Sacristy would have been to obscure the altar’s true dedication in honor of the Trinity. The sim­ilarities between the drawing and the altarpieee need not be explained by assuming that the former was preparatory for the latter; the drawing could just as easily be based on the painting. Cortona frequently reused motifs in this way. One need only point to the strong resemblance between the ex-Chatsworth draw ing and the frescoes Cortona painted a couple of decades later in the apse and dome of the Chiesa Nuova (the figure of God in particu lar is nearly identical in all three compositions).41

Finally, in the same year that Cortona began work on the Trinity altarpieee, Baglione was assigned the oopraporto representing the Waohing o f the Feet in the Cappella Grego­riana next door. I have suggested elsewhere that the Wash­ing of the Feet has sacramental connotations and was cho­sen as the subject of this particular oopraporto because the Gregoriana was the designated sacrament chapel.42 If this argument is sound, then it follows that the New Sacristy was not the sacrament chapel, nor were there any immedi­ate plans to make it the sacrament chapel, when Cortona painted his altarpieee.

Did Cortona object when in 1638 the tem porary tabernacle was set up in front of his painting, obscuring its lower half? Probably not. He was a pious man who might even have felt a certain pride at seeing his painting transform ed into a setting for the veneration of the eucharist. And if he did experience a twinge of artistic resentment, he soon received a worthy consolation prize, for in the 1650s he was commissioned to decorate the cupola and pendentives in the side aisle outside the entrance of the chapel of the Trinity. He took advantage of the opportunity to create an elaborate pictorial scheme that, in contrast to his altarpieee, is precise and unam­biguous in its eucharistic reference.43

Several scholars, including Noehles and Merz, have observed that Bernini, in creating the permanent ciborium for the altar of the Trinity in the 1670s, took Cortona’s painting into account, and succeeded in integrating it both formally and iconographically into his design.44 Noehles shows how the statuette of Christ standing atop the cibo­rium links the upper and lower halves of the composition, bridging the awkward gap between them (Fig. 102). Merz points out that because the painted and sculptured angels are similar in scale and slyle, they seem to merge with one another. On these points and others, 1 am in complete agreement with them. Bernini's achievement is wonderful indeed. His tabernacle subtly transforms both the compo­sition and the meaning of Cortona’s altarpieee, endowing it with a sacramental content that it lacks on its own.

210 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Bernini’s cibonum partially hides Cortona’s painting from view, but it has also protected it. Throughout the centuries it has proved a daunting obstacle — too heavy to move, too large to go around — and its presence over the altar surely explains why Cortona’s altarpiece, alone of all the painted altarpieces in St. Peter’s, was never removed or destroyed to make w ay for a mosaic reproduction, and remains to this day in situ.

D R A W I N G S

1. A com position stu d y by G uido R en i. N ational G alleiy of Scotland, Inv. D 4890/5; pen and brown ink with grey wash, with traces of red chalk. 164 X 94 mm. See Johnston, 1969, p. 26; Vitzthum, 1969, p. 691; Merz, 1991, p. 206. (Fig. 99)

2. A study by Cortona for the lower half of the composi­tion. Windsor, Inv. 4533; pen and brown ink, with blue wash. 205 X 307 mm. See Blunt and Cooke, 1960, cat. 595; Noehles, 1975, pp. 181-82; Merz, 1991, p. 207. (Fig. 100)

B O Z Z E T T I

A bozzetto, now lost, is mentioned in an inventoiy of the Massini collection from 1667: "Un quadro tondo di sopra, modello del quadro di San Pietro di Pietro da Cortona.” See Orbaan, 1920, p. 520; Brigand, 1982, p. 190. A small- scale copy, attributed to the circle of Carlo Maratta, is in the Galleria Corsini in Rome. (Fig. 98)

D O C U M E N T S

1625, before Aug. 13; Giovanni Lanfranco writes to Urban VIII, asking for the commission to paint the altarpiece in the “novo Sacristia.” The pope decides instead to have Lanfranco replace Bernardo Castello’s altarpiece of Peter Walking on the Water. (P. 2277-78)

1626, Oct. 12: The Congregation determines to write to Cardinal Ubaldini, papal legate in Bologna, to ask his help in persuading Guido Reni to accept a commission for one of the remaining altarpieces. (P. 77)

1626, Oct. 17: Cardinal Ginnasi writes separate letters to Cardinal Ubaldini, to Girolamo Ravaglio, representative of the Fabbrica in Bologna, and to Reni himself, in an effort to encourage the last to agree to paint one of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s. (P. 80—83)

1626, Oct. 24: Girolamo Ravaglio writes to Cardinal Gin­nasi: 'Tllustrissimo et Reverendissimo Signore mio Padrone Collendissimo. Ho significato, come Vostra Signona Illustrissima mi commanda, al Signor Guido Rem il desiderio, che tiene cotesta Sacra Congregatione, ch’egli voglia pingere una delle Tavole in S. Pietro di costi, e l ’ho persuaso a contentarsi di servire a cotesta Illustrissima Congregatione; e sebene egli m'ha risposto di havere molte occupationi, con tutto cio s’e mostrato

pronto ad obedire volentieri Vostra Signoria Illustris­sima, in tutto quello che da Lei gli sara ordinato, sicome intendera dall’aggionta del medesimo Signor Guido. La lettera scritta al Signor Cardinale Legato mi e parso bene rittenere, per valermene quando fosse di mestieri di aggiustare o il prezo, overo il tempo, a che si desidera la tavola finita, secondo che piu piacera di comandare a Vostra Signona Illustrissima alia quale faccio humilis- sima riverenza. Di Bologna li 24 Ottobre 1626, di Vostra Signona Illustrissima et Reverendissima,

Humilissimo et obligatissimo servitore, Girolamo Ravagli”

(AFSP, Piano 2—serie armadi—no. 258 [Lettere, Settem- bre-Decembre 1626], f. 286)

1626, Oct. 24: Reni writes to Cardinal Ginnasi: ‘Tllustris­simo et Reverendissimo Signore Padrone Collendissimo. Vostra Signona Illustrissima intendera dal Signor Dot- tor Girolamo R avaglio , con quanta prontezza ho accettata la proposta fattami da esso et poi appresso maggiormente doppo letta la lettera di Vostra Signoria Illustrissima alia quale dico che molto volontieri accetto il servitio della Tavola di che Vostra Signoria Illustris­sima et tutti questi Illustrissimi Signori si sono compiac- ciuti di honorarmi, e non mancaro di procurare con ogni maggior studio accio possi riuscire di sodisfatione. Et col ringratione infinitamente Vostra Signoria Illustrissima et tutti li altri Signori Illustrissimi della Congregatione dell honore et utile di che mi hano degnato. Le faccio humihssima riverenza. Di Bologna adi 24 Ottobre, di Vostra Signoria Illustrissima et Reverendissima,

Humillissimo et Devotissimo Servitore, Guido Reni”

(AFSP, Piano 2—serie armadi—no.258 [Lettere Settembre- Decembre 1626], f. 284)

1626, c. Oct.: The cardinals propose dedicating the altar in honor of the Holy Trinity and All Saints and subsuming various other, traditional titles, such as those of St. Mar­tial and St. Wenceslas, under this general title. They state their opposition to a request from the Chapter and the members of the Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter’s to transform the chapel into a sacrament chapel. (Doc. Appendix, no. 8)

1626, Nov. 4: "Vi restano le infrascritte Tavole, che potria darsi all notati di contro:Della Santissima Trinita,

et tutti li S an ti.......................................... a Guido”(Doc. Appendix, no. 9)

1627, c. Jan .: The canons have no objection to dedicating the chapel in honor of the Trinity, but they repeat their request to have it converted into the sacrament chapel. (Doc. Appendix, no. 11)

C A T A L O G U E 6 § § 2 1 1

1627, Feb. 19—20: The pope decides that the sacrament should remain where it is (i.e. that it should not be transferred into the New Sacristy). The canons reiterate their request. (Doc. Appendix, no. 12)

1627, April 17: Simon Vouet informs the Congregation that because he is about to return to France, he will not be able to paint the second altarpiece assigned to him. (P. 733)

1627, before May 10: Vouet writes to the cardinals and the pope to request additional payment for his altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir. He offers five reasons, the last of which is "perche ha dato due volte l'imprimitura ad un altra tavola incontro alia sopradetta del Coro nuovo a sue spese.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1-no. 2, buota 5 [tran­scribed in full in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 8]; for another version of the letter, see P. 734)

1627: "Nota delle Cappelle da dipingersi, et dei Pittori

11. Della Santissima Trinita . . . 11. Cavalier Gioseppe" (Doc. Appendix, no. 14)

1627, May 14: Reni is assigned the altarpiece in the chapel of the Trinity. (P. 94)

1627, June 21: Reni addresses himself to the Congrega­tion: "Guido Rena, che la tavola da farsi di stucco ad olio lassi asciugare per un anno, che si potra lar bene in tavola stagionate di legno.” (P. 85)

1627, Aug. 11-Sept. 14: Cardinal Francesco Barberini urges the Congregation to pay Reni an initial payment ol sc. 400 and thereafter sc. 300 per month. The Congregation reluctantly agrees, and Reni receives sc. 400. (P. 86—89)

1627, Aug. 19: Reni, in Rome, writes to Antonio Galeazzo Fibbia: "Finalmente, per non disgustare il sig. card. Bar- berino, son restato per far la tavola di S. Pietro, la quale hanno determinato si faccia a fresco. Mi han hcenziato, e me ne volevo venire. Nel far questa tavola io non tratto se non col cardinale Spinola, il qual ha avuto questo ordine dal card inale Barberino, e cosi d a lla con- gregazione, e ci siamo accordati per cinque mesi trecento scudi il mese anticipati; solo il primo saranno 400, ed io fin per il saldo mi rimetto a quanto comandera il sig. car­dinale Barberino, perche questi sono a buon conto. Io ho dimandato, che non voglio che nessuno entri nel mio ponte, sia chi si voglia, ne anco li cardinali, e cosi tutti della congregazione si sono contentati.” (Transcribed in Bottari and Ticozzi, 1822-25, I, pp. 296-97.)

1628, Jan . 3: Reni is accused of fleeing from Rome, and the Congregation begins proceedings to ensure the return of the sc. 400. (P. 90)

1628, Jan . 5: The sc. 400 are returned. (P. 91)1628, Feb. 5: “Per la partita di Guido che resta a darsi ad

altri la sua Tavola il S r Card. Barberino propone per una Tavola grande Pietro Cortonese . . . ” (P. 98—99)

1628, Ju ly 15: Initial payment of sc. 50 to Cortona “a bon conto della tavola che deve fare." (P. 873)

1628, Aug. 15—1629, March 6: Two payments of sc. 150 to Cortona. (P. 874-75)

1632, May 15: Payment of sc. 300 to Cortona “a conto della Tavola fatta di S.ma Trinita.” (P. 876)

1632, Ju ly 7: Payment of sc. 500 to Cortona “per resto di sc. 1000 ch’e importata la tavola che ha fatto.” (P. 877)

S O U R C E S

Celio, 1638 (1967), p. 26: “La pittura della creatione del Mondo in a ltare ad olio sopra il muro, di Pietro Berettino da Cortona.”

Bralion, 1655-59, I, p. 199: "La troisieme Chapelle a main droite [. . .] est de la Tres-sainte Trinite. Le Tableau a huile sur le stuch, ou elle est representee creant le Monde, est de Pierre Beretin de Cortone."

Martinelli (D'Onofrio, 1969), pp. 154-55: “Nella 3a cap­pella, dove si conserva il Santissimo Sacramento ve un gran quadro ad olio con la Santissima Trinita, e con la creatione del Mondo, di Pietro da Cortona."

Silos, 1673, pp. 9-10:"SS. in Vaticano Templo TRIAS

Petri Cortonensis.Berrettine, manu facili tria Numinis ora

Exprimis aeterni, tergeminumque iubar.Mergitur hoc pelago lucis mens nostra, triformi

Noctua & in tanto est lumine, non aquila:Mens est una tribus, Tresque una in sede morantur:

Est indivisum Numen, & est trifidum.Qui gignit, Soboli par est: quae gignitur, ipsa

Grandaevo est Soboles magna coaeva Patri.Hos & nectit Amor, quern spirat amabile utrumque;

Pectus: & est idem Numine, 8c est alius.Auritae haec fidei iuci servantur, & umbrae:

Ilia subobscure detegit Empyreum.Aemulus hanc aequat Petrus: vi lucis, & umbrae:

Egregie hie pingit nempe, quod ilia docet."

Sandrart, 1675 (1925), p. 200: “. . . die Vorsehung Gottes in einem offenen Himmel, da die Weltkugel von vier grossen bekleideten Engeln gehalten wird."

N O T E S

1. See Chapter 4.2. The subject of the altarpiece is mentioned in none of the

relevant documents. It was probably not by coincidence that Lanfranco requested the altarpiece opposite Vouet’s. In 1625 Vouet and Lanfranco were closely associated. Vouet was principe of the Accademia di S. Luca, and Lan­franco was his second-in-command, or rettore. Further­more, their styles were extremely similar — so much so that their works of that period are sometimes confused. Had Lanfranco been assigned the altarpiece he asked for, he and Vouet would have had an opportunity to produce pen­dants of exceptional stylistic coherence.

3. See Chapter 8.

212 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

4. See Cat. 17.5. See C hapter 4 and Cat. 8.6. Poliak, no. 728.7. See C hapter 5.8. A few months earlier, In Ju n e 1626, Reni’s resplendent Trinity

for the high a ltar of S. Trinita dei Pellegrini had arrived in Rome (see Vasco Rocca, 1979, p. 99). This w as the first work that Reni had produced for a public building in Rome in over a decade, and it is bound to have caused a sensation. It m ay w ell have been the S . Trinita altarpiece that convinced the cardinals to invite Reni to Rome in the first place - or having done so, to nominate him for the Trinity altarpiece.

9. See Cat. 18.10. See C hapter 9.11. For m ore on the c ircum stances o f R en i’s departu re , see

Cat. 18.12. Cortona had p rev iously been com m issioned to pain t the

sm all a ltarp iece for the a lta r of S t. Erasm us in the north transept. See Cat. 10.

13. The m otif is one he reused from the Concert o f Angelo he painted in 1608 in the apse of the chapel of S . S ilv ia at S. Gregorio al Celio.

14. Poliak, no. 54.15. The ciborium w as o rig in ally p lanned in bronze, but in the

end it w as execu ted in tem p o rary m ate r ia ls , in c lu d in g wood and clay, and painted in im itation of bronze. L ike the perm anent ciborium that Bernini created nearly h a lf a cen­tury later for the a lta r of the Trinity, it included a tempi- etto-shaped tabernacle; but instead of two gilded angels it had four, a couple of putti, and a pa ir o f silver-plated fig­ures o f Peter and Paul. For the docum ents relating to its construction, see Poliak, nos. 968—83. To these should be added the follow ing extract from the account book of the m aster g ild e r Francesco Inverno: [c. 1630] “Per havere indorato il Tabernaco lo del San tissim o Sacram en to con Santi Pietro e Paolo, con doi Angeli di legnam e e padelle 16 indorate e uno grad ino tutto oro, che serve di dentro a detto tabernacolo, con havere messi di oro doi Angeli di greta, e Santi Pietro e Paolo d ’argento, e tornatili a lavare con havere giunto, e guasto , e rifatto alcune cose . . . sc. 46.40. E per havere dato a detto Tabernacolo di colore di bronzo, et imbrunito, e dato di rosso di dentro, e di verde a un a sc a le t ta e uno g rad in o . . . sc . 2 0 ” (A F S P , P iano 1—serie 1—no. 16 [Artiiti cht’er.u 15 2—J675], bi/ota 1)

16. On the later ciborium , see B rauer and W ittkow er, 1931, I, pp. 172—75; W ittkow er, 1981, pp. 260—63; I. Lavin et al., 1981, pp. 317 -3 5 ; Bernini in Vaticano, 1981, pp. 152-54 ; M enichella, 1993.

17. Noehles, 1975; M erz, 1991, pp. 204—209. See also Brig- anti, 1982, pp. 187-90.

18. Poliak, no. 872.19. Doc. Appendix, no. 8.20. Doc. Appendix, no. 11.21. Doc. Appendix, no. 12.22. For a more detailed account of the controversy surround­

ing the designation of the sacram ent chapel, see C hapter 5, esp. nn. 69, 79.

23. In the follow ing discussion, I have benefited g reatly from

conversations and exchanges of information with Dr. Helga Tratz, whose forthcoming article on Bernini’s taber­nacle will touch on some of the same issues.

24. See, for example, ACSP, Diari 10, p. 104: [Feb. 17, 1608] ". . . le solite orationi delle 40 hore nella nostra chiesa, cioe allaltare della Gregoriana.” pp. 472—73: [Feb. 10, 1619] "Questa mattina [. . .] si e messa l’Oratione delle 40 hore solite mettersi dalla Compagnia del Santissimo Sagra- mento della nostra chiesa con bellissimo apparecchio all altare del detto Sagramento, cioe nella Gregoriana, essendosi trasportato il Santissimo Sagramento per il Viatico, e Communione all altare de’ SS. Processo e Mar- tiniano . . .” Diari 11, p. 34: [Feb. 21, 1621] “Finita la Messa si e fatta la Processione, e si e messa I’Oratione delle 40 hore nella Gregoriana all'Altare del Santissimo Sagra­mento, et il Sacramento con tutto il Tabernacolo e stato portato all'Altare de' SS. Processo, e Martiniano, dove e stato sino al fine di detta Oratione.” p. 124: [Feb. 26, 1623] ". . . infine s’e fatta la Processione del Santissimo Sagra­mento, e si e messa l ’Oratione delle 40 ore solite della nos­tra Compagnia, quale non s’e messa al[la Cappella del] Santissimo Sagramento secondo il solito, ma nel nostro Coro per essere luogo piu ritirato, e men freddo.” See also the following note.

25. Arrangements for the Quarant’ore display were made and paid for by the Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter’s. See, for example, AASS, vol. 191 \Libro mao- tro, 1629-1640], f. 65v: [1630] "Spese dell’horationi delle Quarant’hore, devono dare adi 23 febraio sc. novantadoi b. 66'/2 moneta, spesi e pagati a diversi, cioe pittori, faleg- nami, muratori, festarolo, et altri [. . .] il tutto per servire delle Quarant'hore messe dalla nostra Compagnia alia Cappella Gregoriana nella chiesa di S. Pietro . . . ”

26. Poliak, nos. 113, 967.27. ACSP, Diari 11, p. 394: [March 24, 1633] "Quest’anno il

Santissimo Sepolchro s’e fatto all’Altare de' SS. Apostoli Simone e Giuda, dove s era gia cominciato a mettere in ordine per la Cappella di Nostro Signore per il giorno di Pasqua, che se vi fosse maggior quantita di lumi farebbe assai bella vista.”

28. See nn. 24 and 26 above and 31 below.29. ASCP, Diari 11, p. 145.30. Poliak, nos. 132, 2157.31. ACSP, Diari 11, p. 37: [Feb. 23, 1621] “Per il Santissimo

Sagramento si e riposto all’Altare de' SS. Processo e Mar­tiniano, dove stava il Tabernacolo; e ben vero, che subito che fu sgombiato alia Gregoriana vi fu riportato subito detto Tabernacolo, e il Santissimo Sagramento.”

32. ACSP, Turni 13, p. 325: [March 2, 1631] "Sanctissimum Sacramentum fuit expositum, cum missa privata per R. D. Canonicum Ubaldinum celebrata ad Altarem Sanctissimae Trinitatis et ibidem fuit peracta oratio 40 horarum . . . . ” A portable altar must have been used, since the permanent altar of polychrome marble was begun only later that year (see Poliak, nos. 878—81).

33. ACSP, Diari 11, p. 481: [Feb. 25, 1634] "Per dett oratione [delle 40 ore] s'e messo in ordine nella Capella della San- tissima Trinita incontro al Coro.” BAY, Barb. Lat. 2819

C A T A L O G U E 7 2 1 3

[Paulo Alalconc Diarium 1650-1657], f. 173: [Feb. 26, 1634] "Papa [. . .] descendit ad Basilicam S. Petri in qua de more fuit expositum Sanctissimum Sacramentum in Cappella Sanctissimae Trinitatis contigua cappellae Gregorianae in qua repositum est Sanctissimum Sacramentum." Also in 1634, Cardinal Roberto Ubaldini, a former canon of St. Peter’s, donated a fabulous monstrance made of silver and precious stones, which was used to exhibit the host during the Quarant ’ore that year, and presumably in subsequent years. See ACSP, Diari 11, pp. 480-81: [Feb. 25, 1634] "Questa matina Monsignor Cesi Vescovo d’Arimini in Sac- ristia ha benedetto la nuova custodia, o tabernacolo del Santissimo Sacramento fatto fare, e donato dall Eminentis- simo Signor Cardinale Ruberto Ubaldino, gia Canonico della nostra Chiesa, e donatolo alia nostra Sacrestia tutto d’argento di peso lib. . . . [o ic j hornato di gioje, e pietre pretiose di valuta di scudi mille, opera, e fattura di m . . . [ lie] diviso in doi pezzi per poterlo portare in Processione sendo quasi impossibile poterlo portare con il suo piede per il gran peso, e per essere anco scommodissimo da portare.” p. 481: [Feb. 26, 1634] "Monsignor Bovio Canonico e sacristano maggiore . . . ha fatto accommodare il Santissimo Sacramento nella nuova custodia che (come s'e detto) fu benedetta hiermatina da Monsignor Cesi, quale s ’e lassato cost sopra l ’Altare [della Santissima Trinity] per sin finita la Messa, che all’hora s’e accommo- data di sopra nel suo luogo. "

34. BAV, Barb. Lat 2819, f. 239v: [Feb. 3, 1636] “Papa dixit mis- sam lectam in Basilica S. Petri in altari Sanctissimae Trini­tatis et fecit orationem ante Sanctissimum Sacramentum expositum supra altare Chori pro oratione 40 horarum.”

35. ACSP, Diari 11, p. 512: [April 12, 1634] “II Santissimo Sepolchro quest anno s’e fatto nella Capella Gregoriana.”

36. ASCP, Diari 11, p- 394: [March 24, 1633] "La communione del Popolo questa mattina s'e fatta nella Cappella della San­tissima Trinita incontro quella del nostro Coro." p. 511: [April 12, 1634] ". . . alia Capella della Santissima Trinita [. . .] si communicava il popolo in gran moltitudine.”

37. Poliak, no. 54.38. A drawing in Windsor for the lower half of the composi­

tion shows angels kneeling in adoration on either side of a terrestrial orb, so evidently at one stage Cortona did plan to depict the creation of the earth (Fig. 100). Why he later altered the design is uncertain. Perhaps he was trying to introduce an astrological note; if so, God's commanding gesture would indicate his control of the stars, which in turn control human destiny. It is also conceivable that the painting contains a more specific astrological reference — for example, to the pope or to his papacy — but this has yet to be determined. The symbols of the zodiac are, from left to right, Libra (illegible), Scorpio, Sagittarius, and Capri­corn. The sun is positioned between Scorpio and Sagittar­ius, the moon to the right of Capricorn. On Urban VIII’s fascination with astrology, see Scott, 1991, pp. 68—87.

39. Merz, 1991, p. 206.40. Ronen (1989, pp. 200-201) connects the drawing with

Cortona’s frescoes in the Chiesa Nuova.41. Merz draws our attention to a faint line just beneath the

Virgin's feet in the ex-Chatsworth drawing, which he iden­tifies as a segmental pediment or cupola, indicating the height of the tabernacle that was to stand in front of the altarpiece. The line is virtually invisible in reproductions, and without having examined the original I cannot com­ment on Merz's observation. On the basis of his descrip­tion, however, it seems to me that the line may be nothing more than a pentimento for the segment of globe depicted just beneath it at the lower edge of the drawing.

42. See Chapter 7 and Cat. SR 1.43. Noehles, 1978, p. 108; DiFederico, 1983, pp. 61—62.44. See, for example, I. Lavin et al., 1981, pp. 320—21.

C A T A L O G U E 7

ALTAR OF ST. M A U R IC E [ 6 ]Carlo Pellegrini, M artyrdom o f St. M aurice and the

Theban Legion (1636/38-1640)Oil on canvas; 333 X 205 cm Vatican Pinacoteca (Figs. 103, 106)

The last of the altars built and decorated in St. Peter’s during the reign of Urban VIII was that of St. Maurice, commissioned in 1636 and completed approximately four years later (Fig. 103).1 A secondary altar in the New Sac­risty (later the sacrament chapel), it is located in the shal­low recess opposite the Gregorian organ and at a right angle to the altar of the Trinity. It is distinguished from all other altars in the church in that it incorporates in its design two of the fam ous w h ite m arb le solomonic columns from the old basilica.2 The vault of the alcove, the frieze between the column capitals, the column bases, and the altar front are decorated with the bees, the coat of arms, and the name of Pope Urban VIII.

In old St. Peter’s the altar of St. Maurice played an important part in the ritual surrounding the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor; thus there was a political aspect to the decision to reinstate the altar in the new basilica. The history of the altar, and its significance for both the pope and the Chapter, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 .

Once it was decided to build the altar, the Congrega­tion commissioned Carlo Pellegrini to paint the altar- piece.3 On M ay 17, 1636, Pellegrini received an initial sum of 50 ocudi. Two years followed before further pay­ments are recorded, suggesting that the artist postponed work on the picture for a time. Payments resumed on Ju n e 26, 1638, and continued until Ju n e 30, 1640, when Pellegrini was given a final installment of 75 ocudi, bring­ing the total payment for the altarpiece to 400 ocudi

214 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

It seems lik e ly that B ern in i w as in strum en tal in obtaining the commission for Pellegrini.4 The artist had worked under Bernini’s direction on various projects in St. Peter’s before being assigned the St. Maurice altar- piece. He had collaborated on the frescoes in the subter­ranean passages that run between the bases of the four crossing piers and the tomb of the Apostles;5 he had pro­duced cartoons for the reliefs over the reliquary niches of St. Longinus and St. Andrew ;6 and he had painted the cartoon of St. Bernard for one of the mosaic pendentives in the northwest corner chapel.7 Although he worked pri­marily as a painter, he was also a trained sculptor and was paid for marble carving done on the reliquary niche of St. Helen.8

Because of his close association with Bernini, Pelle­g rin i's pain tings have often been attrib u ted to that master.9 This is the case with the St. Maurice altarpiece. Although the documents prove that the work was exe­cuted by Pellegrini, most of the early sources contradict the evidence. Filippo Baldinucci, Carlo Fontana, and even B ern in i’s son Domenico attr ib u te the w ork to Bernini.10 So does Filippo Titi, although he acknowledges that some give the work to Pellegrini.11 All of this sug­gests that Bernini’s involvement went beyond merely rec­ommending Pellegrini for the commission. He may have provided the design, and he may have intervened in the process of painting. Numerous pentimenti, some visible to the naked eye, others revealed by x-rays, support the possibility that Bernini went over Pellegrini’s work, mak­ing corrections and improvements.12 If we knew more about Bernini’s painting style, we could better judge the likelihood or extent of his intervention. But although Bernini is said to have painted over two hundred works, only a handful of bust-length portraits are today attrib­uted to him with any degree of certainty. Bernini pittore remains a shadowy figure and his involvement with the St. Maurice altarpiece an unresolved issue.

The altarpiece represents the M artyrdom o f St. /Maurice and the Theban Ley uni (Fig. 106). Maurice was an Egypt­ian soldier who lived in the last quarter of the third cen­tuiy. He and his men, from the city of Thebes, were Cop­tic Christians. According to the Golden Legend, they were ordered north to defend the Roman empire against the barbarian hordes in Switzerland and Germany. Before going into battle, it was the custom for the emperor’s sol­diers to sacrifice to the pagan gods. When Maurice and his men refused to do so, the emperor ordered their exe­cution .13 The cult of St. M aurice, although venerated throughout Europe, was especially popular in German­speaking countries.14 He was a patron saint of the Ger­man emperors, making him a fitting dedicatee for an altar with strong imperial associations.15

In Pellegrini’s picture, St. Maurice occupies the center foreground, with the other principal figures arranged in a

pinwheel formation around him .16 He w ears a gilded cu irass and helmet and a cloak of brilliant blue that matches the plume in his helmet. In his left hand he holds the baton of command, and with his right hand he points to heaven, urging a dying companion in the lower left corner to be constant in his faith and to think on the rewards that await him after his martyrdom. The saint is assaulted by an enemy soldier coming from the right, whose upraised spear is about to pierce his chest. Behind these two figures a youthful priest flaunts the decapi­tated, bloodless head of one of M aurice’s comrades, while pointing to a burning altar on the porch of a temple. In the background, the enemy general, astride a terrified white horse, orders the slaughter to continue, while all around him M aurice’s soldiers have laid down their arms, some kneeling in prayer, others even exposing their chests to facilitate the job of their executioners.

In both its com positional structu re and its color scheme, the picture is heavily indebted to Poussin’s /Mar­tyrdom o f St. Eraomuo (Fig. 127).17 The position of the two fluted columns in the upper right corner, the position and pose of the horseman and his horse, the gesture of the priest pointing back in space: all are virtually identical to the corresponding passages in Poussin’s work. The light and luminous color scale ”18 is also highly reminiscent. The frank dependence on Poussin's St. Eraomiu may well confirm Bernini’s involvement with Pellegrini's altarpiece, for we know that Bernini greatly admired the St. Eraomuo, claim ing that it revealed "a profundity and solidity of know ledge,’’ and that were he himself a painter, “this work would make him deeply envious. ”19

Wittkower offers a brief but incisive analysis of the St. /Maurice:

"The master’s [i.e. Bernini’s] mind is revealed as much by the highly dramatic composition, which shows three stages of martyrdom succinctly rendered on a narrow foreground stage, as by certain devices such as showing a truncated martyr’s head next to that of St Maurice who is still alive or the parallel arrangement of arms which act in opposite directions.”20

Another device that deserves mention is the prominent architecture in the background. The placement of the col­umn directly over M aurice’s head suggests a double read­ing of the motif. The column belongs of course to a pagan temple. But it is also an emblem of the m artyr’s chief virtue, his fortitude; and gives visual expression to the notion of the saint as a “pillar” of the Church.21

The altar of St. Maurice, provided with relics of Sts. Placidus and Celestine, was dedicated in 1727.22 Pelle­g rin i’s altarp iece stayed in place until the mid-1820s, when it was replaced by a mosaic reproduction of Car­avaggio's Entombment. This work in turn was replaced in 1896 by a mosaic reproduction of Domenichino's Eeotiuiy

C A T A L O G U E 7 g g 2 1 5

o f St. Franci), which can still be seen over the altar (Fig. 103).23 Pellegrini's painting is now exhibited in the Vati­can Pinacoteca.

D O C U M E N T S

Date unknown: “22 Septembris Sancti Mauritij et sociorum martyrum erat in Basilica Altare antiquissimum magna veneratione semper habitum, ac in R itualibus turn antiquis quam modernis celeberrimum, eo quia ibi Imperator Augustus sive Augusta, Reges ac Reginae, ab Episcopo Cardinali Hostien[si] sacro oleo ungebantur, et a summo Pontifice ante Altare S. Petri coronabantur, ibique quasi locus precipuus pro Augusta et Reginis dum summus Pontifex celebrabat divina ad Altare maius, ut propterea antiqui nostri et usque ad tempora nostra offi- cium solemne celebrarunt, dicunt n[ostn] Magistri Cere- moniarum quod est necesse in Ecclesia nova de novo erigere prefatum Altare in eodem loco, ut in exequen. ceremonijs.” (ACSP, Manoocritti van 9, unfoliated.)

Date unknown: "Beatissimo Padre.Poiche la Santita Vostra et Santa.te va rimettendo

nella nova Basilica Vaticana tutti g l’altari principali, che gia erano nella vecchia, stimo 10 sarebbe bene ncordarsi di restituirvi con g l’altri il famoso altare di Santo Mauri- tio, quello innanzi al quale per antichissima usanza si ungeva I'imperatore, il quale fu levato al tempo di Giulio Secondo, perche se bene pare sij dismessa l’usanza di coronarsi in Roma g l’imperatori, tuttavia non e bene si perdi la memoria di un si signalato altare, nominato per questo negotio della coronatione dell’imperatore in tutti i cerimoniali antichi e moderni della Sede Apostolica. Quando la Sua Santita si degnara ordinar, che si restitu- ischi, le diro il luogo dove bisognarebbe porlo conforme alle vere et buone cerimonie della Chiesa Romana.

Si degni la Santita Vostra di haver in consideratione il negotio che le scrissi nell’ultima scrittura mia; et [ . . . ?] che raccordaro cosa, che sara di ornamento grandissimo alia Basilica Vaticana, e d ’infinita gloria a questo suo feli- cissimo pontificate, tenghi per fermo la Beatitudine Vos­tra, che molte volte vedono meglio quello che si deve far in una chiesa, quelli che s'intendono di cerimonie, che non quelli, che s’intendono d’Architettura.

Conservi Dio nostro Signore la Santita Vostra sana et felice per moltissimi anni, e le concedi tutto quel bene, che i suoi buoni servitori le bramano, et che ella puo et sa a se stessa desiderare.

Della Santita Vostra

Humillimo et divotissimo Servitore Michele Lonigo”

(BAV, Barb. Lat. 2974, unpaginated)1636, May 17: Initial payment of sc. 50 to Pellegrini “a

conto del quadro che detto fa di S. Maurizio.” (P. 900) 1638, May 29: The sum of sc. 4.50 is owed to G. B. Soria

"Per haver fatto un telaro di Castagno per tirarci su la tela dove va dipinto il quadro che fa il Sr Carlo Pele- grino serve nella Cappella della Sagrestia nuova, . . . alto p[alm]i 15, lfargo] p[alm]i 9*/2.” (P. 54)

1638, June 26: Payment of sc. 40 to Pellegrini. (P. 901)1638, between Ju ly 26 and Aug. 28: Balance of sc. 5.90

owed to Pietro Paolo Drei "per una Tela per il quadro di S. Mauritio alto p[alm]i 15 largfo] p[alm]i 10 et sua imprimatura, che dipinge il Sr Carlo Pelegrino.” (P. 902)

1639, March 26-1640, Jan . 28: Ten payments of sc. 235 to Pellegrini. (P. 903—904)

1640, June 30: Payment to Pellegrino of “sc. 75 (oltre a sc. 325 hauti) per resto a saldo di sc. 400 per intero paga- mento del quadro che ha fatto di S. Mauritio." (P. 905)

164], Nov. 28: Balance of sc. 4.50 owed to Marco Antonio Inverno "per avere indorate le fusarole del quatro di S. Mauritio per oro fattura." (P. 56)

Date unknown: "[Urbano VIII] fece fare l ’Altare di S. Mauritio Martire posto nella cappella della Trinita, ador- nandolo dell’Imagine di detto Santo e di bellissimi marmi e colonne torte per conservatione e rinovatione della memoria di detto altare che era di molta veneratione nell' antica basilica.” (ACSP, Manoocritti van 46, unfoliated)

S O U R C E S

Baldinucci, 1948, p. 130: “. . . e vedevisi anche la bella tavola dipinta dal Bernino e non da Carlo Pellegrino suo discepolo, come si dice per ognuno, nella qual tavola rappresento i fatti di S. Maurizio. Questa, posta a fronte delle belle opere di scultura dello stesso artefice, lascia in gran dubbio, se egli piu nella pittura, o nell’arte statuaria facesse risplendere il nome suo.”

N O T E S

1. Poliak, nos. 48, 890-899.2. The columns flanked the entrance to the Oratoiy of John VII

in the old basilica. On their histoiy, see Alfarano, p. 55; Ward- Perkins, 1952, pp. 21—33; I. Lavin, 1968, p. 15 and n. 70.

3. On Carlo Pellegrini (1605—49), see Grassi, 1945, pp. 35—41; Waterhouse, 1976, p. 103; Wittkower, 1982, p. 173; Silvan, 1989.

4. Bernini in Vaticana, 1981, p. 65.5. Poliak, nos. 2114—16.6. Ibid., nos. 1970, 1984.7. Ibid., nos. 2334—37.8. Ibid., nos. 2023-24.9. For example, the cartoon of St. Bernard was identified in a

1644 inventory of the Barberini collection as a work of Bernini; similarly, the Convention o f St. Paul, in the chapel of the Propaganda Fide, a painting now generally considered to be by Pellegrini, was attributed to Bernini in Titi and other seventeenth-centuiy guidebooks. See Grassi, 1945, pp. 59 -10; Bernini in Vaticana, 1981, pp. 64—65.

10. Fontana, 1694, p. 402; D. Bernini, 1713, p. 26.

2 1 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

11. Titi, 1763, p. 11.12. Bernini in Vaticano, 1981, pp. 65-66 .13. See Reau, 1955-59, IILii, pp. 935-39 .14. H erzberg, 1936.15. Suckale-R ed lefsen , 1987, pp. 29 -37 , 139-141.16. Because he w as African, and because according to popular

etym ology his name derived from mauruo (m oor), M aurice w as often depicted as a b lack man, especially in northern countries. In Italy, however, it w as more usual to represent him w hite, as Pellegrin i has done.

17. G rassi, 1945, p. 41; Bernini in Vaticano, 1981, p. 66.18. W ittkow er, 1982, p. 173.19. Chantelou, 1985, pp. 80, 181.20. W ittkow er, 1982, p. 173.21. A s im ila r ju x tap o s it io n o f co lum n an d sa in t o ccu rs in

another altarp iece in St. Peter’s, Agostino C iam pelli's /Mira­cle o f Sir. Simon and Jude. See Cat. 14 (F ig . 150).

22. Sindone, 1744, p. 17.23. D iFederico, 1983, p. 74.

C A T A L O G U E 8

ALTAR OF THE PIETA [4 3 ]

Simon Vouet, Tbe Crooo, Flanked b y Sto. Francut and Anthony o f Padua, with Angelo Holding SymboLi o f the Pace ion, and God the Father (1625—26)

Oil on stucco; approximately 720 X 420 cmDestroyed(Figs. 108, 113-118)

The third chapel on the left of the nave was intended from the start as the Chapel of the Choir — the private chapel of the Chapter of St. Peter s. Built directly over the site of the canons’ choir in old St. Peter’s, it retained not only the function of the original chapel but also its dedication. Nowhere except perhaps at the high altar was the continu­ity between the old and new basilicas so clearly expressed.

The canons’ choir in old St. Peter’s was built by Pope Sixtus IV [at letter ’q ’ on the Alfarano plan], A Francis­can, Sixtus IV dedicated the chapel to Sts. Francis and Anthony of Padua, and to the Immaculate Conception. The decoration of the apse reflected the dedication: there, in fresco, Perugino painted the Madonna and Child in a mandorla of cherubim, with Sts. Francis and Peter on the left, Sts. Paul and Anthony on the right, and the donor, kneeling, with his tiara on the ground beside him, being presented to the Virgin (Figs. 109—110).1 Sixtus was even­tually buried in the chapel. His huge bronze tomb, by Antonio Pollaiuolo, was set in the middle of the floor, where by its veiy conspicuousness it was meant to remind the canons, as they gathered around it to recite the Divine Office, to pray for the soul of their benefactor (Fig. 105).2

In M ay 1568, Michelangelo’s Pieta was placed over the altar in the canons' choir (Fig. 55) ,3 The Pieta had been commissioned in 1498 by Cardinal Je a n de Bilheres Lagraulas, abbot of St.-Denis and French ambassador in Rome, to embellish a chapel in the rotunda of St. Petronilla just outside the south transept. But it stood in its original site for only a few years. When the rotunda was tom down in the first quarter of the sixteenth century to make way for the construction of the new basilica, the sculpture was removed for safekeeping to an altar in the Secretarium, to the left of the entrance into the old nave [at no. 148 on the Alfarano plan]. It was Antonio Carafa who paid to have the sculpture transferred from the Secretarium to the canons’ choir. Carafa had been a member of the Chapter until just two months earlier, when he was made a cardinal, and he probably arranged for the relocation of the Pieta as a part­ing gift to his former colleagues.4 A few years later another canon, Ludovico Bianchetti, undertook to refurbish the altar, erecting a polychrome marble aedicula around the Pieta, which served both to protect it and to integrate it more closely with its surroundings (Figs. 109— 110).5

In 1609, the Sistine choir was torn down, and the canons moved into a temporary choir erected at the altar of Sts. Simon and Jud e in the south transept of the new basilica. They brought with them the Pieta, which they had come to regard as their own, and placed it over the altar there while their new chapel was being made ready for them (Fig. 50). The canons took it for granted that the new chapel, built as it was on the site of the old one, would retain the original dedication, and would continue to house the Pieta. But they soon found that the cardinals of the Congregation had other plans.

Because the Chapel of the Choir played an essential role in the ritual life of the basilica, the cardinals made every effort to expedite its construction and decoration. The chapel was one of the first for which the cardinals commissioned an altarpiece. They chose Simon Vouet for the job — probably on the recommendation of their capo, Cardinal Del Monte, who had close ties with the French artist6 — and instructed him to represent the story of Peter healing with his shadow. By March 14, 1624, the painter had produced a "concetto,” which was exhibited to the Congregation for its approval. Jean -P ierre Cuzin has re cen tly id en tif ied a d raw in g in the Princeton Art Museum and an oil sketch in the Uffizi as preparatory works connected with the commission (Figs. I l l —112).7 They record an impressive composition combining great formal clarity with a powerful sense of drama. The cardi­nals evidently liked what they saw, for they gave Vouet the go-ahead and on April 2 paid him an initial sum of 100 ocud i For the next year and a half Vouet worked on the design, producing cartoons, preparing the ground, and perhaps beginning the painting itself.

C A T A L O G U E 8 2 1 7

Vouet s Peter Healing with Hut Shadow was to have been part of a cycle of Petrine altarpieces planned by the Con­gregation for the nave chapels. But the canons instead wanted an altarpiece that would reflect the traditional Sistine dedication of the chapel and allow for the place­ment of the Pieta over the altar. The pope ruled in favor of the canons, and by September 1625 the subject of Vouet's painting was changed. Instead of a Petrine story, the artist was now told to produce an “historia per accompa- gnare la Pieta di Michel Angelo. ”8

Vouet was urged to work quickly because the Pieta could not be installed over the altar until the painting was finished and the scaffolding cleared away. By April 22, 1626, the altarpiece was unveiled. The Pieta was moved soon afterward; between M ay and November Borromini completed a pedestal for the sculpture, decorated with the Barberini bees and sun in polychrome marble.9 On M ay 1, the body of St. John Chrysostom was brought from the old sacristy and deposited in the altar.10 Finally, on Ju ly 22, 1626, the altar was consecrated by the arch­priest of St. Peter’s, Cardinal Scipione Borghese.11

Vouet’s altarpiece has not survived.12 It was removed in the 1740s to make w ay for a mosaic altarpiece after a design by Pietro Bianchi (Fig. 108); although an effort was made to preserve it, as it was detached from the wall it crumbled. Fortunately, several of Vouet’s preparatory oil sketches are still in existence. In addition, the compo­sition is recorded in an anonymous reduta of the chapel from around 1735, as well as in a number of written descriptions in seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century guidebooks. Yet the surviving visual and textual evidence is fragmentary and sometimes contradictory, so that the precise character and subject of Vouet s altarpiece remain open to interpretation.

To begin with, we hear from Vouet himself. In letters to the cardinals and the pope written in 1627, the artist described his altarpiece as representing “the sacrifice, which God the Father receives from Christ the son, offered to him by the Blessed Virgin, with the mysteries of the Passion, and with St. Francis and St. Anthony of Padua.” The description seems at first somewhat vague, although as we will see in a moment it is perhaps the most accurate of the descriptions that have come down to us. Guidebooks give a clearer idea of the p icture’s iconography. M ola writes tersely that the painting represented the cross, with angels, and his account is confirmed and fleshed out by Bralion, who mentions "a cross in the midst of a glory of angels car­rying symbols of the Passion.” From other sources we know that Francis and Anthony were depicted below, kneeling in adoration on either side of the cross.

The bozzetti provide only a partial visual record of the lost composition. Four have survived, but all are for the upper half of the composition, and three are merely figure

studies for some of the angels (Figs. 114—115). The fourth, a composition study, shows the upper portion of the cross surrounded by five symmetrically positioned groups of angels carrying instruments of the Passion; at the top, God the Father, with his arms spread wide, gazes down­ward (Fig. 113). The lower half of the composition is recorded in an eighteenth-century reduta of the chapel first published by Erich Schleier (Figs. 116-117). Although the detail is small and obviously approximate, one can make out the figures of Francis and Anthony, one on the left and one on the right, as well as several of the angels. The cross and the upper half of the composition are, how­ever, obscured from view. On the other hand, in another reduta, even more schematically rendered, the cross is the painting’s only discernible feature (Fig. 118).

The surviving evidence relating to Vouet’s altarpiece is confusingly contradictory. For example, in his guidebook of 1664, Alveri claimed that the painting showed not only Sts. Francis and Anthony but also St. John Chrysostom. In this he was followed by Titi, writing a few years later, and others. Yet Vouet himself made no mention of John Chrysostom in his description of the painting cited above, nor do other, more detailed sources such as Bralion, Campodimiele, and Lioni and Amidei. Indeed, in the 1763 edition of Titi, edited and revised by Giovanni Bot- tari, the mention of John Chrysostom was dropped. It seems, then, that Alveri was mistaken. He knew that the body of John Chrysostom was buried in the altar below, and he therefore assumed that the saint was depicted in the painting above. Others, basing themselves, as so often happened, on earlier guidebooks rather than on the work of art itself, simply perpetuated the error.

Because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, even the subject of Vouet’s altarpiece is sometimes misin­terpreted. Throughout the modern literature on Vouet, the painting is referred to as the Adoration o f the Crooo.13 Such a subject does exist in post-Tridentine iconography, and, indeed, one can cite examples of it that must have resembled Vouet’s composition quite closely, such as an engraving by Adriaen Collaert the Younger from around 1580, which represents a great bare cross surrounded by adoring angels below and angels cariying symbols of the Passion above, with the Trinity in the clouds overhead.14 Furthermore, the Adoration of the Cross is a subject that often goes hand-in-hand with the Pieta. In the second chapel on the right of the Gesu, for example, Scipione Pulzone painted a Pieta over the altar, while Gaspare Celio decorated the vault overhead with an image of the Cross being borne heavenward amid a host of adoring angels.15 Yet despite such precedents, it is misleading to identify Vouet’s altarpiece as an Adoration of the Cross, for this obscures the real significance of the image, and its crucial relationship to Michelangelo’s sculpture.

2 1 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

The ambiguity of interpretation is compounded by the fact that none of the surviving visual material shows the base of the cross or reveals how and where the cross was situated. This seemingly trivial point takes on importance if we consider the meaning of the picture as a whole. According to Erich Schleier, Vouet depicted "the great Cross . . . floating in the air,” surrounded by groups of angels "assisting the mystery of the Cross” and topped by the figure of God the Father “blessing and embracing the whole ensemble, welcoming the Cross.”16 In other words, Schleier implies that the scene was one of apotheosis, with the Cross being taken up into heaven, as in Celio’s fresco in the Gesu. I would argue instead that Vouet depicted the cross firmly planted on the hill of Calvary. The cross was not the subject of Vouet's painting; he included it merely to provide a setting against which to contemplate the Pieta. Sts. Francis and Anthony, kneeling on either side of the cross, directed their adoration not at it, but at the Virgin and her dead son in front of it. The angels, too, to judge from the bozzetto, paid no attention to the cross but directed their gazes at the figure of God the Father. God did look down, and his gesture was one of welcome, but he did not welcome the cross — he w el­comed the sacrifice of his son. Here again are Vouet's own words: "the painting . . . represents the sacrifice, which God the Father receives from Christ the son, offered to him by the Blessed Virgin.” That Vouet makes no mention of the cross suggests that he considered it of secondary importance to the dramatic exchange taking place between God in heaven and Christ on earth - that is, between the painted and the sculptured representa­tions of the Divinity.

Two facts support this interpretation. First, when the Pieta stood over the altar in the canons’ choir in old St. Peter’s, a plain bare cross stood behind it (Fig. 109 ); and the arrangement was maintained when the sculpture was moved to the altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e in the tempo- ra iy choir (Fig. 5 0 ) . It could be that from the ve iy begin­ning the Pietii was meant to be exhibited in front of a cross; certainly a number of engravings after the sculp­ture made during the first half of the sixteenth century illustrate such an arrangement (Fig. 1 1 9 ) .17 Second, in 1629 , just three years after the completion of Vouet’s altarpieee, Lanfranco was commissioned to paint the Ado­ration and Apotheooio o f the Crtut in the vault of the chapel of the Crucifix (Fig. 81).18 If this had indeed been the sub­ject of Vouet’s altarpieee, it is hardly likely that the Con­gregation would have commissioned another version of it for a neighboring chapel.

Although acknowledging that Vouet took into account the presence of the sculpture in formulating his composi­tion, Schleier implies that the painting was an icono- graphically self-sufficient and independent image. Dar-

gent and Thuillier are closer to the mark. They too iden­tify the altarpieee as an Adoration of the Cross, but they point out its close links with the sculpture: “la composi­tion semble avoir ete des le depart comjue comme un ‘cadre’ pour la Pieta de Michel-Ange, reliant le marbre au decor de la chapelle, dans un esprit sans doute fort voisin des mises en scene du Bernin. ”19 It is likely, however, that a still more radical interdependence existed between the two w orks of art. The P ieta w as the true subject of Vouet's altarpieee, as well as an essential element in its composition. Vouet produced an altarpieee of which the principal component was by a different artist and in a dif­ferent medium.20

Vouet was not happy with the Congregation’s treat­ment of him. He thought he should have been paid more than the 800 ecud i he received, since he had had to design and prepare two compositions for the price of one, and in the spring of 1627 he wrote to the pope and to the Con­gregation to request additional payment. Vouet was given no more money, but he seems to have been offered an opportunity to paint bis earlier composition — Peter Heal­in g with Hie Shadow — over another altar in St. Peter’s. Vouet got as far as laying the stucco ground, but later he either lost the commission or renounced it in order to return to France.21 His patron and protector, Cardinal Del Monte, had died shortly before, and Vouet may have recognized that without his support his chances of keep­ing the second commission in St. Peter’s were slim.

Intriguingly, the brief description of the painting that Vouet included in the letters he sent to the Congregation and to the pope in 1627 was repeated almost verbatim by Ferrante Carlo in his short biography of Vouet, preserved in a unique manuscript copy in Montpellier.22 Carlo was one of those shadowy figures who orbited around the principal players at St. Peter’s, acting sometimes as an agent, sometimes as an adviser.23 A noted connoisseur and w riter on art, his special expertise on St. Peter's stemmed from the research he had done for a book enti­tled Templum Vaticanum, which he began during the Borghese pontificate but never finished. Carlo had a direct link to the Congregation, in that he served as pri­vate secretary to one of its members, Scipione Borghese. Other members knew him, too, and on at least one occa­sion, in April 1623, the Congregation called on him for advice.24 Carlo became acquainted with Vouet through mutual connections such as Cardinal Borghese or Cas- siano dal Pozzo; a friendship soon developed between them, and Carlo on several occasions acted to advance Vouet’s career.25 The fact that he knew the contents of Vouet’s letters of 1627 suggests that he may have had a hand in writing them. It would be understandable if the Frenchman Vouet, with a delicate letter to compose in Italian, turned to his friend, who, as a professional secre­

C A T A L O G U E 8 g § 2 1 9

tary and letter writer, was well versed in the polite formu­las needed on such an occasion.

In 1637, two bronze putti supporting a bronze crown were suspended over the head of Michelangelo’s Virgin.26 In 1747, the Pieta was moved to the chapel of the Cruci­fix, and Vouet s painting was replaced by Pietro Bianchi’s mosaic Immacolata with St.i. Francui, Anthony o f Padua, and John ChryoootomJ7

B O Z Z E T T I

1. A composition sketch for the upper half of the paint­ing. Great Britain, private coll. Oil on canvas; 55.8 X 63.5 cm. See Schleier, 1967, pp. 272—76; 1972, p. 91. (Fig. 113)

2. A study for the angels carrying the ladder, pliers, spear, and sponge. Besan9on, Musee des Beaux-Arts. Oil on canvas; 133.5 X 78.5 cm. See Crelly, 1962, pp. 246-48 and fig. 23; Schleier, 1967, p. 272 and fig. 15.

3. A pair of hozzetti representing two upper groups of angels. London, private coll. Oil on canvas; 40.5 X 61.3 cm. each. See Schleier, 1972, pp. 91—92 and figs. 43—44. (Figs. 114-115)

D O C U M E N T S

1624, before March 14: Simon Vouet writes to the Congrega­tion. Having been commissioned by order of Urban VIII to paint the altarpiece in the "Coro novo,” the artist wishes to exhibit his "concetto’’ to the Congregation. (P. 724)

1624, April 2: Initial payment of sc. 100 to Vouet "a conto della pittura che deve fare." (P. 725)

1624, Aug. 7: "II Signor Cardinal Del Monte si contenti far parola con Nostro Signore [. . .] circa il collocare la Pieta di Michelangelo, parendo che nel Coro non vi sia luogo proportionato.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3—no. 159a, f. 69v.)

1624, before Sept.: The Chapter writes to Urban VIII, requesting that Michelangelo’s Pieta be moved into the new Chapel of the Choir: "Di piu si mette in considera- tione, che la Pieta, che sta nel’altare del Choro vechio, restando fuori, potrebbe patire qualche danno, se paresse alia S'a V[ost]ra di ordinare fosse trasportata nel novo Choro, accio fosse piu in vista di tutti, e meglio custodita, et massime essendo da Sisto 4'° stata dedicata alia cappella del Choro.” (P. 783)

1624, Dec. 6—1625, Ju ly 5: Three payments of sc. 250 to Vouet. (P. 726-27)

1625, before Sept.: Vouet writes to the pope: "Simone Vouet pittore di Vostra Santita ritrovandosi haver gia fatto le fatiche del quadro di S. Pietro, che sanava con I’ombra per mettere nel Choro de Canonici, dove hora la C ongreg[azio]ne della fabrica gli ha ordinato che dipinga un’altra historia per accompagnare la Pieta di Michel Angelo, supplica V.B. a degnarsi farli gratia d ’or-

dinare, che detto quadro di S. Pietro sia posto in uno degli altri Altari, che hora si accomodano in San Pietro.’’ (P. 728)

1625, Sept. 10 & Sept. 15: Vouet is urged to work as quickly as possible, because the Pieta cannot be installed over the altar until his painting is finished. (P. 729—30)

1626, Feb. 27: Payment of sc. 50 to Vouet "a bon conto della pittura che fa nel Coro." (P. 731)

1626, April 1: Carlo Maderno is entrusted with the task of moving the Pieta from the provisional choir in the south transept to the new Chapel of the Choir. (P. 746)

1626, April 22: The pope visits St. Peter’s and inspects Vouet s painting. (P. 732)

1626, May 1: The body of St. John Chiysostom is trans­lated from the sacristy to the altar in the Chapel of the Choir. (P. 756)

1626, May 28-Nov. 27: Six payments of sc. 181 b. 85 to Borromini for work on a "Piedestallo che si fa sotto alia Pieta di Michelangelo di marmi mischi e bianchi." The base for the Pieta is decorated with colored marble intarsia in the form of flowers, with Barberini bees gath­ered around a Barberini sun. (P. 747-52)

1626, Ju ly 22: The altar is consecrated by Cardinal Scipi- one Borghese. (P. 757)

1626, Nov. 15: ". . . fuit cantata prima Missa in choro novo." (ACSP, Turni 13, f. 203v.)

1627, April 17: Vouet writes to Cardinal Biscia, announc­ing that because of his imminent departure for France he will not be able to paint a second altarpiece assigned to him, and asking to be paid in full for the first. (P. 733)

1627, before May 10: Vouet writes to the Congregation, asking for full payment and offering five reasons for his fee to be increased. Poliak (P. 735) transcribes this illu­minating document in full and mentions the existence of "eine gleichlautende Bittschrift" addressed to the pope. The latter is not, however, an exact copy; and because it includes some revealing discrepancies, it is transcribed here in full: "Beatissimo Padre.

Simone Vouet Pittore francese deve fra pochi giomi passare in Francia, per sevire alia Maesta de Re Cris- tianissimo dal quale e stato chiamato. Ha percio piu volte fatto instanza d ’esser sodisfatto della tavola da lui depinta nel Coro nuovo, che rappresenta il sacrificio, quale Dio Padre riceve di Cristo suo figlio, offertogli dalla Beatissima Vergine, con i misterij della Passione, et con S. Francesco et S. Antonio di Padova; nondimeno e stato sempre mandato da uno ad un altro, intanto che 1’oratore non sa piu a chi far ricorso. Supplica pero Vos­tra Beatitudine d ’ordine opp.no intorno a cio, et resti servita di commandare, che a ll ’oratore sia pagata la tavola nel modo appunto, che ordino la felice memoria di Papa Gregorio XV, che fosse pagata al Guercino di quella, che egli fece in S. Pietro, et massime che esso

220 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Simone nell’opera sua ha fatto spesa, et fatica maggiore per le seguenti ragioni.

Prima perche da principio gli fu commesso che dovesse nella tavola rappresentare l ’Ombra di S. Pietro, per la quale haveva con molto studio fatto tutti i desegni, et cartoni necessarij, et dopo gli fu ordinato, che vi esprimesse nuovo pensiero, cioe il sopradetto sacrificio.

Secondo perche gli e bisognato lavorare nel muro, et luogo proprio, nel rigor del vemo, con grandissimo disa­gio, et incommodo, il che non e intervenuto al Guercino, il quale ha lavorato in tela, a casa sua, et con tutte le sue commodita.

Terzo perche gli e convenuto far due volte li sopradetti Santi, prima in habito di zoccolanti conforme, che a lui era stato commesso dal Capitolo di quella Vaticana, et poi da Capuccini, nel modo, che si veggono al presente.

Quarto perche ad altri e stato dato l’azzurro, et a lui no, et

Quinto perche ha dato due volte l'imprimitura ad un altra tavola incontro alia sopradetta del Coro nuovo a sue spese.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 1—no.2, bu.<ta 5)

1627, May 10: Vouet s letter is acknowledged. (P. 735)1627, May 14, and June 7: The Congregation decides to

pay Vouet a total of sc. 800. (P. 736—37)1627, Ju ly 3: Payment of sc. 400 to Vouet "per resto della

tavola fatta da lui." (P. 738) c. 1627: “. . . li fu commessa la tavola di San Pietro nel

choro d’ordine S[antissi]mi delli Priori della fabrica con promessa d ’un’altra. Prima hebbe il pensiero del’ombra, e quando si pose la Pieta li fecero fare il pensiero che in opera. Descrittione dell’opera, et intendimenti. Descrit- tione dell’altra, quando Dio Padre riceve quel sacrificio del figlio offertoli dalla Madre.” (Ferrante Carlo, ms. biography of Simon Vouet, Ecole de M edecine de Montpellier, H419, f. 24, cited in Solinas, 1992, p. 143.)

c. 1725: "Sopra il detto Altare [della Cappella del Coro] vi e una gran Base, che di fuori forma il gradino con sua cornice in torno fatto di nobilissima pietra mischia di diversi colori, et allustrata dove posano li Candelieri e la Croce, e statue di argento rappresentanti S. Pietro e S. Paolo. Sopra poi vi e un altro nobilissimo piedestallo nel mezzo di pietra miscia [s ic] et intorno in torno con sua Cornice di marmi fini, et anche sopra della quale Base vi e in atto di sedere la suntosissima, nobilissima et ines- timabile scultura rappresentante la Santissima Pieta, che e la Beatissima Vergine Maria con Nostro Signore sopra il suo seno gia Crucifisso fatto tutto da Michel’Angelo Bonarota scultore, et Architetto Eccellentissimo. Sopra della testa della Beatissima Virgine vi sono due bellissimi Angeletti di metallo dorati che tengo[no] la corona d ’oro sopra il Capo di detta beatissima Vergine Maria. Al muro vi e il nobilissimo quadro nel mezzo rappresen­tante la Gloria Celeste, e di la e di qua due figure grandi cioe una di S. Francesco d ’Asisi, e l ’altra di S. Antonio di

Padova in atto di contemplare. Al detto Quadro nell’ mezzo vi e anche scolpita la Santissima Concettione, quale e il Titolo di detta Cappella, e fu dipinto da Monsu Simone Bueth [ s ic ] francese.” (ACSP, Diari 25 [Varie notiz ie Sella sa cro san ta Basilica Vaticana ra cco lte Sa I). Giuseppe CampoSimiele Sagrestano circa I’anno 1725], f. 25v.)

S O U R C E S

Bralion, 1655-59, I, pp. 199-200: ". . . il y a un grand Tableau peint a huile sur le stuch de Simon Vouet, fran5ais, ou est representee une Croix au milieu d une gloire, & de quantite d ’Anges portans les instruments de la Passion. II y a aussi, ce me semble, quelques figures de Saints en bas, notamment un saint F rancis en acte d ’adoration de la Croix.”

Mola, 1663 (1963), p. 41: "II quadro con la Croce, et Angeli a olio nella Cappella dove offitiano li SS. Canon- ici, ove e la Pieta del Bonaroti, e de Monsu Vet.”

Alveri, 1664, II, p. 178: "Nel quadro dell’Altare [. . .] vi sono dipinti S. Giovanni Crisostomo, S. Francesco, e S an t’Antonio di Padova p ittura di Simone Vueth Francese, dove anche sta la Pieta di marmo scultura di Michel’Angelo [. . . ]”

Titi, 1674, p. 22: "Nel Quadro dell’Altare della Cappella del Coro sono espressi S. Gio. Crisostom o, S. Francesco, e S. Antonio da Padova, & altri daH’artifi- cioso pennello di Simone Vueth Francese, & ivi ammi- rasi la famosa scoltura in marmo della Pieta . . . ”

Buonanni, 1696, p. 115: "In Ara vero imagines Divi Chrysostom!, Divi Francisci Assisiatis, & Divi Antonii Patavini, cum Angelico Choro Simo Uveth Gallus sin­gular! arte expressit anno 1626.”

Liom and Amidei, 1731, p. 58 (cited in Dargent and Thuil- lier, 1965, p. 46): "Maggior studio pero egli pose nella gran tavola, che conosciuta la di lui abilita, gli fu ordinata per 1’ Altare della Cappella del Coro della Basilica Vati­cana, avanti la qual tavola e collocata la Pieta opera ammirabile di Michelangelo Buonaroti [. . .] e perche simile azzione suole rappresentarsi o a pie della Croce, o ivi appresso, il Vovet prese il motivo di formar nel quadro la Croce, ed a ’ lati di essa gli Santi Francesco, ed Antonio ginocchioni, che l ’adorano, rapiti nella contem- plazione del doloroso misterio; questa parte inferiore del quadro e rischiarata da un lume celeste, che scende tra alcune nuvole, sopra le quali sono distribuiti in varie atti- tudini gruppi di Angeli che reggono diversi strumenti della Passione; cio opero egli con egregio disegno, e vivezza di colore, e con questa tavola si procaccio una stima universale tra gli stessi Professor! della Pittura."

Bottari, 1754, pp. 213—14: "Bellori: [. . .] E che non credete, che al tempo di Simon Vovet, e del Pussino, pittori cosi valenti, non fossero fatte fare altro che due tavole? Quante, e quante se ne imbrattarono da’ pittori, che non erano degni d ’esser loro scolari, anzi ne meno di macinar

C A T A L O G U E 9 221

loro i colori, e pure perche questi seppero far la loro corte a chi bisognava con le loro imposture, o con le loro ciarle, e adulazioni, o per via di raccomandazioni potenti, tirarono a se il piu de’ lavori, e fecero, che quei due valentuomini fossero lasciati in un cantone, talche di essi non abbiamo in tutta Roma al pubblico altro che una tavola di Vovet in S. Pietro, nella Cappella del Coro, e del Pussino in una delle piu piccole dell’un braccio lat- erale, ed io spirito di non vederle un giomo, o I’altro tolte via come e seguito a quella di Bernardo Castello, e anche ad alcune altre, per dar luogo a qualche sconciatura d un di questi professori canonizzati per eccellenti a voce, o piuttosto a furia del popolo ignaro, e di certi che senza sapere il perche si credono periti dell’arte.”

Titi, 1763, p. 18: "Nel quadro dell’altar della cappella del coro erano espressi molti Angeli con gli strumenti della Pas- sione di Gesu Cristo N.S. con s. Francesco, e S. Antonio da Padova a basso, dal bravo pennello di Simone Vovet, che alludevano alia pieta del Bonarroti, che era su questo altare.”

1620 or shortly before and would certainly have been known to Vouet.

21. See Cat. 6.22. See the Documents section at the end of this entiy.23. On Carlo, see DBI, XX, pp. 150—52; Del Como, 1975, pp.

103-104; Solinas, 1992, pp. 135-47.24. [April 26, 1623] "11 Signor Cardinal Del Monte si contenti

referire a Nostro Signore il senso della Congregatione circa la Porta Santa, et pigli ordine dalla Santita Sua di quello si dovera essequire, et Monsignor Caffarelli faccia chiamar Ferrante Carli, et senta il suo pensiero circa questo negotio.” (AFSP, Piano 1-ser. 3-no. 159a, f. 58v.)

25. Solinas, 1992, pp. 139-40.26. Tolnay, 1947, p. 147. The putti were the gift of Conte

Alessandro Sforza of Piacenza. They remained in place until 1927, when they were removed, as Tolnay proudly points out, at his suggestion.

27. On Bianchi's altarpiece, see Clark, 1981, p. 51: "Bianchi was offered knighthood by Clement XII and refused it, accepting instead a commission for St. Peter's ‘che puo chiamarsi il Toson d’oro per un Pittore’ as one of Mengs’s biographies put it.” See also DiFederico, 1983, p. 79.

N O T E S

1. Alfarano, pp. 78-81 ; Canuti, 1931, I, pp. 52 -53 and II, pp. 122-23.

2. For more on the tom b, see E ttlinger, 1978, pp. 52—54, 148-51.

3. W eil-G arris Brandt, 1987, pp. 88 and 102, n. 134.4. Ibid., pp. 88 and 101-102, n. 133.5. Ib id ., pp . 88 an d 102, n. 140. On B ian ch e tt i an d h is

patronage o f the a lta r of the M adonna della Colonna, seeC hapter 2.

6. On Simon Vouet, see C relly, 1962; D argent and Thuillier, 1965; Vouet, 1990; Simon Vouet, 1992. On Vouet’s relations w ith C ard inal Del M onte, see, in particular, Solinas, 1992; W azbinski, 1992.

7. Cuzin, 1987. See also D argent and Thuillier, 1965, p. 44.8. For a m ore d e ta iled acco un t o f these p ro ceed in gs , see

C hapter 4.9. Poliak, nos. 746—52.10. Ibid., nos. 753-56 .11. Ibid., no. 757.12. C relly, 1962, pp. 246—48; D argent and Thuillier, 1965, pp.

36-38 , 46; Schleier, 1967 (b ); 1968; 1972; Vouet, 1990, pp. 102-106.

13. See C hapter 4, n. 23.14. Illustrated in Knipping, 1974, II, pi. 274.15. H ibbard, 1972, p. 38 and figs. 26 -27 .16. Schleier, 1967, p. 272.17. W eil-G arris Brandt, 1987, pp. 85 and 99, nn. 98—99.18. Schleier, 1983, pp. 141^19.19. D argent and Thuillier, 1965, p. 46.20. There w ere precedents for this kind o f thing. To g ive but

one exam p le , the frescoed a lta rp ie c e in the L om bard i ch ap e l in S . M a r ia in V ia ( fo u r th on th e r ig h t ) w as designed as a backdrop to the o lder wooden crucifix that stands in front o f it (F ig . 120). The pain ting dates from

C A T A L O G U E 9

ALTAR OF ST. GREG O RY THE GREAT [39 ] Andrea Sacchi, The M iraculouo Afaoo o f St. Gregory

(1625-27)

Oil on canvas; 285 X 207 cmVatican Pinacoteca; mosaic replica in oitu.(Figs. 121-122)

In the ninth century, Pope Gregory IV (827—44) trans­ferred the body of Pope Gregory I (590—604) from its original burial site in the portico of St. Peter's into the interior of the building and erected an altar in his honor toward the east end of the outer south side aisle. Pius II rebuilt the altar, at the same time combining the title with that of St. Andrew, whose head he deposited in an ele­gant marble tabernacle suspended overhead on four slen­der columns; he also assigned several chaplains to recite frequent masses there.1 This was one of the seven privi­leged altars in old St. Peter’s and was especially richly endowed and lavishly decorated.2 As late as 1570, Pius IPs descendant Francesco Bandino Piccolomini, Arch­bishop of Siena, had a marble and porphyry statue of St. Andrew placed over the altar (Fig. 23).3 Not long after­ward, Gregory XIII added to the privileges associated with the altar, declaring that each mass said there would ensure the release of one soul from purgatory.4

When the old nave was demolished, Paul V had the body of St. Gregory moved to the altar in the Cappella Clem entina.5 Jacopo Zucchi's G lorification o f the Virgin

2 2 2 S S T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

was placed over the altar as a temporary altarpiece, but how long it remained there is unclear (Fig. 56),6 During the Visitation of September 19 and 21, 1624, the i’Ltitatori recommended that the altar of St. Gregory be provided with an altarpiece (a recommendation they made for no other altar in the church), which implies that by then Zucchi’s painting was no longer in place.

In response to the oiiitatori's counsel, the Congregation included the altar of St. Gregory among the first altars for which they commissioned altarpieces. By Jan u ary 24, 1625, they had assigned the job to Andrea Sacchi, and paid him an initial sum of 40 ocudi.7 A second payment of 20 j cu d i followed two months later. Thereafter payments stopped for a little over two years, but Sacchi must have continued to work on the painting, for when the next pay­ment w as made on J u l y 3, 1627, the p a in tin g w as described as “fatta.” The final payment was made on Octo­ber 9; Sacchi received a total of 300 ocudi for the work.

Passeri claims that it was the Barberini who obtained this important commission for Sacchi; Bellori, on the other hand, attributes the artis t’s good fortune to the in flu en ce of h is patron C ard in a l Del M onte, and although his account is somewhat confused, it does seem the more convincing of the two.8 Del Monte had discov­ered Sacchi early on, and until his death in 1626 was his most loyal and indeed virtually his only important patron (Sacchi is not documented as having worked for the Bar­berini before the late 1620s). Moreover, Del Monte was capo of the Congregation at the time and in an ideal posi­tion to help the young artist who might otherwise have been overlooked by the committee.

The painter depicted the Miraculous Mass of St. Gre­gory, also known as the M iracle of the Corporal (Fig. 122) .9 In reponse to a request from the Emperor Con­stance for an authentic relic, Gregory gave the emperor’s representative a cloth that had previously been used to wrap the bones of certain martyr saints (according to another version of the legend, it was the cloth with which Gregory had wiped the chalice after dispensing the sacri­ficial wine during the mass) . 10 When the representative rejected the cloth as a paltry and worthless thing, Gre­gory, after first saying mass, took it and stabbed it with a sharp blade, causing it to bleed. The miracle was one of the most famous involving St. Gregory and was espe­cially popular during the Counter Reformation, when it was cited in support of the Catholic position on the mys­tical power of relics. As the subject of an altarpiece it was, of course, especially suitable, since it presented the saint in the role of officiating priest, saying mass before an altar. The artist had to represent a scene not unlike the one that takes place daily in front of it. His painting is thus both a depiction of a miraculous event that occurred in the distant past, and a kind of mirror in which the mys­

tery unfolding at the real altar below (i.e. the mass) is perpetually reflected and its miraculous nature perpetu­ally revealed.11

Sacchi depicted the scene as though taking place in a majestic church setting, similar to St. Peter’s, although not lite ra lly based on M ichelangelo ’s architecture. In order to link the altarpiece more effectively with its envi­ronment, he coordinated the fictive light within the paint­ing with the real light that illuminates it from without.12 This merging of real and painted light has obvious sym­bolism. Light is a manifestation of spiritual illumination, and in this case its divine nature is enhanced by the posi­tion of the dove of the Holy Ghost, G regory’s usual attribute, which flies into the picture at the same angle as the light, as though borne on an invisible sunbeam. Con­ceived in a d ram atica lly baroque sp irit, the painting reaches out beyond its frame to involve the whole chapel, and especially the window that illuminates it, in its narra­tive scheme.

With its rich colors, melting .fumato, and charged emo­tionalism, the MiraculoiD Ataoo o f St. G regory is one of Sac­chi s most successful works and helped to establish his reputation as a leading painter in Rome. Both Passeri and Bellori considered the painting a masterpiece. This view was not, however, shared by everyone. Shortly after the work was unveiled, Michele Lonigo wrote to the pope, complaining of a host of iconographic errors. The picture was so full of imperfections, he claimed, that "there is almost nothing in it that is done w ell.” 13 Specifically, Lonigo objected to the w ay Sacchi had portrayed the saint. Instead of copying the likeness illustrated in Baro- nius's Annaleo, the painter had taken capricious license with the saint’s features, "depicting him with a wrinkled face and a tw isted and toothless mouth, although we know for a fact that he w as a most beautiful m an.” Lonigo w ent on to cr itic ize a num ber of d eta ils as anachronistic or inappropriate: the tiara is wrong, for before the thirteenth century it consisted of a single crown rather than three; the dove should not be present, for the dove rightfully belongs only in images of Gregory reading or writing; there should be no candles on the altar, for in the sixth century the custom was to have the candles carried by acolytes. Lonigo continued in this vein for several pages, and concluded by advising the pope to have these errors corrected as soon as possible. None of the changes Lonigo recommended were made, suggesting that his le tter w as not taken too seriously ; but as a demonstration of the intense scholarly scrutiny to which the altarpieces in St. Peter’s were subjected, it remains an illuminating document.

The altar of St. Gregory was consecrated in 1628. Sac- chi’s altarpiece was replaced by a mosaic reproduction in 1770—72 .14 Under Napoleon, the painting was confis­

C A T A L O G U E 9 2 2 3

cated and taken to Paris, but it was later returned and is today in the Vatican Pinacoteca.

D R A W I N G S

1. Composition study. W indsor Castle, Inv. no. 4857. Red chalk, pen and bister, 161 X 122 mm. See Blunt and Cooke, 1960, p. 95. (Fig. 123)

2. Composition study. Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris, no. 343. Red chalk on cream paper, 262 X 161 mm. See Sutherland Harris, 1977, p. 52 and plate 7.

B O Z Z E T T I

A bozzetto is recorded in an inventory of the Colonna col­lection from 1783: "Un Quadro di Palmi due per alto rap- presentante il Miracolo di S. Gregorio Magno” (Suther­land H arris , 1977, p. 52; F errar i, 1990, p. 227). A small-scale copy of Sacchi’s composition in the Vatican P in aco teca has been a ttr ib u ted by D ieter G raf to Giuseppe Passeri.15

D O C U M E N T S

1606, Jan . 8: Translation of the body of St. Gregory the Great from the old church to the main altar of the Cap­pella Clementina in the new church. (Grimaldi, pp. 87-89)

1624, Sept. 21: “Visitatio altaris S. Gregorij. Provideatur de Icone seu imagine." (Doc. Appendix, no. 4)

1625, Jan . 24: Initial payment of sc. 40 to Andrea Sacchi “a conto di una tavo la de p ittu ra nel A ltare a lia Clementina dove a reposto il corpo di S. Gregorio magno.” (P. 939)

1625, March 26: Payment of sc. 20 to Sacchi. (P. 940)1627, May 14: Sacchi is included among those painters

“alii quali si dicono gia promesse le Tavole da farsi nelli Altari in S. Pietro.” (P. 94)

1627, Ju ly 3: Payment of sc. 100 to Sacchi “a bon conto della tavola fatta nella Clementina.” (P. 941)

1627, Ju ly 12: The sum of sc. 0.60 is owed to G. B. Soria “Per il telaro . . . per mettere dietro la pittura dell’Altare di S. Gregorio.” (P. 36)

1627, Aug. 11: Payment of sc. 40 to Sacchi. (P. 942)1627, before Sept. 27: Sacchi writes to the Congregation,

asking to be paid in full lor the altarpiece. (P. 943)1627, Sept. 27: The Congregation notes that Sacchi is to be

paid a total of sc. 300. (P. 944)1627, Oct. 9: Payment of sc. 100 to Sacchi “per resto di sc.

300 per la tavola di S. Gregorio Papa." (P. 945)1628: Michele Lonigo in an open letter to Urban VIII

addresses what he considers to be egregious iconographic errors in Sacchi’s painting. (Doc. Appendix, no. 23)

S O U R C E S

Bellori, 1672 (1976), pp. 541^43: "Era Andrea pervenuto all’eta dell’anno decimo ottavo con molto maggior con­cetto del saper suo e sufficienza nel condur bene i lavori ed i quadri ch ’egli studiosam ente e con m aturita resolveva; onde seguitandosi in quel tempo a far le tav­ole per gli altari della nuova Basilica Vaticana venne in pensiero al cardinal Del Monte di proporlo e farlo con- correre co’ primi maestri che allora fiorivano in Roma, e come egli era uno d e ’ prim i card in a li d ella con- gregazione della fabrica, facilmente ottenne che Andrea fosse eletto alia tavola grande di Santa Petronilla nel consentimento di tutti per eccitare maggiormente il gio- vanetto ad un insigne sforzo dell’ingegno ed ad un obbligo di rendersi in quella eta piu ammirabile. Ma quando quel buon cardinale penso di aver fatto un gran favore ad Andrea con promoverlo ad opera si illustre, in un tempio il maggiore ed il piu celebre fra’ cristiani, trovo d ’Andrea molto diversa l’intenzione, il quale nulla sapendo del trattato si rammarieo a tal novella, e per non avere ambizione e pretenzione di se stesso, rifiuto immediatamente l ’invito, affermando che quella tavola era dovuto al merito di qualche gran maestro, e non a lui, che non era bastante a tanto peso per lo poco sapere e per I’imbecillita degli anni. Non pote mai quel signore persuaderlo, ed indurlo in modo alcuno, onde lodando tutti la sua modestia, accrebbe a se stesso l’amore e la stima; ma pero la scusa dell’eta fu ammessa alia con- gregazione con questo, che se egli ricusava la tavola grande per I’impotenza degl’anni, accettasse l ’altra pic- cola di San Gregorio corrispondente, come essi dice- vano, alia poca eta sua. In questo modo Andrea fu costretto alfine di accettare quest altra piccola, la quale pero egli non essegui allora, ma fu da lui maturata lo spazio di sei anni, dopo i quali egli la diede compita; onde l ’altra grande di Santa Petronilla fu conferita a Gio. Francesco Barbieri da Cento. [. . .]

II soggetto della tavola piccola dipinta da Andrea nel Vaticano contiene un miracolo di San Gregorio Magno, il quale pungendo un panno lino, dove erano state involte le reliquie de’ Santi Martiri, ne fa uscire sangue vivo. II Santo Pontefice avendo toccato fossa de’ Santi Martiri con panno lino, diede questo in vece di reliquie ad alcuni ambasciadori, avendolo rinchiuso e suggellato ne’ vasi da portarlo ne' loro paesi; del che awistisi gli ambasciadori per viaggio, tornarono a Roma a lamentarsene col santo, il quale dopo aver celebrato la messa e fatto orazione a Dio alia presenza di essi ambasciadori e del popolo, punse col ferro il panno lino, e ne scaturi il sangue con merav- iglia di ciascuno. Finse Andrea il dentro del tempio, ove il Santo Pontefice in abito sacerdotale con la pianeta ed avanti I altare con una mano alza il panno lino candido e puro, coll’altra lo punge col ferro, facendone gocciolare

2 2 4 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

vivo sangue stillante; nel qual atto tenendo sospeso il panno, si volge indietro e lo mostra a gli ambasciadori increduli, uno de’ quali, il principale piii avanti ginoc- chioni, guarda sopra al prodigio, aprendo le braccia e le mani per meraviglia, la qual figura disposta nobilmente diffonde il manto azzurro su la zimarra fodrata di pelle, in abito peregrino, ed espone al lume il calvizio e la canizie de’ capelli, con effetto molto naturale. Dietro questo primo ambasciadore si scuopre il compagno piegato avanti l ’altare, tendendo il vaso delle reliquie con la mano e con l’altra il coperchio, attento anch’egli al miracolo. A’ piedi San Gregorio vedesi il diacono, che si volge al Santo, e con la destra tiene un altro vaso aperto, e colla sinistra il coperchio alzato. II colore di questo quadro e il piu armonioso temperamento che possa dare il pennello di chiunque fa professione di gran coloritore con unione molto diligente tra la forza e la soavita d'ombreggiamenti e di lumi, e con buonissime pregature di panni, che sup- pliscono alia mancanza dell’ignudi; dietro, in contrasegno della guardia del papa da sito piu basso e di sotto l’altare spuntano i ferri delle alabarde, che riempiono a tempo quello spazio. Onde si puo affermar con verita per lode di Andrea che questa tavola compita nell’eta sua di venti- quattro anni dopo sei anni intieri di studio lo tolse affatto dalle concorrenze de ’ giovani, e lo ripose fra’ primi maestri dell’eta sua tanto feconda d ’opere insigni.”

Passeri, pp. 293-94: "Con I’aiuto del suo merito per cagione d ’alcuni disegni fu introdotto nella Casa Barberina, et essendo da quelli Principi gradito il suo valore hebbe 1’occasione del piccolo Quadro nella gran Basilica di S. Pietro (dico picciolo per la vastita di quel Tempio, che per se stesso e di buona proporzione). Vi dipinse il Pon- tefice Santo, benche Santissimo Gregorio il Magno, il quale per sodisfare le richieste d un Signore Oltramon- tano, che desiderava qualche cosa rara del tesoro della Chiesa per conservare appresso di se la memoria di reliquia cosi preziosa, gli diede un purificatore, che e quel fazzoletto, che serve a ripulire il calice nel Sagrificio della Messa. Mai sodisfatto quel Personaggio di questo, ne faceva poca stima non riconoscendo in lui, col suo giudizio, qualita nessuna che lo rendesse degno da esser tenuto in venerazione. Il Santo Pontefice per farli conoscere il merito di quel dono, voile farglene vedere una autentica con la prova, et havendolo rihauto nelle mani, mentre era nell’atto del Sagrificio in sua presenza che assisteva alia Messa Ponteficia, il trapasso in piu luochi con uno stillo, e da ogni percossa scaturi evidente- mente sangue a vista di tutto il popolo perche intendesse, da miracolo si grande, che quel bianco lino era tutto intriso del sangue prezioso di Christo. Ha rapresentato il Pontefice in atto di far questa dimostrazione tenendo nella sinistra il corporale dal quale scaturisce sangue, e con la destra tiene il ferro pungente col quale lo colpisce,

e tiene la faccia rivolta al Popolo assistente, tra li quali si trova quel Personaggio, che sta nobilmente vestito in atto di prendere stupore di cosi alto portento. Al Pontefice assistono il Diacono, e il Sotto Diacono con le loro Toni- celle consuete al Sagrificio, e'l Pontefice vestito da Sacer- dote celebrante: tutto il componimento dove si vede I’Altare, dimostra essere dentro un Tempio di maestosa architettura, con l’accompagnamento della guardia Pont- eficia de’ Svizzeri, figure alquanto maggiori del naturale; ma ben compartite con arteficio mirabile. E un Quadro quello di tal qualita per lo disegno, per l’ordine del com­ponimento, per 1’arteficio del colorito, e per le altre sue rare perfezioni, che, per qualche secolo, se ne sospirara il compagno, e se fusse aiutato da un lume favorevole farebbe conoscere l'esquesitezza delle sue belle parti, e d un tutto maraviglioso. Se Andrea non fosse stato Romano, si sarebbe sentito, per quell ’opera, lo strepito, e il rimbombo del suo nome volare alle stelle; ma perche nessuno profetizza nella propria Patria, e perche Roma e la schiava de ll’Universo, benche habbia il nome di Regina del Mondo, se ne fece caso quanto spettava alia parte della giustizia; ma non hebbe un’oncia di grazia nella lode, e nell’applauso, del resto e una tela, che fara sudare piu d’una fronte per pareggiarla. ”

N O T E S

1. Alfarano, pp. 86-87, esp. n. 7; Doc. Appendix, no. 3.2. See Doc. Appendix, nos. 3 and 5.3. See Chapter 2, n. 31.4. Alfarano, p. 191.5. Grimaldi, pp. 87-89. The altar in the old basilica was

deconsecrated on December 29, 1606, and the translation of the body took place on January 8, 1606.

6. See Chapter 2.7. On Andrea Sacchi (1599-1661), see Posse, 1925; Suther­

land Harris, 1977.8. Sutherland Harris, 1977, p. 3.9. Posse, 1925, pp. 23—24; Sutherland Harris, 1977, pp. 3—4,

39, 52; Vatican Splendour, 1986, p. 60.10. Reau, 1955—59, IILii, p. 613; Ribliotheca Sanctorum,

1961-70, VII, cols. 285-87.11. Molanus (1598, p. 117), without making specific reference

to the miracle of the corporal, suggested that altars dedi­cated in honor of St. Gregory should be provided with altarpieces representing the saint saying mass: ’’. . . sequitur magnus ille Anglorum Apostolus, Gregorius Romanus Pontifex, qui non inepte sacrificans pingitur. Ipse enim, sicut universalis tenet Ecclesia, normam & reg- ulam officiorum, tarn super sacrificio, quam super caeteris mysterijs prudenter instituit.”

12. See Chapter 9.13. Doc. Appendix, no. 23; see also Herklotz, 1996.14. DiFederico, 1983, p. 79.15. Graf, 1996, I, fig. 105.

C A T A L O G U E 10 g f 2 2 5

C A T A L O G U E 1 0

ALTAR OF ST. E R A SM U S [1 7 ]Nicolas Poussin, The M artyrdom o f St. Eraomuo

(1628-29)Oil on canvas; 320 X 186 cm Vatican Pinacoteca; mosaic copy in situ Inscription in the lower left corner:

N i c o la u s P u s in f e c i t .1 (Figs. 124, 127)

The chapel of St. Erasmus occupies the left niche of the north tran sep t (F ig . 124). L ike the o ther tran sep t chapels, it was sumptuously decorated with polychrome marble revetment and gilt stucco under Clement VIII, as part of the pope’s larger scheme to embellish the tomb of the Apostles and its surroundings. The stuccos on the vault illustrate scenes from the life of St. Jam es Major, in whose honor Clement planned to dedicate the chapel (Fig. 43) .2 In 1606, under Paul V, the altar was provided with the relics formerly in the altar of St. Erasmus in old St. Peter’s.3 At the same time, the painting that had hung over the old altar, representing the M artyrdom o f St. F,rao- muo, was installed over the new one, to serve as a tempo­rary altarpiece until another could be commissioned to fit the site. The altar was thenceforth known by the title of St. Erasmus; no other title was seriously proposed,4 and it was consecrated accordingly in October 1628.5

The cult of St. Erasmus, bishop of Antioch martyred under the Emperor Diocletian, w as introduced in St. Peter’s in 1119 by Pope Gelasius II.6 An altar in honor of the saint was located against the inner facade between the Porta Romana and the porta oanta.7 In 1574, during a general reshuffling of dedications and relics throughout St. Peter’s, the title of St. Erasmus was transferred to the neighboring altar of St. Wenceslas, which was thereafter referred to as the altar of St. Erasmus.8 The Erasmus altar in old St. Peter's was not particu larly important liturgically, having no endowment and no chaplaincies associated with it. On the other hand, it seems to have been exceptionally popular with the faithful, who flocked to it and covered it with votive offerings of various kinds, and it was probably due to this that the title was perpetu­ated in the new basilica. For more on devotional practices at the altar of St. Erasmus, see Chapter 5.

The original Erasmus altarpiece, which had been trans­ferred from the altar in the old basilica, is documented over the new altar as late as 1627, and probably remained there until it was replaced by Poussin’s composition in 1629. Since Poussin knew it well, and seems to have relied on it in designing his own version of the subject, the ear­

lier work deserves close attention. The painting itself does not survive, but its composition is preserved in a small reproductive engraving by Jacques Callot (Fig. 125).

Callot’s engraving records an image of approximately square proportions.9 The composition is rigidly symmet­rical. At the bottom, Erasmus is stretched out on a low bench, w ith his stomach slit open. One executioner reaches into the wound to extract the intestines; two oth­ers wind them onto a massive spool, or windlass. On a raised throne, beneath a baldachin, the tyrant looks on, framed by two advisers and by two windows overlooking a landscape. An angel or putto hovers above, carrying the palm of martyrdom.

The author and date of this work are unknown. Cal­lot’s engraving records only the rudest outlines of the composition and conveys little of its stylistic character. Giulio Mancini, writing in the first quarter of the seven­teenth century, attributed the work to a certain mysteri­ous "segretario di Cardinal Vermiense.’’10 Scholars have tried to figure out the identity of this man, but so far with little success. Jacob Hess went to some pains to identify the artist as Thomas Treter, a justly forgotten late Man­nerist painter from Poland.11 That the painting repro­duced in Callot’s engraving could have been by Treter, whose few recognized works are characterized by an exaggerated distortion of space, elaborate architectural settings, and crowded figures, seems implausible. Equally implausible is the date suggested by Hess: 1575.12 To judge from the engraving, the work must be earlier, from the second half of the fifteenth centuiy or the early six­teenth century.13 As for the artist, whoever he was, he based his composition, directly or indirectly, on an earlier work by Dirk Bouts, the M artyrdom o f St. Eraomiu in the church of St. Peter in Louvain, painted probably in the first half of the 1460s (Fig. 126). The similarities between the two pictures are far too numerous to be accidental. Bouts’s painting, like the anonymous work, is square in format.14 The saint is stretched out at the bottom of the composition, with his head to the left and his feet to the right; two executioners wind the spool; and the tyrant stands dead center, flanked by his advisers. True, Bouts’s scene is set in a landscape rather than in an interior, and the figure who reaches his hand into the wound is miss­ing. But these are minor differences. Friedlander’s assess­ment of Bouts’s painting, that it is "so stiffly symmetrical, so pedantically clean that it has the effect of a symbolic tableau in a medieval mystery play,” could apply just as well to the anonymous work.15

This was the painting, then, that stood over the altar of St. Erasmus in new St. Peter’s from around 1605 until around 1629. It was old-fashioned, it was in poor condi­tion, and furthermore its squarish shape did not conform to the vertical dimensions of the altar frame. So although

2 2 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

its subject matter was in every w ay appropriate, the old altarpiece clearly had to be replaced. By November 1626, the Erasmus altar was listed among the altars requiring new altarp ieces. There followed a delay, apparen tly caused by the Congregation’s inability to settle on an artist. At the meeting of M ay 14, 1627, various artists were proposed in connection with the three altarpieces in the north transept. One of these was Francesco Albani, who was eventually offered the commission for the altar- piece of Sts. Processus and M artinian .16 The others, less w ell known, included P ietro da Cortona, G iovanni Domenico M artian i, Benigno Vangelini (or U golini), Giovanni da S. Giovanni, Angelo Caroselli, Giovanni Giacomo Sementi, and Antonio Pomarancio.17 Because most of the cardinals on the Congregation were unac­quainted with these artists and knew nothing of their work, Cardinal Zacchia and Cardinal Aldobrandini were assigned the job of investigating them and reporting back on their merit. As it turned out, however, no such investi­gation was necessary, for on M ay 25 Cardinal Barberini intervened, letting it be known how he wanted the three paintings to be distributed: Albani was to be assigned one of them, Caroselli another, and the third was to go to Pietro da Cortona. Thus it came about that Cortona was given the commission for the St. Erasmiat, a commission he held from M ay 1627 until Februaiy 1628. During this eight-month period, he seems to have done little or no work on the altarpiece.18 Then, in Februaiy 1628, Cor­tona was granted an even more prestigious commission, to paint one of the large altarpieces in St. Peter’s, and the small Erasmus altarpiece was once again up for grabs.19

At this point Francesco Barberini introduced another of his proteges, a little-known Frenchman called Nicolas Poussin, and made it clear that he wanted the commission to go to him.20 The Congregation obliged, and on Jun e 12, 1629, Poussin received an initial payment of 100 ocud i By September, the painting was finished. Poussin was paid a set fee of 300 scud i, but he also received two bonuses amounting to an additional 100 scudi, bringing the real total to 400 scudi.

Poussin was instructed to paint the saint’s martyrdom (Fig. 127).21 He pictured the saint as a heroic nude, mus­cular and athletic, bent backwards over a rough wooden bench, his arms bound above his head. His bishop’s miter lies discarded on the ground, and his gorgeous red vest­ments are spread out beneath him like a pool of blood. Above him, the pagan priest, dressed in white, points urgently toward a gilded bronze statue of Hercules in the upper right corner, as though expecting the saint, even in extremity, to change his mind and worship the idol. The executioners, four in all, go about their grisly business, pulling out the saint’s intestines and winding them on a spool. Their turbans provide a note of exoticism, evoking the lands of the Middle East where Erasmus preached

and died. One of the executioners turns to converse with a mounted soldier, who points in the direction of the saint with a gesture of inquiry or command. Above, two putti fly in with a palm of martyrdom, a laurel crown, and a handful of flowers.

Poussin's composition makes use of a standard formula for the representation of martyrdom that originated in Venice in the second half of the sixteenth centuiy and flourished in Rome throughout the seventeenth centuiy.22 Various possible sources could be cited. For example, in Adam Elsheimer’s /Martyrdom o f St. Lawrence, painted in Rome in 1600-1601, the veiled priest who harangues the martyr and the statue of Hercules at which he points are almost identical in their poses, and in their placement within the composition, to the corresponding figures in Poussin’s painting (Fig. 131).23 A more recent source may have been Cortona’s St. Bibiana Reflating to Worship the Pagan Idol (1624-26), where the gesture of Bibiana’s com­panion as she points toward a statue of Jup iter is again rem in iscen t of the p rie st in P o u ssin ’s w o rk .24 But Poussin's most important model was undoubtedly the old altarpiece of St. Erasmus in St. Peter’s, for it was from this work that he took the essential elements of his narrative.

He was encouraged in this by the Chapter. The clergy of St. Peter's were extrem ely traditionalist. They trea­sured the old painting precisely because it was old, and because it had come from the Constantinian basilica. And although they recognized the need to replace it with a modern altarpiece, at the same time they wanted the new painting to serve as a kind of record of the old. Their atti­tude was expressed in a memo by one of their members, Angelo Giorio, in which he advised the artist to represent the saint’s martyrdom "in the form in which it is repre­sented in the painting that stands there now." Poussin fol­lowed Giorio’s instructions, and based his treatment of the subject on the earlier altarpiece. The martyr under­goes his torment in exactly the same fashion: Poussin even copied the motif of the executioner who reaches one hand into the wound to assist in extracting the guts. But Giorio did allow for one important innovation. Whether for iconographic or for formal reasons, he did not favor the rigid symmetry of the earlier work: “The only change that should be made is in the placement of the tribunal of the tyrant, so that the tyrant does not occupy the center of the composition, but is moved to one side.” Giorio’s simple instruction had the effect of promoting a more dynamic, asymmetrical composition. In Poussin’s paint­ing, the pagan priest (who replaces the tyrant) stands at the far left. The symmetry of the original is further dis­rupted by the placement of the bench on which the saint is pinioned, and the w indlass onto which his guts are being wound, at a pronounced angle to the picture plane. This enabled Poussin to set up a series of parallel diago­nals — the body of Erasmus, his intestines, the crank on

C A T A L O G U E 10 g g 2 2 7

the spool, the pointing arm of the priest, the palm held by the putto - all of which d irect the eye up and back toward the temple porch and the statue of Hercules.

Poussin developed this oblique composition with a conscious eye to the site for which his pain ting was intended. The altar ol St. Erasmus is located in the left niche ol the transept, at a 45-degree angle to the main axis of approach (Fig. 42). Poussin’s composition is sub­tly designed to accom modate the sp ec tato r’s in itia l, angled point of view. It is easy to forget, when one studies the painting today, out of its original setting and hanging in a museum, that it was meant to be seen, as it were, askance. Considered in this light, the strong diagonals that form the basis of Poussin’s composition take on new significance. The figures represented in Poussin’s paint­ing are positioned at an angle to the picture plane, yes, but not to the axes of the basilica, with which they are perfectly aligned. In an attempt to correct the awkward­ness of the site, then, Poussin made use of “baroque’’ diagonals in order to create the effect of an orderly and rational composition.

The solution was arrived at in stages. An early draw­ing by Poussin shows a quite different arrangement, with the saint over on the right, and the priest pointing back toward the left, where a second priest holds an idol in his arms (Fig. 128). This drawing also reveals that Poussin at first paid little attention to the iconography of the old altarpiece. Especially remarkable is his omission of the windlass and of the executioners who turn it. This omis­sion was corrected in a later drawing, which is in every respect closer to the final version (Fig. 129).

Poussin’s resourcefulness in accommodating his painting to its setting did not stop with his manipulation of the per­spective. The statue of Hercules is set between two colossal fluted columns of yellow marble. A pair of g ia l lo antico columns just like these flank the neighboring chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian. With the matching pair in the south transept, these precious antique columns were among the treasured possessions of the basilica.25 By including them in his composition, Poussin set up a visual link between the painting and its architectural surroundings. At the same time, he drew attention to the religious signifi­cance of the columns as opolia, for the columns in the paint­ing belong to a pagan temple of Hercules, but in St. Peter's these same columns are converted to Christian use.

Poussin apparently made a conscious decision to repre­sent the pagan idol in the guise of Hercules, for the god’s identity is mentioned in none of the accounts of the saint’s life. Poussin’s choice was a subtle one, for it allowed him to set up a powerful contrast between the pagan athlete Her­cules on the one hand, and Erasmus, the athlete of Christ, on the other.26 Physically, the two are nearly identical: both in their prime, bearded, nude, and muscular. But the con­trasts are still more telling. The statue’s proud pose and

haughty expression suggest the arrogance of triumph, and yet it is the saint, captive and bound though he is, who truly deserves the epithet Victor Hercules wears a wreath of oak; but Erasmus is about to receive the laurel wreath, a symbol of the eternal life that awaits him after death. Her­cules holds the club; but Erasmus's club is the palm of mar­tyrdom, which is mightier by far. Poussin juxtaposes the palm and the club so as to make the contrast all the plainer.

Poussin’s St. Eraomuo is a compelling and complex work of art, in which a brutal subject is made beautiful. It is p robab ly the best known of the altarp ieces in St. Peter's and, despite its goriness (or perhaps because of it), one of the best loved. It is difficult to understand, therefore, why it is often asserted that the painting was considered a failure. Indeed, some scholars have main­tained that the critical reaction was so unfavorable that it resulted in Poussin’s abandoning large-scale religious art altogether. Anthony Blunt’s interpretation is typical:

. . . he obtained the commission [for the /Martyrdom o f St. Eraomuo] in 1628 through Cardinal Barberini. This was, of course, the chance for which every young artist in Rome longed, but there is some reason to think that Poussin did not profit much from it from the point of view of his own career. In any case, it remained his only public picture painted in Rome, and we can feel in San­drart s account of its reception that many critics disap­proved of it, and preferred its pendant, Valentin’s Martyr­dom o f St Proceoouo and St Martiniamut, for its colour, its naturalism, and its vigor. The truth seems to be that Poussin already felt ill at ease in these big compositions in which the Baroque painters scored their great successes, and his attempt to produce a design which should be in accordance with his own principles and yet fulfil the needs of an altarpiece for St Peter’s led to a compromise which satisfied neither condition.27

Blunt cites Sandrart s account of the paragon e between Poussin’s altarpiece and the neighboring altarpiece by Valentin as evidence that Poussin’s painting was not well received. But Sandrart, in fact, says no such thing. On the contrary, he states that expert and impartial connoisseurs considered Poussin’s and V alentin ’s paintings equally accomplished:

Next to the aforementioned Valentin, he [i.e. Poussin] also painted an altarpiece in St. Peter’s basilica, represent­ing St. Erasmus, who has his entrails extracted from his belly by torturers, which painting was exhibited even as the aforementioned work by Valentin was being praised. Whereupon, since eveiyone was eager to see such things, there was afterwards a considerable debate, since some preferred one and some preferred the other. But unbiased connoisseurs held both works in high esteem, and judged that neither yielded to the other, nor had cause to be praised above the other; and furthermore that where Poussin was preferred in the represention of the passions, in the expression of emotion, and in invention, Valentin

2 2 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

excelled in true naturalism, strength, heightened tonality [Erhebung des Colorits], and harmony ol color; that in other words both masters played the game and neither of them won or lost. Except that Poussin, because he was blessed with a long life, had the advantage [over Valentin], and was able constantly to improve in the world-famous school of the arts that is Rome.28

Sandrart goes out of his w ay to stress that the two paint­ings, so dramatically different in style, were received with equal favor by the cogtuwcenti of Rome. And this, coming from an artist who was himself, like Valentin, a Car- avaggist, is a clear indication of the genuine admiration Poussin’s painting aroused. Sandrart’s account is of par­ticular interest because, although he wrote it many years after the fact, he was in Rome when the two paintings were unveiled and presumably not only witnessed but also participated in the debate.29

If Sandrart did not originate the notion that the Eras­m us w as a failure, where did the notion come from? Poussin himself, according to Passeri, later claimed that his accomplishment had never been duly acknowledged: "Nicolo always said with regard to this painting that he had received no recogn ition , but he did not know whether this was the result of his own failure, or because of the malevolence of those in charge of the commission. ” Leaving aside the fact that we are dealing here with a standard topos of the biographical literature — the artist lamenting that his work has not been sufficently appreci­ated - the evidence flatly contradicts Poussin’s assertion, which in any case was made many years after the fact. “Those in charge of the commission," as Poussin refers to them, far from showing him any ill will, paid him more than they paid anyone else for a comparably sized can­vas, with the exception of the longtime favorite of Urban VIII, Domenico Passignano. They paid him more than they paid Valentin. And the fact that they awarded him not one but two bonuses, of 50 scu d i each, is surely an indication of their absolute satisfaction with the work.

As for the reaction to the St. Erasmus of Poussin’s fellow artists, the evidence is mixed. Gianlorenzo Bernini, for one, admired the work tremendously. It demonstrated, he said, "a profundity and solidity of knowledge,” and were he himself a painter, "this work would make him deeply envious.” Bernini was on familiar terms with the pope and his nephew, and is certain to have shared his opinion with them. Indeed, he boasted as much in a conversation with Paul Freart de Chantelou, which took place some thirty- five years later: "I have always esteemed Monsieur Poussin very highly, and I remember how annoyed Guido Reni was with me because of the way in which I spoke of the /Martyrdom o f St. Erasmus, as in his opinion I had exagger­ated its beauty to Urban VIII.” It has been suggested that this and other comments by Bernini concerning Poussin

should be taken with a grain of salt, since he made them while in France, where Poussin was revered as a national hero, and since he made them in conversation w ith Chantelou, a longtime friend and admirer of Poussin, who owned a number of his paintings. But we may safely take Bernini at his word in this case, for additional evidence confirms the high opinion he had of the St. Erasmus. Between 1636 and 1640, Bernini collaborated closely with the painter Carlo Pellegrini on an altarpiece representing the Martyrdom o f St. M aurice and the Theban Legion, commis­sioned for another altar in St. Peter’s.30 Payment docu­ments name Pellegrini as the actual author of this work, but so intimately was Bernini involved in its creation that most of his ear ly biographers, including his own son Domenico, attribute it to him. A glance at the painting reveals its frank dependence on Poussin’s St. Erasmus. The position of the two fluted columns in the upper right cor­ner, the position and pose of the horseman and his horse, the gesture of the priest pointing back in space: all are vir­tually identical to the corresponding passages in Poussin’s work. The light, bright color scale is also highly reminis­cent. The Alartyrdom o f St. M aurice is, in fact, the ultimate tribute to Poussin’s altarpiece.

Bernini claimed to have observed Poussin while he was painting the Erasmus, and implied that the French­man made use of a light palette in order to compensate in advance for the darkening effects of aging. The anecdote is revealing, not only for what it suggests about Poussin’s technique, but still more for the image it conjures up of Bernini visiting Poussin’s studio and watching him at work.31

We may take it, then, that Bernini was sincere in his admiration of the St. Erasmus. Guido Reni, on the other hand, seems to have had his reservations, accusing Bernini of exaggerating the painting’s beauty in his discussions with Urban VIII. In evaluating Reni’s reacrion, however, we need to take into account his own unhappy history in connecrion with St. Peter’s. He too had been commissioned to paint one of the altarpieces: for the altar of the Trinity in the New Sac­risty.32 But he got into trouble with the cardinals of the Fab­brica, who accused him of procrastinating, and as a result he left Rome in a huff, after first destroying the portion of the altarpiece that he had already painted. Reni’s departure in January 1628 resulted in a general shuffling of commissions: Pietro da Cortona was given the large Trinity altarpiece that had been Reni’s, and the small Erasmus altarpiece, formerly assigned to Cortona, was passed on to Poussin. Under the circumstances, it comes as no surprise that Reni nursed a certain grudge against those artists who profited from his own disastrous failure at St. Peter’s. Furthermore, Reni was aw ay from Rome when Poussin’s painting was unveiled: whatever opinion of the painting he later formed, it could not have influenced the inirial public reaction.

C A T A L O G U E 10 2 2 9

The evidence suggests that, at the time of its unveiling, Poussin’s M artyrdom o f St. Eraomuo was highly regarded. And even later, after he had more or less abandoned large- scale religious art and gained fame as a painter of smaller works for private patrons, Poussin’s devotees continued to gather in St. Peter’s to admire his early masterpiece. If the picture lost something of its reputation later on, it may have been in part because of the damage it suffered from exposure to humidity, dust, and smoke, the effects of which were already apparent during Poussin’s lifetime. At one point, Bernini is supposed to have described it as "so dark that it is almost indecipherable.”33 Raffaele Vanni restored it in 1662.34 But a few years later, a Frenchman visiting St. Peter’s observed that the picture had become drab (m at is the word he used). If Poussin used a light palette in order to defend against future darkening, the strategy evidently failed. But fortunately the degradation of the surface must have been superficial, and today the cleaned painting is in apparently good condition.

The altarpieee remained in situ until 1739, when it was rep laced by a mosaic reproduction by Pietro Paolo Cristofari.35 Along with Guercino’s St. Petronilla and Sac- chi’s M iraculmu AIom o f St. Gregory, it was taken to Paris under Napoleon, but was later returned, and is today in the Vatican Pinacoteca.

D R A W I N G S

1. Ambrosiana, Cartella 8 , no. F 253, inf. 1075. Reed- pen and b ister over b lack chalk ; 20 X 12.3 cm. Inscribed: "Ciro Ferri." An early composition study, which differs considerably from the painting. The saint is positioned with his head at the right edge of the drawing, his body in a cramped, half-seated pose. There are two priests instead of one: one stands near the saint’s head and points back toward the other, at the center of the composition, who holds a small statue of a pagan god (the second priest is mistakenly identified by Blunt as a woman carrying a child). The spool is missing. One executioner reaches his hand into the open w ound in the s a in t ’s belly , w h ile another carries off the saint’s vestments in a bundle (this figure, too, was identified by Blunt as a woman with a child!). See Friedlaender and Blunt, 1939-74, V, pp. 85-86. See also Oberhuber, 1988, pp. 198-99; Nu-oLht PouMin, 1994, p. 176. (Fig. 128)

2. Uffizi, No. 885e. Reed pen and bister; 20.5 X 13.2 cm. A later composition study, very close to the painted version. The saint is turned around and stretched out. There is only one priest, who points toward a statue of a pagan god, flanked by columns, in the upper right corner. The spool now makes its appear­ance, along with the executioner who winds it. Eras­mus’s vestments lie on the ground below him. See

Friedlaender, 1939—74, I, p. 39; Oberhuber, 1988, pp. 198-99; Nicolao Pouo.nn, 1994, p. 176. (Fig. 129)

B O Z Z E T T I

1. By 1630, Poussin’s sketch for the St. Eraennuo had a lre a d y en te red the B arb er in i co llec tio n : “Un Quadretto con Sant’Erasmo cioe lo schizzo di quella di S. Pietro . . . di mano di Monsu Posino” (M. A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 99 and passim .) The Barberin i sketch is now in the National Gallery in Ottawa (see Costello, 1975, esp. p. 5). (Fig. 130)

2. Another sketch, in the G alleria Nazionale in the Palazzo Barberini in Rome, may be a copy after the finished work.

D O C U M E N T S

1624, May 19; “A latere eiusdem Altaris situm est altare Sancti Erasmi nuncupatum nec consecratum, nec onera- tum aliquo onere, sacra vero suppellectili sufficenter instructum.’’ (Doc. Appendix, no. 3)

1624, Sept. 21: “Visitatio altaris S. Erasmi.Vota quae pendent affixa Iconi seu imagini altaris, aufer- antur et affigantur comicibus eiusdem imaginis.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 4)

Date uncertain (c. 1626): In a jotted list of possible titles for the altars in St. Peter’s, the altar is referred to by the title of St. Luke. (Doc. Appendix, no. 10)

1626, Nov. 4: “Vi restano le infrascritte Tavole [da dipingersi]

S. Erasmo" (Doc. Appendix, no. 9)Date uncertain (c. Jan . 1627): “Altare S. Erasmi Episc. et

Mart. Ex antiqua devotione pendent tabellae votivae et fiunt ad illud oblationes.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 11)

Date uncertain (c. 1627): "La Tavola di S. Erasmo, che sara nell’altra Cappella collaterale di SS. Processo e Martini- ano nel sito medesimo dove e hoggi, si potra fare che contenga il martirio del sudetto santo nella forma che si vede nella Tavola che vi sta hoggi. Solamente si awerta di mutare il sito del tribunale del tiranno, accio l’lmagine del tiranno non venghi a risedere in mezzo dell’Altare, ma si faccia da un lato.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 16)

1627, May 14: "Et quia adhuc pingendae supersunt Tabu­lae Altaris SSorum Processi, et Martiniani aliaeque duae Collaterales, pro quibus supradicti alij Pictores instant de illorum peritia, et qualitate aliqui ex Illustrissim is Dominis certam notitiam ad praesens non habentes, rog- arunt Illustrissimos Dominos Cardinales Sancti Sixti et Aldobrandinum, ut de praemissis se diligenter informent, et deinde huic Sac. Congregationi referant." (P. 94)

1627, May 25: "lllustrissimus et Reverendissimus Domi- nus Cardinalis Barberinus dixit quod valde cuperet

2 3 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

quod una ex supradictis Iconis quae adhuc pingendae remanent pingenda consignaretur Albano Bononensi, et altera Petro Berrettino Cortonensi.” (AFSP, Piano 1 -serie 3-no. 171, f. 79)

c. 1627: "Nota delle Cappelle da dipingersi, et dei Pittori

8. Di S. Erasmo........................... 8 . Cortonese”(Doc. Appendix, no. 14)

1628, before Feb. 5: Nicolas Poussin writes to Cardinal Gin- nasi, asking to be given the commission for the small altar- piece previously assigned to Pietro da Cortona. He is rec­ommended by Cardinal Francesco Barberini. (P. 2162)

1628, Feb. 5: “Per la partita di Guido che resta a darsi ad altri la sua Tavola il S.r Card. Barb[erin]o propone per una Tavola grande Pietro Cortonese, et per la piccola ch’aveva il Cortonese, . . . Posino.” (P. 98—99)

1628, March 16: Payment of sc. 8 owed to G. B. Soria “per haver fatto un telaro di legname d’albuccio per tirar la tela per dipingere all'Altare di S. Rasimo . . . alto palmi 14 largo palmi 8 '/2." (P. 42)

1629, May 30: Balance of sc. 3.50 owed to G. B. Soria “Per haver fatto il tavolo dietro al quadro dell’Altare di S. Rasimo.” (P. 42)

1629, June 12: Initial payment of sc. 100 to Poussin “a conto del quadro che deve fare di S. Erasmo.” (P. 2163)

1629, Ju ly 12 - Sept. 7: Two payments of sc. 200 to Poussin “a bon conto del quadro fatto in S. Pietro di S. Erasmo.” (P. 2164)

1629, Oct. 17: Payment of sc. 50 to Poussin “per donativo che si compiace larli la S. Congreg. per il S. Erasmo fatto da lui.” (P. 2165)

1629, Nov. 20: Payment of sc. 50 to Poussin “per altro donativo che gli fa la S. Congreg.” (P. 2166)

1699, Ju ly 25: "Alcuni giovani oltramontani consideravano in S. Pietro il S. Erasmo di Nicolo Pusino. Sopragiunse il Bernini e gli disse: 'Vedete voi questo quadro quanto e oscuro che appena si scuopre; l'ho io medesimo veduto operar dal Pusino e vi si mantenne piutosto chiaro che no. Imparate a coprire i vostri quadri piu di una volta se volete che si conservino lungo tempo, e mantenetegli vaghi e chiari che il medesimo gli accordera e diverranno piu ricacciati et oscuri che non credete. ” (BAV, Vat. Lat. 8622, f. 425v; partially cited in Dowley, 1965, p. 77, n. 122)

S O U R C E S

Chantelou, 1885, p. 67: " J ’ai [i.e. Bernini] toujours estime le seigneur Poussin et je me souviens que le Guide me voulait mal de la fa^on dont je parlai de son tableau du Martyre de saint Erasme qui est dans Saint-Pierre, en ayant a son gre trop exagere la beaute a Urbain VIII, a qui je dis: Se io fossi pittore, quel quadro mi daria gran mortificazione.”

p. 146: " Je lui ai dit que c ’etait dommage que M. Poussin n’eut eu de grandes occasions. II a reparti que 9’avait ete lui qui lui avait procure celle du tableau de Saint-Pierre, que des peintres signales lui en avaient voulu du mal. J 'a i dit que je ne tenais pas ce tableau des beaux qu’il eut faits. II a reparti qu’il etait tres-beau: che dentro ci era il fondo et il sodo del saper.”

Bellori, 1672 (1976), pp. 428-29: "Risplendeva allora nella corte il cavaliere Cassiano del Pozzo, illustre di virtu, di dottrina e di ogni nobile studio d ’arte, e d’ammo insieme magniFico ed umanissimo nell’accogbere peregrini ingegni: da questo signore Nicolo veniva sollevato allora, con sollecitargli l ’occasioni di dipingere e con nutrirlo nella grazia del cardinale, col cui favore gli fu allogata dalla fabbrica l ’una delle tre tavole minori nella tribuna sinistra della Basilica Vaticana col Martirio di Santo Erasmo, la quale opera felicemente egli ridusse a perfezzione.

Vien f'lgurato il Santo ignudo e supino sopra uno scanno o ceppo di legno: resta il corpo disteso e disposto al martirio, pendendo avanti il petto, con la testa e le mam legate verso terra; mentre il manigoldo, aperte I’interiora, con la destra gli distacca le budella e con la sinistra le tira fuori, e dietro il compagno gira una burbara e le avvolge intorno a guisa di fune. II Santo semivivo esprime in tutte le membra e nel volto l’estremo suo patimento, standogli appresso un falso sacerdote che lo persuade all’indolatria e gli addita la statua di Ercole per rimuoverlo dalla fede cristiana. Questi e figurato in un vecchio tutto avvolto in un manto bianco sopra la testa velato, e distendendo il braccio ignudo nell’additare s'inclina alquanto verso il Santo ritenendo il manto al seno con l'altra mano: dis- postissima e principal figura nell’estremita del quadro. Dietro di esso si scopre alquanto la testa d un cavallo, col capitano armato che addita il supplicio; ne minore e il senso de’ circostanti, poiche appresso il manigoldo che sventra il Santo Martire vi e uno con gli occhi intenti alio spettacolo crudele, e piu dietro si stende avanti la faccia d un giovine con orrore. Sotto il ceppo in terra vedesi la mitra e I manto del Santo Vescovo, e nell’aria volano due amoretti, l ’uno con fiori nella mano, l'altra porta la corona e la palma. L’istoria e finta in luogo aperto, e la statua d’Ercole si solleva a sinistra avanti due colonne d un por­tico, e 1 lume venendo a destra per fianco lllumina da quella parte la figura del sacerdote col manto bianco e 1 petto con le braccia cadenti del Santo, rimanendo il resto in ombra ed in mezze tinte, con pochi lumi su l’estremita principali. Sotto Nicolo scrisse il proprio nome, "Nicolaus Pusin fecit.”

Passeri, pp. 325—26: "Col favore del Cavaliere Cassiano dal Pozzo Fiorentino, persona dotata di somma virtu ne' costumi et illustre per la dottrina et erudizione d ’ogni

C A T A L O G U E 10 2 3 1

stud io p e r s in g o la re [ch e s ia ] , e t in s iem e g en ero so et am atore d i ra r i e p ereg rin i ingegn i h aveva N icolo fatto il qu ad ro n e lla B a s ilic a di S . P ie tro che v ien e a l ia p arte d e lla s in is tra de lle due b racc ia la te ra l! a l ia croce d i tu tta la p ia n ta n e l la q u a le r a p p re s e n to il S a n to V esco v o E rasm o che in odio d e lla fede r ic ev e q u e l torm entoso m artirio di essere sven trato e r ito rteg li l ’in te rio ra ad un a b u rb ura , et in tan to in stigato d a un sacerdo te id o la tra ad ad o ra re il s im u lac ro d i E rco le co llocato in luogo su b ­lim e. D i questo qu ad ro d isse sem pre N icolo non havere h au ta ricogn iz ione n essun a non sapendo se cio g li fosse succeduto p er p ro pria d isg raz ia , o pure p er m a lign ita di chi so p ra in tendeva a queste c a r ic h e .”

S an d ra rt : F o r S a n d r a r t ’s acco un t o f the d eb a te o ver the re la tiv e m erits o f P o ussin 's an d V a le n tin ’s a lta rp ie ce s , see the Sou rces section a t the end o f C at. 11.

S p ecch w d i R om a ba ro cca , 1991, p- 23: "D ans l ’au tre b ras de la cro isee de l ’eg lise on rencontre d ’abord un tab leau du celebre Poussin frangois qu i rep resen te le m arty re de st. E rasm e. C 'est dom m age que les co u leu rs com m encent a se p asser et que le tab leau dem eure m at.”

Felib ien , 1725, IV, pp. 19—20: "Le Poussin lu t un de ceux q u ’il [i.e . C assiano d a l Pozzo] con sid era beaucoup , cher- chan t meme tous les m oyens de fa ire connoitre les rares ta len s q u ’il voyo it en lu i. Com m e il le servo it au p res du C ard in a l B arb erin i, il lu i p ro cu ra un des tab le au x que Ton devo it fa ire d an s l ’E glise de S a in t P ie r re .”

P iazza, 1687, p. 320: “[Il qu ad ro d i S . E rasm o e] egreg ia- m ente d ip in to d a M onsu Post P ittore ce lebre F rancese : che ap pun to e un m iraco lo de ll A rte , e rap isce a m ar- a v ig l ia i r ig u a rd a n t i in q u e l g r a n d e sp e tta c o lo d e lla c ru d e lta d e ’ G e n tili, e d e lla p a t ie n z a in v it t is s im a d i questo g lo rioso M a r t ire .”

Bottari, 1754: see the Sources section at the end o f C at. 8.

N O T E S

1. The inscription m ay have been added by R aflaele Vanni in a restoration of 1662. See Passeri, p. 326, n. 1.

2. On C lem ent’s project for the transept altars, see C hapter 2. The three o tor ie on the vault of the chapel of St. Erasmus are: (1) St. Jam es before Herod A grippa; (2 ) S t. Jam e s on his w ay to m artyrdom pausing to heal a para lytic : (3) the M artyrdom of St. Jam es .

3. [Sep t. 12—17, 1628] "A ltare S . Erasm i Episcopi et M ar- ty r is , cu i fuerun t a ss ig n a tae R e liq u iae A lta r is e iu sdem Sancti in veteri iam dem olita Basilica, sub Paulo V amoti R eliqu iae S. Valentini M arty ris , S. A lexij Confessoris, S. C ath arin ae V irg in is et M a r ty r is . De d issecra tio n e dicti A lta r is est ro gatu s d ic tu s J a c o b u s G rim aldu s in d icto Libro fol. 10 ad quod etc .” (Doc. Appendix, no. 21)

4. A halfhearted suggestion to dedicate the a lta r in honor of St. Luke came to nothing. See Doc. Appendix, no. 10.

5. Sindone, 1744, p. 25.6. On St. Erasmus, see Acta SS, Ju n e , 1, pp. 211-19 ; Reau,

1955-59, I l l . i , pp. 437—10; B ib lio th eca S anctorum , 1961-70, IV, cols. 1288—93. On the introduction of his cu lt in St. P eter’s, see Turcio, 1946, p. 107; Jo u n e l, 1977, p. 243.

7. A lfarano, p. 92 and n. 1. The early h istory of the a lta r is som ewhat confused. It appears that it w as first dedicated to St. Antoninus M artyr, then to St. Bridget, and finally to St. Erasmus.

8. A lfaran o , p. 67, n. 1 and p. 68: "A ltare an tiqu issim umsancto V incislao Regi Boemiorum m artyri d icatum [. . .]nunc etiam sub vocabulo sancti Erasm i Episcopi er m ar­tyris , eo quod inibi eius imago apposita fuerit, et ad hon- orem utrorum que et sancti Bartholomei Apostoli de novo consecratum fuerit.”

9. C allot added a b lank lunette to the top of the p icture to m ake the p rin t conform to others in the series, most of w hich feature arched tops. See L ieure, 1924-29, II (i), p. 11; Loire, 1993, p. 107.

10. M an c in i, 1956, I, p. 268 and II, pp. 1 71 -72 , n. 1255.M ancin i s attribution needs to be taken seriously, for hew as a canon o f St. Peter’s and m ay have had access to reli­ab le information regard ing the authorsh ip of the painting.

11. Hess, 1968, pp. 109—13.12. The date proposed by H ess cannot, in fact, be correct,

since it can be dem onstrated that a lready in 1574 the old Erasm us a ltarp iece w as in need o f c lean ing and resto ra­tion. The landscape, the baldachin, the ty ran t’s robes, and vario us o ther d e ta ils w ere ex ten s iv e ly repain ted a t that time. The relevant documents are transcribed in Cascioli, 1925, pp. 231—32: "An. 1574. Conto del p itto re P ietro M o n g a rd in i. [. . .] P er il q u ad ro d i s.to R asim o tutto raconciato dove era guasto e livato via il geso tutto rasset- tato e rifatto teste e mane e il piano con le verdure, e sopra il re rifreschato il b a ld ach in o che ap en a si conosceva e ancora la vesta del re e la beretta di quello che li sta a man- cha e per tutto il quadro dove era stato guasto e lavatto e verngato con vern ice fina m ontarebbe piu assa i di scudi c inque per aver cosi detto nell’a ltro conto sc. 5 .” The occa­sion for the resto ration w as the tran sfer o f the title and pain ting of St. Erasm us to the a lta r of St. W enceslas.

13. Indeed, M ancin i confirms this elsew here, in his Viaggio p e r Roma, w here he notes that the E rasm us a ltarp iece dates from the fifteenth century. See M ancin i, 1956, I, p. 72.

14. Bouts’s M artyrd om o f St. Eraomtui is the central panel of a triptych .

15. Friedlander, 1968, p. 20.16. See Cat. 11.17. P ietro da Cortona w as a lread y an established favorite of

the B arberin i, having w orked for them at S . B ib iana (Brig- anti, 1982, pp. 168—69; M erz, 1991, pp. 113—39). The same is true of the M ilanese G iovanni Domenico M artian i, or M arzian i, w ho painted the figure of God the Father over the h igh a lta r in S . B ib ian a (see B rigan ti, 1982, p. 169; Vasco Rocca, 1983, p. 91; M erz, 1991, pp. 106—107, 119. S ee a lso D oc. A p p en d ix , no. 9, in w h ich M a r t ia n i is described as ’’p ittore del S ignor C ard inal Padrone”). On Benigno V angelin i, w hose only know n w ork is an a ltar- piece in S . G irolamo degli Sch iavoni, see Baglione, 1642, pp. 366—67; Thiem e-Becker, XXXIII, p. 541, and XXXIV,

2 3 2 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

p. 96. Giovanni da S . G iovanni, a F lorentine, had w orked in Rome since 1622. In 1626, he w rote to the C ongrega­tion, ask in g for the com mission to pain t the vau lt o f the first chapel on the left of the nave, known as the chapel of the C ruc ifix . Instead, his nam e w as added to the lis t of painters being considered for altarp ieces (see Cat. 2). On Angelo C aroselli, G iovanni Giacomo Sem enti, and Anto­n io P o m aran c io , see C a t. 12, C a t. 11, an d C a t. SP . 4 respectively.

18. Cortona w as occupied at the time w ith the decoration of the V illa Sacchetti as C astel Fusano, w hich m ay exp lain w hy he did not im m ediately get to w ork on the St. Erasmus altarpiece. A couple of d raw ings representing the M artyr­dom o f St. Eraomuo have been attributed to Cortona in the past, and associated w ith the St. Peter’s commission, but it now seems un like ly that these d raw ings are by Cortona. One of them (W indsor Castle, Inv. 11991) has been con­v in c in g ly iden tif ied by U rsu la F isch er Pace (1996 , pp. 137-61) as a p reparato iy study by Giacinto Gimignano for the altarpiece he painted in 1640 for the a ltar of St. E ras­mus in the church of S. M aria in Campo Santo. The other (Uffizi, Inv. 3032s) is somewhat more problematic. Briganti (1960) w as the first to assign it to Cortona, and in this he w as follow ed by B lun t (1967 , pp. 86—87 ) and C oste llo (1975, p. 11). W alter Vitzthum, on the other hand, rejected Brigand's attribution and attributed the d raw ing instead to Pietro Testa, relaring it to Testa’s engrav ing o f the M artyr­dom o f St. Eraomuo from c. 1630 (1967, pp. 72 -73 ). M ore recen tly , the d raw in g has been lifted from its m ount to rev ea l a second d raw in g on the b ack , w h ich b ea rs no resemblance to Cortona's style of the 1620s. This d iscovety led Blunt to revise his earlie r opinion and reattribute the sheet to a follower of Cortona, perhaps C iro Ferri (1979, pp. 141—42).

19. See Cat. 6.20. Passeri (p. 325), Bellori (1672 [1976], p. 428 ), and Feli-

bien (1725, IV, p. 19) record that Poussin ’s appointm ent came about as the resu lt of C assiano dal Pozzo’s influence; Bernini too claim ed to have had a hand in a rrang ing the com m ission (C h an te lo u , 1885, p. 146). S in ce both men w ere close to C ard inal B arberin i, it is probable that they both encouraged him to assign Poussin an altarp iece. For more on C ard ina l B arberin i s p atronage of Poussin , see C hapter 8.

21. The literature on Poussin ’s St. Eraomuo is immense, but the follow ing are among the important contributions: Briganti, 1960, pp. 16-20; Friedlaender, 1966, p. 100; B lunt, 1966, pp. 6 6 -6 8 ; B lun t, 1967 (a ) , pp. 8 5 -9 0 ; C oste llo , 1975; W ild, 1980, I, pp. 35—36; II, pp. 25—26; Bernini in Vaticano, 1981, pp. 61 -62 ; O berhuber, 1988, pp. 175-76 , 195-99 ; Nicotao Pouooin, 1994, pp. 172-77.

22. On the formal kinship between the St. Ermimiui and Venet­ian prototypes such as Titian's Death o f St. P eter M artyr and Veronese’s M artyrdom o f Sto. Primuo and Felicianuo, see Stein, 1952, p. 5; Blunt, 1966, p. 67.

23. The sim ilarity between Elsheimer’s St. Lawrence and Poussin's St. Eraomuo w as first noted by Andrews, 1977, p. 142.

24. Friedlaender, 1966, p. 100.

25. The four g reat colum ns of qiallo an tico w ere cleaned and p a in stak in g ly restored in 1596—97 (AFSP, Piano 1—serie a rm ad i-n o . 152, ff. 31, 37, 42 , 4 3 ), and ag a in in 1601 (AFSP, Piano 1 -serie arm ad i-n o . 162, f. 57). C ancellieri identifies them as opolia from the Forum of Trajan (1788, p. 65).

26. P e rh a p s in sp ire d b y P o u ss in ’s St. E raomuo, V a len tin included an im age of H ercules in re lief on the base of the statue of Ju p ite r in his own Afartyrdom o f Sto. Proceoouo and Alartinian (see C at. 11). The significance seems to be the sam e in both altarp ieces. H ercules is a pagan type for the Christian m artyr; because he underw ent a series of labors, suffered a cruel death, and w as ultim ately rew arded with im m ortality, his life offers inevitable paralle ls to the lives of the m artyr saints.

27. Blunt, 1982 (a ), pp. 274-75.28. For the German text, see the Sources section at the end of

Cat. 11.29. Thuillier, 1960, pp. 77-79 .30. See Cat. 7.31. See the D ocuments section at the end of the entiy.32. See Cat. 6.33. ". . . quanto e oscuro che appena si scuopre.” The passage

is cited in full in the Documents section at the end of the entry.

34. Passeri, p. 326, n. 1.35. Di Federico, 1983, p. 74.

C A T A L O G U E 1 1

ALTAR OF S T S . P R O C E S S U S AND M A R T IN IA N [1 6 ]

Valentin, Afartyrdom o f Sto. Proceoouo and Afartinian(1629-30)

Oil on canvas; 320 X 186 cmVatican Pinacoteca; mosaic replica in situ(Figs. 132-133, 135)

The chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian occupies the central niche in the north transept (Fig. 132). Like the other transept chapels, it was sumptuously decorated with polychrome marble revetment and gilt stucco under Clement VIII, as part of his scheme to embellish the tomb of the Apostles and its surroundings.1 Clement planned to dedicate the chapel in honor of St. Paul, as can be ascertained from the stucco roundels in the vault, which illustrate scenes from the saint’s life (Fig. 44 ).2 He conceived of this chapel and the corresponding chapel in the south transept, which he planned to dedicate in honor of St. Peter, as pendants bracketing the tomb of the Apostles. The idea was never realized, however, and the altar in the north transept remained empty and unti­tled until, under Paul V, the bodies of Sts. Processus and

C A T A L O G U E 11 2 3 3

Martinian were brought there from their altar in the old basilica.

Processus and Martinian were imperial soldiers who, having been assigned the task of guarding Peter in the Mamertine prison in Rome, fell under the spell of his preaching and were converted. After being baptized, the converts w ere in turn arrested , beaten , and fin a lly beheaded by order of the emperor Nero.3 Their bodies were buried in the catacombs of St. Agatha, on the Via Aurelia, where they remained until Paschal I (817-824) removed them for safekeeping to the Vatican basilica.4 Transplanted to St. Peter’s, the cult of Processus and M artin ian flourished. In the southeast corner of the transept, Paschal built a chapel in their honor ("orato- rium eximiae quidem magnitudinis et pulchritudinis ”),5 which he decorated with costly mosaics, icons of gilded silver, precious lamps and candlesticks, and a pair of bronze gates.6 In 1548, to make w ay for the construction of the new basilica, the chapel was demolished, but the altar, with the relics, was relocated and reconsecrated in the nave of old St. Peter’s.7 In 1605, with the demolition of the old nave imminent, the altar and relics had to be moved once aga in .8 The a lta r w as deconsecrated on October 21; the bodies of the two saints, preserved in a prophyry urn, were moved first to the sacristy and then, on December 28, to the altar in the north transept of the new church. The altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian in the new basilica, like its predecessor in the old, is one of the seven privileged altars.9

There w as never an y doubt that the a lta r of Sts. Processus and Martinian would be among those included in new St. Peters. It was one of the most important and one of the richest altars in the basilica. Over the centuries the endowment established by Paschal I had been aug­mented by various wealthy donors, so that by the six­teenth century it generated sufficient income to support at least two priests, who earned their living by perform­ing masses and other services at the altar.10 In 1621, the altar was once again enriched when Antonio M aria Aldo- brandini, a member of the Chapter, gave 1,300 scudi to found an additional chaplaincy.11

In 1605, or soon after, Siciolante da Sermoneta’s Virgin and Child with Sts. Francis and Boniface o f Tarsus, and Pope Boniface VIII, painted c. 1574 for the chapel of St. Boni­face IV in the old basilica, was installed over the altar of Sts. Processus and M artin ian in the new (F ig. 53 ) . 12

Obviously the subject of the painting had nothing to do with the dedication of the altar, nor did the painting’s dimensions accord w ith those of the a lta r ’s aed icu lar frame; it is clear that the picture was put there only as a temporary measure until a new altarpieee could be com­missioned.13 Twenty years later, however, Sicio lante s altarpieee was still in place, much to the displeasure of

one of the priests assigned to the altar. In September 1626, Stefano Landi, a ch ierico beneficiato in the Chapter of St. Peter's, w rote to C ard inal G innasi, ask ing for a replacement for the “picture over the altar, which comes from the old basilica, and has nothing to do with the story of Sts. Processus and M artinian .”14

Landi not only asked for an altarpieee, he also had a specific painter in mind. In his letter, he urged Cardinal Ginnasi to give the commission to Giovanni Giacomo Sementi, a Bolognese pupil of Reni.15 Both Landi and Sementi were in the service of Cardinal M aurizio di Savoia. Sementi was the cardinal’s official painter, living in the card ina l’s palace and receiving a stipend. That Landi, too, was a protege, is indicated by the fact that he dedicated several pieces ol music to the cardinal and to members of his family.16 Thus Landi s machinations prob­ably originated not with himself but with his patron, who in this case used one client to forward the prospects of another. In fact, Cardinal Maurizio followed up Landi s petition with a recommendation of his own.17 But all in vain. Sem enti’s name was added to the list of painters being considered for commissions, but he w as never awarded one.18

A document dated November 4, 1626, records a pro­posal made by the Congregation to give the commission to “Gioseppino” (i.e. Cavaliere d'Arpino), but this too came to nothing. By M ay 14, 1627, a painter had still not been chosen, and Cardinals Zacchia and Aldobrandini were put in charge ol investigating the qualifications of a short list of possible candidates, which included, in addi­tion to Sementi, Francesco Albani, Pietro da Cortona, Giovanni Domenico M artiani, Benigno Vangelini, and several others .19 Zacchia and A ldobrandini had little opportunity to act, though, for ten days later Cardinal Francesco Barberini intervened, letting it be known that he wanted the commission to go to Francesco Albani.

Of the painters on the short list, Albani was the obvi­ous choice, as the oldest and best known. True, he was not in Rome at the time, having returned to Bologna some two years earlier.20 But this in itself need not have disqual­ified him; since the altarp ieee is re la tive ly small and painted on canvas, he could have produced it in Bologna and sent it to Rome. Offered so prestigious an appoint­ment and at the particular recommendation ol the cardinal padrone, it is hard to imagine that Albani would have turned it down; and Malvasia implies that he sent at least a conditional acceptance .21 Nevertheless, for reasons unknown, the commission fell through, and by 1629 the cardinals were looking for another candidate. There is evi­dence — in the form of a canceled marginal notation — that they briefly considered Alessandro Tiarini, but when Car­dinal Francesco recommended the French artist Valentin, they hastened to offer the commission to him instead.22

234 TH E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

Valentin received the commission in M ay 1629 and completed the work in less than a year. He was paid a total of 350 ocudi, which was less than Poussin but more than either Caroselli or Spadarino were paid for paint­ings of comparable size.

The altarp iece represents the martyrdom or, more accurately, since their martyrdom was by decapitation, the torture of Sts. Processus and Martinian (Fig. 133). The saints are stretched out head-to-loot on a rack. One torturer turns a crank to increase the tension; another heats metal pokers in the coals; a third prepares to beat the martyrs with a rod. As though the brutality of these executioners defies pictorial expression, Valentin has hid­den their faces from view, either turning them aw ay or casting them in shadow. Several soldiers are in atten­dance, their presence a poignant reminder that the men on the rack were once their comrades: Processus and Martinian too were once soldiers of Caesar, but now they are soldiers of C hrist.23 On the left, a veiled woman watches with a gentle and sorrowful expression; on the right, on a raised throne, a bearded man, wearing a toga suggestive of his authority, clutches his right eye with one arm while pointing with the other toward a statue of Jup iter. (Valentin shows us no more than the statue's legs, but the god’s identity is established by the eagle peering out from between them.) Angels descend on clouds, bringing palms of martyrdom to the two sufferers. Emile Male identified the precise episode, which comes from the Acto of the martyrs published by Mombritius.24 Thus we learn that the woman is Lucina, a Christian, who comforted the martyrs as they underwent torture at the hands of their persecutors and who encouraged them in their faith; and the seated tyrant is Paulinus, who was visited by divine retribution for his cruel treatment of the saints, by being struck blind in one eye.

Valentin has tried to include a great many narrative elements in a relatively small field, with the result that his composition is somewhat crowded and confused. Especially in its present darkened condition, it is difficult to make out the various figures and their spatial relation­ships. It takes a while, for example, to realize that there are two men and not one stretched on the rack and that they are arranged at an extreme angle to the picture plane, so that they appear sharply foreshortened, in dis­concerting contrast to the process of elongation to which they are being subjected. Valentin had little choice but to angle the figures in this way, in order to accommodate an essentially horizontal subject to the vertical shape of the canvas. But he probably also welcomed the opportunity to rival his compatriot, Nicolas Poussin, whose virtuoso handling of the figure of St. Erasmus (stretched out on a rack, with his arms over his head, and his body posi­tioned at an angle to the picture plane) was there for all to admire over the neighboring altar (Fig. 127).

The saint stretched on a rack is a common enough motif in religious art of the first half of the seventeenth century, with its post-Tridentine emphasis on the grislier aspects of martyrdom, and Valentin could have referred to any one of a number of earlier images, such as Agostino Ciampelli’s horrifying Torture o f St. Vitalii in the presbytery of S. Vitale in Rome.25 One image that does seem to have had a direct influence on Valentin is the Martyrdom o f Sto. Pelatjia and Repiotna from Antonio Tempesta s series of prints entitled Im agini dt molte oo. vergini romane n el martirio (Fig. 134). In this small print, Sts. Pelagia and Repisma are shown nude and stretched out head-to-foot on a tressle, exactly like Processus and Martinian.26

Valentin had rarely if ever before tackled so large and complex a subject. He specialized in genre scenes, usually set in taverns and gambling halls. His few earlier altar- pieces were single-figure compositions. Given the com­mission in St. Peter’s, he was faced with problems he had never before had to deal with. In particular, he needed to develop a nobler figure type if he was to render his narra­tive in a fittingly heroic and grand manner. Under the cir­cumstances, Valentin did what countless artists before him had done: he turned to antique sources.

He had often included fragments of ancient reliefs in his genre compositions. They frequently serve as tables and benches around which the figures are grouped. Here he does the same again. The statue of Jup iter is raised on a high base, and on the side of the base, painted to look like a relief, is the figure of a man cariying a bull on his shoulders (Fig. 135). This relief shows up in other works by Valentin, such as the Concert in the Louvre and the Denial o f Peter in the collection of the Fondazione Longhi in Florence (Fig. 136). The ancient source is a terra-cotta Campana relief of the first century A.D., which represents the M arriage of Thetis and Peleus (Fig. 137). The relief, of a type that was mass produced, exists in multiple ver­sions, and was well known and much admired by Renais­sance and Baroque artists .27 In the sixteenth century, Amico Aspertini, Francisco de Hollanda, and Sebastiano del Piombo reproduced it in draw ings; and Sodoma owned a version of the terra cotta. In the seventeenth century, Valentin w as one of many artists who were familiar with it: Michael Sweerts included it among other antiquities in his A rtiot’o Studio (Amsterdam, Rijksmu- seum); Orazio Borgianm casually inserted it into a corner of his St. Carlo Borrom eo (Rome, S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane); it appears in Nicolas Tournier’s Denial o f St. Peter; and Pietro da Cortona copied it in a drawing in the Uffizi.28 In short, the image was a familiar one, and often imitated by Valentin and his contemporaries.

Valentin did not include the figure with the bull for decorative purposes only. The figure was identified in the Renaissance as Hercules.29 By introducing him into the altarpiece, Valentin implied a comparison between Her­

C A T A L O G U E 11 2 3 5

cules and the two saints. Hercules is a pagan type for the Christian martyr: his labors constitute a kind of martyr­dom, which he endures with patience and fortitude, ulti­mately achieving immortality. Processus and Martinian are like him, but also infinitely superior to him, because they are Christians. It is probably no coincidence that Poussin made the same allusion in the a ltarp iece he painted one year earlier for the adjacent altar of St. Eras­mus, where he set up a pointed contrast between a gilded statue of Hercules and the figure of St. Erasmus below.

In addition to the fictive relief, several other figures in Valentin's composition are based on classical prototypes. The kneeling torturer who strains to tighten the wheel of the rack appears to be derived from the stock figure of the attendant who pulls down the bull’s head in scenes of sac­rifice (Fig. 138).30 Although the figure in the ancient reliefs and the figure in Valentin’s altarpiece are not identi­cal, the similarity of pose is striking; but it is the similarity of the m eaning of the pose in each case that confirms the one as a source for the other. Both figures participate in pinning down a sacrificial victim, and both are accompa­nied by a second figure who reaches back to deliver the death blow. Since Processus and M artinian were mar­tyred because they refused to sacrifice to the pagan gods, the borrowing contributes to the pathos of the scene.

The figure of St. Processus, stretched out on the rack with his hands bound over his head, while based on more recent prototypes such as the Tempesta print, may also owe something to an antique source. The taut, flattened anatomy and anguished expression recall the famous statue of Marsyas flayed alive, a version of which, now in the Uffizi, was then on view in the Villa Medici in Rome (Fig. 139).31 By rotating the figure of M arsyas from a vertical to a horizontal position, Valentin converted a satyr into a martyr.

Of course, not all of Valentin ’s figures are derived from classical sources. Paulinus is similar to the figure of the judge in Domenichino’s St. Cecilia Reflating to Wore hip the Pagan Idol (1613-14) in S. Luigi dei Francesi (Fig. 140). The angel tumbling out of the sky to deliver the palm of martyrdom to the dying saint recalls the angel in Caravaggio’s M artyrdom o f St. Matthew, although lacking its sensual grace .32 The an gel’s extravagant pose was arrived at by the simplest of means: the artist drew his model — probably a studio garzone — kneeling on the floor, then flipped the drawing around 90 degrees and repro­duced it on the canvas.

The painting has darkened considerably over time, and the colors have changed. This we can tell by compar­ing the canvas in the Vatican Pinacoteca with the mosaic replica which stands over the altar in the basilica.33 For example, in the painting the pantaloons of the execu­tioner in the right foreground are a dull gray, but the mosaic shows that they were originally a reddish purple,

a color carefully chosen by Valentin to harmonize with the precious porphyry columns that frame the altar- piece.34 It is coloristic subtleties such as this that led San- drart, when comparing Poussin’s and Valentin’s altar- pieces, to observe that Valentin was the superior when it came to the harmony of color.35

All in all, Valentin’s altarpiece is an exceptionally eru­dite work, full of classical allusions and learned refer­ences. It is painted in a tenebrist style indebted to Car­avaggio, but it has an elegance and an artificiality that set it apart from the works of that master. Cuzin rightly points to the influence of Reni and Guercino. He goes on to describe Valentin’s style as manifested in the altarpiece as follows; “. . . e ’est aussi un art tout sensitif, a fleur de nerfs, qui joue des echanges de regards, des gestes en sus- pens, etires, presque elegants, devenus gratuits, dansants; on pense a Van Dyck . . ,”36

The altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian was conse­crated in 1628.37 Valentin’s altarpiece was installed in 1630 and remained in St. Peter’s for about a hundred years until, in the early eighteenth century, it was replaced by a mosaic replica.38 The painting was taken to the Quirinal Palace, and later to the Vatican Pinacoteca, where it hangs today.

D O C U M E N T S

1605, Dec. 28: Translation of the bodies of Sts. Processus and Martinianus from the old church to the middle altar in the north transept of the new church. (Grimaldi, p. 75)

1626, before Sept. 19: Stefano Landi, cappellano of the chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinianus, writes to Car­dinal Ginnasi. He has heard that the pope intends to furnish the altars in St. Peter’s with altarpieces. He points out that the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian, one of the oldest and most venerated in the basilica, is presently surmounted by a painting, originally in the old church, the subject of which has nothing to do with the saints to whom the altar is dedicated. He therefore asks that Ginnasi and the Congregation arrange for the pro­vision of a new altarpiece. He goes on to recommend the Bolognese painter Gio. Giacomo Sementi, "che sta in casa del Seremssimo Signor Principe Card, di Savoia, et lo serve di pittore con prov[isio]ne continua,” for the commission. (P. 74)

1626, before Sept. 19: Landi writes to Cardinal Maurizio di Savoia, reporting that he has recommended Sementi for the altarpiece in his chapel, and asking the cardinal to put in a good word with Carlo Ghetti, economo of the Fabbrica, on the painter’s behalf. (P. 75)

1626, Sept. 19: Ghetti adds Sementi s name to the list of painters being considered for commissions. (P. 75)

1626, Nov. 4: Vi restano le infrascritte Tavole, che potria darsi alii notati di contro:

2 3 6 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

SS. Processo, et Martiniano......................a Gioseppino(Doc. Appendix, no. 9)

Date uncertain (c. 1626): A proposal to dedicate the altar in honor of St. Andrew goes unheeded. (Doc. Appen­dix, no. 10)

1627, May 14: The altarpiece has yet to be assigned. Sev­eral artists are being considered, including Francesco Albani, Pietro da Cortona, Giovanni Domenico Mar- tiani, Benigno Ugolino, and Gian Giacomo Sementi. Since the Congregation has no information on some of these artists, Cardinals Zacchia and Aldobrandini are given the responsibility of finding out about them, deter­mining their merit, and reporting back to the Congrega­tion. (P. 94)

1627, May 25: "lllustrissimus et Reverendissimus Domi- nus Cardinalis Barberinus dixit quod valde cuperet, quod una ex supradictis Iconis quae adhuc pingendae remanent pingenda consignaretur Albano Bonon[ensi], et altera Petro Berrettino Cort[onensi].” (AFSP, Piano1-serie 3—no. 171, f. 79)

c. 1628: “Nota delle Cappelle et sopraporti in S. Pietro et dei Pittori che le pingeranno

Santi Processo, et Martiniano . . . Albano BologneseAl[essand]ro TenrinoMonsu Valentino

Bolognia [at)deJ\ ”(Doc. Appendix, no. 22)

1629, May 9: The altarpiece formerly assigned to Francesco Albani on the recommendation of Cardinal Francesco Barberini is now assigned to Valentin. (P. 2167)

1629, May 30: The amount ol sc. 8 is owed G. B. Soria "per haver fatto un telaro . . . per tirar la tela per la pit­tura di S. Processo.” (P. 42)

1629, June 12: Initial payment ol sc. 30 to Valentin “a bon conto del quadro che fa.” (P. 2168)

1629, Sept. 7-Dec 19: Three payments of sc. 170 to Valendn. (P. 2169)

1630, March 13-April 20: Two payments of sc. 150 to Valentin “a bon conto del quadro fatto in S. Pietro.” (P. 2170-71)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 337: “Entro di s. Pietro in Vaticano a man diritta della Tribuna, o traversa di Croce di quella Basilica, su l’altare di mezo un quadro in tela a olio, rappresentante il martirio de’ ss. Processi, e Martini­ano, fatto con quella sua m aniera C aravaggiesca, molto vivace, dal naturale formato e opera del suo pennello.”

Sandrart, 1675 (1925), p. 256: “Es ist ihme aber auch son-

sten in Rom ein Altarblatt zu S. Peter angedinget wor- den, worinnen enthalten, wie zween heilige Martyrer an der Folter durch die Soldaten angespannet und von denen umstehenden Boswichten gebrugelt werden, welches dann mit andern Umstanden dermassen wol gezeichnet, coloriret, ausrundiret und gemahlet ist, daP es keinem andern Kunstblatt zu weichen Ursach hat, wie solches alle unpartheyische und verstandige Kiin- stlere zu jederzeit ausgesprochen haben."

p. 257: “Neben vorgemeldtem Valentin mahlte er [Poussin] auch eine Tafel in S. Peters Kirchen von dem heiligen Erasmo, wie ihme durch die Henkersknechte seine Darme aus dem Leib gehaspelt werden, welches dann eben damals, als Valentins schon gemeldtes Kunst- stuck erhoben worden, herfiir kommen, woriiber, weil jederman solches zu sehen begierig gewesen, nachge- hends ein grosser Disputat entstanden, sintemalen ihrer viel dieses jenem, andere aber jenes diesem vorziehen wollen, die Kunstverstandige und unpartheyische aber beyde hochschatzbar gehalten, und daP keines dem andern zu weichen oder sich vor dem andern zu erheben Ursach hatte, geurtheilet; dann wo Pousin in denen Passionen, Affecten und der Invention vorgezo- gen worden, da hat Valentin in der wahren Natiir- lichkeit, Starke, Erhebung des Colorits, Harmonia der Farben es bevor gethan, dap also beede den Meister gespielet und keiner dem andern vor oder nach gegan- gen. Allein da(3 Pousin durch Gliickseligkeit seines lan- gen Lebens den Vortheii erhalten und sich allezeit auf der weitberiihmten Romischen Kunstschul baPern kon- nen.” (The relevant passages from the 1683 Latin ver­sion of Sandrart s treatise are transcribed in Roma 1650, 1994, pp. 238-^39.)

N O T E S

1. Clement VII Is project for the transept chapels is discussed in Chapter 2.

2. The scenes are, from left to right: (1) the Conversion of St. Paul; (2) St. Paul is miraculously unharmed by a ven­omous snake after his shipwreck on Malta; (3) the Martyr­dom of St. Paul.

3. The legend of Sts. Processus and Martinian is recorded in the sixth-centuiy Act.i of the saints. As to the origins and early history of their cult, so little is known that one hagiographer was forced to conclude: "si puo con certezza affermare che dei santi Processo e Martiniano niente si conosce di sicuro.” See Franchi de' Cavalieri, 1909, pp. 35-39. See also Acta SS. June, I, pp. 266-71; Reau, 1955—59, Ill.iii, p. 1122; Bibliotheca Sanctorum, 1961-70, X, col. 1138-40.

4. Alfarano, p. 44—45; Grimaldi, pp. 60-63; Jounel, 1977, p. 252.

C A T A L O G U E 11 2 3 7

5. Grimaldi, p. 60.6. For descriptions of Paschal’s chapel, see Alfarano, pp.

•44—45 and n. 1; Grimaldi, pp. 60—61; Baronio, 1738—46. XIV, 824.ii-iii; Acta SS, June, I, p. 268; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 569-70.

7. Between 1548 and 1605, the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian was situated beneath the organ in the nave of the old church. This temporaiy chapel had as its altarpiece a salvaged piece of fresco by Giotto, representing the Madonna, which had been detached from a wall of the church destined for demolition and set up beneath the organ by Perino del Vaga and Niccolo Acciaiuoli. The lat­ter also added frescoes of his own picturing Sts. Peter and Paul, Processus and Martinian, and Sylvester and Gregory the Great. See Vasari-Mtlanesi, V, p. 625; Alfarano, p. 44, n. 1; Grimaldi, pp. 63-64.

8. For a full description of the translation, see Grimaldi, pp. 60-65, 75-76.

9. Alfarano, p. 178.10. “Prope Gregorianum sacellum in eodem dextero latere

Crucis maioris ipsius Basilicae est Altare Sanctorum Pro- cessi, et Martiniani MM. quorum corpora sub Altari recon- dita sunt [. . .] Duo in eo adsunt Cappellani a Ricardo olim Cardinali Constantiensi eiusdem Ecclesiae Archipresbytero instituti iniuncto onere celebrandi per unumquemque eorum annuatim missas sexaginta, quorum quilibet scuta itidem sexaginta habet in redditibus ex pensione quarum- dam domorum, quorum onerum implementum in libro, ubi missae annotantur, describant.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 3; see also Poliak, no. 74)

11. [May 24, 1621] "Decreverunt et deputarunt in Cappel- lanum SS. Processi et Martiniani nunc erectum a Rev- erendo Domino Antonio Maria Aldobrandino Franciscum Benedictorium . . .’’(ACSP, Decreti II, f. 239v); [Ju ly 6, 1621] papal confirmation of Aldobrandini’s gift of 1,100 jcudi plus two loci montium "pro solemni missa SS. Processi, et Martiniani, necnon manutentione Cappellani, qui bis in haebdomada rem sacram faceret cum annua provisione scutorum 24 ac perpetuo anniversario latius in ipsa dona- tione . . .’’ (BAV, Barb. Lat. 2719, ff. 119v-120). See also Collcctiani)Bullarum, 1747-52, III, pp. 228-29.

12. On Siciolante’s altarpiece, see Toesca, 1965, pp. 57-59; Hunter, 1983, pp. 366—71. The painting remained over the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian until it was replaced by Valentin’s altarpiece in 1630. It was then moved to the sacristy, and by 1665 to the little church of S. Tommaso in Formis, one of several Roman churches under the jurisdic­tion of the Chapter of St. Peter’s, where it can still be seen today.

13. See Chapter 2. Siciolante’s altarpiece measures 183 x 123 cm., while the frame is designed to accommodate a paint­ing measuring 320 X 186 cm.

14. In his letter, Stefano Landi (1586/87-1639) identified him­self as “perpetuo Rettore et Cappellano delli SS. Processo et Martiniani in S. Pietro.” Landi is better known, how­ever, as one of the leading composers in Rome, who wrote, among other works, the famous opera Sant’Aleooio, first

performed at the Palazzo Barberini in 1631. For more on the musical career of Stefano Landi, see Villoslada, 1962, p. 137; Leopold, 1976; Panofsky-Soergel, 1984; Ham­mond, 1994, pp. 81-82.

15. Gian Giacomo Sementi (1583—1636/42) spent the early part of his career in Bologna, first as the student and then as the assistant of Guido Reni. He moved to Rome c. 1626, perhaps drawn there by the possibility of important com­missions in St. Peter’s and S. Carlo ai Catinari (on the lat­ter, see Spear, 1982, I, pp. 17, 274). For more on Sementi, see Baglione, 1642, pp. 344—45; Malvasia, 1841, II, pp. 249—50; Pellicciari, 1984, pp. 25—40.

16. In the prefatoiy epistle to his S econdo lib ro d ’a r ie m u s i c a l i . ■ ■ d e d ic a t e a M ad a m a S e r en io o im a la P r in c ip e o o a d i P iem on te (Rome, 1627), Landi describes himself as “servitore del Serenissimo Principe Cardinale Cognato di Vostra Altezza.” See also Panofsky-Soergel, 1984, p. I l l ; Ham­mond, 1994, p. 81.

17. [Nov. 4, 1626] “Son' proposti a dipingere le Tavole non date:

Giovanni Jac[op]o Bolognese a memoriale del Signor Car­dinale di Savoia” (Doc. Appendix, no. 9).

18. It was not long after this, if we are to believe Malvasia, that Sementi began to stir up trouble for Guido Reni, trou­ble that was to lead to the latter’s angiy resignation of his commission in St. Peter’s and to his departure from Rome (see Cats. 6 and 18). Could it have been jealously brought on by his own disappointed hopes for a commission that led the younger artist to turn against his master? Yet it is not surprising that the Congregation decided not to employ Sementi, for he was virtually unknown and had produced little of sufficient quality to earn him so presti­gious a commission.

19. See Cat. 10, n. 17. It may be that Cardinal Ippolito Aldo- brandini was assigned this particular task because of a family connection, through his brother Antonio Maria, with the altar in question (see n. 11 above).

20. Boschetto, 1948, p. 132.21. Malvasia, 1841, II, p. 190: “Una [lettera] dell’Abbate

Gavotti congratulatoria d’uno de' quadri di S. Pietro di Roma da quella Congregazione destinatogli, e che dalla minuta della risposta, che conserviamo, condizionatamente aver accettata apparisce." The passage was kindly brought to my attention by Catherine Puglisi, whose book on Francesco Albani is forthcoming.

22. Cardinal Francesco was an leading patron of Valentin, whom he had in a sense discovered. Although Valentin was primarily a genre painter, Cardinal Barberini gener­ally ignored this branch of his art and instead commis­sioned him to paint works of a kind one would not nor­mally associate with his style, such as the altarpiece in St. Peter’s. Valentin painted the cardinal's portrait (now lost), the A llegory o f Rome, and several other works for the cardi­nal’s collection. For more on Valentin and his relationship with Cardinal Barberini, see Valentin e t leo ca ra oa geoq u eo f ra n ga it , 1974, pp. 124-28; Cuzin, 1975, pp. 53-61; Bous- quet, 1978, pp. 101—14; Mojana, 1989, pp. 152—55.

2 3 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

23. In their Ac/c, Processus and Martinianus are called "milites Christi." See Acta SS, June, I, p. 270.

24. Male, 1932, pp. 133-34. Male observes that the Acta of Processus and Martinian were acknowledged by many to be spurious; nevertheless, Baronius chose to accept the legend as valid, and so evidently did those who assigned Valentin his subject matter.

25. See Abromson, 1976, fig. 207.26. The set of seventy-three engravings (reproduced in its

entirety in The Illustrated Barlach, XXXV, pp. 150-86) was produced to illustrate Antonio Gallonio’s Hulona tklle aante cergini romane, published in Rome in 1591.

27. Examples of the relief are in London, Paris, Naples, Berlin, and Philadelphia. For a discussion of the relief in the Renaissance, and additional bibliography, see Hind, 1938—48 V, pp. 41 —42; Pope-Hennessy, 1949, fig. 8; Bober, 1957, pp. 86-87.

28. For the painting by Sweerts, see Briganti et al., 1983, fig. 13.4. For Borgianni’s altarpiece, see Wittkower, 1982, fig.25. For the work by Tournier, see Nicolson, 1989, II, fig. 606. For Cortona’s drawing, see Campbell, 1963, pp. 360—61. Campbell identifies a terra-cotta fragment in the Philadelphia Museum as a possible source for the drawing, but acknowledges that Cortona may have relied on another version of the same relief.

29. For example, see the print after the relief by Giovanni Anto­nio da Brescia (Hind, 1938—48, V, pp. 41 —42; VI, pi. 538).

30. I am grateful to Ann Kuttner for pointing out this similar­ity. A number of sacrifice reliefs featuring the figure of the kneeling attendant, stripped to the waist, who lowers the bull’s head, exposing his neck to the axe, were known to artists working in Rome in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. On Raphael’s use of the same motif, see Moreno, 1964, pp. 118—19; Shearman, 1972, pp. 122—23.

31. On the provenance and fame of the Marsyas statue, see Haskell and Penny, 1981, pp. 262—63. The antiquities col­lection of the Villa Medici included not only the Marsyas, but also at least one version of the sacrifice relief. At the time that he was at work on his altarpiece, Valentin lived in the Via Margutta, just a short walk from the Villa Medici (Bousquet, 1978, pp. 108—109).

32. Illustrated in Cinotti, 1983, p. 595. Like Domenichino's St. Cecilia, Caravaggio’s painting is located in S. Luigi dei Francesi, a church that Valentin is likely to have fre­quented, given his nationality.

33. The mosaic was begun in 1709 by Filippo Cocchi. See DiFederico, 1983, p. 74.

34. These columns, and the two that adorn the corresponding altar of Sts. Simon and Jude, were formerly part of the ciborium of Sixtus IV. They were much admired at the time; Grimaldi (p. 198) refers to them as "quatuor splen- didissimis porphyretis columnis integris.”

35. On Sandrart s account of the debate as to the relative mer­its of Poussin's St. Eraamua and Valentin’s St). Proceaaua and /Martinian, see Cat. 10.

36. Cuzin, 1975, p. 60.37. Doc. Appendix, no. 21; Sindone, 1744, p. 28.38. DiFederico, 1983, p. 74.

C A T A L O G U E 12

ALTAR OF ST. W E N C E SL A S [1 5 ]Angelo Caroselli, St. Wencealaa (1627-30)Oil on canvas; 315 X 184 cm

Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum; mosaic replica in situ

(Figs. 141-142, 146)

The chapel of St. Wenceslas is located in the right niche of the north transept (Fig. 141). The niche was decorated under Clement VIII with stuccos representing episodes from the life of St. Thomas (Fig. 45).' During the reign of Paul V, the chapel came to be known by the title of St. Anne, because of the presence over the altar of a painting of the Virgin and ChrLtt Child with St. Anne and St.). Peter and Paid, by Leonardo da Pistoia and Jacopino del Conte, which was put there soon after 1606 and remained in place until at least 1627 (Fig. 58).2 In the deliberations over the altars and altarpieces that took place in 1626 and 1627, various differ­ent titles were suggested.3 The cardinals of the Congregation favored the idea of dedicating the altar in honor of St. Carlo Borromeo, perhaps because they wanted to celebrate a saint from their own ranks.4 The canons had other concerns. They were anxious to reestablish as many as possible of the titles from the old basilica, and among these one of the most important was the title of St. Wenceslas. In response to the Congregation’s suggestion that the title of St. Wenceslas be combined with that of the Holy Trinity and All Saints at the altar in the New Sacristy, the canons argued that they were accustomed "ex antiqua consuetudine” to celebrate the office of St. Wenceslas at his own altar. The canons eventually had their way, and in 1627 the altar in the north transept was assigned the title of St. Wenceslas.

Wenceslas was Duke of Bohemia who lived in the first half of the tenth cen tu iy5 He is credited with having con­verted his people to Christianity. Historically, his death was the result of political assassination (he was murdered by his brother), but in the eyes of the Church he was a martyr. Wenceslas was a patron saint of Bohemia, but his cu lt w as little known outside central Europe. In St. Peter’s, however, there was an altar dedicated to the saint as early as 1333. It was founded by Hynco III of Duba, Bishop of Olmutz, who left 200 florins to the Chapter of St. Peter’s for the purpose of buying a valuable piece of real estate near the basilica. The income from this prop­erty was divided annually among the members of the Chapter, who were obligated in return to say prayers and m asses for the soul of the bishop at the a lta r of St. Wenceslas. In addition, Hynco left two florins annually to be spent on bread to be distributed to the poor on the feast of St. Wenceslas.6 Before 1378, the altar was pro­

C A T A L O G U E 12 gS 2 3 9

v ided w ith an a lta rp ie c e jo in tly sponsored b y the Emperor C harles IV and Jo h an n Ocko von V lasim , Archbishop of Prague (Figs. 144—145). The altarpiece represented W enceslas, w earing armor and the ducal crown or “bonnet," and carrying his sword and shield in one hand and a banner emblazoned with the imperial double-headed eagle in the other. Wenceslas was flanked on either side by the Bohemian saints Procopius and Adalbert and by the two donors, the emperor on the left and the archbishop on the right.7 The altar was next to the main entrance into the old nave, and its altarpiece was painted directly onto the interior facade, presumably in fresco or some other mural technique. Thus it survived until 1606, when the last remaining portion of the old structure was finally knocked down.8

Founded and endowed by h igh-ranking Bohemian churchmen, and provided with an altarpiece picturing the em peror h im self in adoration before the p rin c ip a l Bohemian saints, the original Wenceslas altar had obvious national and political overtones.9 J u s t as the alliance between the Church of Rome and the kings of France was symbolically enhanced by the reestablishment in new St. Peter’s of an altar in honor of St. Petronilla, patron saint of the French royal house, so too the reestablishment of the altar of St. Wenceslas was an affirmation of the Church’s continuing amity with the King of Bohemia, who was also the Holy Roman Emperor. Political motives may have had nothing to do with the canons’ determination to perpetuate the title of St. Wenceslas in the new church — they were above all concerned with maintaining the traditional liturgy - but the pope, in giving his approval, may well have acted in what he considered to be the interests of diplomacy. To what extent the altar continued to have imperial associa­tions in the new basilica is uncertain; but it is perhaps revealing that, in the mid-eighteenth century, shortly after it was replaced by a mosaic reproduction, the seventeenth- centuiy altarpiece entered the imperial collection in Vienna, presumably as a papal gift.

With the title decided, the Congregation set about com­missioning an altarpiece. The painter chosen for the job was Angelo Caroselli (1585-1652).10 According to Passeri, Caroselli was recommended to the Congregation by his patron, Monsignor Prospero Fagnani; and Passeri’s claim is borne out by a scribbled notation in the records of the Con­gregation: "Angelo Carosello di Monsignor Fagniano,” which would seem to refer to the receipt of a letter from Fagnano on the painter’s behalf.11 But Caroselli was also a favorite of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, and it was the cardinal who, on August 2, 1627, requested that he be assigned one of the altarpieces in the transepts.12 The artist was paid an initial sum of 50 scudi a week later. At first there seems to have been some confusion as to where his altar- piece was to go. Thinking it was intended for the left altar

in the south transept, he produced designs that took into account the lighting of that particular site. Later he was obliged to modify these designs when he learned that his altarpiece was to go instead over the right altar in the north transept. He received a second and final payment of 200 scudi on October 8, 1630, when the work was described as finished. The total of 250 scudi was less than that paid to other artists for altarpieces of comparable size (Valentin received 350 scudi, for example, and Poussin 400 scudi), and in 1632 Caroselli made an unsuccessful bid for additional payment. The relatively small total may indicate a lack of enthusiasm for the painting, or it may merely reflect the comparative simplicity of the composition, which comprises only two figures in an uncomplicated arrangement.

St. Wenceslas takes up most of the composition (Fig. 142). He stands on a ledge, his left foot jutting out as though into the viewer’s space. He wears armor and has a shield and sword at his side. In his left hand he holds a banner featuring the double-headed eagle of the Haps- burg dynasty, and on his head he wears a ducal coronet. His costume and his powerful pose, with one arm spread wide, the other holding the staff of the banner, are remi­niscent of Bernini’s Longinus, suggesting that Caroselli was familiar with Bernini’s designs for Longinus, even though the sculpture itself was not ye t finished when Caroselli painted the altarpiece.13 In the upper right cor­ner, an angel swoops into the picture, bringing Wenceslas a second crown, that of sainthood. In the background on the right is a marble relief depicting the saint’s murder(Fig. 146).H

Certainly when compared to the vivid depictions of martyrdom by Poussin and Valentin that stood over the neighboring altars in the north transept, Caroselli’s St. Wenceslas seems tame. The martyrdom is relegated to a tiny scene in the background, while the standing figure of the saint in the foreground plays virtually no narrative role. But Caroselli should not be blamed for the relative tim idity of the work. He was specifically instructed by Angelo Giorio, a member of the Chapter, to model his composition on the altarpiece of St. Wenceslas in the old basilica.15 Thus, the costume, the accouterments, and to some extent the pose of the saint, as well as the almost iconic simplicity of the composition as a whole, are based on and are meant to evoke the lost Trecento work.16

In one particu lar, C aroselli would have been well advised to follow the advice of Giorio. The canon worried that the general public might have some difficulty in iden­tifying St. Wenceslas, and counseled the artist to include a cartel/a with the saint’s name at the bottom of the com­position. Caroselli failed to do this, and sure enough the a ltar w as regu lar ly referred to by a whole variety of approximate or erroneous titles, ranging from St. Stanis­laus, King of Poland,17 to, simply, “il Santo Re.”18

240 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

The three altars in the north transept were conse­crated in October 1628. At that time, relics of the Forty M artyrs, of St. Alexis, and of St. M ary of Egypt were deposited in the altar of St. Wenceslas.19 Caroselli’s paint­ing remained in place until around 1740, when it was replaced by a mosaic replica by Pietro Paolo Cristofari.20 The original was transported to the Quirinal Palace, and from there, at some point before 1804, found its w ay into the imperial collection in Vienna.

B O Z Z E T T I

A painting by Angelo Caroselli, representing “un Santo armato con Angelo che li sporge la corone,” was in the Barberini collection by 1633 (see M. A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 148 and passim). This painting can be securely identified by means of an inventory number on the back with a preparatory sketch, painted in oil on paper (approx. 76.5 X 41.5 cm), today in the Museo di Roma in Rome. The sketch differs from the mosaic replica in several respects, most notably in the poses of Wenceslas and the angel. See Incisa della Rocchetta, 1965, pp. 22-27; Ferrari, 1990, p. 105. (Fig. 143)

D O C U M E N T S

1622, Ju ly 4: Mass is said at the altar of Sts. Processus and M artin ian . “F in ita la M essa li Celebranti si sono spogliati all’Altare di S. Anna.’’ (ACSP, Diari 11, p. 103)

1624, Sept. 21: The altar is listed by the title of St. Anne.(Doc. Appendix, no. 4)

Date uncertain (c. Oct. 1626): The dedication of the altar is undetermined and is left to the discretion of the pope. (Doc. Appendix, no. 8)

1626, Nov. 4: The altar is referred to by the title of “S. Carlo.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 9)

Date uncertain (c. 1626): A proposal to dedicate the altar in honor of St. Sebastian goes unheeded. (Doc. Appen­dix, no. 10)

Date uncertain (c. Jan . 1627): The Chapter proposes that the altar be dedicated to St. Wenceslas. (Doc. Appen­dix, no. 11)

Date uncertain (c. 1627): Instructions, in the handwriting of Angelo Giorio, specifying the subject and composi­tion of the altarpiece, and advising the artist to model his work on the altarpiece of St. W enceslas in old St. Peter's. (Doc. Appendix, no. 16)

1627, May 14: Angelo Caroselli’s name appears on the list of painters under consideration for commissions for altarpieces. Cardinals Zacchia and Aldobrandini are given the task of selecting artists for the altarpieces in the north transept. (P. 94)

1627, Aug. 2: Cardinal Zacchia informs the Congregation that Cardinal Francesco Barberini wants one of the remaining altarpieces to be assigned to Caroselli; the Congregation obliges. (P. 2158)

1627, Aug. 11: Initial payment of sc. 50 to Caroselli “a bon conto di Pitture che deve fare.” (P. 2159)

c. 1627: "Altari da consecrarsi [. . .] S. Vinceslao dove e S. Anna.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 14)

1630, Aug. 12: The sum of sc. 8 is owed G. B. Soria "Per haver fatto un telaro d'albuccio per la pittura di S. Sin- islavo.” (P. 42)

1630, Oct. 8: Payment of sc. 200 to Caroselli ”a bon conto della tavola fatta . . . di S. Vincislao.” (P. 2160)

1632: Caroselli writes to the Congregation, asking to be paid a supplement, in addition to the sc. 250 already received, because of the extra work he was obliged to devote to the commission. According to Caroselli, his painting was originally destined for the left altar in the south transept. After he had already produced designs and begun to paint, he learned that his altarpiece was instead to be set up over the right altar in the north transept. Because of this change, ”fu forzato per la vari- eta del lume far nuovi disegni, et nuove fatiche.” He also points out that other artists have been paid at least sc. 350 for altarpieces of comparable size. (P. 2161)

S O U R C E S

Passeri, p. 193: "Gli fu dato, col mezzo di Monsignor Fag- nani, da dipingere uno de' Quadn piccioli ne’ bracci del Tempio di San Pietro in Vaticano, e fecevi S. Stanislao Re di Polonia in atto contemplativo: pero non e delle cose migliori di sua mano.”

Baldinucci, 1845-47, III, p. 742: ". . . ebbe a fare la tavola per uno de’ minori altari della Vaticana basilica, in cui fece vedere la figura di S. Vinceslao vestita d ’abito mil- itare con lancia in mano in atto veramente maestoso, e reale. ”

N O T E S

1. On Clement’s decoration of the transept niches, see Chap­ter 2. The three otorie on the vault of the chapel of St.Wenceslas are: (1) Thomas baptizing converts; (2) Thomas touching the wound in Christ’s side; (3) the Mar­tyrdom of Thomas.

2. See Chapter 2, n. 30. The altarpiece was painted duringthe pontificate of Paul III for the Confraternity of thePalafrenieri and stood over the Confraternity’s altar in old St. Peter’s, which was dedicated in honor of St. Anne. Inthe new basilica, there was at first a plan to reinstate thetitle of St. Anne at the main altar in the northwest corner chapel, and the Confraternity commissioned Caravaggio to paint an altarpiece for the site. But after the rejection and removal of Caravaggio’s Madonna del Palafrenieri in 1606, the old St. Anne altarpiece, along with the title, were shifted to the right altar in the north transept.

3. See, for example, Doc. Appendix, no. 10.4. See Chapters 5—6.5. Dvornik, 1929; Reau, 1955-59, III. iii, pp. 1308—1309; Bib-

liotheca Sanctorum, 1961-70, XII, cols. 991-1000.

C A T A L O G U E 13 2 4 1

6. On the altar of St. Wenceslas in old St. Peter’s, see Claussen, 1980, pp. 280-99. See also Alfarano, pp. 67-68; Grimaldi, pp. 55—56.

7. Claussen, 1980, p. 284.8. From 1574, when the title of St. Erasmus was shifted to

the altar of St. Wenceslas, the Wenceslas altarpieee was hidden behind a painting on panel representing the mar­tyrdom of St. Erasmus.

9. Claussen (1980, p. 294) analyzes in detail the political sig­nificance of the altar in old St. Peter’s. He notes that the Emperor Charles IV founded or endowed altars of St. Wenceslas at several important imperial sites throughout Europe, including Ingelheim, Aachen, and Rome.

10. On Caroselli, see L. Salerno, 1970, pp. 40-41; Ottani (Cavina), 1965; ibid., o r Angelo Caroselli, DBI, XX, pp. 548-50; Giffi (Ponzi), 1986; C. S. Salerno, 1992.

11. AFSP, Piano 2—serie 10—no. 6, f. 743. See also Piano2—serie armadi—no. 72, p. 147v.: "Angelo Caroselli Pittore di Monsignor Fagniano.” On Prospero Fagnani’s patron­age of Angelo Caroselli, see Loevinson, 1910.

12. The Barberini collection included at least four works by Caroselli. In addition, the artist was employed at the Bar­berini church of S. Maria della Concezione, where he painted a Madonna a n d Child w ith St.i. Franci> and A nthony o f Padua H elping S ou l) in P urga tory .

13. On the comparison between Wenceslas and Longinus, see Incisa della Rocchetta, 1965, p. 27.

14. The use of a fictive relief as a kind of footnote to the prin­cipal image is typical of Caroselli. In his S a lom e in the Accademia Carrara in Bergamo, for example, he includes a relief sculpture showing a king blindfolded by Cupid while Justice looks on in despair. In his Vanitao in the Galleria Corsini, a fictive relief shows a breeze dashing a crown from the head of a female figure.

15. The original altarpieee was destroyed in 1606, but, as Gio­rio pointed out, its composition was recorded in Grimaldi’s manuscript and in a fresco in the o a cr e g ro t te .

16. See Chapter 6.17. Passeri, p. 193.18. Celio, 1638 (1967), p. 26.19. Doc. Appendix, no. 21; Sindone, 1744, p. 25.20. DiFederico, 1983, p. 74.

C A T A L O G U E 13

ALTAR OF ST. T H O M A S [3 3 ]Domenico Cresti, called Passignano, The Doubting o f

Thomao (1624—26)Oil on canvas; 320 X 186 cmSala Capitolare (Sacristy), St. Peter's(Figs. 147-148)

The chapel of St. Thomas occupies the right niche in the south transept (Fig. 147). The decoration of the walls and vault dates from the time of Clement VIII, who planned to

dedicate the chapel in honor of St. John the Evangelist (Fig. 48).1 Under Paul V, the body of St. Boniface IV was brought here from its tom b-altar in the old church .2 Thereafter, for a number of years, the chapel was officially referred to as the chapel of St. Boniface.3 By the end of P au l’s pontificate, however, another title, that of St. Thomas, had come into common usage. Precisely when this occurred is uncertain. The earliest documentary refer­ence to the altar of St. Thomas is dated Jan uary 30, 1621, but it is likely that the title was in use before then.4

There was an altar in honor of St. Thomas in old St. Peter’s, but it was in no w ay connected with the altar of St. Boniface.5 That the title of St. Thomas became associ­ated with the altar of St. Boniface in the new basilica was probably by accident rather than design. We know that Paul V placed paintings or other images, most of them taken from old St. Peter's, over all the altars in the new basilica that were without permanent altarpieces. These paintings were distributed without much care or thought, and often their subjects had nothing to do with the titles of the altars over which they were positioned. In the case of the right altar in the south transept, there is circum­stantial evidence that the temporary altarpieee assigned to it was Niccolo M artine lli’s St. Thomao, executed in 1574 for the altar of St. Thomas in the old basilica.6 In all likelihood, it was by association with this image that the altar acquired the title of St. Thomas. By a reversal of the usual order of things, the altarpieee, instead of reflecting the dedication of the altar, may have given rise to it.7

As it happens, the altar of St. Thomas was one of the more important altars in the old basilica and probably would have been reestablished in the new basilica in any case. A lthough its h istory is somewhat confused, we know that the altar was rich ly endowed .8 It was also closely affiliated with the office of the Penitenziere m ag- giore, or Chief Penitentiary.9 The communal tomb of the penitenzieri of St. Peter’s was situated in the floor directly in front of the altar,10 which led to the chapel becoming known as the cappella det penitenzieri. 11 In 1507, Cardinal Antonio Pallavicino left money for the saying of masses, with the stipulation that the altar be placed under the jurisdiction of the Chief Penitentiary, who was to have sole authority in appointing a chaplain .12 This arrange­ment remained in effect even after the altar was reestab­lished in the new basilica. Since the Cardinal Penitentiary was an extremely powerful figure in the Church hierar­chy, his association with the altar doubtless contributed to the decision to reestablish it.

The altar of St. Thomas was among the first altars in St. Peter’s to be provided with an altarpieee during the pontificate of U rban VIII. The commission w ent to Domenico Passignano (1559—1638), a Florentine and a longtime favorite of the pope.13 Passignano was in Rome in the early months of 1624. Ostensibly, he had come

242 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

there to restore the Crucifixion o f St. Peter, which he had painted over one of the altars in the navi p iccole some two decades earlier, and which was apparently already in an advanced state of deterioration.14 But Passignano's deci­sion to return to Rome may also have been prompted by a desire to ingratiate himself with his former patron, now pope, and to secure himself an important commission.15 If so, he was successful, lor he returned to Florence in early April with a commission to paint a second altarpieee in St. Peter's and an advance of 100 .tenth.

Passignano decided to produce the altarpieee in Flo­rence, but he soon found that this long-distance arrange­ment meant frustrating delays and lapses in communica­tion. In a couple of letters addressed to “Prince Barberini” (the pope’s brother, Carlo Barberini), he complained that he was still waiting to hear from Carlo Maderno, Archi­tect of the Fabbrica, with his instructions. He asked for B a rb e r in i’s ass is tan ce in e lic it in g a response from Maderno, pointing out that he could not begin work until he heard from him. Finally, in November of the same year, Passignano reported to Barberini: "Signor Carlo Maderno has sent me two subjects for the altarpieee in St. Peters and has indicated that I am to chose whichever of them I prefer; I will produce the designs within the month.” It is remarkable that Passignano was allowed a certain free­dom to choose the subject ol his painting. Unfortunately, we do not know the other of the "dua suggetti" that Maderno offered him; we know only that he opted to paint the episode of the Doubting Thomas.

Having selected the subject, the sixty-five y e a r old Passignano wasted no time. According to Baglione, he was back in Rome by the following year (1625) to install the finished work over the altar in St. Peter’s.16 The official reaction must have been highly lavorable. Not only was Passignano paid an exceptionally large fee (around 850 ccudi, more than twice as much as Poussin or Ciampelli were later paid for paintings of equal size) but he was immediately offered another important commission in St. Peter’s, for one of the large altarpieces in the nave.17

The story of the Doubting Thomas (John 20:24—29) was alw ays very popular. M olanus advocated that all images of the apostle should illustrate this episode, and cited as his au thority Pope G regory the Great, who wrote: “The lack of faith of Thomas encourages us to faith more than does the faith of the believing disciples.”18 Because Thomas lost his faith and then found it again, his story is linked with Catholic notions of confession and penitence, and is thus particu larly appropriate for an altar affiliated with the office of the Chief Peniteniary, who was the pope’s official confessor and who directed the p em tenz ier i, the polyglot com pany of priests who manned the confessionals in the Vatican basilica.

Passignano’s painting is conventional in its design (Fig.

148).19 Grouped around Christ and Thomas are six apos­tles, whose awe-struck expressions attest to the miraculous nature of the event. At the center of the composition, Christ, taller than the others, gestures with one hand to the wound in his side, while with the other he guides Thomas’s outstretched finger so that he may touch it. The beauty of the painting lies chiefly in its exquisite coloring. Thomas wears a rose-colored garment with an olive-green cloak over it, the kneeling apostle in the left foreground wears an orange garm ent with a blue cloak, and between them Christ, in white, stands out against a dark background.20

In 1627, the Chapter proposed translating the body of St. Boniface IV from the altar of St. Thomas to the altar of St. Sebastian in the nave.21 This was never done. The altar of St. Thomas, with the body of St. Boniface still inside it, was consecrated in 1656 and again in 1727.22 Passignano’s altarpieee remained in place until around 1822, when it was replaced by a mosaic of the same sub­jec t, based on a d esign by V incenzo C am uccin i (1771—1844).25 The painting now hangs in the Sala Capi- tolare in the sacristy of St. Peter’s.

D O C U M E N T S

1606, Jan . 17: Translation of the body of St. Boniface IV from the old church to the right altar in the south transept of the new church. (Grimaldi, pp. 96—97)

1624, before April 2: Passignano writes to Cardinal Del Monte in charge of the Fabbrica, asking for an initial payment “a conto dell’opere che deve fare a Fiorenza per il novo Coro." (P. 937)

1624, April 2: By order of Urban VIII, Passignano is given an initial payment of sc. 100 “per [la pittura] che havera da fare.” (P. 937)

1624, April 8 : Passignano writes to Prince Barberini, giv­ing notice of his arrival in Florence. (Poliak, 1913, p. 37)

1624, May 19: “A sinistro [.</<•] vero latere pari modo est altare sub Invocatione Sancti Thomae Apostoli, quod esse dicitur sacrae Poenitentiariae ab Antonio Paravicino Cardinali Sanctae Praxedis anno Domini 1507 erectum, ac dotatum luncto onere celebrandi in eo singulis diebus hac lege adiecta, nempe feria 2“ pro defunctis, fer. 6 de Passione, Sabatho de Sancta Maria, quoties tamen prae- fati dies officio duplici, vel semiduplici non fuerint impediti. Reliquis vero diebus missam officio congru- entem recitare teneantur. Cardinalis Summus Poeniten- tiarius deputat Cappellanum pro celebratione missarum, cui singulis mensibus scuta tria auri in auro persolvuntur. An vero Cappellanus huiusmodi onus impleat non apparet, cum dietim non annotentur Missae, quae in eo Altari celebrantur ob diminutionem reddituum, qui erant olim ducatorum aureorum non implentur omnia onera. Altare non est consecratum.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 3)

C A T A L O G U E 13 2 4 3

1624, Sept. 16: Passignano in Florence writes to Prince Barberini. He awaits word from Maderno regarding his altarpiece lor St. Peters. (Poliak, 1913, p. 37)

1624, Sept. 19: “Visitatio altaris S. Thomae in choro.Crux portatur ex orichalco.Intorcium fiat ex metallo.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 4)

1624, Oct. 26: Passignano in Florence writes to Prince Barberini. He asks for instructions regarding the theme of his painting so that he can begin to work the design. He adds this postscrip t: “Scrivo al S ignor Carlo Maderno che sia con li Signori Canomci per intendere che cosa si puo fare dentro (?) al quadro per dare loro gusto.” (Poliak, 1913, p. 38)

1624, Nov. 25: Passignano in Florence writes to Prince Barberini: ‘To ebbi dal Signor Carlo Maderno dua sug- getti per il quadro di S. Pietro ne pigliero uno a mio gusto che cosi me ne scrive, et faro li disegni in questo mese, che vo dando speditione ad alcune cose che io fo per queste A. S.e.” (Poliak, 1913, p. 39)

1626, Ju ly 2: Payment of sc. 2 b. 50 to Francesco Ubaldini “per havere indorato un fusarolo attorno la tavola di S. Tomaso.” (P. 2133)

Between 1624, April 24 and 1627, March 12: The sum of sc. 9 is owed to G. B. Soria “Per un telaro . . . alto p[alm]i 14'/2 lar[go] p[alm]i 8 . . . serve dietro la pittura del Santo Tommaso fatta dal S. Cav. Passignano.” (P. 36)

Date uncertain (c. 1626): A proposal to dedicate the altar in honor of Joseph of Arimathea goes unheeded. (Doc. Appendix, no. 10)

1627, Jan. 30-March 27: Three payments of sc. 150 to Passig­nano “a bon conto delle pitture fatte e da farsi.” (P. 2134)

1627, before April 17: Passignano writes to Cardinals Zac­chia and Biscia concerning the Congregation’s decision to pay him a total of sc. 800 for the altarpiece. (P. 2135)

1627, May 31: The Palagi are reimbursed sc. 150 for money given to Passignano “per valuta del Santo Tomasso fatto in Pittura,” bringing the total to sc. 850. (P. 2136)

Date uncertain (c. 1627): “Restano da consacrarsi l'infra- scritti:

S. Bonifatio dove e la Tavola di S. Tomasso si deve levare il Corpo, et porre nel Altare di S. Sebastiano.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 14)

1656, Feb. 4: “Altare Sancti Thomae Apostoli, sub quo asservatur corpus Sancti Bonifatij Papae 4' dedicandum, et consecrandum decrevit.” (ACSP, H96, p. 3)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 333: “Dapoi ritomossene a Fiorenza, & ivi opero diverse cose sino all’anno Santo del 1625. E per tal’occorrenza ritornando egli a Roma da Fiorenza, porto seco un quadro di quei piccoli, che ne gli altari

della traversa di s. Pietro stano, entrovi s. Thommaso, che mette il dito nel costato di N. Signore, a olio in tela ben dipinto. ”

Baldinucci, 1845—47, III, p. 440: “Venuto 1’anno 1625, essendo egli molto avanzato in eta, si porto di nuovo a Roma coll’occasione dell’anno santo, e seco porto una piccola tavola di sua mano d un san Tommaso, che pone il dito nel costato del Signore: opera bella, che fu posta in S. Pietro sopra uno degli altari della traversa.”

N O T E S

1. On Clement VIII’s project for the transept chapels in St. Peter’s, see Chapter 2. The stuccos in the vault illustrate three scenes from the life of St. John: (1) St. John on Pat- mos; (2) St. John drinking the cup of poison; (3) St. John is miraculously unharmed by submersion in boiling oil.

2. Grimaldi, pp. 96-97.3. [Nov. 1, 1611] “. . . ando dietro al Coro all’Altare di S.

Bonifatio . . .” (ACSP, Diari 10, p. 155); [March 25, 1616] “. . . all’Altare di S. Bonifatio dietro al Coro . . (p. 317, and pajoim). See also Doc. Apprendix, no. 1.

4. [Jan. 30, 1621] “Questa mattina [. . .] I'Hore sono state lette privatamente dietro al Coro all'Altare di S. Tomasso" (ACSP, D ia r i 11, p. 8). Officially, however, the altar retained the title of St. Boniface IV even after this. For example, see ACSP, Turrit 19, unfoliated: [Dec. 19, 1621] “In Vigilia Nativitatis D. Tiraboscus cantavit Marty- rologium et accepit Pluviale in sacello S. Bonifatij."

5. Alfarano, pp. 82-84; Grimaldi, pp. 161, 220. For the posi­tion of the chapel (“Oratorium”) and altar of St. Thomas in old St. Peter’s, see the Alfarano plan at letter 'r' and Grimaldi, fig. 61. When the altar was deconsecrated on September 15, 1606, no relics were found inside: “R. D. Germanicus Fidelis, canonicus, maior sacrista, dissecravit altare sancti Thomae apostoli, intra quod nullae aderant reliquiae, nec minus sigillum” (Grimaldi, p. 220).

6. See Chapter 2, esp. nn. 138—39.7. It is indicative of the carelessness with which the tempo-

raiy altarpieces were distributed among the various altars that a painting of St. Thomas was placed in the right niche of the oou th transept, and not in the right niche of the north transept, which had been planned in honor of St. Thomas by Pope Clement VIII, and was decorated with stuccos illustrating scenes from his life. See Chapter 2.

8. Alfarano, pp. 82-84: ". . . sequitur Oratorium sancti Thomae Apostoli antiquissimum . . . A dextera vero altaris ad orien- tem in parietibus Oratorij sunt sepulchra, e pario marmore valde eximia Ardicini Iunioris Novariensis Presbyteri tituli sanctorum loannis et Pauli [d. 1493] et alterum Ardicini Novariensis Diaconis tituli sanctorum Cosmae et Damiani [d. 1434] S.R.E. Cardinalium della Porta nuncupatorum, a quibus optime dotatum fuit dictum altare sancti Thomae."

9. On the role of the Chief Penitentiary and of the penitenzieri, or priests responsible for hearing confession in the Vatican basilica, see Chapter 7, n. 45.

10. Alfarano, p. 190.

244 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

11. BAV, Vat. Lat. 9907, f. 238 (cited in Alfarano, p. 82, n. 3).12. In addition to Doc. Appendix, no. 3 (the relevant passage is

transcribed in the Documents section at the end of this entry), see ASV, Miscellanea, Armadio VII, no. 3, f. 29: "[Decreta Sanctitati Domini Nostri dem entis Papae Octavi facta in Visitatione Ecclesiarum Urbis VIII Junij MDLXXXXII. . . . ] Ad Altare Sancti Thomae. Cappel- lanus Poenitentiariae in posterum missas, quas celebrare tenetur, celebret super hoc Altare Sancti Thomae iuxta piam mentem Testatoris, et non alibi.” Although neither Alfarano nor Grimaldi mentions Cardinal Pallavicino’s con­tribution to the altar’s endowment, it is confirmed by Torri- gio (BAV, Vat. Lat. 9907, f. 186v): "[Altare] di S. Tomasso Apostolo fatto da Papa Simmaco, e dotato dal Card. Anto­nio Pallavicino. ”

13. On Passignano, see Baglione, 1642, pp. 331-33; Poliak, 1913, pp. 30-32; Nissman, 1979; Dioegni del Toocania Roma, 1979, pp. 83-85; Laureati, 1990.

14. On Passignano’s earlier altarpiece, see Chappell and Kirwin, pp. 131-37. On its restoration, see Poliak, nos. 936—37.

15. Baglione, 1642, p. 333.16. Nissman (1979, p. 197) doubts that he could have finished

the picture in time for the Jubilee year. Passignano was in Rome again between February and Ju ly 1626 (when he was assigned the task of appraising Bernini’s statue of St. Bibiana), and it may have been then that he brought the finished work with him.

17. See Cat. 5(a).18. Molanus, 1594, p. 165v: "Plus nobis Thomae infidelitas ad

fidem, quam fides credentium discipulorum, profuit.”19. Nissman (1979, p. 198) points out the similarities between

Passignano's composition and those of his older Florentine contemporaries such as Sand di Tito and Jacopo da Empoli.

20. The picture is illustrated in color in Laureati, 1990, between pp. 152 and 153.

21. See Doc. Appendix, no. 11.22. Sindone, 1744, p. 67.23. DiFederico, 1983, pp. 77-78 and pi. 143.

C A T A L O G U E 14

ALTAR OF S T S . SIM O N AND JU D E [3 5 ]Agostino Ciampelli, Sto. S im o n a n d J u d e M ir a cu lo u o ly

T urn inq th e S e rp en to a q a u ie t th e P ero ia n M a q ic ia n o(1626^29)

Oil on canvas; 320 X 186 cmDepositi, Studio dei Mosaici (Vatican City)(Figs. 149-150)

The chapel of Sts. Simon and Jud e occupies the central niche of the south transept (F ig. 149). Clement VIII planned to dedicate it in honor of St. Peter and had it decorated with gilt stucco o t o r ie illustrating scenes from the saint’s life (Fig. 47) . 1 This project was never realized, however, and the a ltar remained w ithout a title until

1605, when Paul V had the bodies of Sts. Simon and Ju d e Thaddeus transferred there from their tomb-altar in the old nave.

According to legend, the apostles Simon and Ju d e journeyed east after the death of Christ, to preach the word of God in Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. They were martyred there in separate incidents (Simon was sawed in half, Jud e was clubbed to death), but their bodies were brought together and by the twelfth century were transported to Rome and enshrined in an altar in the Vatican basilica.2 The altar underwent a major trans­formation between 1542 and 1548, when Pope Paul III designated it as the sacrament altar. An elegant chapel, featuring two of the spiral columns that had formerly stood over the tomb of the Apostles, was constructed around it, and Perino del Vaga painted the walls and ceil­ing with scenes relating to the sacrament (Fig. 25) .3

In 1605, with the demolition of the old nave imminent, Paul V ordered the deconsecration of all the a ltars located there. The altar of Sts. Simon and Jud e was the first to be deconsecrated. On October 1, the sacrament was moved to the tabernacle in the Cappella Gregoriana. Then, on December 27, amid great pomp and ceremony, the bodies of the two saints were translated into the new basilica and laid to rest in the altar in the south transept.4

In 1609, the old choir of Sixtus IV where the clergy of St. Peter’s had recited the Divine Office since 1479, was tom down. A temporary choir for the use of the clergy was erected in the south transept. Designed by Carlo Mademo, this large wooden structure enclosed the altar of Sts. Simon and Jude, cutting it off from the rest of the church (Text Fig. II). From December 20, 1609, when the office was recited for the first time in the temporary choir, until Ju ly 22, 1626, when the altar in the new Chapel of the Choir was consecrated, the altar of Sts. Simon and Jude served as the principal altar of the clergy. During this period, the altar had as its provisional altarpiece the Pieta of Michelangelo. The statue had stood for several decades over the a lta r in the S istine choir chapel; the c lergy brought it with them when they moved into the temporary choir, and took it aw ay again in 1626 when they moved into their permanent new choir chapel in the nave.5

Meanwhile, plans were under way to provide the altar of Sts. Simon and Jude with a proper altarpiece, one that would reflect its dedication. On September 15, 1625, the e c o n o m o of the Fabbrica informed the Congregation that the pope wished to have the painter Agostino Ciampelli awarded a commission for one of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s.6 After further consultation with the pope, it was announced on October 22 and again on December 10 that Ciampelli was to be assigned one of the small altarpieces. By Februaiy 27, 1626, the arrangement was finalized, and Ciampelli received an initial payment of 50 o cu d i “a bon conto della Tavola in pittura che deve fare per l’Altare de

C A T A L O G U E 14 2 4 5

Santi Simone e Giuda.’’ There are no more payments until Ju ly 12, 1629, when the painting was described as fin­ished. Ciampelli was paid 300 ocudi plus a bonus of 50 ocudi The bonus shows that the painting was well received, as does the fact that soon after its completion Ciampelli was appointed to the prestigious post of oopraotante of the Fab­brica. Even before he finished the altarp iece, he was awarded a second major commission in St. Peter’s, the oopraporto representing Peter Baptizing Proceoouo and Martin- ian in the passage between the north transept and the northwest corner chapel.7 He did not have a chance to paint the oopraporto, however, for he died in 1630, within a year of completing the altarpiece of Sts. Simon and Jude.

The altarpiece represents a rarely illustrated miracle of the apostles Simon and Jude , a scene particularly well suited to Ciampelli’s lively anecdotal style (Fig. 150). The saints had ventured to Persia on their mission to convert the heathen. There the Persian magicians, angered by the influence the apostles were gaining over the king, tried their best to overthrow them. Jaco b us de V oragine’s Golden Legend contains the following account:

. . . the mages, being exceeding wroth, caused a multitude of serpents to come forth. But the king ordered the apos­tles to come, and these filled their mantles with the rep­tiles and threw them at the sorcerers, saying: “In the name of the Lord ye shall not die, but shall be tom by the serpents until ye groan with pain !” When the serpents began to gnaw their flesh, and they were howling like wolves, the king and the others besought the apostles to suffer the serpents to kill the mages. But the apostles replied: "We are sent to lead men back from death to life, not to hurl them from life into d ea th !” And having prayed, they commanded the serpents to draw out all the poison which they had injected into the sorcerers, and afterwards to return to their nests.8

Ciampelli has positioned the two apostles in the left foreground. As is conventional, he casts Simon as an old man with a long white beard, and Ju d e as a younger man with a powerful physique, dark hair, and a short beard. In keeping with these physical characterizations, Simon kneels and raises his eyes contem platively to heaven, while Jud e stands, and with an active gesture directs the attack on the magicians.

Subtle distinctions are drawn between the apostles and the magi. The magi are set further back in space, so that the apostles appear larger and more substantial than them. The robes of the apostles are painted in solid primary col­ors (Simon in blue and red, Jud e in green and yellow), and fall in simple, weighty folds; the magi, on the other hand, w ear exotic garm ents of pale blue-and-m auve changeant silk and white gauze, which swirl and spiral around them in a manner that beautifully conveys their agitation. The distinctive costumes of the magi, with their curious turbans, gauzy vestments, and knotted belts, seem

to have been copied from an earlier representation of the scene, in the background of an engraving of St. Simon by Antonio Tempesta (Fig. 151). The episode of the serpents attacking the Persian magicians occupies only one small corner of Tempesta’s composition, but since the scene is otherwise very rare, this modest work may well have served as Ciampelli's primary visual source.

The action takes place in a classical architectural setting, teeming with turbaned onlookers, mothers with babies, and children peering around comers to catch a glimpse of the gruesome goings-on. Ciampelli makes effective use of the architecture in the organization of his composition. In the lower right comer, for example, the strong zigzag line cre­ated by the steps seems to sunder the apostles on the left from the magicians on the right. The columns constitute an especially ingenious device: they echo the figural composi­tion below, with one large, weighty column in the middle ground positioned so that it appears directly above the head of St. Jude, and a pair of smaller, more delicate columns in the background positioned so that they appear directly over the head of the principal magus. The large column, by the way, not only directs our attention toward the saints but also, on a symbolic level, may signify their fortitude in the presence of their enemies.9

Perhaps the most striking feature of the painting is the dram atic lighting. Shadowed areas are set against lit areas, and vice versa, to create startling effects of con- traluee. This is especially noticeable near the midpoint of the composition, where Ju d e ’s outstretched hand is sil­houetted against the paler background of the m agus’s sleeve, making his gesture stand out boldly.

The altar of Sts. Simon and Ju d e was consecrated in 1628.10 Ciampelli’s altarpiece was replaced in 1814 by a mosaic replica of Guido Reni’s Crucifixion o f St. Peter.11 (Passignano’s Crucifixion o f St. P eter had been removed from the church nearly a century before.) To commemo­rate the dedication of the altar, two mosaic ovals, repre­senting St. Simon and St. Ju d e Thaddeus, were installed on either side of the new altarpiece.12 As recently as 1963, the Reni was itself replaced by a mosaic of St. Jooeph with the Chruit Child, designed by Achille Funi at the behest of Pope John XXIII.13 Ciampelli’s painting is today in stor­age in the Studio dei Mosaici in Vatican City. As of 1986, it was torn and punctured in several places and in urgent need of restoration.

B O Z Z E T T I

The following entry appears in inventories of the Barberini collection: “Un quadro di palmi 5 inc[irc]a rappresentante il M iracolo di S. Simone e Giuda [con diversi maghi], mano del Passignano” (M. A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 299, 431). The bozzetto must certainly be related to the altarpiece in St. Peter’s, but how is one to account for the unexpected attribution? Nissman (1979, p. 119, n. 52) suggests that

246 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

there may have been a competition for the commission and that the sketch in the Barberini collection was Passignano s entiy to that competition, but this is improbable given the circumstances of the commission. More likely, the author of the inventory was simply in error, and the bozzetto was by Ciampelli. The confusion is not altogether surprising in light of the similarity of the two artists’ styles. The present location of the bozzetto is unknown.

D O C U M E N T S

1605, Dec. 27: Translation of the bodies of Sts. Simon and Jude from the old church to the middle altar in the south transept of the new church. (Grimaldi, pp. 69—71)

1624, Sept. 19: “Visitatio altaris maioris in choro.Fiant cancelli.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 4)

1625, Sept. 15 and Oct. 8 : Carlo Ghetti informs the Con­gregation that it is the pope’s wish, expressed through Bernini, that Agostino Ciampelli be assigned one of the altarpieces in St. Peter’s: the Congregation will send representatives to discuss the commission with the pope. (P. 2141-42)

1625, Oct. 22 and Dec. 10: By order of Urban VIII, the Congregation assigns Ciampelli one of the small altar- pieces. (P. 2143—44)

1626, Feb. 27: Initial payment of sc. 50 to Ciampelli “a bon conto della Tavola in pittura che deve fare per l’Altare de Santi Simone e Giuda.” (P. 2145)

Date uncertain (c. 1626): A proposal to move the Volto Santo to this altar goes unheeded. (Doc. Appendix, no. 10)

1627, May 14: Ciampelli is listed among those painters "alii quali si dicono gia promesse le Tavole da farsi nelli Altari in S. Pietro.” (P. 94)

1628, Sept. 12: Relics of St. Leo IX are deposited in the altar. Five days later the altar is consecrated. (Doc. Appendix, no. 21)

1629, June 12: The sum of sc. 3.50 is owed to G. B. Soria "per un . . . tavolo . . . dietro l’Altare di S. Simone e Giuda." (P. 42)

1629, Ju ly 12: Payment of sc. 150 to Ciampelli “a bon conto del quadro di SS. Simone e Giuda fatto in S. Pietro.” (P. 2146)

1629, Sept. 7: Payment of sc. 100 to Ciampelli "per resto di sc. 300 della tavola fatta da lui.” (P. 2147)

1629, Oct. 17: Payment of sc. 50 to Ciampelli "per dona- tivo che si compiace farli la S. Congreg. per la tavola di Santi Simone e Giuda oltre a sc. 300 hauti per paga- mento.’’ (P. 2148)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 320: "Ha egli parimente in s. Pietro Vati- cano condotto un quadro piccolo a olio su la tela, entrovi s. Simone, e Giuda Taddeo Apostoli con li Maghi, & e nella Traversa su l’altare di mezo a mano stanca."

N O T E S

1. On Clement VIII’s project for the transept chapels, see Chapter 2. The three episodes from the life of Peter illus­trated in the vault are: ( 1) his liberation from prison; (2) the Giving of the Keys; and (3) Peter walking on the water.

2. Acta SS, October, XII, pp. 424-31; Reau, 1955-59, III. ii, pp. 764-54; III. iii, pp. 1223-35; Bibliotheca Sanctorum, 1961-70, XI, cols. 1169-74; Jounel, 1977, p. 300; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 670-71.

3. Vasari-Milanesi, V, pp. 625—26; Alfarano, p. 64 and n. 1; Grimaldi, p. 70.

4. On the translation of the bodies of Sts. Simon and Jude, see Grimaldi, pp. 69-74.

5. On the peregrinations of the Pieta in the sixteenth and sev­enteenth centuries, see Cat. 8.

6. On Agostino Ciampelli (c. 1568-1630), see Baglione, 1642, pp. 319-21; Thiem, 1971; Prosperi Valenti (Rodino), 1972; 1973; and or Agostino Ciampelli, DBI, XXV, pp. 122-26. On Urban VIII’s patronage of Ciampelli, see Chapter 8.

7. See Cat. SP. 2.8. Jacobus de Voragine, 1941, p. 637.9. The single column is a standard attribute of Fortitude. For

Carlo Pellegrini ’s use of the same motif, see Cat. 7.10. Doc. Appendix, no. 21; Sindone, 1744, p. 70.11. DiFederico, 1983, p. 78.12. Ibid. The two mosaics were designed by Vincenzo Camuc-

cini by 1822.13. Ibid.

C A T A L O G U E 15

ALTAR OF S T S . M A R T IA L AND V ALERIA [3 4 ]

Giovanni Antonio Galli, called Spadarino, St. Valeria o f Li/nogeo Carrier Her Head to the Altar Where St. M artialIo Celebrating the Alaoo (1629—32)

Oil on canvas; 320 X 186 cmSala Capitolare (Sacristy), St. Peter’s(Figs. 152-153)

The chapel of St. Martial is situated in the left niche of the south transept (Fig. 152). The stucco otorie in the vault date from the pontificate of Clement VIII and illus­trate scenes from the life of St. Andrew (Fig. 46 ).1 On Jan uary 18, 1606, by order of Paul V, the body of St. Leo IX was brought here from its tomb-altar in the nave of old St. Peter’s.2 The altar of St. Leo IX in the old basilica was more commonly known as the a ltar of the Dead {altare martuorum) because it was privileged for the souls of the dead in purgatory.3 This privilege was not, how­ever, carried over to the altar of St. Leo IX in the new church J Soon after the translation of the body of Leo IX,

C A T A L O G U E 15 g g 2 4 7

Jacopo Zucchi’s Resurrection was installed over the altar (Fig. 59). The picture was still in place in 1627 and may have remained there until 1632, when the altar was fur­nished with a permanent altarpiece.6

Until 1626, the altar was generally known by the title of St. Leo IX. Thereafter, various new titles were pro­posed. The Congregation suggested the title of St. Sebas­tian .6 The canons objected, c la im ing that Sebastian deserved a larger and more prominent altar, and advo­cated instead the title of St. M artial, whose office they traditionally celebrated/ At one point, a peculiar joint dedication, in honor of St. M artial and St. Carlo Bor- romeo, was briefly contemplated.8 In the end, though, the canons had their w ay and the a ltar w as dedicated in honor of St. Martial alone, or rather, of St. Martial and his martyred convert St. Valeria.

St. Martial was the first bishop of Limoges and is the patron saint of that city. According to a legend forged in the tenth or eleventh century by the monks of his abbey in Limoges, Martial was a younger cousin and disciple of the apostle Peter. As a boy he witnessed the miracle of the multiplication of the fishes and the loaves; he was pre­sent at the Raising of Lazarus; he held the towel at the Washing of the Feet; and he waited on table at the Last Supper. After the death of Christ, Peter sent Martial to be the first m issionary to preach the word of God in Gaul. For the remainder of his life he converted the peo­ple of Limoges, evangelized the whole of Aquitaine, and performed numerous miracles with the help of a magic wand given him by his cousin.9

Martial was a French saint, and his cult was not wide­spread in Italy. Nevertheless, his connection with St. Peters can be traced back to the time of Pope John XIX (1024—32).10 In a letter written in response to a request from the bishop of Limoges, Pope John agreed, undoubt­edly for political reasons, to confer the honorific title of Apostle on St. Martial. He added the following promise: "And so that the reverence and renown of so great an apostle may be raised aloft throughout the whole world, we will build and dedicate in his honor a most beautiful altar in the basilica of St. Peter Apostle in Rome, [. . .] where every day the memory of this same sainted apostle [i.e. Martial] will be veiy devotedly venerated and espe­cially on the day of his birth.”11 The altar of St. Martial founded by John XIX stood in old St. Peter’s until it was demolished in the early sixteenth centuiy to make w ay for the construction of the new basilica. It attracted consider­able patronage, especially from members of the Orsini family. Napoleone Orsini, archpriest of the basilica from 1306 until his death in 1342, bequeathed agricu ltural lands amounting to almost a thousand acres to the Chap­ter of St. Peter’s, with the stipulation that the revenue was to be spent on masses and on the general maintenance of the altar.12 In 1428, Donna Orsina Orsini left 2,000 gold

florins, with specific instructions that masses were to be said at the altar of St. Martial for the souls of her parents and herself "in perpetuum .”13 That the income from the money and lands attached to the old altar of St. Martial was an important source of wealth for the Chapter of St. Peter’s doubtless explains why the clergy were anxious to reestablish the title in the new basilica.

Giovanni Antonio Galli, better known as Spadarino (1585-1651/53), was promised a commission for an altar- piece in St. Peter’s before M ay 6, 1626, and in October of that year he received an initial payment of 50 scuOi.14 In a document dated November 4, 1626, he is mentioned in connection with an altarpiece of "S. Carlo,” apparently intended for the chapel in the right niche of the north transept, but it is not until M ay 17, 1627, that we first find him associated with the altarpiece for the left chapel in the south transept. Two years later, the painting was still not begun, if we take the manufacture of a wooden stretcher for the canvas, paid for on Ju n e 12, 1629, as a term inus post quern for its inception. No more payments to Spadarino are recorded until November 22, 1632, when the work is described as finished. Spadarino received a total of 300 scud i for the altarpiece.

The artist was given the job of representing a curious episode involving St. Martial and another saint, Valeria, a young Limousine virgin whom he had converted. Stephen, the Roman govenor of the region, wanted to m any Vale­ria. When he learned of her conversion, he ordered her decapitation, refusing her the right to partake of last com­munion before her execution; but Valeria, undeterred from her pious duty, picked up her severed head and, to the amazement ol all who witnessed it, took it with her to the altar where St. Martial was celebrating the mass.15

The altarpiece represents the altar where St. Martial is officiating (Fig. 153). Valeria, dressed richly in white and gold, kneels before the priest and holds out her head as though to receive his blessing. Behind them a younger man looks on with raised eyebrows, while a child acolyte, Guercinesque in type, gapes up at Valeria from beneath the bishop’s cope. A bell and a stack of tapers are set on the floor behind the altar. The virtuoso foreshortening of the tapers and the w ay they jut out over the edge of the altar step, casting a shadow, are conscious reminiscences of Caravaggio, whose tenebrist style greatly influenced Spadarino.

The painting is arguably the least successful of all the a lta rp ie c e s com m issioned un d er U rban V III. In Spadarino’s defense, it must be said that stories involving cephalophoric saints are virtually impossible to illustrate with becoming dignity. The very subject implies a mix­ture of the gruesome with the ludicrous, hard ly con­ducive to noble relig ious sentim ent. Stand ing before Spadarino 's a ltarp iece , one feels an urge to chuckle. There is something patently false about the reactions and

2 4 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

emotions of the various participants in the drama, and especially of St. Martial, who stands dumbfounded, with arms stretched wide and face agog. He is clearly not the one who has p erp e tra ted the m irac le , nor does he respond to it with the calm acceptance of a saint; instead, he is as amazed as anyone by what he sees. Spadarino has reduced Martial to a mere witness, who participates in the miracle only as an astonished observer. Valeria is without question the heroine of the piece.

So little known was the story of M artial and Valeria that many Italians had difficulty in recognizing the sub­ject of Spadarino ’s altarp iece. M ost people assumed, because of her prominence in the painting, that Valeria was the titular saint of the altar, but few knew who she was. Martinelli identified her as Theodora, a Greek saint who w as also involved in a h ead -carry in g incident. Other authors, in their confusion, sim ply referred to Valeria as “una Santa,” usually without mentioning M ar­tial at all. The prominence given to Valeria in the altar- piece w as to affect the dedication of the a lta r itself. When the a ltar was consecrated in 1655 by Cardinal Francesco Barberini, archpriest of St. Peter’s, it was dedicated to God and in honor of Sts. Martial and Vale­ria.16 Thus, an altar that in the old church was dedicated to St. Martial alone, in the new church acquired a dou­ble dedication purely as a result of the subject of the painting placed over it.

Spadarino ’s altarp iece remained in situ until 1824 when it w as rep laced by a m osaic reproduction of Domenichino’s Ecotaoy o f St. Francui.w Spadarino’s paint­ing was loaned for a time to S. Caterina della Rota, a church under the ju risd iction of the C hap ter of St. Peter’s; it was later retrieved and is today in the Sala Capitolare in the sacristy of St. Peter’s.18 At the end of the nineteenth century, at the request of the bishop of Limoges, the altar in the south transept was rededicated to Sts. M artia l and Valeria, and a mosaic altarp iece, based on Spadarino's painting, replaced Domenichino’s St. FrancL). In 1963, the altarpiece of M artial and Valeria was again supplanted, this time by a mosaic reproduction of Guido Reni’s M artyrdom o f St. Peter.19

D O C U M E N T S

1606, Jan . 18: Translation of the body of St. Leo IX from the old church to the left altar in the south transept of the new church. (Grimaldi, pp. 97-102)

1626, April 5: The office is recited "in Coro” (that is, at the altar of Sts. Simon and Jude in the south transept). "[Li celebranti] si sono vestiti all’Altare di S. Leone IX dietro al Coro.” (ACSP, Diari 11, p. 330)

1626, before May 6: Spadarino writes to Cardinal Biscia, asking Biscia to recommend him to Cardinal Zacchia so that he may be assigned an altarpiece as previously promised. (P. 2153)

1626, M ay 6 : The Congregation makes note of this request. (P. 2153)

1626, Oct. 30: Initial payment of sc. 50 to Spadarino "a bon conto di pitture che deve fare. ” (P. 2154)

Date uncertain (c. Oct. 1626): The Congregation recom­mends that the left chapel in the south transept be dedi­cated to St. Sebastian, “cuius extant S. Caput, et partic- ulares Cappellani.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 8)

1626, Nov 4: Spadarino is mentioned in connection with an altarpiece of S. Carlo, probably intended for the right chapel in the north transept. (Doc. Appendix, no. 9)

Date uncertain (c. Jan . 1627): "Pro S. Martiali poterit assignari Altare ad latus SS. Simonis et Judae quod cor- respondet Altari S. Thomae.

D. Altare S. Martialis episcopi, Discipuli B. PetriCelebratur a nostro Clero illius officium ratione Cappellae” (Doc. Appendix, no. 11)

c. 1627: "Restano da consacrarsi l ’infrascritti:

3. S. Leone 9" dove e la Tavola della Resurettione di N.S. si deve levare il Corpo di S. Leone e porre nell’ Altare della Presentatione.

Nota delle Cappelle da dipingersi, et dei Pittori:

3. Di S. Martiale, et Carlo..................3. Al Spadarino”(Doc. Appendix, no. 14)

1627, May 14: Spadarino is listed among those painters "alii quale si dicono gia promesse le Tavole da farsi nelli Altari in S. Pietro.” He has been assigned the altarpiece in the "Cappella Collaterale a cornu Evangelij ai Santi Martiale et Carlo. ” (P. 94)

1629, June 12: The sum of sc. 8 is owed to G. B. Soria "Per haver fatto un altro telaro d’albuccio . . . che e per la pit- tura che fa il Spadarino.” (P. 42)

1632, Nov. 22: Payment of sc. 150 to Spadarino "a conto del quadro che ha fatto . . . di S. Martiale. ” (P. 2155)

1633, Jan . 22: Payment of sc. 100 to Spadarino "per resto di sc. 300 per la tavola fatta . . . di S. Martiale e Santa Valeria.” (P. 2156)

1655, Nov. 14: "Altare Sancti Martialis Episcopi, et Con- fessoris, ac Sanctae Valeriae Virginis, et Martyris, sub qui requiescit Corpus Sancti Leonis Papae IX [. . .] ded- icandum, et consecrandum decrevit.” (ACSP, H96, p. 1)

S O U R C E S

Celio, 1638 (1967), p. 26: “Quella dove la Santa Porta la propria testa in mano, di N. Spadarino Romano . . . ”

Martinelli (D ’Onofrio, 1969), p. 156: ". . . nel 3° [altare] S. Theodora martire che porta nelle man! la propria testa, pittura di Gio. Antonio Spadarino Romano."

Mola, 1663 (1963), p. 41: “II Primo quadro, ove e efigiato una Santa con la testa in mane, e dello Spadarino.”

C A T A L O G U E 16 2 4 9

Fontana, 1694, p. 397: "Nel primo Altare della Crociata, a mano manca, si rappresenta Santa Valeria, e San Mar- tiale, opera uscita dal pennello del Zuccari [.<«■]; e si scorge in esso la forza, e valore, che lo fa vedere quasi nuovo.”

N O T E S

1. For Clement VlII’s decoration of the transept chapels, see Chapter 2. The episodes represented on the vault of the chapel of St. Martial are: (1) St. Andrew baptizing (?); (2) St. Andrew before Aegeas, proconsul of Achaia; (3) the Crucifixion of St. Andrew.

2. Grimaldi, pp. 97—101.3. Alfarano, pp. 48, n. 2, 67-68, 178; Grimaldi, pp. 97-99 and

fig. 33. The altar of the Dead, one of the seven privileged altars in old St. Peter's, was endowed with a perpetual chap­laincy, as Alfarano (p. 67) decribes: ", . . anno Domini 1430, [Petrus] de Benevento Canonicus Basilicae sufficienter dotavit instituens unum Capellanum qui esset ibi perpetuus Clericus Chori Basilicae, et fructus perciperet sicut caeteri Clerici, et respective Choro in horis Canonicis deserviret et teneretur ter in hebdomada in dicto Altari sacra facere.”

4. In new St. Peter’s, there were two altars privileged for the dead, the altar of Sts. Processus and Martinian and the altar of St. Gregoiy the Great.

5. On the identification of the temporary altarpiece, see Chapter 2.

6. There was also a proposal to dedicate the chapel in honor of St. Longinus, but this seems never to have been seri­ously contemplated (see Doc. Appendix, no. 10).

7. The Congregation had proposed combining the title of St. Martial with that of the Holy Trinity and All Saints at the altar in the New Sacristy (Doc. Appendix, no. 8).

8. See Chapter 6.9. Baronio, 1738—46 1, 34.ccci, 44.xxvii, and passim; Acta SS,

Iunii, V, pp. 535-37; Reau, 1955-59, IILii, pp. 896-900; Bihliolheca Sanctorum, 1961—70, VIII, cols. 1310—13.

10. For an excellent account of the history of the altar of St. Martial in St. Peter’s, see Ardant, 1891. See also Alfarano, pp. 68—69; Sindone, 1744, pp. 70—74.

11. "Ut autem reverentia et celebritas tanti apostoli in toto orbe terrarum excelsius recolatur aedificatum et dedicatum est a nobis in eius honore pulcherrimum altare in basilica Sancti Petri apostoli Romae [. . .] ubi quotidie ipsius sancti apostoli memoria devotissime veneratur; et praecipue in die natalitii eius.” The letter of Pope John XIX to Jour- dain, Bishop of Limoges, is transcribed in its entirety by Grimaldi, pp. 400—401.

12. Grimaldi, p. 395: "[Cappella] Sancti M artia lis a Neapoleone [Ursino dotata est,] cui pro dote attribuit opu- lentum praedium casalis Piscis rubrorum 200, quod hodie capitulum Sancti Petri possidet.” See also Alfarano, pp. 68-69; Ardant, 1891, pp. 11-12.

13. Alfarano, p. 69; Ardant, 1891, pp. 12-14.14. On Spadarino, see Spear, 1971, pp. 94-95; Busiri-Vici,

1974; 1975; 1977; Marsicola, 1979; Papi, 1986; Giffi Ponzi, 1987.

15. Reau, 1955-59, Ill.iii, pp. 1305-1306; Bibliotheca Sancto­rum, 1961—70, XII, cols. 906—908. See also Perrier, 1948. On the legend of Valeria, Reau observes: "Cette legende a 6te forgee ou enrichie au Xe sidcle dans l ’abbaye limousine de Saint-Martial pour attirer les pelerins en leur offrant une replique feminine de saint Denis.”

16. Sindone, 1744, p. 74; Ardant, 1891, pp. 25-26.17. DiFederico, 1983, p. 78.18. A very good copy, often confused with the original, is

today in S. Caterina della Rota. The copy is attributed to Vincenzo Camuccini.

19. DiFederico, 1983, p. 78.

C A T A L O G U E 16

ALTAR OF ST. M IC H A E L [2 0 ]Giovanni Battista Calandra after Giuseppe Cesari

d ’Arpino, The Archangel M ichael (1627-28)Mosaic; approximately 285 X 207 cmMacerata, Duomo (Figs. 154—155)

The main a lta r in the northw est corner chapel w as assigned to the Confraternity of the Palafrenieri in 1605. They planned to dedicate it in honor of their patron saint Anne, and to this end commissioned Caravaggio to paint an altarpiece representing St. Anne with the Virgin and Child (Fig. 60). The painting was placed over the altar on April 14, 1606, but was removed two days later, apparently because the Confraternity had meanwhile lost its rights to the altar. Later, a picture by Jacopo Zucchi representing the Ajcenoion provided a temporary altarpiece (Fig. 52).1 Nothing is known of the altar’s subsequent history until 1623, when a late-medieval wooden crucifix that had stood over the adjacent altar of St. Petronilla was moved there preparatory to the installation of Guercino’s altar- piece (Fig. 5 1).2 Toward the end of 1626, when the cardi­nals of the Congregation drew up their proposal for the disposition of the remaining altars in St. Peter’s, they revived the idea of dedicating the altar in the northwest chapel in honor of St. Anne. The possibility of introducing an iconographic parallel between this altar and the corre­sponding a ltar of the M adonna della Colonna on the opposite side of the church - one dedicated in honor of the Virgin’s mother and the other of the Virgin herself - seems to have appealed to them. The canons, on the other hand, wanted to give the altar the title of St. Petronilla, which they considered too important to be relegated to the chapel’s secondary altar. In the end, the cardinals and canons settled on a different dedication altogether, in honor of the archangel Michael.

Urban VIII had been crowned on the feast of St.

2 5 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

M ich ae l, and w as thus e sp e c ia lly devoted to the archangel. Knowing this, the cardinals originally pro­posed dedicating the apse altar in honor of St. Michael, and decorating it with a sculptured altarpiece by Gian- lorenzo Bernini. The idea was nipped in the bud by tbe canons and by the pope himself, who reminded the cardi­nals of the necessity of dedicating the apse altar in honor of St. Peter.3 Not long after, the title of St. Michael was assigned to the altar in the northwest corner chapel.

For this altar, and for no other altar in the basilica, the cardinals commissioned a mosaic altarpiece. Documents suggest that they chose the medium because they wanted to maintain a modicum of symmetry between this altar- piece and the altarpiece of the Madonna della Colonna on the opposite side of the church, which was executed in m arble in tars ia , a medium they considered ak in to mosaic. But there can be little doubt that they were also motivated by a wish to single out the altar ol the pope’s patron saint and to emphasize its special importance. Mosaic is an expensive and luxurious medium, and its use in this instance was widely interpreted as a manifesta­tion of the pope’s personal devotion to the archangel.4

The commission was assigned to two different artists. Cavaliere d ’Arpino produced the cartoon;5 and Giovanni Battista Calandra, the leading mosaicist in Rome, trans­lated the Cavaliere’s design into the finest glass mosaic.6 Work began in the summer of 1627, and was completed by the fall of 1628. The mosaic was installed over the altar on September 28, in time to be unveiled the follow­ing day, September 29, the feast of St. Michael and the anniversary of the pope.7

The Cavaliere’s composition is traditional, following a pattern established at least a century earlier by Raphael and others (Fig. 155). The angel is poised as though he has just alighted on the ground, his snowy wings spread wide, his bright red cloak sweeping out behind him. A fan-shaped radiance illuminates the sky all around him. At his feet, twisted and cowering, the devil hides his face in shame or fear. A thorn bush, the only vegetation in a barren landscape, curls up between his legs, serving as both cache-sexe and instrument of torture. The date appears in the lower right corner: 1628.

This was the first and for a long time the only mosaic altarpiece in the basilica, and it was universally admired, for its beauty, but even more for its preciousness.8 The Michael altarpiece was by far the costliest of the altar- pieces commissioned for St. Peter’s during the pontificate of Urban VIII. Cavaliere d ’Arpino received 200 M idi for his cartoon, and Calandra was paid \,797 acudi, bringing the total for the altarpiece to nearly 2,000 Midi, or twice as much as any other altarpiece in the church.

However much it was admired in its own day, Calan- d ra ’s mosaic did not stand the test of time. As tastes

changed, it fell from favor, and in 1756 the Congregation of the Fabbrica decided to remove it from St. Peter’s. (By a stroke of poetic justice, it was replaced by a mosaic repro­duction of another Barberini-sponsored image of the archangel, Reni's St. /Michael in S. Maria della Concezione.9) In 1772, Pope Clement XIV presented Calandra s mosaic to the town of Macerata in the Marches; today it hangs over the altar in the right transept of the Duomo.10

D O C U M E N T S

Date uncertain (c. Oct. 1626): The Congregation sug­gests that the altar be dedicated to St. Anne: “In anti- qua Basilica supra proprium Altare venerabatur imago, et memoria S. Annae Matris Gloriosissimae Virginis; iure igitur renovandum videtur in loco delineato supra literam 'M e conspectu Altaris Beatissimae Virginis in Columna." (Doc. Appendix, no. 8)

1626, Nov. 4: Calandra is assigned “La Cappella di S. Anna di musaico, per accompagniar la Cappella di con- tro della Madonna nella Colonna, c ’ha l'ornamento intarsiato di marmi.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 9. See also Doc. Appendix, no. 7)

Date uncertain (c. Jan . 1627): The Chapter suggests that the altar be dedicated to St. Petronilla. (Doc. Appendix, no. 11. See also Doc. Appendix, no. 10)

1627, May 14: Calandra has already been assigned “Il S. Michel Arcangelo di Musaico.” (P. 94)

1627, May 31: Initial payment of sc. 100 to Calandra “a conto del S. Michele Arcangelo di musaico che deve fare.” (P. 2293)

1627, Ju ly 3: Initial payment of sc. 100 to Giuseppe d'Arpino “a bon conto del Cartone di S. Michele Arcan­gelo che deve fare.” (P. 2290)

1627, Aug. 11-Dec. 18: Five payments of sc. 450 to Calan­dra. (P. 2294)

1628, Jan . 29—Nov. 20: Nine payments of sc. 750 to Calan­dra. (P. 2295)

1628, May 15: The Congregation decides to pay Cavaliere d'Arpino another sc. 100 for the cartoon, which he has now completed. (P. 2291)

1628, Ju n e 8 : Final payment of sc. 100 to Cavaliere d ’Arpino. (P. 2292)

1628, Sept. 26: Giovanni Docci is to receive sc. 41.25 "per indoratura del fusarolo di metallo messo atorno al S. Michel Arcangello di mosaico." (P. 2298-99)

1628, before Nov. 9: Calandra writes to Cardinal Ginnasi, asking that the mosaic, which he has now completed, be evaluated so that he may receive due payment. (P. 2296)

1628, Dec. 18: Payment of sc. 497 to Calandra “per resto di sc. 1797 che importa il S. Michel Archangelo fatto di musaico [ . . . ] , computati sc. 225 per li smalti fatti venire da Venetia posti in detta opera.” (P. 2297)

C A T A L O G U E 16 2 5 1

S O U R C E S

Evelyn, 1959, p. 138: . . the body of the Church . . . [is]adorn’d with an infinity of Statues, Pictures, stately Altars, & Reliques innumerable, & not indeede to be reckoned: onely the Altar-piece of st. Michael being of Mosaique I could not passe without particular note; because certainely one of the best of that kind in the Earth.”

Mortoff, 1925, p. 80: "At the upper end of the Church, on the right hand, is a piece made of Mosaicke worke, and set over an Altar, representing the Arch Angel fighting with the dragon. It is so rare and lively a worke, that it is esteemed a piece incomparable, being not painted, but onely certain little stones of al colours set so artificially together, that it would astonish any person to thinke how any man should be capable to represent life so much, as is to be seene in the representation of this Picture.”

Grangier de Liverdis, 1667, p. 266: "Entre plusieurs, j ’y ay remarque un S. Michel sur un Autel au bout de l ’Eglise a droite qui est admire, & considere des plus experts comme un chef-d'oeuvre, & oil ils tombent tous d ’accord que l ’art est a bout.”

Passeri, p. 165: ”11 medesimo Pontefice Urbano, il quale procuro sempre di dare ornamento al gran Tempio di S. Pietro, penso d ’introdurre, se fosse stato possibile, un nuovo stile nelle Tavole degl’Altari di detto Tempio, per liberarle dal danno, che suol ricevere dall’umido, dal quale viene del continuo dominato, di farle tutte di mosaico, e per dar principio a questo pensiero, si stabili in una di quelle picciole per esperimentame la riuscita. Ordino al Cavaliere Gioseppe d'Arpino, che facesse il disegno, e il Cartone d ’uno di quelli Altari di minore grandezza, et egli, cosi havendone hauta la comissione, fece il Santo Arcangelo Michele, il quale con un asta nelle mani calpesta l’oppresso Lucifero quando, msuper- bito, si ribello dalla obedienza di Dio. II Calandra lo messe in esecuzione col lavoro di mosaico, e si porto in quell’operazione a segno, che diede gran piacere al Cav- alie[r] Gioseppe, al Pontefice et a tutto l ’Universale, che ne resto con un glorioso applauso, e l'a li di quel- l ’Arch’angelo gli diedero un volo sublime alia gloria."

Piazza, 1687, p. 570: . . l'lmagine, fatta a mosaico . . . perl’esquisitezza del lavoro, e per la singolarita del Mosaico, eccita maraviglia, venerazione, e confidenza nel di lui patroncinio.”

Pascoli, 1730-36, II, pp. 25-26: "Andava in tanto medi- tando il pontefice Urbano, che sempre piu proccurava d ’ornare quel bellissimo tempio [Vaticano], di trovar qualche modo di conservare i quadri degli altari dall’u­mido, da cui ricevevano notabil detrimento, siccome anch’oggi lo ricevono; e non avendolo potuto rinvenire penso di farli far tutti di musaico. Ordino percio a Giuseppe d’Arpino che facesse il disegno d’uno de’ piu piccoli per darvi principio, e prender da questo norma

per l grandi. E perche conobbe che ne aveva premura lo principio subito, e disegno S. Michelarcangelo coll asta in mano, calpestando l ’audace, e temerario Lucifero allorche insuperbito si ribello ingratam ente dalla suprema ubbidienza del suo Creatore. Portatolo poi al pontefice gli piacque assaissimo, e fattolo vedere ad altri intendenti, ed avuta l’approvazione di tutti gli disse che ne facesse immediatamente il cartone. Fatto che l'ebbe il consegno al nostro Giambatista, che sapendo quanto gli premeva non manco di sbrigarsene con maestria, e prestezza. Ando Sua S an tita tosto a vederlo , ed essendone restato soddisfattissimo, soddisfattissimo ne resto ancora l ’Arpino, e chiunque per molti giomi in gran numero concorse ad osservarlo. Onde godendo allora tra gli applausi universal! il degno frutto di sue fatiche tutto giulivo, e gajo il nostro Giambatista s’astenne su quel pnmo di lasciarsi vedere per isfuggir le lodi, e le congrat- ulazioni, che riceveva da ognuno, che in lui s’aweniva.”

N O T E S

1. See Chapter 2.2. See Cat. 2.3. On the histoiy of the apse altar, see L. Rice, 1992; also

Chapters 5-6 and Cat. 19.4. See, for example, BAV, Barb. Lat. 4731, p. 837: "In oltre

adorno nella stessa Basilica molti altri Altari con marmi, e pitture eccellenti, e specialmente quello di San Michele Arcangelo suo particolare Auvocato, il cui quadro voile che fosse di opera a mosaico come piu durevole, e piu maestosa.” Torelli, 1639, p. 14: "Musivam eius imaginem gemmis con- textam pretiosis in Vaticana vovisti; & patronum elegisti, qui TE MANE, TE VESPERE de Coelo protegeret.”

5. Cavaliere d'Arpino was an obvious choice for the commis­sion, having designed and directed the mosaic decoration of the cupola of St. Peter’s (1603-12). Furthermore, he had depicted the archangel on numerous previous occa­sions, most notably in a work he presented to Heniy IV of France in 1600/01 (see Baglione, 1642, pp. 371-75; Rottgen, 1973, pp. 79-81, 129-32, 137-39; Zinke, 1990). In 1627, shortly before the artist received his first payment in connection with the altarpieee in St. Peter’s, another of his paintings of St. Michael, in a gilded frame decorated with bees and suns, entered the Barberini collection (M.A. Lavin, 1975, p. 86).

6. Calandra was aopraotante of the Fabbrica di S. Pietro from 1622 until 1629 and thereafter held the post of superinten- dant of mosaics in St. Peter’s until his death in 1644. See Gonzalez-Palacios, 1976; Di Federico, 1983, pp. 15—16 and passim.

7. For the date ol the installation of Calandra’s mosaic, see Torrigio, 1629, p. 74.

8. On the public reaction to Calandra's altarpieee, see Chap­ter 9.

9. Di Federico, 1983, pp. 74-75. The desirability of replacing Calandra's St. Michael with Reni’s was hinted at as early as 1694: "Si ammira l’opera famosa di musaico fino arrotato a

2 5 2 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

lustro, che rappresenta San Michele Arcangelo, che scac- cia il Demonio, (atta dal Calandra, con disegno di Cesare d'Arpino. Doveva in questo luogo esser posto quello, che fece Guido Reni, che ora si ritrova a mano dritta, nell’en- trare della Chiesa de’ Capuccini Nuovi . . . . ’’ (Fontana, 1694, p. 400)

10. Gentili, 1967, p. 109.

C A T A L O G U E 1 7

ALTAR OF THE N A V ICELLA [1 8 ]

Giovanni Lanfranco, Chruit Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water (1627-28)

Fresco; approximately 720 X 420 cmBenediction Loggia (lower half of composition);

mosaic replica in situ(Figs. 156-157)

The altar of the Navicella was one of altars in the n av ip ic­cole built and decorated during the pontificate of Clement VIII. Located behind three ol the lour crossing piers, these six altars were provided with altarpieces represent­ing episodes from the life of St. Peter.1 Five of the altar- pieces illustrated scenes from the book of Acto, which occur after the death of Christ, or after Peter assumes his role as Christ’s chosen successor on earth. Only one of the a ltarp ieces illu strated a scene from the Gospels, which takes place before Christ's death and involves him directly. The story is told in the Gospel of St. Matthew:

Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship and to go before him unto the other side [. . .] But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disci­ples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, say­ing, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straight­way Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? \Alodice fid ei quare dubilaotiT) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.2

Because Peter alone had faith enough to venture out onto the water, the story illustrates his special relationship with Christ and his primacy over the other apostles.3 Of course the episode can also be understood on a symbolic level. The wind and waves that threaten the boat are manifestations of sin and temptation. As Peter’s faith fal­

ters, he sinks; but when he places his trust in God, he receives salvation. Alternatively, because Peter represents the Roman Church, which he founded, the story can be understood as a metaphor for C hrist’s support of the Church in times of adversity .4 This last interpretation became especially popular during the Counter Reforma­tion; several sixteenth-century popes illustrated the scene on their medals.5 Yet even the episode’s overt symbolism does not entirely account for its inclusion in a cycle other­wise dedicated to Peter’s life after Christ’s death.

To understand why the story of Peter walking on the water was included in the Clementine cycle, one needs to be aware that the subject had long been associated with the basilica, through a famous and revered image by Giotto.6 Giotto’s work, familiarly known as the Navicella (after the boat carrying the apostles across the sea), was executed in mosaic around the year 1300 and was origi­nally located outdoors, on the east, or entrance wall ol the atrium of old St. Peter’s (Fig. 158). When the atrium was torn down, the mosaic was detached from the wall in an effort to preserve it, and was then shunted from location to location according to the whims of successive popes. In 1619, it was restored by Marcello Provenzale and set up over a fountain located to one side of the recently com­pleted entrance tower into the Vatican Palace.7 Urban VIII, concerned about the rapidly deteriorating condition of the work, decided to bring it into the basilica, and in 1628 had it installed on the interior facade between the cornice and the vault.8 This arrangement, recorded in a drawing by Domenico Castello (Fig. 159), again proved only temporary. In October 1648, Innocent X had the mosaic taken down, claiming that it was impossible to see it and admire it in that location.9 Finally, in 1675, the mosaic found a permanent home over the central door in the entrance portico, opposite Bernini’s marble relief of the P aoce Ovev Afeav. By then, of course, it had been restored so many times that it is doubtful whether a sin­gle tessera remained of Giotto’s original composition.10

When Clement VIII commissioned the altarpieces in the navi piccole, Giotto’s Navicella was still outdoors and was showing signs of damage after three centuries of exposure to the elements. Rather than restore Giotto’s mutilated image, it would seem that Clement decided to replace it, by commissioning an altarpiece with the same subject. He intended to perpetuate the memory of the original Navicella and to invoke its powerful symbolism, by including the story of Peter walking on the water in a cycle of pictures otherwise devoted to a later chapter in Peter’s life.

Bernardo C astello painted the original a ltarp iece between 1604 and 1605.11 Apparently the work was not well received: Castello was paid a mere 560 vcuAi, consid­erably less than any other artist who contributed to the cycle.12 In addition, there were problems of conservation.

C A T A L O G U E 17 g f 2 5 3

Already in 1613, Castello was obliged to perform emer­gency restoration work on the painting.13 But the altar- piece, painted in oil on slate, continued to deteriorate in the damp and dusty interior of St. Peter’s, and by the mid-twenties it was again in ruinous condition.

Castello’s work has not survived, but its composition is known to us through two prints by Jacques Callot (Fig. 41). M inor discrepancies between the prints have led some scholars to suggest that Castello took the opportu­nity during the restoration of 1613 to change certain details in the painting.14 The essential features are, how­ever, the same in both prints. Christ, standing on the left, and Peter, half sinking in the water, occupy the fore­ground. Christ holds Peter's hand. In the middle distance, spanning the width of the composition, is the boat full of apostles. From the sky above, rays ol light (or shafts ol rain) stream down onto the boat, while a glory of angels, seated on clouds, watch the events below. Castello's com­position was perhaps a little tame, but judging from the available evidence nothing about his handling of the sub­ject w as in any w ay outlandish or controversial. The lukewarm reaction to the painting must have been due to aesthetic ra ther than to iconographic shortcom ings. Mancini probably summed up the general opinion when he rem arked that the work revealed a poor sense of design and decorum .16

In August 1625, Giovanni Lanfranco petitioned the pope to paint the altarpieee in the New Sacristy. His request was denied, and instead Urban VIII assigned him the job of replacing Castello’s altarpieee with another ver­sion of the same subject. Lanfranco was paid an initial sum of 50 ocud i on September 5, but he did not begin work immediately, probably because he was still engaged on the frescoes in the dome of S. Andrea della Valle.

While Lanfranco delayed getting to work on the com­mission, Castello was eagerly tiy ing to take it aw ay from him. For Castello, an altarpieee in St. Peter’s was the high point of his career. When in 1626 he learned of plans to replace his painting with another version of the same subject by a different artist, he became frantic. On June 12, he wrote to the Congregation, begging its members to reconsider their decision. He disputed the contention that his painting contained “imperfettioni,” pointing out that it was strange that these imperfections should be noticed only then, after so many years, after being scrutinized by so many artists, and after having earned the approval of Giovanni Battista Crescenzi, an adviser to the Congrega­tion on artistic matters.16 Castello went on, however, to assure the Congregation that if they had indeed found fault with his composition, he was willing and anxious to fix it himself, and he promised to come to Rome immedi­ately if they would agree to this. Within a week, long before he could have had any reply from the cardinals, Castello wrote to them again: "With the last mail I sent

you a letter in which I begged you not to allow anyone else to lay a hand on the altarpieee that I painted in St. Peter’s, for this would be a great stain on my honor [che ciooarebbe d i non poca taccia a l l ’honor mui\." He again offered to travel from Genoa to Rome in order to undertake the restoration or reworking of his altarpieee, and he even declared his w illingness to do the work entirely at his own expense. This time he accompanied his letter with a recommendation from the Genoese Cardinal Domenico Rivarola, who happened to be in Genoa at the time, hav­ing retired there because of illness. A recommendation from Cardinal Rivarola, who was a member of the Con­gregation, might have carried some weight, but under the circumstances it was not enough to guarantee Castello’s cause. Urban VIII had let it be known that he wanted the job to go to Lanfranco, and the pope’s decision in such matters was not open to debate.17

Lanfranco began work on the altarpieee in 1627.18 In view of the deterioration of Castello’s altarpieee and of the other five altarp ieces painted on slate, Lanfranco opted for a different medium and painted in true fresco. The work was completed by September 17, 1628, when it w as unveiled before an aud ience that included the n cegeren te and four other prelates.

It is difficult to assess the critical reaction to Lan- franco’s work, for the evidence is mixed. If we believe Passeri, Urban VIII so admired the altarpieee that he rewarded Lanfranco with a knighthood.19 Whether this is true or not, the pope must have been at least reasonably satisfied with the painting, for soon after its completion Lanfranco w as aw arded another com mission in St. Peter’s, for the decoration of the vault of the chapel of the Crucifix (Fig. 8 1).20 Both Passeri and Bellori praise the painting, Passeri calling it “degno di lode, e di stima.” On the other hand, Bernardo Castello, w riting less than a yea r after the painting was completed, tells of a rather different reaction. In a letter to the Congregation dated August 11, 1629, he claimed that it was the opinion of artists who had studied Lanfranco’s Nat’ice/la that the painting was less successful than the work it replaced. Still desperate to reestablish his reputation, he proposed that he be allowed to remove Lanfranco’s altarpieee and replace it with another one of his own. Obviously, we must take Castello's words with a grain of salt, since he had a very definite grudge against Lanfranco. But per­haps he did not entirely invent his account of the criti­cism directed against Lanfranco's work, even if he did exaggerate it. The cardinals were apparently w illing to entertain the idea of replacing Lanfranco’s altarpieee, and w ere on the verge of ask ing Castello to subm it new designs. Although they later decided against this, the fact that the cardinals would even consider Castello's offer may indicate a certain dissatisfaction with Lanfranco's work.

2 5 4 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Lanfranco’s altarpiece was similar to Castello’s in its general outlines (Figs. 156—157). This is not really sur­prising, since the two artists based their works on the same prototype, Giotto’s Navicella. Both artists had diffi­culty in adapting Giotto’s horizontal composition to the vertical format of the altarpiece. The problem is particu­larly apparent with regard to the boat, which fits com­fortably in the early work, but which is cramped and aw kw ard in the two a lta rp iece s . In one im portan t respect, Lanfranco’s altarpiece comes closer to the spirit of the orig inal than does C aste llo ’s. The apostles in Giotto’s Navicella exhibit a variety of gestures and expres­sions indicative of their fear, astonishment, and aw e .21 Castello’s apostles, in contrast, if Callot’s little engravings are to be trusted, sat in their boat like so many stones, showing little reaction either to the storm or to the mira­cle taking place before there eyes. Lanfranco recaptured the emotional force of Giotto’s original, using the full repertory of affetti to convey the various states of aware­ness and the differing responses of every figure repre­sented. It was this aspect of Lanfranco’s composition that Bellori found most praiseworthy:

The waves foam and the boat is tossed by the sudden storm, [and] the apostles are overcome by wonder, rever­ence, and emotion, as they recognize their Master. The attitude of St. John, who stretches out his arms as though to embrace him with joy, is exceedingly vivid. St. Andrew, who labors with a companion to pull in the nets, turns suddenly toward Christ and recognizes him with astonish­ment. Another folds his hands in adoration, and the senti­ments of all the apostles are absolutely true to life.

Despite the fact that it was painted in fresco, Lan­franco’s Navicella soon showed signs of deterioration, and in 1640 the artist offered to return to Rome in order to “improve’’ it. The work was restored in 1662 by Raffaele Vanni and again between 1687 and 1694 by Giuseppe Montano.22 By 1721, it was detached from the wall in an operation that was only partially successful, as the upper portion of the composition was lost in the process, and transferred to the benediction loggia, where it hangs today. In 1726, a mosaic replica of Lanfranco s original painting, executed by Pietro Paolo Cristofari after a car­toon by Niccolo Ricciolini, was installed over the altar.23 A year later, in 1727, Pope Benedict XIII dedicated the altar to God and in honor of St. Peter, placing inside it relics of Sts. Mansuetus and Honestus.2,4

D R A W I N G S

A number of preparatory drawings survive, including two composition studies in Paris and Vienna. Schleier (1983, pp. 131—34) lists nine drawings (in museums in Paris, Vienna, Naples, M adrid , and D iisseldorf) and gives complete references. To these m ay be added a

tenth, a sheet of studies for the figures of Christ and Peter, which appeared on the market in New York in the 1980s. The authorship of this drawing has, however, been questioned. (See Old c~> M odern M ooter D rawings, 1983, p. 18.) A preparatory oil sketch, with four studies for the head of St. Peter, was recently identified by Clo­vis Whitfield.

D O C U M E N T S

1625, before Aug 13: Lanfranco writes to Pope Urban VIII, to ask for the commission for the altarpiece in the New Sacristy. His letter is forwarded with the recom­mendation of Cardinal Francesco Barberini. (P. 2277)

1625, Aug. 13: The pope instead assigns Lanfranco the task of replacing Castello’s altarpiece in the nave piccola, representing Peter walking on the water. (P. 2277)

1625, Aug. 13: Cardinal Zacchia notifies the Congregation of the pope’s decision. (P. 2278)

1625, Sept. 5: Lanfranco is paid sc. 50 “a bon conto della Tavola che deve fare." (P. 2279)

1626, Jun e 12: 'Tllustrissimi e Reverendissimi Signori Padroni Collendissimi.

Non sono piu che due ordinarij, che io ho intesa la deliberatione fatta dalle Signorie loro Illustrissime, che si debba rifare la tavola, che gia fecci in S. Pietro per qualche imperfettioni, che sono in essa: pero, chi fa erra; ben mi par strano, che gl’errori di detta tavola si sieno scoperti doppo tanti anni, massime, che in quel tempo fu osservata da migliori pittori di quell’eta, e pure vista con l’altre, d ’ordine di Sua Santita, dal Signor Gio. Battista Crescentio, quale la comendo; e mi assicuro, che se detto Signore havesse scorto tanti errori in essa l ’havrebbe avisato, come che sia gentilhuomo intelligentissimo del mestiero. Tuttavolta mi giova sperare, che piacendo alle Signorie loro Illustrissime mutar qualche cosa in dett - opera, lascierano, che lo possa far io, come pure e stato permesso a tutti g l’altri pittori, che piu d ’una volta han posto mano in dette sue opere; e comandando me ne ver- rei a Roma ad ogni lor cenno; e faciendoli humilissima riverenza, le sto in tanto pregando da Dio benedetto ogni compita felicita. Di Genova li 12 Giugno 1626.

Di Vostre Signorie Illustrissime Devotissimo Servitore

Bernardo Castello”(AFSP, Piano 2—serie 10-no. 6, f. 720)

1626, June 19: “Illustre e molto Reverende Signore.Vedra Vostra Signoria la grazia, che desidera dalla

Congregazione sopra la fabrica il Pittore, che scrive la congiunta lettera, la prontezza di cui in dar conto di se, e sodisfare a cotesti Signori miei Illustrissimi, pare che renda assai giusta la sua domanda; io le raccomando caramente suoi interessi, e con significarle il molto mio

C A T A L O G U E 17 2 5 5

miglioramento di sanita in quest’aria, le m’offero di curare [?], e raccommando. Di Genova a ’ 19 di giugno 1626.

Di Vostra Signoria AfTettuossimo,

II Cardinale Rivarola, etc.”(Ibid., f. 719)

1626, June 19: “Ulustrissimi e Reverendissimi Signori Padroni Collendissimi.

Con I’ordinario passato pregai con una mia le Sig- norie loro Illustrissime accio fussero servite di non con- sentire, che altri mettesse mano all’incona, ch’io gia fecci in S. Pietro: stando, che cio sarebbe di non poca taccia all’honor mio, che pur hora mi spinge a repplicarli, e ripregarle l’istesso: offerendomi (come pur le dissi) di venir io a dar conto di detta opera mia, e rifarla anche tutta quando cosi comandassero, ne guardero ad inter- esse, o altro mio scommodo. Questo, ch’io richiedo pur e stato concesso a gl ’altri pittori, che hanno operato in detto luogo, che piu d ’una volta hanno messo mano nelle loro incone; spero donque che le Signorie loro Illustris­sime per loro bemgnita ne anche a me dengleranno questa gratia: e facendoli humilissima riverenza, le sto in tanto pregando da Nostro Signore ogni felicita. Di Gen­ova li 19 Giugno 1626.

Di Vostre Signorie Illustrissime e Reverendissime Devotissimo Servitore

Bernardo Castello"(Ibid., f. 721)

1626, Ju ly 15: The Congregation considers Castello’s offer to repair and improve his altarpiece, at his own expense, within the next six months. (P. 70)

1626, Ju ly 15: "Bernardo Castello pittore raccommandato dal Cardinale Rivarola per poter accommodare la tavola fatta da lui in S. Pietro.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 2-no. 71, f. 417v)

1626, Nov. 4: Lanfranco is recorded as having the commis­sion to replace Castello’s altarpiece. (Doc. Appendix, no. 9)

1627, Sept. 24—30: Lanfranco’s scaffolding goes up. (P. 2280-81)

1627, Nov. 16 and Dec. 18: Lanfranco is paid sc. 100 in two installments "a bon conto della Tavola che deve fare.” (P. 2282)

1628, Jan . 29—Oct. 10: Lanfranco is paid sc. 550 in eight installments "a bon conto della tavola che fa." (P. 2283)

1628, Sept. 16: The scaffolding is taken down. (P. 2284)1628, Sept. 17: The painting is unveiled in the presence of

“Monsign. Vicegerente et quattro altri vescovi.” (P. 2285)1628, after Sept. 16: Lanfranco writes to the Congregation,

asking for due recompense for his labors. (P. 2286)1629, Jan . 27: Lanfranco is paid sc. 100 in addition to the

sc. 750 already paid. (P. 2287)

1629, before March 12: Lanfranco writes to Cardinals Zacchia and Vidom, presumably concerning payment.(P. 2288)

1629, before Aug. 11: Castello writes again to the Fab­brica. He claims that Lanfranco’s replacement has been judged less satisfactoiy than his own original altarpiece, and therefore asks to be allowed to replace Lanfranco’s work with another by himself, which he promises will be better than the first. (P. 71)

1629, Aug. 1 1: The Congregation decides that if Castello wants the opportunity to replace Lanfranco’s altarpiece, he must first paint the altarpiece (or a nwdelloT) on can­vas, at his own expense, and send it on approval to the cardinals. (P. 71-72)

1629, Sept. 24: The Congregation revokes its decision of August 11. (P. 73)

1631, May 10: Lanfranco is paid sc. 150, bringing the total payment for the altarpiece to sc. 1,000. (P. 2289)

1640, Ju ly 14: From Naples, Lanfranco writes to Card. Francesco Barberini, offering to improve (“migliorare”) his altarpiece. (P. 116)

S O U R C E S

Bagl ione, 1642, p. 284: “Venne poi egli [Bernardo Castello] da Genova a Roma, e fu uno di quelli, a cui diedesi una delle gran tavole di s. Pietro in Vaticano; e nella gran Cappella di s. Michele gli tocco il luogo, che le sta incontro, ma per traverso, e vi figuro Christo, che dalla barca chiama a se s. Pietro, e ne’ flutti del Mare lo soccorre, e la barca era piena di gente, e per di sopra stava una gloria d ’Angeli; ma dall'humidita del luogo, e dalla polvere fu malconcio; ond’hora ve ne un’altro dal Cavalier Lanfranco rifatto."

Bellori, 1672 (1976), p. 387: “Dopo fu eletto il Lanfranco dalla fabbrica ad una delle tavole grandi della Basilica Vaticana, essendosi consumata l’altra che vi era prima di Bernardo Castello, ed in essa figuro San Pietro che camina sopra i flutti tempestosi e con timore apre le braccia verso Cristo che lo prende per la mano e l ’assi- cura. Spumano l’onde e la barca viene agitata da subita procella, con gli apostoli, li quali restano sorpresi da maraviglia, da riverenza e da affetto nel riconoscere il loro maestro. Vivissimo e l ’atto di San Giovanni che stende avanti le palme quasi corra ad abbracciarlo, per la dilezzione; Santo Andrea, affaticandosi con un com- pagno in ritirare le reti, si volge improviso verso Cristo e lo riconosce con istupore. Piega un altro di loro le mani in adorazione, e sono naturalissimi li sensi di tutti gli apostoli, mentre gli angeli in aria temprano le nubbi e i venti, oscurato il cielo in una pioggia che di lontano caliginosa versa dal cielo. ”

Passeri, p. 152: "Nel gran Tempio del Principe degl’A-

256 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

postoli nel Vaticano [Lanfranco] dipinse pnma una di q u e lle tavo le d ’A ltare g ia d ip in ta da B ernardo C astello , e guasta d a l l ’um idita, che sempre sara d ’offesa a qualunque opera di pittura che vi si fara per la sua imperfezione dell’aria; e vi e quando gl'Apostoli stando nella barca a ll’esercizio della pescaggione, et essendo di notte, Cristo caminando per l ’acque del mare di Galilea avicinandosi a loro chiamo S. Pietro, il quale mosso dalla sua voce si getto nell’acqua per incontrarlo; ma temendo, Cristo lo rimprovero della sua poca fede, e lo sostenne con la mano. Nell'aria vi dipinse alcuni putti, ed Angioli di un gusto raro, e maraviglioso, e tutto il quadro e degno di lode, e di stima. Per cagione di quell'opera il Pontefice Urbano VIII allora regnante per la compiacenza che n’hebbe l’honoro dell’abito di Cristo, e lo dichiaro Cavaliere; col qual nome fu sempre chiamato con somma onorev- olezza, e riputazione.”

Titi, 1763, p. 13: “La navicella di s. Pietro con Cristo, e gli Apostoli dipinta nell’altare, che segue sotto la volta, e appoggiato all’altro gran pilastro della cupola, e opera insigne del cav. Lanfranco, tenuta in gran conto da’ pro- fessori, ora di mosaico molto ben fatto dal cav. Cristo- fori, e la meta dell’originale, cioe la parte da basso, dove sono gli Apostoli, e murata nel primo vestibulo del log- gione della benedizione."

N O T E S

1. See Chappell and Kirwin, 1974; also Chapter 2.2. Matthew, 14:22-32.3. See Doc. Appendix, no. 17.4. Male, 1932, p. 61.5. The apostles' boat came to symbolize the Ship of the

Church, which rides out the storm of Protestant heresy(cf. Knipping, 1974, II, pp. 355-58). Similarly, Protestants made use o( the same motil in order to deride the Catholic Church, representing the boat as a Ship of Fools, sinking beneath the waves. See Rahner, 1947; Chastel, 1983, pp. 38-41.

6. Torrigio, 1618; Venturi, 1922; Korte, 1938; Paeseler, 1941; Rahner, 1947; Kohren-Jansen, 1993.

7. Grimaldi, pp. 182-85; Kohren-Jansen, 1993, pp. 25-31. The arrangement is recorded in an engraving by Martino Ferrabosco (illustrated in Paeseler, 1941, fig. 65).

8. [Ju ly 25, 1629] "Lantica Navicella di San Pietro fatta di musaico, et che al tempo della santa mem[oria] di Paolo V fu levata dal cortile di quella vecchia Basilica, et collo- cata nella muraglia del palazzo pontificio sopra le scale della piazza avanti la nuova facciata di detta Basilica, nel cui luogo per che veniva spesso a guastarsi per causa delle pioggie, venti, giacci, et altri accidenti, Nostro Sig­nore per maggiore decoro l'ha fatta levare, et accom- modare dentro detta Basilica sopra quella porta mag­giore.” (BAV, Urb. Lat. 1099, cited in E. Rossi, 1937, pp. 182-83.) On the installation of the Navicella in St. Peter’s,

see Poliak, nos. 406-417; Tratz, 1991-92, p. 342; Schiitze, 1994, pp. 274-76.

9. Gigli, 1958, p. 327: “. . . fu calata a terra la navicella di mosaico pittura antica di Giotto Pittore. [. . .] Papa Urbano la fece mettere dentro la Basilica di San Pietro sopra la porta maggiore, vicino alia volta. Ma per essere in loco altissimo et non molto illuminato, non si poteva goder con l’occhio, et molti ne anco la rimiravano. Fu addunque la detta pittura in questo tempo di novo calata a terra la terza volta per collocarla in loco piu comodo.”

10. On the extensive restoration undertaken by Giovanni Bat­tista Calandra in 1625, see Poliak, nos. 141 and 1040.

11. Brugnoli, 1957, pp. 256—60; Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, pp. 145—46; Erbentraut, 1989, pp. 115-19, 295-98.

12. Roncalli, Passignano, Baglione, and Vanni were paid 800 Mueti each, and Cigoli was paid 1,000 acudi. See Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, p. 145 and n. 213.

13. Orbaan, 1919, p. 128. See also Chapter 3, n. 11.14. Chappell and Kirwin, 1974, p. 145. The gesture of the

right hand of Christ, the folds of his robe, the pattern of the waves, the shape of the stem of the boat, and the visi­bility of the horizon line are all points of difference between the two prints. However, since Callot’s prints after altarpieces in St. Peter’s are quite small and not obsessively accurate, the differences between the two plates may not reflect changes made to the original paint­ing. On Callot s prints after paintings in St. Peter's, see Lieure, 1924-29, Il.i, pp. 7-16; Loire, 1993.

15. Mancini, 1956, I, p. 110: “. . . il Castello, genuese, d'intelli- genza e disegno, ma di non gran composition ne decoro, come si vede nell’altare di S. Pietro. ’’

16. On Giovanni Battista Crescenzi (1577-1635), best known as an architect and landscape painter, see Baglione, 1642, pp. 364-67; Spezzaferro, ,<r Giovanni Battista Crescenzi, DBI, XXX, pp. 636-41. Like his brother Cardinal Pietro Paolo Crescenzi, he was directly involved in the business of the Fabbrica, until his departure for Spain in 1617. He seems to have been called on primarily as a consultant, to give advice and to make appraisals. See, for example, Orbaan, 1919, p. 83.

17. There is some evidence that Castello also wrote directly to Lanfranco, to express his anger at the latter for taking his commission away from him. See Borzelli, 1910, p. 11; Schleier, 1983, p. 129.

18. On Lanfranco s altarpiece, see Schleier, 1983, pp. 127—34; G.-P. Bernini, 1985, pp. 78-84.

19. It is true that Urban knighted Lanfranco soon after the completion of the altarpiece. According to Bellori (1672 [1976], p. 387), however, the knighthood was granted not for the painting in St. Peter’s but in return for a gift of a painting of the Crucifix.

20. See Cat. 2.21. This diversity of emotion was a feature of Giotto’s mosaic

repeatedly praised by writers on art, most notably Leon Battista Alberti in Book 2 of his Depictura (1435).

22. Schleier, 1983, pp. 129-30.23. DiFederico, 1983, p. 75.24. Sindone, 1744, p. 29.

C A T A L O G U E 18 ga 2 5 7

C A T A L O G U E 18

ALTAR OF ST. LEO 1 [2 9 ]

Alessandro Algardi, Pope Leo I RepuLeo Attila the Hun with the Help o f Sto. Peter and Paul (1646-53)

Marble relief; approximately 720 X 420 cm1

In situ(Figs. 160, 164)

Pope Leo I (440-61) was originally buried in a modest tomb in the atrium of old St. Peter’s. Later, Pope SergiusII (844-47) constructed a m agnificent oratory in his honor, located just to the left of the high altar, against the west wall of the transept [no. 14 on the Alfarano plan]; here he brought Leo’s body and buried it in the floor in front of the altar. It was probably Paschal II (1099-1118) who later assembled the bodies of Sts. Leo II (682-83),III (795—816), and IV (847—55) and buried them along­side that of their predecessor. Paschal also restored and embellished the oratory and commissioned a frescoed image of the Virgin and Child for the altar.2 This image, which came to be known as the Madonna del Soccorso, was immensely popular with the faithful, who credited it with miracle-working powers. By the sixteenth century, the altar was one of the seven privileged altars and was said to be “di grandissima devotione appresso il popolo. ”3 In 1543—44, with the construction of the new basilica well under way, the Madonna del Soccorso was detached from the wall of the oratory and moved for safekeeping to the old nave.4 At the same time the walls of the oratory were torn down, leaving the altar standing exposed amid the ruins of the old transept.5 In 1580, Pope Gregory XIII conducted an excavation at the site of the demolished ora­tory, to search for the bodies of the four Sts. Leo. The excavation was successful — the bodies were found in the marble sepulcher in which they had been deposited by Paschal II — but Gregory chose not to move them, and instead ordered the sepulcher closed and reburied. Dur­ing the pontificate of Clement VIII, a curious scheme was put forward — to disinter the bodies of the four Leos, sepa­rate them one from the other, and place them in altars located in the niches of the four great crossing piers.6 This ill-conceived plan, the product of an obsessive concern for programmatic symmetry, was never acted on. Finally in 1607, Paul V ordered a second excavation. Again the bod­ies were found, and this time they were unearthed and transported ceremoniously to the altar of the Madonna della Colonna in the southwest corner chapel [30]/

At the time, the altar of the Madonna della Colonna was the only altar in the chapel. In the adjacent wall, in the position corresponding to that of the a lta r of St. Petronilla in the northwest comer chapel, there was only

a small door leading to the exterior of the basilica (Fig. 7). This door, not indicated on any sixteenth-century plan, was probably cut through as a temporary measure to facilitate the transport of construction materials from the workshops behind St. Peter’s into the church. But it soon came to be regarded, by some at least, as a perma­nent fixture, and when, in the winter of 1626—1627, the canons protested the asymmetrical arrangement of the northwest and southwest corner chapels, the solution they proposed was not to replace the door in the south­west chapel with an altar, but to replace the altar in the northwest chapel with a door.8 The canons’ recommenda­tion, which would have resulted in the loss of an altar and the removal of G uercino’s B uria l o f St. P etron illa , was never seriously considered. In fact, already in December 1626 (before the canons issued their proposal but appar­ently unbeknownst to them), the pope had informed the Congregation of his own determination to have the door in the southwest corner chapel permanently closed.9 By M ay of the following year, work was in progress, under the d irection of Borrom ini, to seal off the door and replace it with an altar identical in design and dimensions to the corresponding altar of St. Petronilla.

This new altar was to be dedicated in honor of St. Leo I, as we first learn from the Acts of the meeting of the Congregation on M ay 14, 1627:

The altar to be dedicated to St. Leo the Great near the altar of the Madonna della Colonna is to be adorned with a painting by the Cavaliere Giuseppe d ’Arpino, and so that he may paint it as quickly as possible, [the cardinals] have ordered that the door leading to S. Marta be closed, and in its place an altar, similar in design to the other [large] altars [in the church], be built.

Presumably, Urban VIII planned eventually to translate the body of Leo I, and possibly the bodies of the other three Leos, from the altar of the Madonna della Colonna to the new altar of St. Leo;10 but he never got around to it, and the bodies remained undisturbed until the early eighteenth century.11

Even before the altar was completed, the Congregation set about commissioning an altarpiece. The subject chosen for this painting was the celebrated encounter between Pope Leo I and Attila the Hun. According to legend, Attila and his troops, marching on Rome with the inten­tion of sacking the city, were turned back by Pope Leo, and by the Apostles Peter and Paul, who appeared to Attila in a vision, swooping down from heaven and threat­ening him with their swords. The subject was a popular one in papal Rome because it presents the pope in an heroic role, as a courageous defender of the Church and of the city of Rome in the face of military aggression, and also because it dramatizes the notion that papal authority is divinely sanctioned and divinely sustained. Inevitably,

2 5 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

the story took on additional significance in the post-Tri- dentine era, when it came to be seen as a metaphor for the Church’s triumph over the Protestant heretic .12 As the subject of an altarpiece in St. Peter’s, the stoiy of Leo and Attila was in every w ay ideal: it promoted the institution of the papacy through the person of one of its leading rep­resentatives, Leo I, while at the same time celebrating the Apostles Peter and Paul, whose bodies lie buried beneath the papal high altar. Furthermore, the Leo altar is located in close proximity to the tuin piccole, which were originally decorated with twin cycles of Peter images (i.e. the altar- pieces commissioned by Clement VIII and the corre­sponding oopraporti commissioned by Urban VIII): the story of Leo and Attila, featuring as it does a miraculous apparition of St. Peter, fit neatly into the Petrine context of its immediate surroundings.

Such significance was attached to Peter’s part in the story of Leo and Attila that, in the original plans for the altarpiece, Paul was to be left out altogether:

There are many subjects which could be taken from the life of St. Leo for representation in the painting which is to be made for the saint’s altar. As the one best suited to the church of St. Peter, and also to the genius and style of the painter, we propose the [story of] the liberation of Italy from invasion by the army of Attila, King of the Huns, at the persuasion of St. Leo but with the assistance of St. Peter. [. . .] Near St. Leo the painter must repre­sent St. Peter, as though in a cloud, visible only to Attila, and not to the others. Peter will be dressed in priestly vestments, but he will be shown threatening Attila with a sword in his hand.

Nowhere in this text, written around 1627, is there any mention of Paul, who was conveniently omitted for the sake of underscoring the Petrine nature of the story, and the never-too-often-declared connection between Peter and the pope. This same text provides additional evi­dence that a conscious effort was made to link the Leo altarp iece with the Peter im agery of the church as a whole (if not of the navi p icco le in particular). The only alternate subject it proposes is one that again involves both Leo and Peter:

Another useful subject, and one which would be appro­priate in the church of St. Peter’s, but perhaps not so much to the taste of the painter, is [the episode of] St. Leo praying at the tomb of St. Peter in the confeooio [. . .] The painter should represent the tomb of St. Peter, with St. Leo lying prostrate before it, and St. Peter appearing in the midst of a splendor of light [. . . ]13

It is thus reasonable to view the Leo altarpiece as partici­pating, at least tangentially, in the Peter cycle. And in this respect it is worth noting that it contributes an important element to the cycle, in that it provides a sole example of Peter’s posthumous powers of miracle working.

The early history of the commission for the Leo altar- piece is confused. Passeri, Bellon, and Malvasia all main­ta in th a t it w as G uido R eni whom the F ab b rica appointed to paint the story of Leo and Attila, although Passeri does suggest that the commission went first to Giuseppe Cesari d ’Arpino. According to Bellori, Reni was summoned to Rome specifically to paint this altar- piece. But for one reason or another the artis t was uncomfortable with the commission and put off working on it, much to the annoyance of the Congregation. Bellori claims that when, after a year, Reni had still not begun his painting, the Fabbrica began to pressure him — to which Reni reacted with anger, asserting that genius can­not be forced. In a huff, he returned the money he had already been paid, packed up his bags, and left Rome for Bologna. Passeri further specifies that it was Cardinal Spinola whose clumsy handling of the temperamental artist led to his rupture with the Fabbrica.14 M alvasia offers a more detailed, although not necessarily a more reliable, account of these same events. According to M al­vasia, it was through the conniving of Reni’s former stu­dent Gian Giacomo Sementi that Reni first got into trou­ble with the Fabbrica. Sementi spread rumors that Reni was making no progress with the painting, and as a result Cardinal Pamphili (who Malvasia mistakenly implies was a member of the Congregation) chastised Reni for wast­ing the Fabbrica’s time. Malvasia adds one other interest­ing detail: before leaving Rome, Reni destroyed the work he had done so far on the altarpiece, a passage represent­ing a glory of angels.

The accounts given by Passeri, Bellori, and Malvasia are, however, at least partially contradicted by the docu­ments. Bellori cannot be right when he says that Reni was called to Rome specifically to paint the Leo altar- piece. Cardinal Ginnasi wrote to the artist to solicit his services in October 1626, before the altar of St. Leo was even contemplated. Initially, the cardinals wanted Reni to paint the Trinity altarpiece: they proposed this as early as November 4, w ithin days of receiving Reni's letter of acceptance.15 Only after December 7, when they began making arrangements to close the door in the southwest corner chapel and to build an altar to St. Leo in its place, did they consider asking Reni to paint the altarpiece for this new altar. In a list of artists and altarpieces composed early in 1627, Reni is, in fact, named in connection with the St. Leo altarpiece and Giuseppe Cesari d ’Arpino with the Trinity altarpiece.16 But by M ay 14 (as Reni’s early biographers evidently failed to realize) the commissions had been switched: Reni was once again assigned the T rin ity a ltarp iece , this time defin itively , and Cesari d'Arpino the altarpiece of St. Leo.17

How are we to interpret the chain of events estab­lished by the doci * ° Why, if Reni was at one point assigned the Leo altarpiece, did he end up with the Trin­

C A T A L O G U E 18 | | 2 5 9

ity altarpiece instead? I suggest that the commission was switched because of Reni’s unwillingness to stay in Rome longer than necessary. In 1627, the chapel of St. Leo was still in the hands of the ocarpellini, and until they sealed the door and installed the altar, balustrade, steps, and frame (which they did not do until well into 1628), work could not begin on the altarpiece. Rem, recognizing this and finding the delay intolerable, opted instead to paint the Trinity altarpiece; and his employers did not object, because they had considered him for the Trinity altar- piece in the first place.

If this is an accurate reconstruction of events, then we must regard the explanation Passeri gives for Reni’s fail­ure to paint the Leo altarpiece as pure invention:

I believe he postponed working on the altarpiece out of fear for his reputation. For he knew that his painting would be subjected to rigorous comparison with another version of the stoiy [of Leo and Attila], not very far from St. Peter’s, indeed right next door in the Vatican Palace, that is to say, the version by Raphael in the otanze. Also he had to accommodate his design to a site ill-adapted to the subject, situated rather awkwardly beneath a win­dow, and which could only be viewed from a distance. All of these were considerations to ponder with trepidation.

Still, there may be some truth in Passeri s analysis, for if these factors were irrelevant in Reni’s case, they may not have been in Cesari d ’Arpino’s. One thing is certain: for whatever reason, Cesari delayed working on the altar- piece, and in 1640 died without having painted it.

The exceptional difficulty of the assignment was gen­erally acknowledged, so that the canons thought it pru­dent to supply the artist with detailed instructions, telling him precisely what he was to paint and how he was to paint it. The instructions (of which two variant versions survive, one of them in the handwriting of Angelo Gio­rio) left little to the artist’s imagination. He was told to depict Leo as a “man of great stature, with a pleasing and majestic appearance, in full papal regalia, with soutane, surplice, cape, stole, and m iter”; A ttila was to appear opposite the pope, "reverent and bowed, but in appear­ance cruel and barbarous, in the costume of a foreign sol­dier, accompanied by captains and soldiers, all of whom seem to marvel at his unexpected humiliation"; Peter was to be shown in a cloud, threatening Attila with his sword, wearing priestly vestments and “with a key hanging from his shoulder to make him more easily recognizable”;18 there were to be crowds of onlookers, "ambassadors of the Popolo Romano, supplicating and reverent, [. . .] and clerics and priests in long habits, with tonsures in the old manner”; and so on.

Inevitably, Raphael’s famous fresco in the otanza d ’E- liodoro provided an important prototype (Fig. 165). But the artist was warned not to rely too heavily on Raphael’s composition in drawing up Ini 6wn:

In order to accommodate the subject [of Leo and Attila] to an altar, were mass is celebrated, the artist is advised to rep­resent it very differently from [the painting] in the jtanze and in the logge. [. . .] The composition should be organized so that St. Leo occupies the center of the painting, and is in a more worthy position, and closer to the viewer.

And:

[The saint] is to be shown so that his face can be seen and revered by the people.

If one considers Raphael’s composition, one can under­stand w hy these instructions were thought necessary. There, it is Attila, along with Peter and Paul, who occu­pies center stage; Leo, although clearly visible, is rele­gated to the far left side of the composition. Furthermore, the saint is represented in the guise of his rather unpre­possessing namesake Pope Leo X, hardly an image con­ducive to devotion. Such an arrangem ent was clearly unacceptable in an altarpiece, the function of which was to glorify St. Leo and encourage the faithful to venerate him at the altar containing his earthly remains. Thus the artist was told to bring the figure of the saint into the fore, to depict him tall and noble of aspect, to endow him with a commanding presence; in short, to make him the focus of attention as he is not in Raphael ’s version.

There was another, still more obvious reason why the artist was warned to eschew the example of Raphael’s fresco: the latter is horizontal in format, whereas the altar- piece is vertical. To accommodate the narrative that unfolds so naturally and so expansively in the earlier work to the tall, narrow confines of the altar surround meant that signif­icant modifications had to be made. Above all, the artist was instructed “that the figures of both St. Leo and Attila should be represented on foot and not on horseback.”19

Presum ably having read these instructions, Cesari prepared a cartoon and exhibited it to the Congregation on Jun e 27, 1629. The design was in general approved, but Cardinal Vidoni was charged with notifying Cesari of certain changes required by the Congregation.20 What these changes were and why they were thought necessary we have, unfortunately, no w ay of knowing. On Novem­ber 26, Vidoni was once again called on to confer with Cesari, but after this there are no further references to the altarpiece in the documents of the Fabbrica. Cesari apparently never reached the painting stage; he received no payments, and if, as seems likely, he produced draw­ings and modelli in connection with the commission, these have not survived or been identified. The circumstances su rro u n d in g C esar i's ap p aren t p ro crastin atio n are unclear, but it should be noted that by 1629 the artist was over s ix ty y e a rs old, and although he lived another decade, he painted relatively little in the last years of his life. The physical challenge of painting a mural over twenty feet tall may have put him off; and having already

2 6 0 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

designed one altarpiece in St. Peter's,21 not to mention the mosaics in the dome, Cesari may well have felt that he had little to gain, as far as his reputation was concerned, by completing a second altarpiece.

The Congregation may have been too respectful of Cesari to strip him of the commission during his lifetime. But there were plenty ol artists who were anxious to take over after his death. On J u ly 14, 1640, w ith Cesari hardly cold in his grave, Giovanni Lanfranco wrote to Cardinal Barberini from Naples, asking to have the Leo a ltarp iece assigned to him. A ccording to Lanfranco, Bernini had given him reason to hope that he might be considered for the commission belore he left Rome in 1634, but at the time he had not set his heart on it, know­ing that it had already been promised to Cesari.

However the above-mentioned Cavaliere Giuseppe hav­ing died, and the painting assigned to him having still not been executed, I judge that it is not inappropriate that I address myself to Your Eminence, as I do most humbly, to ask that, as long as it has been given to no one else, the commission be given to me. And if in your goodness you will arrange this, I will first submit to Your Eminence an oil sketch, because I am aware of the difficulty of the invention, involving as it does the represention of a pope accompanied by a crowd of people, and opposite him a king, surrounded by a numerous host of horsemen. And although the depiction of all this would seem to require a wide and horizontal space, and the painting is in fact veiy narrow and vertical, all the same I believe I can skillfully adapt all of the above-mentioned figures, along with St. Peter and St. Paul overhead, to the site.

In connection with the hoped-for commission, Lanfranco produced a group of rough pen-and-ink draw ings, at least three of which survive (Figs. 161—163). From these it is c lear that Lanfranco w as not fam iliar w ith the instructions issued in the late 1620s when the painting was first commissioned. In two of the drawings, both Leo and Attila are shown on horseback (in the third - proba­bly the first chronologically — only Attila is mounted), and in all three Peter is accompanied by Paul. Lanfranco was able to squeeze all these elements into the composi­tion by arranging them along a series of zigzags that dip backward and forward in space, with Leo in the lower right foreground, his horse turned at about a 45-degree angle to the picture plane; Attila in the middle left back­ground, climbing a steep ridge; and the Apostles in the sky overhead, d ram atica lly foreshortened as though plunging through space toward Attila.22

Impressive as Lanfranco's composition promised to be, he was not given the commission, nor was anyone else during the remainder of Urban’s pontificate. Urban’s suc­cessor Innocent X was quick to take advantage of the omission and to claim for himself the honor of installing the last of the side altarpieces in St. Peter’s.23

On Jan u ary 24, 1646, the Congregation assigned the Leo altarpiece to the sculptor Alessandro Algardi, who was instructed to represent the M eeting o f Leo and Attila in marble relief. On April 21, the sculptor was requested to exhibit his design to the Congregation; and on Ju ly 2, he was paid an initial sum of 100 ocudi toward the cost of the fu ll-scale stucco model he w as then preparing. This model was set up over the altar on December 12, 1648; the marble altarpiece took another four and a half years to complete and was unveiled on Jun e 28, 1653, to uni­versal applause (Fig. 164). On Innocent’s motives for commissioning an altarp iece in marble relief, and the enormous cost it entailed, see Chapter 9.

The evolution, design, and iconography of A lgardi’s a ltarp iece are discussed by Jen n ifer Montagu in her monograph on the sculptor.24 To her thorough analysis I will add only the following observations.

Algardi shows both Peter and Paul appearing to Attila. Evidently the idea of omitting Paul in order to stress the Petrine character of the episode was in the end rejected. Nevertheless, the artist still managed to emphasize the link between Peter and the pope. Whereas Paul is shown pointing off in the direction from which Attila has come, as though ordering him to retrace his steps, Peter points directly down at I^eo, his gesture indicaring the investiture of divine authority in the person of the pope.

Algardi represents Pope Leo with a single-crowned tiara, and Montagu is surely correct to suggest that it was "one of the members of the subcommittee appointed by the Congregation of the Works who pointed out to him that at this early date the pope had only the one crown.”25 The Congregation, and the artists it employed, had been criticized on previous occasions for their carelessness w ith just such iconographic details as this. A lgard i’s advisers may have remembered a letter from Michele Lonigo to the pope, in w h ich the au tho r sav age ly attacked Andrea Sacchi s Miraculoiut Maoo o f St. G regory for its iconographic inaccuracies, among which was the inclusion of a modern, three-crowned tiara in place of the single-crowned tiara of the early popes.26 Lonigo was not successful in persuading Urban VIII to have this and other errors in Sacchi’s altarpiece painted over, but his criticisms may have left an impression on some members of the Congregation and Chapter, who were careful to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

The body of Leo I was transferred from the altar of the M adonna della Colonna to the altar of St. Leo in 1715;27 and in 1727 the a ltar was dedicated by Pope Benedict XI11.2*

D R A W I N G S

No preparatory drawings for the Leo altarpiece by Guido Reni, by Cavaliere d ’Arpino, or indeed by Algardi have been identified. Giovanni Lanfranco produced at least

C A T A L O G U E 18 2 6 1

three sheets of drawings connected with the commission, all of which are now in the Museo Nazionale di Capodi- monte in Naples. See Schleier, 1967, pp. 35—39; 1983, pp. 194-98. (Figs. 161-163)

B O Z Z E T T I

Algardi produced several preparatory sketches in clay or terra cotta, two of which have survived, as well as a full- scale stucco model. See Montagu, 1985, I, pp. 140—42; II, pp. 360—62; Giardini, 1989.

D O C U M E N T S

1626, Dec. 7: In accordance with the wishes of Urban VIII, the Congregation resolves to close the door in the southwest comer chapel. (P. 2172)

c. 1627: "Nota delle Cappelle da dipingersi, e dei Pittori

5. Di S. Leone Magno 5. Al Guido(Doc. Appendix, no. 14)

1627, M ay 14: "Altare S.to Leoni Magno dedicandum prope Altare S. Mariae in Columna per Equitem Jose- phum Arpinatem pictura ornari, et ut eo citius pingi pos- sit, portam tendentem ad Ecclesiam S.tae Marthae nunc claudi, et Altaris locum solitis aliorum Altarium orna- mentis condecorari, et perfici mandarunt.” (P. 94)

c. 1627: Two detailed sets of instructions to the painter, one in the handwriting of Angelo Giorio. The painter is given a choice of subject matter, but is strongly encour­aged to represent the stoiy of St. Leo and Attila, and is told which figures to include, and how to represent them. (Doc. Appendix, no. 15)

1629, June 27: Cavaliere d ’Arpino exhibits his design for the altarpiece of St. Leo and receives the Congregation’s approval. He is to be paid as much as Guido Reni was to have been paid for the same altarpiece. (P. 114)

1629, Nov. 26: Cardinal Vidoni is instructed to inform Cavaliere d ’Arpino of the Congregation ’s wishes regard­ing the St. Leo altarpiece. (P. 115)

1640, Ju ly 14: "Em.mo e R.mo Sig. mio e Pron. Col.mo.Per non partirmi di costi, sarebbe a me stata bastevole ogni occasione quantunque picciola. E percio, prima d’allontanarmene, convenni il Cav.re Bemino, per saper da lui, se le cuppole di San Pietro si dovevano dipingere. Ne hebbi in cio altro fine se non di poteme poi impetrar’ una dalla singolar benignita di V. Em.a. Mi rispose egli, che non vi era tal risoluzione, e mi soggiunse, che, quando havessi voluto il quadro di S. Leone e d'Attile,V. Em. me ne harebbe fatto grazia. Ond’io sapendo che il med.o quadro era g ia stato promesso al Cav.re Gioseppe, non hebbi per bene, applicarvi l’animo, e me ne passai qua. Essendo per tanto seguita la morte del sudd.o Cav.re Gioseppe, e rimasto non ancor dipinto il quadro a lui gia assegnato, stimo che non mi discon- venga ricorrere a V. Em.a per supplicarla, si come

humilissimamente fo, che quando ella non l’habbia gia destinato ad altra persona, si compiaccia farne a me grazia. E se cio dalla sua benignita mi verra concesso, farro che prima V. Em. ne veda in tela il disegno, perche conosca la difficolta della invenzione; dovendosi rappre- sentare un Pontefice con molto popolo, contro un Re, cinto da numeroso stuolo di Cavalieri. E se bene tutto cio ricercherebbe uno spazio assai largo e basso, et il quadro in cui si ha da esprimere, sia molto angusto ed alto, spererei ad ogni modo adattarvi senza sconvenev- olezza, tutte le sopra accennate figure con S. Pietro e S. Paolo in sito superiore a tutte.Alla rinfrescata, saro, piacendo al Signore costa di ritorno, dove sommamente mi desidero, per poter miglio- rare il quadro, che nella mia giovinezza feci in S. Pietro.E qui resto con baciare a V. Em.a humiliss.te la mano di V. Em. Napoli 14 luglio 1640.

Devot.mo Hum.mo et oblig.mo Ser.re Giovanni Lanfranco” (P. 116)

1645, Oct. 9: "Ulterius fuit ordinatum quod prima Tabula in aliquo ex altaribus facienda fiat sculpta in marmore ut dicuntur di basso rilievo.’’ (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3-no. 162, f. 68v)

1646, Jan . 27: Algardi is commissioned to produce an altarpiece in marble relief for the altar of St. Leo. (For complete references to the relevant documents, see Montagu, 1985, II, p. 359.)

1646: . . havendo Sua Santita awertito, che i quadri delleCappelle, e sopraporti non solo di pitture, ma uno anco fatto di musaichi di marmo non ponno resistere al sudore, et humido di quel gran vaso, penso di far prova di far fare un Quadro di basso rilievo, e fu data l’opra ad Alessandro Algardi Bolognese . . . (ASR, Fondo Spada Veralli, vol. 186, p. 351; transcribed in Giithlein, 1979, p. 186; Montagu, 1985,1, p. 256)

1646, April 21: Algardi is told to prepare a sketch of his altarpiece, to be shown to the Congregation at its next meeting. (Montagu, 1985, II, p. 359)

1646, June 18: It is decided that the price of the altarpiece will be determined by Giacomo Franzone and Algardi. C ard inal G iustin ian i, V irgilio Spada, and Father Oderico of the Oratory are assigned the task of deciding "an in eadem historia dictus Beatus Pontifex pedester vel equester esset collocandus." (Ibid.)

1646 Ju ly 2—1652, Aug. 30: Algardi is paid a total of sc. 10,000 in fifty -one installments. (Ibid.)

1648, Dec. 12: "N ella B asilica V aticana si mostra domenica un basso rilievo di stucco l ’historia di S. Leone Papa quando miracolosamente fece fermare, e ntirare indietro con l’essercito il Re Attila che veniva a Roma essendo opera del famoso scultore A lgard i.” (Ibid., p. 361)

1653, June 28: The marble relief is unveiled. (Ibid., p. 360)

2 6 2 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

S O U R C E S

Printed broadsheet dated June 26, 1653 (a copy is pre­served in ASR, Cartari-Febei, vol. 76, 1. 107): "Rime del Signor Dottor Michel’Angelo Sammaruchi Romano in occasione della Famosa Historia di San Leone Papa, & Attila Re degl’Unni, Opera di Marmo, del Signor Cava­lier Alessandro Algardi, nel superbo Tempio in Vaticano. AH’Illustrissimo e Reverendissimo Signore Monsignor Segni Maggiordomo della Santita di Nostro Signore.

Mi e capitato in mano il presente Sonetto, e Madn- gale del Sig. Michel’Angelo Sammaruchi, sopra l ’Opera degna d ’ogni lode, fatta dal Signor Cavaliere Algardi inS. Pietro. Non posso sapere chi sia maggiore, o il lodato, o il lodante, stimandoli io ambidoi grandi nelle loro pro­fession!. V. S. Illustriss. e universale nelle Virtu, e percio gle l ’invio, accio questo 1'habbia da decider Lei, assicu- randola, che se le mie debolezze sono infinite, e ancora infmito l ’Animo, e ’l desiderio, c ’ho di riverirla in ogni tempo. Di casa li 26 Giugno 1653. Di V. S. Illustriss. e Reverendiss. Humilissimo, Devotissimo & Obhgatis- simo Servitore, Padercolo Dani.

S o n e t t o

Mentre con ferrea penna eterno scnvi,E spargi il Mondo d'Infinite lodi,Parlano i Marmi in pellegrini modi,Ov’Attila, e Leon spirano vivi;

Restan d ’ogni splendor affatto privi Di Fidia i vanti, e l esser sol tu godi,E con lorte scarpell il Tempo mchiodi Nelle memorie altrui, che tanto aw ivi;

Risorto ogni stupor a giorm nostri,E immota all’opre tue veggo Natura Dell’Arte in rimirar si degni Mostri;

Piu non si pregi Macedonia, e oscura Scorga la Gloria sua, che ben dimostri,Che maggior g l’Alessandri ha la Scoltura.

M a d r i g a l e

Attila incontro gl'empiPiove piu che mai fier, e sangue, e scempi,E formidabil spiraFulmini di terror, folgori d ’ira,M a’l Sacrato Pastor saldo s'oppone,Quasi gorgonio scudo Contro l’Unno Dragone,Che a sbranar vien d ’ltalia il petto ignudo,E’l vince inerme: il tutto e in marmo inciso,Ove l’oblio da bella gloria e occiso:Quel Scarpello, che rende I Pasiteli chiari, e tanto splende;Hoggi su’l VATICANO E piu famoso ad Alessandro in mano. ’’

Bellori, 1672 (1976), pp. 406, 410—11: “Nel tempo che egli [i.e. Algardi] terminava quest opera [i.e. il sepolcro di

Leone XI], avendo l’officina alia fonderia dietro la Basil­ica Vaticana per la vicinanza del luogo, comincio l ’istoria d ’Attila, fabbricandone il modello di stucco grande quanto 1 opera, che ora sta murato in capo la scala della casa de' Padri dell’Oratorio, e la scoltura si puo dire unica Ira le moderne che abbia insieme grandezza e copia di figure, come poco appresso descriverasi.

Li Santi Apostoli Pietro e Paolo discendono dal cielo e muovonsi per l ’aria su le nubbi aperte da gli angeli, minacciando in volto cruccioso il ferocissimo Attila. Impugnano con la destra la spada, e con la sinistra gli Fanno cenno e gli comandano che parta e non entri in Roma, mentre il barbaro re, impaurito a quel subito incontro, si volge in fuga, e riguardando in dietro gli apostoli pronti a ferirlo si ripara con una mano e muove l’altra col bastone avanti, spaventato e conluso. Non s’arresta il marmo al terrore ed alia fuga, essendo Attila nobilmente adorno, col manto affibbiato al petto sco- prendosi la corazza e l’armi abbigliate all’antica. Di rin- contro il Santissimo Leone, in abito pontificale e con la mitra in capo, intrepidamente lo riguarda e gli addita sopra gli apostoli protettori della citta che scendono in sua difesa. Segue dietro il crocifero con due vescovi, l ’uno de’ quali rende grazie a Dio volgendo al cielo il volto con le braccia aperte; ed il caudatano inchnato con un ginocchio sostiene la coda della veste papale ed ammira quel subito terrore di Attila. Dietro di lui appariscono alquanto li suoi soldati a piedi ed a cavallo con le trombe e con l’insegne, dove un capitano fa segno col bastone che seguitino avanti il camino verso Roma, senza accorgersi del tramutamento del re spaventato, che in quel punto volge indietro il piede; ne appresso il paggio se n’awede, che e un nobile giovinetto con l'elmo e con l'arco nelle mani; e tutte le figure sono animate nella proprieta de gli afTetti loro.

Questa istoria e alta trentadue palmi e larga diciotto, composta di cinque pezzi di marmo commessi insieme, cioe quattro principal! ed un altro minore di sopra nella circonferenza. Le prime figure di Attila e di San Leone sono circa quattordici palmi di altezza, e con l’altra del caudatario escono fuori quasi di tutto rilievo; l’altre piu e meno, sino alia leggierezza della superficie. Grande fu l’industria di questo scultore nello studio de gli ignudi, delli panni e disposizione dell’invenzione, accommodata all’espressione e vivezza di bellissimi moti ed attitudini in una macchina cosi grande; e grande e ancora la facil- ita sua nelli modi resoluti di trattare il marmo fin ne gli oscuri e fondi im penetrabili, per cosi d ire, da gli scarpelli, usativi ben lunghi sin quattro e cinque palmi. Discoperta la tavola Alessandro consegui l ’applauso dovuto a cosi nobile scoltura, e tanto il papa se ne com- piacque che per rimunerazione gli fece dare dalla fab­brica il compimento di dieci mila scudi.”

C A T A L O G U E 18 2 6 3

Bellori, 1672 (1976), p. 531: ’’. . . [Guido Reni] essendosi trasferito di nuovo a Roma per dipingere il quadro del- l ’istoria d’Attila per la Basilica Vaticana, dolendosi seco la congregazione della fabbrica esser passato un anno senza avervi ancor posto mano, rispose Guido non poter forzare il gemo e non esser sempre in poter nostro l ’op- erazione dell’ingegno, e persistendo in questo parere, riportati sul banco di Santo Spirito cento cinquanta scudi avuti dalla medesima, subito a Bologna senz'altra licenza si ricondusse.”

Passeri, pp. 203—204: “Fu dato in tanto a l l ’A lgardi l ’impiego di quel mirabile basso rilievo (se pure puo chiamarsi cosi un lavoro di marmo cosi ben condotto di tutto rilievo) della Istoria d 'Attila flaqellum Dei, che e al presente nello Tempio di San Pietro in Vaticano, et havendo l ’assegnamento di cento scudi il Mese ben pagati, si diede a questa operazione con grande assiduita. Si valse, in questo lavoro, dell’aiuto del Guidi, il quale piu d'ogn'altro gli fu di gran sollievo, particolar- mente in certo tempo che gli convenne lermarsi in letto inchiodato dalla podagra, e duro qualche mese, che, essendone guarito, e tornato al lavoro, il vide portato cosi avanti dalla diligenza di quello, che si stupi, paren- dogli, che una simile spedizione richiedesse qualche anno d assistenza, e piu s ’accaloro nell'alfezione del Guidi. Si condusse finalmente alia sua perlezione lavoro cosi considerabile nello spazio di pochi anni, e riusci, in vero, un Opera, che nella grandezza della Mole non ha il simigliante, ne tragl’antichi, e tra i modern! Scultori. Rapresenta il Tiranno Attila, quando, essendo incon- trato, nelle rive del Po, dal Pontefice Leone pnmo, resta atterrito dalla visione Celeste di due personaggi, che lo minacciano dall alto con le spade nude in mano, siche desistesse dall’impresa di condursi, con I’Esercito in Roma a danni di quella Citta, che turono li due princi- pali Apostoli San Pietro, e San Paolo. Viene accompag- nato il Tiranno da quantita di soldati, el Pontefice Leone in abito Pontificale, assistito dal Clero, lo sta esortando a non proseguire l ’intrapreso camino; mentre egli di gia spaventato, per la visione, rimane imobile, e conluso. Questa opera riusci a quel gran huomo, d ’una esquisita maniera, e condotta ad una estrema perfezione a segno, che non e mai (a parere dei piu saggi) per temere il paragone d'ogn’altro, benche celebre, e renomato Scul- tore. Io m’assicuro, che questa lode, che con tanta scarsezza, impiego in Opera cosi mirabile, non sia mai per esser derisa, ne dalNnvidia, ne dalla Ignoranza, inimici li piu potenti della Virtu, l'una implacabile nel suo livore, e l ’altra incapace nella sua stolidezza; perche da se medesima e bastante a farsi una libera apertura all’applauso universale.”

Passeri, p. 94: “Mentre dimorava in Roma [Guido Reni] fu data a dipingere una Tavola in San Pietro nel Vaticano, che gia deveva fare il Cavalier Gioseppe d ’Arpino, et e

quella, che doppo molt’anni fece l'Algardi di marmo in basso rilievo, e deveva rapresentarvi la medesima Istoria d ’Attila. Haveva hauto dalla Fabrica 4 cento scudi per arra di quel lavoro, et erano passati alcuni anni, che egli non solo non lasciava vedere l ’espidizione; ma ne anche il principio e credo, che questo suo tirare a lungo nascessi da timore della sua riputazione; perche, devendo fare una Istoria della quale non molto lontano da San Pietro, anzi nel medesimo Palazzo Vaticano, ve n e una d un paragone cosi considerabile, ch e quella di mano di Rafaele, ch e dentro le Stanze, et havendo a farla in un sito scomodo per quel soggetto, sottoposto ad un lume alquanto infehce, obligato a distanza grande; erano tutte considerazioni da riflettervi sopra con gran premura. In quel tempo tra li Cardinali Soprastanti della Fabrica, era il Cardinale Spinola Genovese, che gran tempo fu Audi- tore della Camera; questo Signore con un zelo troppo violente mcontrandosi in Guido fece dirgli, che desider- ava parlargli, et egli prontamente ando da lui, che abitava in Borgo nuovo a man sinistra per andare da Ponte Sant’ Angelo a San Pietro. Quando il Card[ina]le se lo vide avanti, con un modo alquanto aspro gli disse: "Io non so, che modo di fare sia il vostro, vi sete prese 4 cento scudi dalla Fabrica, e non pensate di concludere una volta questa vostra cosa; e come, se voleste burlare, ve la pas- sate in canzoni.” E gli replied piu volte 1’havere hauti li 4 cento scudi. Sent! Guido, con amarezza, questo rim- provero cosi vile, e sentendosi offeso da queste parole poco amorevoli, rispose assai risentito: "Sig. Cardinale, de pari suoi il Papa ne puo fare quanti ne vuole; ma il far de pan miei non ista in altro potere, che in quello di Dio." E, sbrigatosi da lui al meglio, che fu possibile se ne ando a Casa, et imediatamente rimando alia Fabrica li 4 cento scudi hauti, et in pochi giorni si parti da Roma, e andossene a Bologna sua P atria , e mai piu voile ritornarvi ancorche da molti Principi gle ne fossero fatte caldissime, e replicate istanze; quanto fa 1'indiscretezza d un Ministro imprudente."

M alvasia, 1841, II, pp. 26—27: “Ne meno del Gessi si diporto male il Sementi, quando passatosene a Roma sotto la protezione del Cardinale di Savoia, del quale fu dichiarato pittore, s ’uni col Ciceroni, gia Uditore del Cardinale Santa Croce in Bologna. Procuro per mezzo del Padrone torgli la storia di Attila, che in S. Pietro di Roma i signori Cardinali della Fabbrica aveano di gia destinata al suo maestro, e che poi fu scolpita da un nouvo Guido in marmo, e lu l'A lgard i bolognese, facendo al suddetto Ciceroni disseminar per la Corte le lunghezze di Guido, tutto datosi in preda al giuoco: il che non potendo poi dissimulare egli, come buon Lom­bardo, ed in conseguenza libero piu di quello cola con- verriasi, mostro di vederlo per l ’avvenire poco volen- tie ri. In terrogato percio con finto ram m arico da ambidue, se per essi loro avesse fatto fabbricare in quel

264 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

famoso Tempio quel ponte cosi serrato e chiuso, onde venisse negato loro il poterlo talora andare a riverire e trattenerlo in cosi degna operazione: si, rispose all’uno e all’altro volgendosi con empito, per voi e per voi l ’ho cosi ordinato, non curandomi di avervimi attorno, ne mai vedervi, gente di due facce, e doppie piu che cipolle cactane.

Non fu pero in tutto bugiarda la calunnia e riusci un presagio l ’opposizione; poiche tardo tanto a dar prtnci- pio, che stanco la pazienza di quegli Eminentissimi che non arrischiavansi pero fargline dare maggior motto, per non irritarlo, sapendo quanto in cio fosse delicato: e perche il Card. Panfilio, che fu poi Papa, voile piu d ’ogn altro risentitamente dolersene in Congregazione, fattovelo chiamar dentro l ’ultima volta, disse molto bene il fatto suo, mostrando con vive ragioni, non pot- ersi violentare il genio d un virtuoso, che non si appa- gasse di cose triviali e cercasse il sommo dell'eccel- lenza; non doversi altrimenti alia sovrana dignita di chi comandava, ed a ll’unica maesta del luogo ove oper- avasi. In altra forma non potere egli, ne dovere, salva la sua conscienza, riputazione, serv ire. Che pero si provedessero pure d ’altri, che a lui non dava piu l ’an- imo di proseguire.

Aveasi egli giocato i cinquecento scudi, ricevuti dalla Reverenda Fabbrica al suo arrivo in Roma, a conto di quell’opra, e trovavasi qualche altro debito; onde non sapendo come farsi, perche avrebbe pure voluto resti- tuirgli, render contento ogn altro, e uscirsene di Roma, trovavasi in gran travaglio.

Messi dunque assieme Guido li cinquecento scudi, li riporto sul banco di S. Spirito, a credito della Reverenda Fabbrica, e fatto scrostare al muratore una gloria d ’An- geli principiata in quel fresco, se ne parti d ’improviso, ritornandosene a Bologna.’’

N O T E S

1. Montagu (1985, II, p . 358) gives the measurements as 858 X 494 cm. These measurements differ substantially not only from those recorded by other scholars (Heimbiirger Ravalli, 1973, p . 146: 700 X 400 cm) but also from those of other identically-sized altarpieces in St. Peter’s, such as the altarpieee of St. Petronilla (Bruno, 1978, p. 65: 720 X 423 cm). Algardi himself, in a letter to a member of the Congre­gation, gave the dimensions ol his work as 33 X 19 palmi, oraround 742.5 x 427.5 cm (Montagu, 1985, p. 360).

2. Alfarano, pp. 38-40, esp. n. 4; Blaauw, 1994, II, pp. 568-69.

3. Alfarano, p. 177.4. The image was never reunited with the altar of St. Leo, but

was eventually installed by Gregoiy XI11 over the altar in the Cappella Gregoriana, where it can be seen today (Fig. 27).

5. It is hard to see how the altar could have survived, as it

apparently did, throughout most of the sixteenth century. A possible explanation is that, being so close to the high altar, it was protected by the tiburio, the temporary struc­ture designed by Bramante and built during the pontificate of Leo X to protect the tomb of the Apostles.

6. "Nelle quattro nicchie grandi che sono alii piloni della Cup- pola a canto I'Altar maggiore e pensato di far due Chori, uno per li Cantori, et l’altro per li Principi, che verranno a veder la messa pontificale, se bene alcuni hanno opinione, che vi staranno bene quattro Altari, nelli quali si potranno collocare li quattro Corpi di S. Leoni Papi, che sono nella medesima Chiesa.” (Cited in Poliak, 1915, p. 73.)

7. Grimaldi, pp. 232—39.8. Doc. Appendix, no. 11.9. [Dec. 7, 1626] “Ill.mus D. Card.lis Gimnasius retulit

mentem S.mi esse [. . .] quod claudatur Porta seu foramen fabricae tendens versus Ecclesiam S.tae Martae, et ape- riatur alia porta lateralis prope Altare Beatae Mariae in Columna similis alter! portae iuxta Sacristiam huius Basili- cae.” (Poliak, no. 2172)

10. Angelo Giorio, adviser to Urban VIII and a member of the Chapter of St. Peter’s, clearly states that the body of St. Leo was to be transferred to the new altar: “Dovendosi nell’Altare di S. Leone che si disegna di fare in S. Pietro e riporvi il suo corpo . . .” (Doc. Appendix, no. 15)

11. The body of Leo I was finally moved to the altar of St. Leo in 1715. The bodies of the other three Leos remain in the altar of the Madonna della Colonna. See Sergardi, 1715; Sindone, 1744, pp. 50-56.

12. A small silver relief modeled on Algardis altarpieee in St. Peter’s, sent as a gift from Cardinal Francesco Barberini to King Philip IV of Spain, was described as follows in a 1686 inventoiy of the Spanish royal collection: "Historiada de la Paz christiana de figuras de Plata de Relieve y medio relieve quese expresan en San Pedro y San Pablo casti- gando la Herpia y un Potifize que los esta exsortando.” (See Montagu, 1971, p. 46, n. 46.)

13. For the stoiy, see Baronio, 1738-46, VI, p. 252.14. Passeri’s assertion that Reni’s dealings were with Cardi­

nal Spinola is confirmed by a letter from Reni himself, written in August 1627, in which he states "nel far questa tavola io non tratto se non col cardinale Spinola.” (Bot- tari and Ticozzi, 1822-25, I, pp. 296-97; the relevant pas­sage is transcribed in the Documents section at the end of Cat. 6.)

15. Doc. Appendix, no. 9.16. Doc. Appendix, no. 14. Evidently negotiations advanced

to the point where money was discussed. This we know because on June 27, 1629, long after Reni’s departure, the Congregation agreed to pay Cesari d’Arpino for painting the Leo altarpieee the same fee that had been promised to Reni "pro pingenda eadem Historia." (Poliak, no. 114)

17. See Cat. 6.18. This particular instruction is accompanied by a reference

to a coin from the time of Leo I that features a bust-length image of St. Peter with a key suspended from his shoulder; illustrated in Baroniuss Annalej (1738—46, VI, p. 254).

19. Montagu (1985, I, pp. 139—40) proposes as a possible source for the idea of representing Attila and Leo “pedis-

C A T A L O G U E 19 g g 2 6 5

t e r ” ra th er than “e q u e s te r” an en g rav in g by F rancesco Valesio in Giulio Strozzi's La Venezia ed ifiea ta of 1624. But there is no reason to suppose that it w as A lgardi, as M on­tagu suggests, who first recognized in V alesio ’s engrav ing a solution to the problem posed by the altarp iece. S trozzi’s book w as published ju st a few y ea rs before Giorio wrote the in structions c ited above, and is l ik e ly to have been known to him and to other learned members of the Con­gregation and Chapter. For that matter, Valesio's engrav­ing is closer in m any respects to the w ritten instructions than it is to A lgard i's relief. G ranted, it shows both Peter and Paul, w hereas the instructions refer only to Peter. On the other hand, Valesio represents the scene in its h istorical setting near the banks o f the riv e r Po, w h ich m ay have prompted Giorio to w rite : "The pain ter should represent the meeting tak ing place in an agreeab le spot, w ith a p leas­ant v ista of the M incio flow ing into the Po .” Furthermore, the reference to the story of Leo p ray in g at the tomb of St. Peter, suggested as an a lternate subject in one of the two versions of the instructions, m ay have been prompted by the inc lusion o f a s im ila r scene, S t. P e te r ap p ear in g to A rbia as she p rays a t his tomb, in the upper right com er of Valesio ’s engraving.

20. "Fuit exhibitum , et visum modulum, seu Cartonum , quod d icu n t, H is to r ia e S . L eo n is , q u ae ab E qu ite Jo se p h o A rp inate , et com m uniter ap prob atu r. Verum q u ia c irca eiusdem H istoriae congruentiam aliqu id in melius mutan- dum visum fuit, rogarunt Illustrissim um Dominum C ardi- nalem V idonum , ut de m ente C on gregatio n is su per hoc dictum Equitem informet [. . . ] ’’ (Poliak, no. 114, but note th a t I h ave m ade c e r ta in co rrec t io n s to the tex t as it appears in Poliak).

21. See Cat. 16.22. Schleier, 1967, pp. 35-39 .23. See C hapter 6.24. M ontagu , 1985, I, pp. 138-46 ; II, pp. 3 58 -64 . See also

H eim biirger R avalli, 1973, pp. 146—49.25. M ontagu, 1985, I, p. 140.26. See Doc. Appendix, no. 23.27. See n. 11 above.28. Sindone, 1744, p. 56.

C A T A L O G U E 1 9

ALTAR OF THE C ATH ED RA PETRI [b e tw een 24 and 25]

Gianlorenzo Bernini, Cathedra Petri (1657—66)Gilt bronze, gilt stucco, marble, glass In situ(Figs. 71, 168)

The apse altar, with its splendid reliquary altarpiece con­taining the chair of St. Peter — the Cathedra Petri — was designed and executed by Gianlorenzo Bernini between 1657 and 1666.1 It was thus the last of the major altars in

St. Peter’s to be built and decorated. That the construction of this crucially important altar, second in status only to the high altar in the crossing, was delayed for such a long time may have had something to do with the peculiar liturgical problems posed by the site. From the start, the planners seem to have been in something of a quandaiy as to whether to use the central apse niche for an altar or for the pontifical throne. If they built an altar there, then the throne would have to be positioned off to one side. But historians of ceremonial like Michele Lonigo pointed out the impropriety of such an arrangem ent. The church, wrote Lonigo, is like a ship, and the bishop is its pilot. Ju s t as, on a ship, the rudder is attached not to the side but to the stern, so too the pope, who holds the tiller, must be seated not on the edge but at the center of the apse. And there were other, more pressing objections to the construction of an apse altar. Because of the unusual ori­entation of the basilica, the priest officiating at an altar in the apse would be forced to face west during the mass, a grave contravention of ecclesiastical custom. Moreover, he would have to turn his back on the high altar in the cross­ing, giving the impression of a lack of due reverence. An apse altar would vie for prominence with the high altar, such that one might mistakenly think that the basilica had two high altars.2 There was also the powerful precedent set by old St. Peter’s: there, the pontifical throne had stood at the far end of the church, against the apse wall, and as though framed by the columns of the ciborium that stood over the high altar.3 The distance between the high altar and the apse wall was, however, considerably less in old St. Peter’s than in new. In the former, the high altar and the papal throne were linked by virtue of their prox­imity: but in the latter the crossing and apse are distinct and separate spaces. To have left the apse without an altar of its own would have been to deprive it of much of its liturgical usefulness.

Faced with these contending considerations, Urban VIII responded with uncharacteristic indecisiveness. Ini­tially, he intended to build an altar in the apse niche. This we know because until at least 1627 the cardinals of the Congregation and the members of the Chapter repeatedly included the altar in their discussions, and did so with the pope’s knowledge and involvement. In 1626, the cardinals proposed dedicating the altar in honor of the archangel Michael. Their motive was clearly to honor and exalt the reigning pontiff, who had been crowned on the feast of St. Michael and was assiduous in cultivating his association with the archangel. But the canons opposed the idea, argu in g as bo ld ly as they dared that the title of St. Michael was inappropriate for the apse altar of a church dedicated in honor of St. Peter. The pope, as it happened, agreed with them, and in February 1627 gave orders that the apse altar was to have an altarpiece representing Peter receiving the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.4

2 6 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

This a ltarp iece w as never com missioned; indeed, within a year it was no longer even contemplated, as can be deduced from the fact that in February 1628 Antonio Pomarancio was told to illustrate the same subject over the door to the left of the apse. Since Pomarancio’s oopra- porto and its pendant over the door to the right ol the apse were meant to provide a kind ol visual and iconographic frame through which to view the apse, it is unimaginable that either of them would have repeated the subject ol the apse altarpiece.5 Thus the project to depict Peter stories over the doors in the navi piccole, initiated toward the end of 1627, seems to have had a significant impact on the histoiy of the apse altar. It is not impossible that the deci­sion to commission the oopraporti coincided with a deci­sion to do without an apse altar altogether and to use the space instead for a pontifical choir, with the papal throne permanently installed in or just in front of the central niche. The documentary evidence is scant, but generally supports such an hypothesis. During the remainder of Urban VII Is pontificate, we find no further references to an apse altar, whereas we know of several efforts to initi­ate the construction of a pontificial choir.5 (Services were occasionally held in the apse — after 1644, for example, masses were said there on the anniversary of U rban’s death7 - but since a permanent altar had not ye t been built, we must assume that a portable altar was used on these occasions.)

In a recent article, Sebastian Schiitze has suggested that it was Urban VIII who first conceived of a project to place the Cathedra Petri in a permanent reliquary display in the apse.8 The idea is attractive but is contradicted by the evidence. The earliest surviving reference to a Cathe­dra altar in the new basilica is dated 1630: in April of that year, the pope ordered its speedy completion.9 Subse­quent documents reveal that the altar in question was located not in the apse but in the first chapel on the left of the nave, which housed the baptism al fon t.10 Here, between 1630 and 1646, a team of craftsmen under the general direction of Gianlorenzo Bernini constructed an elaborate display, featuring a chair-shaped reliquary set against marble clouds, flanked by marble putti holding symbols of the papacy (tiara and keys), and presided over by the dove of the holy spirit in gilt bronze (Fig. 8 4 ) .11 According to Schiitze, Urban meant this costly ensemble as no more than a provisional repository for the relic, until a permanent one could be erected in the apse. But this theory begs a number of questions. Above all, is it plausible that a provisional repository would have been made of such expensive and seemingly permanent mate­rials as gilt bronze, marble, and inlaid alabaster?12 And if indeed Urban projected a Cathedra altar for the apse, why did he never commission it?13

Whether or not the idea of displaying the Cathedra Petri in the apse occurred to Urban VIII, he never acted

on it, and nor did his successor Innocent X. It fell, instead, to A lexander VII to commission the majestic altar-cum -reliquary ensemble that today dominates the basilica. The first record we have of a project to build a Cathedra altar in the apse is dated February 6, 1656, ten months into the pontificate of Alexander VII. Alexander had ordered an Apostolic Visitation to St. Peter’s, and the decrees resulting from that Visitation included the follow­ing recommendation:

Let the Cathedra Petri be housed in the apse of the church between the tombs of Paul III and Urban VIII, with suitable adornment paid for by the Fabbrica. And in place of the [former] a ltar [of the Cathedra] to be destroyed, let there be put a baptismal font, made of bronze, and as sumptuous as the basilica’s other orna­ments, likewise to be paid for and overseen by the minis­ters of the Fabbrica.19

The text reveals that the decision to move the Cathedra to the apse was directly tied to a decision to use the space the Cathedra formerly occupied for a new baptismal font. For that matter, the perceived need for a suitable font may well have been the principal motive for the reloca­tion of the Cathedra altar.15

There was never a question as to who would be given the commission for the apse altar. From the beginning it was understood that so prominent and prestigious a site would be entrusted to no one other than Gianlorenzo Bernini. Already in 1626, when the cardinals proposed dedicating the altar in honor of St. M ichael, they had Bernini in mind and assigned him the task of represent­ing "S. Michel'Arcangelo di Rilievo.” After Urban VIII ruled that the subject of the altarpiece was to be the Giv­ing of the Keys, Bernini was again mentioned in connec­tion with it: if the pope decided on a painted altarpiece, the commission was to go to Guido Reni, but if he pre­ferred an altarpiece in bronze or marble relief, then the commission was Bernini’s. Bernini retained artistic con­trol of the apse even after the project to build an altar there had been canceled, or at least indefinitely post­poned. In 1628, he was given the task of transporting the tomb of Paul III to the left-hand niche, and ol creating a pendant tomb for Urban VIII in the niche on the right;16 and in 1634, he w as engaged to design the pontifical cho ir.17 When the decision was made to transfer the Cathedra to the apse, he was the obvious man for the job.

Bernini’s conception of the Cathedra Petri developed significantly over the course of the ten years it took to com plete it. R ely ing on an a r ra y of docum ents and preparatory materials, scholars have analyzed the differ­ent stages in the evolution of the design and have recon­structed the complex history of production. Rather than summarize what has already been written on these sub­jects, I refer the reader to the existing literature and limit myself to a few brief observations.18

C A T A L O G U E 19 gg 2 6 7

Bernini determined the basic components of the altar- piece at the outset. A draw ing at W indsor Castle that records the earliest surviving project — possibly the one seen and approved by the pope on M arch 3, 1657 — already features statues of four Church fathers standing on a pedestal over the altar, a chair-shaped reliquary, and a heavenly apparition in a glory of light (F ig. 167).19 What differentiates this early project from the finished work is its relatively modest scale. The whole ensemble is more or less contained within the central apse niche, or at any rate within the area defined by the flanking columns and attic zone above. Its scale is comparable to that of the papal tombs in the niches on either side, as is its overall design, suggesting that Bernini was thinking in terms of establishing a harmonious relationship between them. The fact that all three monuments combined elements in marble and bronze would have further enhanced the effect of visual coordination. Of course, Bernini was also anxious that the C athedra should stand out from its neighbors. Thus, he made the Church fathers taller than the paired female personifications, the re liquary chair several feet higher than the seated statues of the popes, and the figure of Michael surrounded by a glory of light larger and more prominent than the comparably posi­tioned coats of arms over each of the tombs.

The central niche was to have been distinguished from the niches on either side in another important way. In March 1656, Alexander VII ordered that the plain gran­ite columns flanking the Cathedra altar be replaced by fancy columns of pink cottanello marble. Thus, just as the central niches of the transept arms are differentiated from the niches on either side by the precious columns of giallo antico that frame them, so the central niche of the tribune was to have been accented with columns more colorful and more costly than those fram ing the neighboring niches. The cottanello columns were never installed, how­ever, presumably because, in the later stages of the design process, Bernini’s composition underwent such radical growth that the columns ended up being almost entirely hidden from view.

Between 1658 and 1660, a scale model was erected in the apse niche. Viewed in situ, the design apparently revealed certain weaknesses. Andrea Sacchi is said to have advocated increasing the size of the statues by ’’a good pa/mo."20 Bernini evidently thought that a rather more drastic increase in scale was called for. In the final design, the dimensions of the ensemble are more than doubled. The Church fathers, grown gargantuan in size, burst from the niche and spill out on either side; the chair itself obscures the niche and extends up into the attic zone; and, in the most dramatic change of all, the second-stoiy win­dow above is incorporated into the design. The Cathedra Petri as executed utterly dwarfs the tombs on either side, but is in majestic proportion to the basilica as a whole.

Two explanations account for the drastic shift in scale Bernini introduced after viewing the model in situ. First, he clearly decided that he had misjudged the dimensions. The ensemble recorded in the W indsor draw ing was enormous - the Church fathers alone were well over life- size - but when displayed in the cavernous interior of St. Peter’s it must have appeared small. Bernini also seems to have changed his mind about the ideal viewing spot. The model, like the tombs of Paul III and Urban VIII with which it was coordinated, was designed to be seen from relatively close. But when Sacchi appraised the work shortly after its unveiling, he made a point of viewing it from a spot just west of the crossing, i.e. a fair distance from the apse. Bernini took the idea further, positing an ideal viewing point in the nave, such that the Cathedra is seen as though framed by the spiral columns of the bal- dacd/lno.21 From such a distance, not only would the fea­tures of the model have lost distinctness but the design of the whole would have appeared puny in comparison with the frame. Bernini began by coordinating the Cathedra with the flanking tombs; he ended by coordinating it with the haldacchino, a monument on an altogether different scale.

Considerations of lighting may also have played a part in the enlargement of the design. The apse of St. Peter's faces west, and in the afternoon the setting sun would have streamed in through the large rectagular window over the central niche, blinding the viewer and essentially rendering the altar and its altarpiece invisible.22 By incor­porating the window into his design, Bernini was able to control it, “turning this defect to his advantage,” as his son Domenico astutely notes. He reduced the size of the window by at least fifty percent by filling its periphery w ith gilded stucco, and further limited the light that entered through it by fitting the oval aperture with tinted glass. Bernini’s solution epitomizes his extraordinarily inventive genius. W hile in fact reducing the light that enters the apse, he gives the impression of doing exactly the opposite: w ith golden glass, gilded rays, sw irling clouds, and tumbling putti, he creates the illusion of a burst of divine illumination, an explosion of light that reaches out and dazzles the viewer from the moment he enters the basilica.

Completed at a cost of more than 106,000 ocudi17’ and containing some 219,060 pounds of bronze,24 Bernini’s superb masterpiece was invested with its precious relic on Jan uary 16, 1666, and unveiled to the public one day later, on the eve of the feast of the Cathedra Petri.25

P R E P A R A T O R Y M A T E R I A L S

A number of preparatory drawings, terra-cotta bozzetti, and full-scale models of individual figures or parts of individual figures survive. For a sum mary list of this material, see I. Lavin et al., 1981, pp. 182—83, n. 13.

2 6 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

D O C U M E N T S

Date uncertain (c. Oct. 1626): "Gloriosissimo Michaeli Archangelorum Principi Catholicae Ecclesiae speciali Defensori, in hac sacrosancta Basilica omni jure Altare erigendum videtur, prout suo loco sub literam T notatum est, qui locus cum nulli ex alijs sancris hactenus assignatus reperiatur, ex speciali Divina dispensatione illius gloriae relictus, et a sanctis omnibus illi cessus videtur.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 8)

1626, Nov. 4: "Vi restano le infrascritte Tavole, che potria darsi alii notati di contro:

S. M ichel'A rchangelo di Rilievo . . . al Cavaliero Bemino” (Doc. Appendix, no. 9)

Date uncertain (c. Jan. 1627): "Quo ad Altare S. Michaeli Arcangelo erigendum in capite Tribunae, hoc solum pos­set aliquem scrupulum inijcere, quod ea pars cum sit caput Ecclesiae et respiciat Altare Maius, et ad illud quod ammodo pertineat, videri posset non convenienter dedi- cari alteri Sancto quam illi cui dedicata est tota Basilica, et ita observatum videmus in Tribunos aliarum Basilicarum, sed lorte propter magnam distantiam ab Altare poterit hie scrupulus demi." (Doc. Appendix, no. 11)

1627, Feb. 19: "Che le piace piu, che facci 1’historia di S. Pietro, quando clavej regni coclorum illi traditae /lierunt, che S. Michele, perche essendo questa la Chiesa di S. Pietro et questo il piu principale loco, e conveniente sia dedicato alia piu principale attione etc." (Doc. Appendix, no. 12)

1627, May 14: The altarpiece to be executed for the apse altar is to represent the Giving of the Keys. If the pope opts for a painted altarpiece, the commission will go to Guido Reni; if he prefers an altarpiece sculptured in marble or cast in metal, the commission will go to Gian- lorenzo Bernini. (Doc. Appendix, no. 13)

Date uncertain: "Beatissimo Padre. Se l'Altare fatto da Paolo V [di] santa memoria, nel quale si celebrano le messe solenni, quando si fa cappella nella Basilica Vati- cana, rimosso dal luogo dov’e stato fin ora, sara accostato al muro della tribuna, e la Sede Pontificia sara portata presso il detto altare al corno dell’Evangelio, da questa trasportatione et mutatione ne seguirano g l’in- convemenzi infrascritti: —

Primieramente verra a levarsi da questa basilica sacrosanta uno de’ piu belli e piu antichi riti, che fosser mai nella chiesa di Dio. Dicono i santi Padri, che fra le molte cose, ch in quei primi tempi insegnassero g l’Apos- toli a christiani, una fu questa, che nelle orationi private tutti orassero a ll ’Oriente, ma nelle publiche, che le domeniche et altri giorni solenni si facevano nelle chiese, la plebe orasse verso l’altare, et il vescovo men- tre celebrava e porgeva a Dio l ’orationi del popolo, stare dovesse sempre con la persona e con la faccia al Oriente rivolto. Di qui naque, che le chiese tutte antica- mente si fabbricavano in modo, che o la tribuna, o la

facciata sempre riguardava a Levante, e se la tribuna vi riguardava, ponevano lo altar maggiore vicino al muro della detta tribuna, ma se la facciata era rivolta a Lev­ante, fabbricavan l ’altar maggiore in fra pre.ibyterium lungi da muro, accio mentre il vescovo celebrava in ogni modo riguardasse a Levante. Questo rito fu osser- vato ancora da S. Silvestro ne edificatione della Basilica Vaticana, perche sendo stato bisogno far la facciata verso Oriente per commodita del popolo, che da Roma ogn’hora vi concorreva, fabbrico egli l ’altar maggiore lungi dal muro della tribuna, in modo che il sommo Pontefice, il quale anticamente solo vi celebrava, con- forme a buoni riti e alle traditioni apostoliche cele- brando sem pre stava rivolto a Levante. Con la trasportatione dunque di quest altare fabbricato con gran giudizio da Papa Paolo, perche chi celebrara in esso, trasportato che sij, verra a star con la faccia involta a Ponente, si viene a levare da questa santa basilica quella sua antica et bella forma di celebrare verso Levante, insegnata dagl'Apostoh, la quale dalla fondatione sua fino a giorni nostri per spazio di mille trecento e piu anni v'e stata sempre con gran pieta invi- olabilmente da tanti santi Pontefici mantenuta; e vi sin- trodure una nova forma di celebrare verso Ponente, mai piu veduta o udita in questa basilica, contraria in tutto e per tutto a riti buoni, a sacri canoni, e alle traditioni apostoliche, le quali altro non sono se non depositi lasciatici dagl’Apostoh, accio con ogni cura e dihgenza le osserviamo e conserviamo. [. . .]

Con la transportatione di questo altare ancora ver- remo a fare una monstruosita non piu veduta nella chiesa di Dio; constitueremo in una chiesa istessa, con­tro i buoni riti, due altari maggiori e principali, uno totalmente contrario all’altro, perche in uno si celebrara verso Levante, nel altro verso Ponente, e chi celebrara in questo, con poca riverenza, voltara le spalle all’altare venerabilissimo di S. Pietro, e chi celebrara in quello diS. Pietro, voltara le spalle a questo. Bisogna guardarsi da questi si fatte novita, per non dar occasione a gl’emuli nostri, a quelli, ch’osservano tutti i nostri andamenti, di haverarvi perche sarebbero buoni per dire, che noi, come si dice, habbiamo fabbricato altare contro altare, e che nella Basilica Vaticana vi sono due altari maggiori et principali, in uno di quali si celebra con la faccia rivolta a Levante conforme al rito antico de’ Christiani, et nel altro rivolta la faccia a Ponente, conforme al rito de' Giudei, perche afferma S. Girolamo, che i Giudei orar solevano con la faccia a Ponente.

Finalmente se la Sede Pontificia, rimossa dal luogo dov e stata fin hora, si portara presso al detto altare al corno dell’Evangelio, si levara dal luogo suo vero, pro- prio, e legitimo, dove star deve, per metterla in luogo non suo, non vero, et, come si dice, in falso. La sede del vescovo, secondo le buone cermonie, locar si deve nell’

C A T A L O G U E 19 2 6 9

mezzo del presbiterio: S it .wlium eputcopi in medio pooitum, dice Clemente Romano nei Constitution! Apostoliche, et ex utroque latere oedeant preobyteri; dev'esser posta nell’ mezzo in modo che i sacerdoti, i cardinali sedino dalle bande. La chiesa, dice il medesimo Clemente, e come una Nave, della quale il vescovo e govematore e timo- niere; il timone non sta da fianchi della nave, ma nel fine, su da alto, nel mezzo; hor li seder deve il vescovo, che la Nave govema, nel mezzo, in luogo alto, et eminente, lit ipoe omner conopieiat, e t ipoum cu n cti Quando il luogo e angusto in modo che non puo capir bene l’altare e la sede, si tolera all’hora, che appoggiar si possi l’altare al muro, e metter la sede episcopale sempre al corno del- l ’Evangelio; ma quando il luogo e capace di tutte dua, la sede episcopale sempre locar si deve e regione altarit in mezzo del presbiterio accio il vescovo vedi tutti, e tutti vedino lui. Cosi vuole Innocentio 3 Pontefice intenden- tissimo de' sacri riti, cosi insegna Paris de Grassis mae­stro eccellentissimo di cerimonie, cosi ricerca la ragione e il dovere, e cosi fu osservato sempre anticamente nel locar le sedi episcopali di tutti i vescovi di Christianita. Ma che, le sedi pontificie che sono in tante chiese di Roma cosi titolari come patriarcali, non sono poste tutte nel mezzo del presbiterio? Perche dunque voremo noi hora locar la sede medesima nella Basilica Vaticana in luogo totalmente diverso da quello, nel quale e posta in tutte l ’altre chiese di Roma?

Pero tem’io, Beatissimo Padre, se con questa trans- portatione di altare e di sede spianteremo dalla Basilica Vaticana questi due riti antichi, di celebrar verso Lev- ante, e di tener la Sede Ponteficale nel mezzo del presbi­terio, che la Sede Apostolica, la quale da tutti e stata conosciuta sempre tenacissima osservatrice de ’ riti antichi, perdera molto di riputatione; mostrara che in questo habbi ella rimesso assai del solito suo rigore, ne si potra dir piu di lei quello, di che scrivendo a Narbonesi Papa Zosimo si vantava: Apud nor inconvubit radieibuo iw it antiquitao, cut decreta Patrum oanxerunt reverentiam . Se mostraremo di stimar poco le traditioni apostoliche, sopra le quali fondati sono questi due riti, perdera la sede medesima quel titolo nobile e specioso, che gia le diede Pietro [? ], quando la chiamo: Direr deporitorium aportolicarum traditionum. E noi corriam pericolo d ’aquis- tarsi titolo di persone, che distruggino volontieri le cose ordinate et fatte da suoi maggiori, il che in ogni modo fuggir si deve. [. . .]

Supplico la Santita Vostra humilissimamente si degni perdonarmi, s ’havessi parlato con troppa liberta in questa mia mal composta scrittu ra . Veramente si dovrebbe conceder amplissima faculta a quelli che amano la dovere, l ’honore, la riputatione, e la gloria della Santita Vostra e di questa Santa Sede, che in questi negotij, quando bisogna, dir liberamente potessero, quanto sentono.

Della Santita VostraHumilissimo e divotissimo Servitor Michele Lonigo"

(BAV, Barb. Lat. 2974, ff. 303-304v).1656, Feb. 6: In the Acts of the Apostolic Visitation to St.

Peter’s, it is recommended that the Cathedra Petri be moved to the apse. (Doc. Appendix, no. 27)

For the documents relating to the construction of Bernini’s Cathedra Petri, see Battaglia, 1943, pp. 153-233.

S O U R C E S

Baldinucci, 1948, pp. 75—76: "Awenne un giorno, ch’e’ [Bernini] si trovo col celebratissimo Anibal Caracci ed altri virtuosi nella basilica di S. Pietro e gia avean tutti soddisfatto a lia lor divozione, quando nell’uscir di chiesa quel gran maestro, voltatosi verso la tribuna, cosi parlo: 'Credete a me, che egli ha pure da venire, quando che sia, un qualche prodigioso ingegno, che in quel mezzo e in quel fondo ha da far due gran moli pro- porzionate alia vastita di questo tempio.’ Tanto basto e non piu, per far si che il Bernino tutto ardesse per desiderio di condursi egli a tanto; e non potendo raf- frenare g l’interni impulsi, disse col piu vivo del cuore: 'O fussi pure quello io! ’ E cosi senza punto awedersene interpreto il vaticinio di Annibale, che poi nella sua pro­pria persona si avvero cosi appunto come noi a suo tempo diremo, parlando delle mirabili opere, che egli per quei luoghi condusse.

[pp. 109—10] “. . . si applicasse altresi a condurre per ordine di Alessandro quella della cattedra di S. Pietro, empiendo la testata della gran basilica, secondo l ’altre volte accennato antico vaticinio di Annibal Caracci, della mole dell'ornato della medesima cattedra, la quale voile, che fusse retta da quattro gran colossi di metallo rappresentanti i quattro Dottori della Chiesa, gli due greci, Gregorio Nazianzeno e Atanasio, e gli due latini, Agostino e Ambrogio. Questi con grazia inesplicabile sostengono una base, sopra la quale essa cattedra leg- giadramente si posa. Ed e da ammirarsi in questo luogo l ’insuperabil pazienza del Bernino, il quale avendo di questo gran lavoro fatto di tutta sua mano i modelli di terra ed essendogli i colossi riusciti alquanto piccoli, non lsdegno di que lli m ettersi a fare di nuovo della grandezza appunto, che ora si vedono in opera.”

D. Bernini, 1713, pp. 109—10: “La Sedia dunque di legno, nella quale assiso soleva il Principe degli Apostoli predicar l'Evangelio a ’ Romani, si trovava nella prima Cappella, che a man sinistra s’incontra nell’entrar della Chiesa di S. Pietro, riguardevole allora per quel tanto solo, che veniva in lei considerato dalla pia devozione de' Fedeli. Onde parve ad Alessandro sempre intento al culto Divino, & alia magior gloria de suoi Santi, che una tanta memoria meritasse luogo piu proporzionato, e

2 7 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

nobile. Perloche ne accenno I'intenzione al Bernini, & a questi subito sovvenne di nuovo l’altre volte riferito Vaticinio di Annibal Caracci, di empire la Testata di quel gran Tempio con una qualche ricca, e maestoso Mole. Ne tardo a metterne in carta il disegno, che cosi nobile gli venne tirato, che non pote non gradire al sublime intendimento di Alessandro. Voleva in esso, che i quat­tro Dottori della Chiesa, cioe i due Greci Gregorio Nazianzeno, & Athanasio, & i due Latini Agostino, & Ambrogio in figura due volte piu grandi del naturale, e tutti di Bronzo, sostenessero in atto di venerazione una gran Cathedra di somigliante materia, sopra la quale si aprisse maestosamente la Gloria del Paradiso con quan- tita di Angeli, che tra loro framischiati, e con vago ordine confusi, si mostrano riverenti, & ossequiosi a quella preziosa Reliquia. E perche nel mezzo di questa Gloria sarebbe necessariamente caduto il vano di una gran finestra, egli convertendo quel difetto in suo van- taggio, lece, che ne’ vetri di essa, come in luogo di luce inaccessible, apparisse lo Spirito Santo in sembianza di Colomba, che da compimento a tutta l 'Opera. [. . .]"

Pascoli, 1730-36, I, pp. 19-20: “ Voile questi [Bernini] nul- ladimeno invitarlo [Andrea Sacchi] a veder prima, che si scoprisse la magnifica cattedra da lui fatta in S. Pietro per sentirne il parere; ed ito a prederlo a casa colla car- rozza. [. . .] Quindi entrati in chiesa, e giunti poco piu su della croce, vedendo Andrea, che la cattedra non era discoperta, e che il Bernini seguitava a camminare, l’ar- resto, e gli disse: 'Questo Signor Bernini e il luogo, dove veder voglio, e dove veder si deve la vostr’opera, se da me ne bramate il parere; perche questo e il punto di sua veduta;’ scoprilla il Bernini, e considerata, e riconsider- ata da Andrea, senza di quivi muovere un passo piu innanzi, soggiunse: 'Quelle statue esser dovrebbero un buon palmo piu grandi.’ Ed uscito senz’altro dire di chiesa, rimontato in carrozza, e seguito dal Bernini se ne ritorno a casa, dandogli a vedere per quel, che poi disse, con cio, o che egli s era ingannato, se creduto l ’avea incapace di conoscerne il sito, o che gliele insegnava, se nol sapeva. Ne il Bernini, che gia da se stesso conosciuto avea, che le statue eran piccole, sdegno di rifarle."

N O T E S

1. On the history and significance ol the relic, see Chapter 6 and Cat. 3 (b), esp. n. 1.

2. These and other arguments are presented by Lonigo in a letter to the pope, probably written c. 1625—30, which is transcribed in lull in the Documents section at the end ol this entry.

3. Shearman, 1972, p. 28, n. 37; I. Lavin et al., 1981, pp. 175,182 n. 7.

4. See Chapter 5.5. See Chapter 7 and Cats. SR 3 and SR 4.6. See Chapter 5, n. 44. In addition, a document dated June

3, 1633, records the acquisition of a piece of porphyiy col­umn to be used “per fare nella basilica la sedia pontificale.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3-no. 16, f. 126v; cited by Maccar- rone, 1971, p. 50, n. 219.)

7. See Chapter 5, n. 37.8. Schutze, 1994, pp. 268-73.9. [April 15, 1630] "Et quod Sanctissimus mandat incumbi

perfectioni operum metalli pro ornamento maioris altaris; item parvarum cappellarum, nec non altaris S. Cathedrae dedicatfi]; et chori a capite huius sacrosanctae basilicae conficien[di].’’ AFSP, Piano 1-ser. 3-no. 160, f. 32v (par­tially cited in Poliak, no. 118).

10. Poliak, nos. 507—46.11. See Cat. 3 (b).12. Although it is true, as Schutze points out (1994, p. 268, n.

170), that the reliquary chair itself was cast in bronze only after Urban’s death, other parts of the ensemble, such as the two marble putti holding the keys and tiara, the gilt bronze dove emanating gilt bronze rays, the polychrome marble base, and the rear wall skillfully inlaid with alabaster to resemble a glory of light amid clouds, date from Urban’s pontificate and attest to the anticipated per­manence ol the arrangement.

13. Schiitzes conviction that Urban VIII intended to house the Cathedra in the apse is based in part on a passage in Baglione’s Nove Chieoe, written in 1639. Describing the apse of St. Peter’s, Baglione records: '[Vi] sono tre nicchie pic­cole, ed in quella di mezzo vi andera la sede Pontificia” (Baglione, 1639 [1990], p. 61). Schutze takes this to be a ref­erence to the Cathedra Petri, but Baglione is probably refer­ring to the pontifical choir that Urban was planning to build, and specifically to the papal throne that was to have occu­pied a central position within it (see Chapter 5 and n. 6 above). Another text cited by Schutze in support ol his argu­ment is a poem by Cesare Bracci, entitled Per la Cattedra di S. Pietro che la Santitd diN.S. Papa Urbano VIII dioegna d'eaporre nel Tempia dell'iiteooo in Roma (1639). Again, although Bracci's imagery is undeniably evocative, at no point does the poet say or imply that the Cathedra was destined for the apse.

14. Doc. Appendix, no. 27.15. Maccarone, 1971, p. 50. At the time, a battered ancient

sarcophagus served as the font in St. Peter’s. The pope and the Fabbrica had long been anxious to replace it with something more elegant, and had even issued decrees to this effect in 1625 and 1646 (Doc. Appendix, no. 5 and Montagu, 1985, II, pp. 392-93). But there was probably resistance from the canons, who for tradition's sake pre­ferred the font Irom the old basilica, however shabby, to a modern one of more graceful design (see Chapter 5). It was not, in fact, until the last decade of the centuiy that St. Peter’s finally received a new font (see Cat. 3 [a], n. 1).

16. Poliak, nos. 2376-2453.17. Poliak, no. 2455.18. The literature on Bernini’s Cathedra Petri is vast. See, in

particular, Battaglia, 1943; Kauffmann, 1970, pp. 244—77; Bernini in Vaticana, 1981, pp. 130—37; I. Lavin et al., 1981, pp. 174—85; Wittkower, 1981, pp. 235—37; Tratz, 1988, pp. 427—43. For additional references, see Schutze, 1994, p. 268, n. 166.

C A T A L O G U E SP. 1 2 7 1

19. A varian t of this early project is recorded in a d raw ing for­m erly on the London art m arket (illu stra ted in G rigaut, 1953, p. 129, fig. 5 and also known through an engraved reproduction, in reverse , by C onrad M etz, pub lished in London in 1798). The W indsor d raw ing is usually said to be the ea rlie r o f the two, but the p ro jects are sim ilar in conception, and both probably date from 1656-57.

20. Pascoli, 1730-36, 1, pp. 19-20.21. A couple of rap id sketches in the Vatican L ib rary record

Bernini's efforts to coordinate the two monuments (B rauer and W ittkower, 1931, pis. 7-4 a-b ). The dimensions of the Cathedra a ltarp iece as executed w ere m eticulously ca lcu ­lated to conform to those of the baldaccbino. The ideal position from which to view the two monuments is at the point where the nave joins the centralized portion of the basilica. If one stands on the longitudinal axis at that precise spot, one sees the triple bundles of golden rays that emanate from the Holy Ghost perfectly contained w ithin the spiral columns of the baUhecbuw, with the barest of margins on all three sides.

22. See C hapter 9.23. W ittkower, 1981, p. 237.24. Titi, 1763, p. 15.25. The a ltar itself, contain ing the relics of Sts. Innocent, Vic­

tor, Candidus, Boniface, Lucius, and C lem entia, w as dedi­cated in 1676 and again under B enedict XIII (S indone, 1744, pp. 45—46).

C A T A L O G U E S P . 1

Giovanni Baglione, Washing o f th e Feet (1628-30) [13] Fresco; approximately 650 X 420 cm Destroyed (Figs. 169-170)

Sometime before November 9, 1628, Giovanni Baglione wrote to the Congregation of the Fabbrica, asking to be considered for one of the six oopraporti then being commis­sioned. The Congregation responded by assigning him the aopraporto in the passage between the Cappella Gregoriana and the north transept (Fig. 169).1 Payments began in December, the scaffolding went up in March 1629, and by March of the following year the fresco was completed. In his autobiography, Baglione proudly noted that the work was unveiled in the presence of the pope and his court. Presumably it was well received, for the artist was given 800 ocneH, the maximum payment for a oopraporto.2

Baglione’s fresco represented Christ washing the feet of his apostles. The episode, narrated in John 13:4—16, occurred at the Last Supper. At the sight of Christ kneel­ing and washing his disciples’ feet, Peter protested; but Christ explained that he was acting as Lord and Master (M aquter et DominuS), setting an example of humility and service for his followers to imitate. According to Gio­vanni Battista Confalonieri, who included the Washing of

the Feet in his list of suggested topics for the oopraporti of St. Peter’s, the scene illustrates Peter’s primacy because, as he put it, “Peter was the first to have his feet washed by Christ."3

This was not the first time that the subject was repre­sented in the C appella G regoriana. Taddeo Landin i’s enormous marble relief representing the Washing o f the Feet (late 1570s) formed part of the original decoration of the chapel and w as removed on ly th irteen y e a rs before Baglione was commissioned to paint the oopraporto (Figs. 33 -34 )J In the case of both Landini’s relief and Baglione’s fresco, the subject was chosen because of its eucharistic significance, the Gregoriana being at that time the sacra­ment chapel of St. Peter’s. For a full discussion of the meaning of the Washing of the Feet and its place in the Petrine cycle, see Chapter 7.

The oopraporto was destroyed in the mid-eighteenth centuiy, when the niche was remodeled to accommodate Pietro Bracci’s tomb of Benedict XIV (Fig. 169).5 A pair of nearly identical bozzetti painted by Baglione either for or after the fresco give an idea of its appearance (Fig. 170). They show a composition formulated very much like an altarpiece, with a crowd of figures in the lower half, an architectural background in the upper half, and a glory of putti above. The twelve apostles form a circle around Christ, who kneels at the center, a towel wrapped around his waist in conformity with the biblical text. He holds Peter’s foot in one hand while with the other he points upw ard. His gesture is am biguous, as are the overtly rhetorical reactions of his followers. Baglione’s interpretation of the scene is curiously unorthodox. It includes none of the traditional narrative details that appear in nearly all earlier representations of the event.6 For example, the stock figure of the apostle who stoops to unbuckle his sandal in preparation for Christ’s minis­trations (cf. Fig. 171) is omitted. Instead, totally incon­gruously, the apostles hold large volumes, which they consult as though searching for a scriptural explanation of the scene they witness.

There is something disturbingly mannered about this work. The apostles, and even Christ himself, with their long, unkempt hair, resemble half-crazed visionaries rather than the dignified and sober philosopher types we expect to see. The exaggerated, mystical quality of the figures, combined with the quasi-Caravaggesque chiaroscuro, are characteristic of Baglione’s late style.7

Unexpectedly, the composition is dominated not by Christ or Peter but by the standing apostle in the left foreground. Youthful and beardless, this figure must be John, the beloved of Christ, and the book that he holds in his right hand is presumably his Gospel. As we have seen, the Gospel of John is the source for the stoiy of the Washing of the Feet. It seems, then, that Baglione inten­tionally emphasized the figure of John, bringing him to

2 7 2 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

the foreground in order to draw our attention to his dual role as both a participant in and the narrator of the event depicted in the fresco.

John ’s importance in the composition is further empha­sized by the fact that he stands on a ledge or step much like the pedestal of a statue or the podium of an orator. In one of the two bozzetti, B aglione’s name and the date are inscribed on the side of this pedestal: E Q V [ E S ] I OANNES

B A G L I O N V S R O [ m a n u s ] F E C [ i t ] 1628.8 It was surely no accident that Baglione chose this spot, directly below the figure of John, for his signature. In this w ay he empha­sized the coincidence of names between himself and the apostle John . The artist was especially devoted to the Evangelist, his name saint. He called him “avvocato del Cavalier Giovanni Baglione" and dedicated his private chapel in SS. Cosma e Damiano in his honor.9 Thus John ’s prominence in Baglione’s composition may also be inter­preted as a kind ol homage on the part of Baglione to his patron saint and as a consciously self-referential play on their two names. The conceit is simple enough: just as John the Evangelist recorded the episode of the Washing of the Feet in words, so Giovanni the painter records it in fresco.

Baglione’s emphasis on the figure of John, his casting the Evangelist in the double role of participant and narra­tor, w as unusual and perhaps unprecedented in the iconography of the Washing of the Feet. It had, however, one interesting sequel. The fresco was still in situ in the 1660s, when Bernini fashioned the bronze relief repre­senting the same episode for one side of the chair-shaped re liquary containing the Cathedra Petri (F ig. 172).10 A lthough horizontal ra ther than vertica l in format, Bernini’s version of the scene has much in common with Baglione’s. John, instantly recognizable by his youthful and clean-shaven appearance, stands to one side and observes the event; he holds an open book, in reference to the fact that his Gospel is the source of the story; and while the other apostles express their astonishment at C hrist’s action, he remains serenely unperturbed, as though he alone understands the sign ificance of the event. Bernini seems to have borrowed these details from Baglione, whose treatment of the scene he is bound to have studied carefully before designing his own for the same church. That the sculptor was receptive to the sub­tleties of Baglione’s invention should, of course, come as no surprise, for he too was named Giovanni.

B O Z Z E T T I

1. Rome, Galleria Borghese. Oil on canvas. Provenance: Barberini collection. The bozzetto is recorded for the first time in 1630, when in all probability it was given by Urban VIII to his nephew Taddeo Barberini. See M. A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 99, 191, 267, 371; Aurigemma, 1994, p. 32. (Fig. 170)

2. Rome, Capitoline Museum. Inv. no. 210. Oil on can­vas; 80 X 130 cm. Provenance unknown. See Bruno, 1978, p. 106; Aurigemma, 1994, p. 32.

D O C U M E N T S

1628, Nov. 9: Giovanni Baglione, having petitioned to paint one of the six Mpraporti, is granted a commission.(P. 954)

1628, Dec. 18: Payment of sc. 200 to Baglione "a bon conto della pittura che deve fare.” (P. 956)

c. 1628: "Quando Cristo gli lava li piedi...............CavalierBaglione” (Doc. Appendix, no. 22)

1629, March 8—9: Two consignments of nails "per fare il ponte dove va il quadro del Sign. Cav. Baglione alia Capela Gregoriana. ” (P. 957)

1629, May 23: Consignment of nails "per fare il steccato per il Sign. Cav. Baglione.” (P. 958)

1629, Oct. 17: Payment of sc. 200 to Baglione "a bon conto della pittura che fa.” (P. 959)

1630, Feb. 4: Balance of sc. 12.90 claimed by Prospero and Donato Ricci "per fare una cortina avanti il quadro dove si lava li piedi alii apostoli.” (P. 45)

1630, March 11: Baglione requests full payment having completed the painting. (P. 960)

1630, M ay 21 -Sep t. 7: Two paym ents of sc. 250 to Baglione "a conto della pittura fatta nella Gregoriana.” (P. 961-963)

1631, Feb. 1: Final payment of sc. 150 to Baglione "per resto del sopraporto fatto nella Cappella Gregoriana.” (P. 964)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 404: "Dipintura del Cavalier Baglione in s. Pietro dentro alia Cappella Gregoriana e la storia a fresco della lavanda de’ piedi, che fece N. Signore a i suoi Apostoli sopra una porta a man diritta dell’altar maggiore di quel luogo; e fu honorata con essere stata scoperta alia presenza del Santissimo Regnante, e di tutta la Corte de gli Eminentissimi.”

Mola, 1663 (1963), p. 42: "L’istoria che segue sopra la porta a fresco quando N. S. lava i piedi a S. Pietro, e deH’ultim’opre de Gio. Baglione.”

N O T E S

1. The space w as previously occupied by the organ built by G rego iy XIII. A fter the organ w as moved to the adjacent w all in 1627, its p lace w as taken by the old wooden cruci­fix that had form erly stood over the a ltars of St. Petronilla and St. M ichael. The crucifix rem ained over the door from Sep tem ber 1628 until M arch 1629. See Poliak, nos. 553 and 953.

2. Cam assei and Romanelli w ere each paid 800 .icubi for their jopraporti, Pom arancio received 700 jcud i, and G uidottionly 525 Mudi.

3. See Doc. Appendix, no. 17. Confalonieri m istakenly iden-

C A T A L O G U E SP. 2 2 7 3

tified Luke as the source of the story. The Jo h an n in e textis not specific about w hich o f the apostles w as the first tohave his feet w ashed. For the theological debate surround­ing this issue, see Kantorowicz, 1955—56, p. 209, n. 14.

4. See C hapter 2, nn. 52-53 .5. G radara, 1920, p. 72. It seems that the site w as chosen for

the tomb at least in part because Baglione’s w as consideredthe least accomplished of the surviving oopraporti and conse­qu en tly the most expendab le . In a docum ent of M a y 9, 1765, entitled Informazione [. . .] sopra la ocelta del oito per collo- care il depoo'ito della S. M. di Benedetto XIV, Baglione s fresco is said to be "la piu debole, che si ritrova nel Tempio, si per esser composto di minute figure, per conseguenza di minute carattere, e confuse, non corrispondente a lia grandiosita del Tempio medesimo, tanto che la perdita non sarebbe molto valutab ile.” (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3-vo l. 170, f. 61 v. I am grateful to Jen n ifer M ontagu for bringing this document to my attention.)

6. For more on the trad itional iconography o f the W ash ing of the Feet, see R eau , 1955 -59 , II. ii, pp. 4 0 6 ^ (0 9 ; Kan- torowitz, 1956, pp. 203—251; Giess, 1962.

7. The bozzetti are close in style and composition to another a ltarp iece by Baglione, Chrut Delivering the Magdalen from the Influence o f the Devil (form erly private collection, Rome), which has been dated to the y e a rs between 1628 and 1638. They share figural types, arch itectural motifs, and a spatial construction based on a series o f ascend in g steps more u sua lly associated w ith M an n erist w orks of the late s ix ­teenth cen tu ry . On B ag lio n e ’s late sty le , see G uglielm i, 1954, pp. 319-20 ; ibid., ov Giovanni Baglione, DBI, V, pp. 188—89; B orea, 1980; M ar in i, 1982, pp. 66—68; M oller, 1989 (1991), pp. 69-70 , 139^(0; Aurigem m a, 1994.

8 . W hether the oopraporto w as signed, and signed in the same place, w e have no w ay o f know ing.

9. Baglione, p. 405.10. On B ern in i’s C athedra Petri reliefs, see Battaglia , 1943, p.

100; W ittkower, 1981, p. 237.

C A T A L O G U E S P . 2

Andrea Camassei, Peter Baptizing Hu Jailero Sto. Proceoono and Martinian (1630-35) [19]

Fresco; approximately 650 X 420 cm

Destroyed(Figs. 173-175)

In the passage leading from the north transept to the northwest corner chapel, Andrea Camassei painted an over-door fresco representing Peter Baptizing IIio Ja ilero Proceoono and M artinian in the M amertine P r 'ioon.1 Camassei was not the first artist to be assigned this oopraporto. In March 1628, Urban VIII asked the cardinals of the Con­gregation to give one of the six oopraporti to Agostino C iam pelli; they com plied, and on Ju n e 8 C iam pelli received an initial payment of 50 ocudi "a bon conto del

sopraporto che deve fare .” The subject of C iam pelli’s fresco, as specified in a document of c. 1628, was the same one later assigned to Camassei, that is, "quando [Pietro] e carcerato in Roma, et battezza.” But Ciampelli never got around to the job. Favored as he was by the pope, he was already overburdened with important commissions. He was working on the altarpiece of Sts. Simon and Jude; he was also producing cartoons for the pendentives in the chapel of the Madonna della Colonna, directing the fresco­ing of the four subterranean chapels below the crossing piers, and, beginning in 1629, fulfilling the multiple duties of oopraotante of the Fabbrica. With all of these responsibili­ties, the oopraporto necessarily took second place, and when Ciampelli died on April 22, 1630, it had yet to be begun.

Following the death of Ciampelli, Urban VIII again intervened, this time to instruct the Congregation to assign the oopraporto to Camassei. The painter received a down payment of 50 ocud i on September 7, 1630, but apparently he too postponed working on the fresco, for he was given no more payments until 1634. Thereafter he worked quickly, and by the spring of 1635 the fresco was finished. Camassei received a final payment on Decem­ber 20, 1635, bringing the total to 800 ocudi

The subject of the fresco is taken from the Acts ol Processus and Martinian.2 According to this spurious text. Processus and Martinian were soldiers in Nero’s army. While keeping watch over Peter in the Mamertine prison, they fell under the spell of his preaching and were con­verted. When it came time to baptize them, having no water at his disposal, Peter miraculously summoned forth a spring from the rocky wall of his cell. The story of the baptism in the Mamertine prison, perhaps the best known of Peter's Roman miracles, is especially relevant in the con­text of the Vatican basilica, since Processus and Martinian are buried there.3 On the relationship of the oopraporto to the altar containing the saints’ bodies, see Chapter 7.

Camassei’s fresco was demolished to make w ay for the tomb of Clement XIII, designed and executed by Antonio Canova between 1784 and 1792 (Fig. 173).4 The composi­tion is, however, preserved in an eighteenth-century copy attributed to a certain Boldrini (Fig. 174) ,5 In the copy, St. Peter stands at the center, with his two jailers on the right, kneeling to receive baptism, and various prisoners on the left, who react with amazement as the miracle unfolds before them. The scene is set in a prison interior. Above, the dove of the Holy Spirit descends amid a glory of putti carrying palm fronds and wreathes. A striking peculiarity of the painting is its perspective. No single vanishing point governs the construction of the whole, so that the walls appear to be foreshortened at crazy and inconsistent angles. The error is so apparent and so unexpected that one might be tempted to lay the blame for it on the copy­ist, were it not for a remark made by Passeri in speaking of the original. After praising the work in modest terms,

2 7 4 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

he observed that it was “non troppo ben’intesa quanto alia prospettiva, havendovi [Camassei] assegnati due punti improprj differenti, e senza ragione.” Passeri’s comment confirms the accuracy of Boldrini’s copy.

One drawing and three oil sketches survive. Of these, the drawing clearly represents the earliest stage in the evolution of the composition, when the artist was work­ing out the subject without as yet giving much thought to format or scale. The Vatican bozzetto is the closest to the copy, the only major difference being in the position of the window and the figures grouped around the window (Fig. 175). The other two sketches do have the window in the position in which we find it in the copy, yet in other respects they are notably dissimilar, particularly in the inclusion of the figure of Christ borne by putti in the upper zone and in the poses and positions of the figures down below (Figs. 176—i 77). Because of these discrepan­cies, it is likely that only the Vatican bozzetto is a prepara­tory study, while the other two may be variations by Camassei a fter the finished composition.6

D R A W I N G S

Diisseldorf, Kunstmuseum. Composition study. Black chalk with brown mask on white paper; 16.9 X 11.9 cm. See Sutherland Harris, 1970, p. 53 and fig. 9.

B O Z Z E T T I

1. Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana. Inv. 820. Oil on canvas; 80 X 55.5 cm. Provenance: Colonna coll. (by 1783); Barberini coll. (by 1844); Ellis K. Waterhouse coll. (purchased 1935); Vatican M useums (1937). See Sutherland Harris, 1970, p. 53; M. A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 193, 378, 404; Ferrari, 1990, p. 101. (Another, smaller bozzetto by Camassei of the same subject is recorded in the collection of Taddeo Barberini as early as 1648, and may be identical with the following.) (Fig. 175)

2. Ohio, private coll. Oil on canvas; 76.2 X 50.8 cm. Provenance: Possib ly B arberin i coll. (by 1648); Christies, London (sold 1962); English private coll., on loan to the Ditchley Foundation, Ditchley House, Oxfordshire. See Sutherland Harris, 1970, p. 53, fig. 11; Spike, 1980, pp. 30—32. (This bozzetto may be the one bought by Gian M aria Roscioli on December 12, 1635, and later presented to Pope Urban VIII. See Corradini, 1979, pp. 192—93 and n. 36.) (Fig. 177)

3. Levallois (Seine), Coll. J . Petit-Horry. Oil on canvas; 101 X 76 cm. See Sutherland Harris, 1970, p. 53, fig.10. (Fig. 176)

D O C U M E N T S

1628, June 8: Ciampelli receives a first payment of sc. 50 "a bon conto del sopraporto che deve fare.’’ (P. 2307)

c. 1628: "Quandfo Pietro] e carcerato in Roma, et battezza Agostino Ciampelli.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 22)

1630, June 4: By order of Urban VIII, the jopraporto that was to have been painted by the late Ciampelli [d. April 22, 1630] is to be given instead to Andrea Camassei. (P. 2308)

1630, Sept. 7: First payment of sc. 50 to Camassei "a bon conto del sopraporto che deve fare de SS. Processo e Martiniano.” (P. 2309)

1634: Five payments of sc. 300 to Camassei "a conto del- l ’historia di fresco che dipinge incontro l altare della navicella del Lanfranco.” (P. 2310)

1635, April 2 & Alay 12: Two payments of sc. 150 to Camassei “a conto del sopraporto che ha fatto.” (P. 2311)

1635, April 2: Payment of sc. 86 b. 20 to Guido Giordani "per una tela per coprir il quadro del sopraporto fatto dal Camasei.” (P. 2312)

1635, June: Payment of sc. 10.50 to Francesco Invemo "Per avere Indorato il colarino del sopraporto del Signor Andrea Camasieno . . . " (P. 50)

1635, Aug. 9-Dec. 20: Three payments of sc. 300 toCamassei "per resto di sc. 800 per il sopraportofatto di S. Processo e Martiniano.” (P. 2313—2315)

S O U R C E S

Passeri, pp. 170-71: “Gli fu allocato nella Chiesa di S. Pietro un sopraporto da farsi in fresco; e quello con- dusse con assai buona mamera; facendovi la historia, quando rinchiuso in carcere il Principe degl’Apostoli, fece scaturire da una arida pietra una fonte per battez- zare i due Centurioni, li quali persuasi dalla sua predi- cazione, confessarono la fede di Christo. Quest’opera non riesce d ispiacevole per esser m aneggiata con maniera assai graziosa, e soave; ma non troppo ben’in­tesa quanto alia prospettiva, havendovi assegnati due punti improprj diflerenti, e senza ragione.

Pascoli, 1730-36, I, p. 40: "Dipinse nella chiesa del Vati­cano 1’apostolo Pietro, che battezza due soldati, attorni- ato da molte altre figure in atto di stare a veder la fun- zione, assai bizzarre, e spiritose.”

Baldinucci, 1845^17, IV, pp. 580: "Sotto il patroncinio pure di casa Barberini ebbe a fare altre opere, che gli appor- tarono applauso: e particolarmente ha la Vaticana basil­ica una pittura a fresco, ove e San Pietro, in atto di bat- tezzare due soldati: e vi sono altre figure molto spiritose, e condotte di ottimo gusto. ”

N O T E S

1628, March 27: By order of Urban VIII, Agostino ]. On Andrea Camassei (1602^(9) , see Passeri, pp. 168—73; Pas- Ciampelli is to receive a commission for one of the oopra- coli, \730-36, I, pp. 38-44; Sutherland Harris, 1970. On hisporti. (P. 102 and 104) fresco in St. Peters, see, in addition, Spike, 1980, pp. 30-32.

C A T A L O G U E SP. 3 I f 2 7 5

2. Acta SS, Ju n e , I, p. 270; Franchi d e ’ C avalieri, 1909, pp. 35—39; Bibliotheca SS, 1961-70, X, cols. 1138-40. The baptismof Processus and M artinian is the only one of the six Peter stories chosen for the oopraporti without a scriptural source.

3. On the a lta r of Sts. Processus and M artin ian , see C at. 11.4. By the second half of the seventeenth centuiy, it must have

been obvious that the niches occupied by the oopraporti would eventually need to be taken over for papal tombs. Cam assei’s fresco w as not replaced until the end of the eighteenth cen­tu iy , but c learly its fate w as determ ined long before then. This explains w hy the Congregation felt justified in commis­sioning a second painting of the sam e subject for another p a rt o f the ch u rch w h ile C am asse i's w as s t i ll in s itu . Giuseppe Passeri s St. Peter Baptizing Sto. Proceoouo and Martin­ian w as completed in 1714 and installed in the baptism al chapel new ly built by Carlo Fontana; for the better part of a cen tu iy the two versions coexisted in St. Peter's. On the later decoration of the baptismal chapel, see Dowley, 1965, pp. 57—81; Schaar, 1966; DiFederico, 1968, pp. 194—97. Passeri’s painting w as replaced by a mosaic reproduction, begun in1726 and completed in 1730 (DiFederico, 1983, p. 80). Theoriginal is today in the church of S. Francesco in Urbino.

5. Passeri, p. 171, n. 1. The copy w as form erly in the M useo Petriano and is now in the Studio dei M osaici.

6. See C h ap ter 9. For a d iffe ren t an a ly s is o f the o rder in which these sketches w ere produced, see Sutherland H ar­ris, 1970, pp. 53—54. The p rob lem posed b y the th ree Cam assei sketches is further com plicated by the fact that the composition appears in receroe in a v iew of the interior of St. Peter’s by P iranesi (F ig . 178). The print is otherw ise c o rre c t ly o rien ted ; b u t s in ce p r in tm ak in g is a rev e rse p ro cess , d ire c tio n a l e rro rs can often in tru d e , and th is seems to be the case here. That P iranesi shows us a m irror image of Cam assei's fresco is confirmed by the fact that, in the prin t, P eter bap tizes w ith h is left hand, w h ereas in nearly all representations of baptism (includ ing C am assei’s three sketches and B o ldrin i’s copy) it is the right hand that is used to perform the act.

C A T A L O G U E S P . 3

Andrea Sacchi, Paoce Oreo Alcao [23]

Unexecuted project(Fig. 179)

In the passageway between the northwest corner chapel and the tribune, the Congregation commissioned a oopra- porto representing C hrist’s charge to Peter, Paoce Oreo Aleao. The work, which was never executed, was intended as a pendant to the corresponding oopraporto on the oppo­site side of the tribune, Antonio Pomarancio’s Giving o f the Keyo. The meaning of these two scenes, and the close the­matic and compositional links that were to have bound them together, are discussed in Chapter 7 and in the fol­lowing catalogue entry (Cat. SP. 4).

The commission for the Paoce Oreo Aleao went in 1628 to Andrea Sacchi, who produced a modello and a number of drawings but never actually began the fresco, despite the fact that he received a down payment of 100 ocudi, which he seems to have kept for himself.1 The bozzetto or modeller, now lost, was at one point in the Barberini collec­tion, where it was seen by Bellori. According to Bellori’s description, the composition featured Christ and Peter with other apostles, and in the background a view out to sea ("un’apertura di mare”) with a boat and fishing nets. A composition study by Sacchi, which can be connected with the lost modello on the basis of Bellori’s description, is in the Uffizi (Fig. 179).

The inclusion of a seascape with fishermen in a Pa>ce Oreo Alcao is relatively rare, and from Bellori’s description and the Uffizi drawing it appears that Sacchi was plan­ning to combine two scenes in one, illustrating not only C hrist’s charge to Peter (John 21:15—17) but also the episode immediately preceding, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (John 21:4—8). At the same time, the back­ground scene recalls an earlier Miraculous Draught and an earlier charge to Peter, when Christ revealed himself for the first time and promised his disciple “Henceforth thou shalt catch men" (Luke 5:3—10).2 Thus the symbolic meaning of the Paoce Oreo Aleao, namely, Christ’s investi­ture of pastoral authority in the person of Peter (and by extension of his papal successors), was to have been reit­erated and reinforced in the background of the painting.

Ann Sutherland H arris has proposed that it w as Bernini who arranged for Sacchi to get the commission.3 Her suggestion is founded on an entiy in the Acts of the Congregation for February 5, 1628, which records Urban VIII conferring on the sculptor the unusual privilege of disposing of one of the oopraporti as he saw fit.9 However, in another copy of the same Acts, a scrawled notation in the margin next to this entiy identifies the oopraporto that Bernini chose to have assigned to him, and it was not the one under discussion: “Domanda quello sopra la porta che va alia sacrestia.”5 There is, therefore, no documen­tary evidence linking Bernini with Sacch i’s oopraporto. Nevertheless, Sutherland Harris’s hypothesis remains an attractive one, especially given the typically Berninesque w ay in which Sacchi’s painting was devised to interact across a vast space with the corresponding oopraporto on the opposite side of the tribune, not to mention certain compositional affinities between Sacch i’s preparatory drawing and Bernini’s marble relief representing the Paoce Oreo Aleao, carved between 1633 and 1646 for the interior facade of St. Peter’s.6 In short, even if Bernini had no official role in the assignment of the fresco, his authority was such that he easily could have influenced the design.

Sutherland Harris goes on to propose that Bernini, having given Sacchi the commission, later rescinded it because he wanted to reserve the subject of the “Feed My

2 7 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Sheep" for a more prominent image over the altar in the apse. This is a less convincing idea. In the first place, plans for an altarpieee in the apse seem to have been dropped in 1627—28, at around the time Sacchi received the commission. Furthermore, even if Bernini had, for one reason or another, decided that the Pasce Oves Afeas was not an appropriate subject for the sopraporto, this would not have been a reason for depriving Sacchi of the commission, but merely for changing the subject. This is not to say that Sacchi’s loss of the commission may not have been due to a falling out with Bernini. On the other hand, it is also possible that the painter simply never got around to working on the fresco, occupied as he was with other, more important commissions, just as, under similar circumstances, Cortona too failed to execute the sopra - porto assigned to him. (See Cat. SP. 6.)

It appears that, in 1643^44, the Congregation, making a last effort to complete the cycle o f,»opraporti, negotiated with either M attia Preti or Domenico Cerrini to take over Sacch i’s commission.7 Urban V III’s death put an end to the project, and the space remained empty until it was taken over in the mid-1680s for M attia de’ Rossi’s tomb of Pope Clement X.8

D R A W I N G S

Sutherland H arris lists a total of th irteen autograph drawings and three copies after lost originals, all related to the Pasee Oves Aleas project. See Sutherland Harris, 1977, p. 56; also Sutherland Harris and Schaar, 1967, pp. 28-29, 59, pis. 6-9. (Fig. 179)

B O Z Z E T T I

A bozzetto, described as “Un quadretto di p.mi 21/2 di Altezza rappresentante Christo che Dice a S. Pietro Pasce Oves Meas, et Altri Apostoli Mezzo Tondo in Cima [mano di Andrea Sacchi],” is recorded in the inventories of the collection of Cardinal Antonio Barberini. Its present loca­tion is unknown. See Bellori, 1672 (1976), pp. 566—67 (transcribed below); M. A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 123, 368, 404; Sutherland Harris, 1977, p. 56; Ferrari, 1990, pp. 32—33.

D O C U M E N T S

1628, Ju ly 15; Payment of sc. 50 to Andrea Sacchi “a bon conto della pittura che deve fare in S. Pietro del sopra- porto.” (P. 108)

1628, Aug. 23: Payment of sc. 50 to Sacchi "a conto del sopraporto.” (P. 109)

Date uncertain (c. 1628): “Pasce Oves Meas AndreaSacchi” (Doc. Appendix, no. 22)

1643, April 27: Mattia Preti is mentioned in connection with a commission for an unspecified sopraporto in St. Peter’s. (P. 123)

1644, April 11: Domenico Cerrini is mentioned in connec­tion with an unspecified painting in St. Peter's. (P. 124)

S O U R C E S

A lveri, 1664, II, p. 171: “Q u i si vede a l l ’incontro un vano so p ra u n a p o r t ic e l la c ir co n d a to d i m arm i a g u is a d i A ltare , dove an d a ra la su a p ittu ra corrispondente a gl a l­tri so p rap o rti.”

B e llo r i, 1672 (1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 5 6 6 —6 7 : “T ro v as i a n c o ra nel palazzo B arberin o il bel m odello d e lla tavo la g ran d e che A n d rea do vea o p erare n e lla B as ilica V atican a , quando C risto d isse a S an P ietro : 'P asce oves m eas’; figurato il S ig n o re in p ied i in a tto d i p a r la rg li con a ltr i aposto li ap p resso ed in lo n tan an za e con u n ’a p e r tu ra di m are, lasc ia te su lla b arca le re t i.”

N O T E S

1. This w as S acch is second m ajor commission in St. Peter’s. For his a ltarp ieee representing the A hracu lous A fass o f St. G regory, and the b ib liography on Sacchi, see Cat. 9.

2. S ign ifican tly , G. B. C onfalonieri, in his list of suggested to p ics for the s o p r a p o r t i o f S t. P e te r ’s, g ro up s the two M ir a c u lo u s D ra u g h ts u n d e r a s in g le h e a d in g . O ne episode, he claim s, signifies the Church M ilitan t, the other the Church Triumphant; he offers no explanation for this curious distinction. See Doc. Appendix, no. 17.

3. Sutherland H arris, 1977, pp. 30 -32 ; 1987, pp. 52-53 .4. See the Documents section at the end of Cat. SP. 6.5. AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 171, f. 121v. T h e sopraporto o v e r

the door to the sacristy [36 ] w as supposed to represent the C alling o f Peter and Andrew and w as assigned to Pietro da Cortona. W hat influence, if any, Bernini had over the choice of subject m atter or artist is unclear. See Cat. SP. 6.

6. On B ern in i’s relief, see W ittkow er, 1981, pp. 202—203; I. Lavin et al., 1981, pp. 78—85; Tratz, 1991—92, pp. 342—46. O ne o f B e rn in i ’s p re p a r a to ry d ra w in g s for the re l ie f includes a fishing boat in the background, just as in S ac ­ch i’s composition (I. Lavin et al., 1981, no. 9).

7. Sutherland H arris, 1977, p. 31; Borea, 1978, p. 8.8. Blunt, 1982, p. 135.

C A T A L O G U E S P . 4

Antonio Pomarancio, Giving o f the K eys (1628—29) [27] Fresco, approximately 650 X 420 cm Destroyed (Figs. 180-181)

In 1626, A ntonio P om arancio w ro te to C ard in a l Rivarola, a member of the Congregation of the Fabbrica, to ask for his help in securing him a commission for an altarpieee in St. Peter’s .1 His petition produced no imme­diate results, but his name was added to the list of candi­dates, and when it came time to distribute the six sopra­porti he was among the first to be awarded one of these

C A T A L O G U E SP. 4 g a 2 7 7

prestigious commissions. He presented his design to the Congregation on February 26, 1628, and completed the fresco before March 8, 1629, when the scaffolding was removed. Pomarancio died not long after this; a final pay­ment of 50 MiJi, which brought the total to 700 vcudi, was made after his death to his son Niccolo.2

The fresco represented Cbriot Giving P eter the K eyo to the K ingdom o f Heaven, and was located in the nave p icco la between the tribune and the southwest corner chapel. It was demolished in the first quarter of the eighteenth cen­tury to make w ay for Angelo de' Rossi’s tomb of Alexan­der VIII (1700—1725).3 No related drawings or bozzetti have so far been identified, but there does exist a visual source, previously unnoticed, that provides at least a par­tial record of the fresco's appearance. This is a veduta of the interior of St. Peter’s, painted in 1682 by the Genoese artist Pietro Francesco Garoli (Figs. 180— 181 ).4 Garoli’s picture affords a view west from the north transept. On the right can be made out Guercino's St. Petronilla altar- piece, accurately reproduced and instantly recognizable; and on the far left, partially obscured by the southwest crossing pier, is a glimpse of Pomarancio’s oopraporto.

Relying on the visual evidence provided by Garoli’s veduta as well as on Baglione s written description, it is possible to reconstruct the basic outlines of the lost com­position. St. Peter was depicted kneeling on the left, with Christ approaching from the right, surrounded by apos­tles. With his left arm Christ pointed up, toward heaven, and toward the cluster of putti hovering overhead holding the papal tiara and keys (the "Insegne del Sommo Pontifi- cato” mentioned by Baglione). Pomarancio turned the aw kw ard low er edge of the fresco, w here the door intruded into the picture field, to his advantage by creat­ing a fictive step around it and positioning Christ with one foot raised, as though about to mount it, thereby introduc­ing a dynamic sense of movement into the composition.

Pomarancio’s oopraporto was intended as a pendant to the vopraporto on the opposite side of the tribune, which was to have had as its subject the Pavce Over AIea.i. The two themes, the Giving o f the Keyv and the Paoce Oveo Afeao, are parallel, both involving Christ’s delegation of power to Peter and, by extension, to Peter's successors, the popes of Rome. The explicit allusion to papal authority would have been all the more obvious since the vopraporti in question were intended to frame the opening into the tribune, where the pontifical choir was situated and where the pope sat whenever officiating or attending services in St. Peter’s.5

The Paoce Ove.i Afeao was assigned to Andrea Sacchi, who, although he never completed the work, did produce a modello (now lost) and a number of drawings, including a full composition study (F ig . 179). Com paring this draw ing with Pomarancio’s oopraporto as it appears in Garoli’s veduta, one can see that, in essentials, the compo­

sitions are mirror images of one another. W here Peter kneels on the left and C hrist stands on the righ t in Pomarancio’s design, the reverse is true in Sacchi’s. Thus, opposing d iagonals are implied that, read across the space separating the two vopraporti, would have seemed to converge on the tribune, subtly directing the eye to the spot where the pope sat enthroned.

D O C U M E N T S

1626, before June 3: Antonio Pomarancio writes to Cardi­nal Rivarola, asking for his help in securing him the com­mission for an altarpieee formerly assigned to Cristofano Roncalli, who had died earlier that year. (P. 62)

1627, M ay 14; Pomarancio is listed among those being considered for an altarpieee. (P. 94)

1628, Feb. 5: Pomarancio is commissioned to paint one of the six vopraporti (P. 99)

1628, Feb. 26: Pomarancio exhibits his design to the Con­gregation and receives its approval. The subject of the painting (“misterium . . . traditionis clavium Regni Coelorum’’) is mentioned here for the first time. (P. 101)

Date uncertain (c. 1628): “Tibi dabo Claves AntonioPomaranci” (Doc. Appendix, no. 22)

1628, before March 1: Pomarancio writes to Cardinal Gin­nasi, asking for an initial payment “per proved[er]e alii colori et altre cose necess[ari]e.” (P. 2350)

1628, March 1: Initial payment of sc. 50 to Pomarancio “a bon conto delle pitture [ate] che deve fare.” (P. 2351)

1628, April 3-Dec. 18: Four payments of sc. 400 to Pomarancio. (P. 2352)

1629, March 5: Balance of sc. 29.75 owed to Prospero and Donato Ricci for three curtains, including one “per coprire il quadro del Porno Arancio sopra la porta del Capitolo.” (P. 44)

1629, March 8: Pomarancio's scaffolding is taken down. (P. 2353)

1629, April 7: Payment of sc. 200 to Pomarancio. (P. 2354) 1629, May 14: Payment of sc. 50 to Pomarancio “per resto

della pittura fatta in S. Pietro di quando li son date le chiave da Nro Signore.” (P. 2355)

1629, Ju ly 12: Payment of sc. 25 b. 46 to G. D. Ceccarelh for the fringe on three curtains, including the one for Pomarancio’s painting. (P. 739)

1629, Ju ly 30: Francesco Scacchi, computuita, writes to the Palagi, the Fabbrica’s bankers, instructing them to give the remaining sc. 50 of a total of sc. 700 for the vopraporto by the late Antonio Pomarancio to his son Niccolo. (AFSP, Piano 1-serie 1-no. 16, no. 51)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 302: “E finalmente gli fu dato a dipin- gere dal Cardinal Ginnasio, capo all’hora della Congre- gatione della fabrica di S. Pietro, in quella Regina delle

2 7 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R S

B asiliche , un sopraporto nella C ap p e lla d e lla M ado n na; e v ’ha quando N. S ign ore d a le ch iav i a s. P ietro con g li a ltr i Apostoli, con P uttin i, & Insegne del Som m o Pontif- icato , a fresco co loriti."

A lveri, 1664, II, p. 170; . . vi e sop ra un a p o rtice lla d ip ­into a guazzo quando il N ostro S a lv a to re d iede le ch iav i a S . P ietro opera di Antonio P o m aran c i.”

N O T E S

1. On the life and career o f Antonio Pom arancio (c. 1569- 1629), son of N iccolo C ircignan i, see Baglione, 1642, p. 302; S a lerno , 1952; B arroero , 1983; Giffi , 1983; Bauer, 1983; P ap i, 1990. On P o m a ra n c io ’s t ie s to C a rd in a l R ivarola, see C hapter 8, n. 7.

2. Pomarancio died on J u ly 9, 1629. See Bauer, 1983, p. 31.3. C ecchetelli Ippoliti, 1921; Enggass, 1976, I, pp. 164-66.4. F ilippo Ju oa rra a Torino, 1989, p. 290; Benocci, 1990, p. 16.5. See C hapter 7 and Cat. SP. 3.

C A T A L O G U E S P . 5 ( a )

Paolo Guidotti, called il Cavaliere Borghese, Denial and Lamentation o f P eter (1628) [31 ]

Fresco; approximately 650 X 420 cmDestroyed(Fig. 182)

Paolo G uidotti w as a protege of C ard inal Scip ione Borghese, archpriest of the basilica and a member of the C ongregation of the Fabbrica, and it w as probab ly Borghese's influence that secured the painter an impor­tant commission in St. Peter’s .1 Guidotti was the first artist to have his name put forward in connection with a commission for one of the six oopraporti. He was recom­mended for the job in August 1627, and the Congrega­tion, prompted by Cardinal Spinola, approved the com­mission on September 27 and again on Jan uary 3, 1628. On Jan uary 29, Guidotti received an initial payment of 50 ocudi "a bon conto della pittura che deve fare in S. Pietro.” A month later, on February 26, he exhibited the prelim inary outline of his composition and received the Congregation’s official approval. It is then that we learn for the first time the subject of his painting; "MysteriumB. Petri flentis am are.” Guidotti worked steadily and completed the fresco within seven months; the unveiling took place on September 17. On March 6, 1629 (four days before his death), Guidotti received a final payment of 25 ocudi, bringing the total to 375 ocud i The sum was small considering the size of the painting and the fact that other artists were paid from 700 to 800 ocud i for their oopraporti. Guidotti s heirs, led by his wife Orsola, peti­

tioned for additional remuneration and were awarded the sum of 150 ocudi on August 11, 1629. Whether the rela­tively low fee had been decided upon in advance or was indicative of the Congregation’s lukewarm appraisal of the fin ished w ork, it does suggest som ething about Guidotti’s status. Despite his close ties with Cardinal Borghese, the Congregation did not consider him on a par with the other painters at work in the basilica, and paid him accordingly.

The fresco does not survive, nor have any related drawings or bozzetti thus far come to light. Even the pre­cise subject matter is open to question. Some sources record that the painting represented Peter denying Christ before a crowd of people in the house of Pilate; others that the subject was Peter’s subsequent lamentation. The discrepancy is only apparent. Although Peter’s denial and lam entation w ere ty p ic a lly represented as separate episodes,2 Guidotti evidently chose to combine them. This solution, although unusual, was not unprecedented: in another cycle of scenes from the life of Peter, done in stucco on the vault of the subterranean chapel of Bra- mante's tempietto, the two episodes are combined in much the same w ay (Fig. 183).3

The stoiy of Peter’s denial of Christ, always a popular one, had been vividly represented in St. Peter’s some three years before Guidotti painted his oopraporto. The occasion was an official visit of the Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter’s in the spring of the Holy Year 1625. Francesco Speroni, numoionario of the basilica and author of a ceremonial diary that records the major events in St. Peter’s during the Jub ilee, entered the following brief mention of the confratern ity’s appearance: “The Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament of our basilica, with a standard and crucifix and with music, came bear­ing a float, which featured St. Peter publicly denying Christ to the maiden, and behind the maiden a column with a live rooster placed on top. ”4 The episode is espe­cially relevant in the present context, because Guidotti had close ties with the confraternity in question. In Febru­ary 1624, the members of the confraternity decided to commission a painted banner — the standard mentioned by Speroni — to be carried in processions during the coming Holy Year. Various artists submitted drawings and esti­mates, but it was Guidotti who was chosen for the job.5 The painter’s special relationship with Scipione Borghese may have helped him to secure the commission, since Borghese, as archpriest of St. Peter’s, was also “Protet- tore” of the Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament.6 But Guidotti probably needed no such “in,” for he was himself a member of the confraternity and as such an obvious candidate for the job.7 As for the float, no record survives other than Speroni's brief mention. W as it a tableau vivant involving actors or members of the confrater­nity? Or was it a sculptural display made of wood, stucco,

C A T A L O G U E SP. 5 ( a ) ggj 2 7 9

cloth, and papier mache?8 In either case, Guidotti may well have been responsible for its design. He was known to his contemporaries as a polymath who dabbled in sculpture, architecture, music, mathematics, astrology, poetry, and law as well as painting.9 By training and tem­perament, therefore, he was well suited to be the designer and organizer of a mixed-media ephemeral spectacle of the kind described by Speroni.10 Moreover, he already had considerable experience in this line of work, having designed the magnificent ephemeral teatro in St. Peter’s lor the quintuple canonization of 1622.11 Without further evi­dence it cannot be proved that Guidotti was the designer of his confraternity’s Ju b ilee float, but the possibility remains a tantalizing one, and suggests that the Congrega­tion’s decision to assign Guidotti a .topraporto ol the same subject was not entirely fortuitous.12

Only seven years after the painting was unveiled, Urban VIII ordered its destruction. Neither Guidotti nor his patron Cardinal Borghese was alive to protest as the fresco was chipped aw ay or hidden beneath an entirely different composition by Gian Francesco Romanelli, a protege of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, representing Peter Healing with Hut Shadow. We can only speculate as to what brought about this turn of events. In 1635, when the decision was taken to replace Guidotti’s painting, two of the six ttopraporti still remained to be executed. The fact that Romanelli was assigned neither of these blank jopra - porti but rather the one already painted by Guidotti sug­gests that there was a specific objection to the latter. As to what that objection was, there is no concrete evidence. The painting may have been damaged or deteriorating. Or it may have been rejected on artistic grounds; Passeri seems to hint at this possibility in his somewhat cryptic account of the affair: “The .topraporto was first painted by Cavaliere Guidotti, but with another subject from the Acts of the Apostle St. Peter, and in order to justify the removal of that painting (per oneotare i l gettito <h guella p it­tura), they gave Romanelli a different subject.” It is also possible that Guidotti’s fresco was discarded because its subject matter was considered inappropriate. For more on the theological implications of the story of Peter's den ial and lam entation , and a probab le connection between Guidotti’s .topraporto and the sacrament of con­fession in St. Peter’s, see Chapter 7.

D O C U M E N T S

1627, Aug. 1 1: At a meeting of the congregazione particolare, Paolo Guidotti is recommended to paint one of the six .topraporti. (P. 96)

1627, Sept. 6: The above recommendation is reported to the congregazione generate. (P. 97)

1627, Sept. 27: On the recommendation of Cardinal Spin- ola, Guidotti is assigned one of the .topraporti. (P. 2186)

1628, Jan . 3: The assignment is confirmed. (P. 2187)

1628, Jan . 29: First payment of sc. 50 to Guidotti "a bon conto della pittura che deve fare.” (P. 2188)

1628, Feb. 26: Guidotti exhibits his design to the Congre­gation and receives its approval. The subject of his fresco ("mysterium B. Petri flentis am are’) is mentioned here for the first time. (P. 101)

Date uncertain (c. 1628): "Quando Pietro piange il suo pec- cato Cavalier Guidotti” (Doc. Appendix, no. 22)

1628: Six payments of sc. 300 to Guidotti. (P. 2189)1628, Sept. 17: The .topraporto is unveiled. It is described as

”[un quadro] dipinto con gran m aestria dal Cav. Guidotti Lucchese, rappresentante quando S. Pietro in Casa di Pilato nego Christo.” (P. 2285)

1629, March 5: Balance of sc. 29.75 owed to Prospero and Donato Ricci for three curtains, including one “per coprire il quadro del Cavag[lie]re Guidotti sopra alia Porta che va a Santa Marta.” (P. 44)

1629, March 6: Payment of sc. 25 to Guidotti "per la pit­tura fatta nel sopraporto della porta che va a Santa Marta dove S. Pietro che piange." (P. 2190)

1629, Aug. 1 1: "Heredibus q. Equitis Guidotti, mandarunt illis solvi ad computum Tabulae per eum iam depictae alia sc. 150.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 160, f. 9v; also Piano 1-serie 1-no. 16, busta 57)

S O U R C E S

Baglione, 1642, p. 304: "Fece in s. Pietro Vaticano un sopraporto a fresco, entrovi s. Pietro, che nega N. Sig­nore con molte figure, & hora e ricoperto, con esservi stata una storia da quella differente sopraposta, e lavo- rata da Gio. Francesco Romanelli da Viterbo.”

Martinelli (D’Onofrio, 1969), p. 157: “All’incontro sopra la porticella v’era quando S. Pietro nego Christo del Cav. Guidotti, ma fu guasto, et in suo luogo dipinto a fresco quando S. Pietro liberava l ’infermi con l’ombra, di mano di Gio. Francesco Romanelli."

Passeri, p. 307: "Questo sopraporto era gia dipinto dal Cav.re Guidotti; ma con altro soggetto degl’atti dell’A- postolo San Pietro, e per onestare il gettito di quella pit­tura, si vario l’Istoria al Romanelli.”

Baldinucci, 1845—47, III, p. 635: "Color! ancora in S. Pietro un soprapporto, dove rappresento la negazione di s. Pietro, ma questa fu una di quelle pitture che furono tolte via.”

N O T E S

1. On Guidotti’s career as an artist, and his close relations with the Borghese, see Baglione, 1642, pp. 303—304; G. V Rossi, 1645-48, p. 122; Faldi, 1957 and 1961; D’Amico, 1984.

2. For example, in the stucco decoration of the vault of the portico of St. Peter’s, the story of Peter’s Denial and Lamentation is illustrated in two adjacent but separate roundels.

2 8 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

3. According to a 1726 inventory of the church of S. Pietro in Montorio, the decoration of the subterranean chapel of the tempietto is exactly contemporary with Guidotti’s fresco: "Nella volta sono tutti stucchi dorati, rapresentando le geste del glorioso Apostolo, ed intorno alia Cornice vi si leggono le qui infrascritte parole: Ad Honorem, et gloriam Martyrij Principis Apostolorum anno MDCXXVIII.” (ASV, Archivio della Sacra Congregazione della Visita Apos- tolica, v. 129, no. 9, p. 45)

4. ACSP, Diari 12, p. 75: "Sodalitas Sanctissimi Sacramenti Nostrae Basilicae, cum Vexillo, Crucifixo et Musica, et ferebant Thalamum, in quo erat Sanctus Petrus coram Ancillae Christum negantem [,i(V], et retro Ancilla Columna, cum Gallo vivo desuper posito.”

5. The documents concerning this commission are to be found in the Archives of the Arciconfraternita della Santis- sima Sacramenta di S. Pietro (on deposit in the Archives of the Reverenda Fabbrica di S. Pietro), Vol. 37, no. 10 (autograph receipt for payment of sc. 50, signed To Cava­lier Paulo Borghese Guidotti"); Vol. 169, ff. 154-154v, 155v-156, 159, 163.

6. On the histoiy and constitution of the Archconfraternity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peter’s, see Bosi and Becchetti, 1973, pp. 67-84 .

7. See AASS, Vol. 169, f. 200v. The Archconfraternity included among its members several artists with close ties to St. Peter’s, such as Giovanni Battista Calandra and Benedetto Drei.

8. On festival floats in seventeenth-centuiy Rome, see Mon­tagu, 1989, pp. 173-76.

9. Baglione, 1642, pp. 303—304; G. V. Rossi, 1645—48, pp. 121-23.

10. Guidotti was known for his multifigure sculptural groups. He carved a group of six figures out of a single block of marble, which he presented to Cardinal Scipione Borghese in 1608. The piece is now lost and its subject forgotten; but in Guidotti’s lifetime it was famous and was the subject of a poem by Marino. For more on this lost marble group, see Baldinucci, 1845-47, III, p. 636; Faldi, 1957, pp. 280, 292, 295.

11. This vast temporary structure is recorded in prints by Matthaeus Greuter and an anonymous engraver, as well as in an anonymous drawing in the Albertina. See I. Lavin, 1968, figs. 5, 6, and 22.

12. There is another possible connection between Guidotti, the Archconfratemity of the Holy Sacrament, and the series of Mpraporti in St. Peter’s. When the Confraternity decided to commission a new banner for the Holy Year, two of its members, Giulio Cesare Pandino and Giovanni Battista Confalonieri, were elected to screen the various artists who applied for the job; and it was they who eventually recommended Guidotti (see n. 5 above). Four years later, in January 1628, the same Confalonieri submitted an elab­orate proposal for the iconography of the .<opraporti then being commissioned, a proposal that included the Denial of Peter among the subjects recommended for representa­tion (see Doc. Appendix, no. 17). Although the sequence of events may have been purely coincidental, it does serve

to illustrate how small and interwoven were the circles in which the clergy and artists who shaped new St. Peter’s moved.

C A T A L O G U E S P . 5 ( b )

Gian Francesco Romanelli, Peter Healing with Hit Shadow (1635-37) [31]

Fresco, detached and mounted on canvas; approximately 650 X 420 cm

St. Peter’s, Benediction Loggia (Figs. 182, 184)

In 1635, seven years after its unveiling, Paolo Guidotti's oopraporto representing the Denial and Lamentation o f Peter was destroyed, and in its place Gian Francesco Romanelli was commissioned to paint the story of Peter healing with his shadow.1 Payments began on December 20, 1635, and by the spring of 1637 the work was completed. The artist received a total of 800 ocud i

The jopraporto illustrates a passage from the book of Acte, which records Peter’s miraculous powers of healing:

. . . they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem , bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.2

Once it w as decided to replace G uidotti’s image of a human and fallible Peter with an image of a miracle- working and divine Peter, the story of Peter healing with his shadow was an obvious and logical choice of subject. A lready ten years earlier, the cardinals of the Congrega­tion had planned to include the scene in the new basilica and had assigned Simon Vouet to illustrate it over the altar in the Cappella del Coro (see Cat. 8). On that occa­sion, they had had to change their plans and give Vouet a different subject; now they had a second opportunity to include this important miracle.

The scene is set within a monumental Doric portico (Fig. 184). Peter stands at the center of the composition, holding the keys in his right hand. As he passes through the crowd, his shadow falls across the foot of a possessed woman, and the demons are flushed from her body. The composition is stately and balanced, apparently owing more to the study of Raphael than to the influence of Romanelli s master, Pietro da Cortona.

Passeri explains that Romanelli got this important commission through the influence of Cardinal Barberini,

C A T A L O G U E SP. 5 ( b ) 2 8 1

who had discovered the young artist a few years earlier. Since then, Romanelli had worked for the cardinal in the Palazzo Barberini, where he painted several frescoes in the chapel and assisted in the decoration of the gran oalone under the direction of Pietro da Cortona. But the com­mission for the oopraporto was far more important than any he had received up to that point; this was his first major public work and m arked the beginning of his career as an independent master. At its unveiling, the fresco was warm ly praised (not least, Passeri cynically hints, by those anxious to curry favor with Romanelli’s patron), and its extraordinary success established the twenty-five-year-old painter as a major personality in the Roman art world.3

In or around 1672, it was decided to use the site occu­pied by Romanelli’s fresco for the tomb of Alexander VII (Fig. 182). Gianlorenzo Bernini designed an elaborate monument consisting of four colossal Virtues, a winged skeleton, a kneeling figure of the pope, and yards of mar­ble fabric.4 Obviously so ambitious an ensemble could not be squeezed into the shallow recess afforded by the original oopraporto; Berninis design required that he break through the w all and scoop out a deep, sem icircu lar niche. Cardinal Francesco Barberini, the man responsible for getting the commission for Romanelli in the first place, now stepped in to preserve his protege’s work. At the c a rd in a l’s expense, in w hat must have been an extremely delicate and costly operation, the section of wall on which the fresco was painted was detached from its surroundings and transported intact to the space over the corresponding door on the opposite side of the south tran sep t [3 6 ] .5 In 1676, the move acco m p lish ed , Romanelli’s son Urbano was given the job of restoring the fresco.6

Romanelli’s is the only one ol the original oopraporti to survive to the present day, albeit in battered condition.7 It remained in its new location over the door to the sacristy until the mid-nineteenth century, when the site was appro­priated for Pietro Tenerani’s tomb of Pius VIII (c. 1857). Since it was already detached and therefore relatively portable, it was spared the fate of the other oopraporti In 1863, it was in one of the storerooms of the basilica; and in 1925 it was installed in the new ly established Museo Petriano.8 In the mid-thirties, the museum was closed and its collection dispersed. Because no records were kept at the time of the dispersal, the painting was "lost" for over half a century, and only recently has been relocated, in an obscure comer of the benediction loggia.9

The com position is recorded in an en g rav in g in Agostino Valentini’s monumental Patruircale Bao 'dica Vati­cana, published shortly before the fresco was removed from the church (Fig. 184), and also in a couple of draw­

ings, one attributed to Pietro de’ Pietri, a pupil of Carlo Maratta, and the other anonymous.10

B O Z Z E T T I

In the 1649 inventory of Cardinal Francesco Barberini’s collection, the following entry occurs: “Un Quadro [. . .] figura in tela S. Pietro quando libera una spiritata alto palmi tre e largo palmi due di Sig.re Romanelli.” (See M.A. Lavin, 1975, pp. 245, 355, 419; Ferrari, 1990, p. 33.) The bozzetto is lost.

D O C U M E N T S

1635, Ju ly 25: Paolo Guidotti’s oopraporto is to be removed; Giovanni Francesco Romanelli is to replace it with a composition of his own, having first exhibited his design to the Congregation. (P. 2191)

1635, Dec. 20: Initial payment of sc. 50 to Romanelli “a conto del sopraporto che deve fare.” (P. 2192)

1636, April 17-Dec. 18: S ix paym ents of sc. 550 to Rom anelli “a conto del sopraporto che fa .” (P. 2193-2194)

1637, Feb. 21-M ay 23: Two paym ents of sc. 150 to Romanelli “a conto della pittura che ha fatto sopra la porta.” (P. 2195)

1637, Oct. 24: Final payment of sc. 50 "per resto della Pit­tura fatta.” (P. 2196)

S O U R C E S

Passeri, p. 307: "Per portarlo su le prime nell’auge della riputazione [Cardinal Francesco Barberini] fece cader- gli nelle mani l’occasione d’un sopraporta nella Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano, opere che hanno dato da sudare per conseguirle a Maestri accreditati, e di lunga esperienza, e pure tocco dipingerlo al Romanelli, gio- vane di non molto nome, e di meno pratica: quanto puo la violenza d ’un favore. Questo sopraporta era gia dip- into dal Cavaliere Guidotti; ma con altro soggetto degl’atti dell’Apostolo San Pietro, e per onestare il get- tito di quella pittura, si vario l ’lstoria al Romanelli, il quale la dipinse a buon fresco con qualche vaghezza, e facilita, che fu quando l’ombra del corpo di San Pietro guariva chi toccava, tanto infermi, come stroppi, ciechi et indemoniati. Acquisto qualche cognizione appresso di tutti con questa Opera in un luoco cosi riguardevole tanto piu accompagnata dagl’applausi universali della Corte, che aderiva ai sentimenti di chi la comandava, e si vedeva questo Giovane molto onorato, e favorito dal publico, e dai personaggi.

La violenza cosi frettolosa di queste acclamazioni, e di tante grazie, amareggiarono non poco l ’animo del Cortona, che vide cosi di subito un suo Discepolo fatto non solo suo Emolo; ma quasi suo superiore, e con

2 8 2 T H E ALTARS A N D A LT A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

qualch e livor d ’an im o sofferiva la s trav ag an za di questo acc id en te . Sopporto p e r qu a lch e tem po con u n a sim u- la ta so fferenza questo affronto, cosi d a lu i ch iam ato , a lia su a rip u taz ion e . . . ”

B ald inucci, 1845-47 , V, p. 430: "Fece poi a fresco nella V at­ican a B asilica il S an Pietro, che lib era l ’lndem on iata , che fu poi con ispesa di g ran d anaro del c ard ina le B arberin i fa tto to g lie re d i luo go , e s itu a re so p ra la p o rta d e lla S ag res tia : ed e da notarsi un atto di g ran g en tilezza di quel Prelato , e fu, che avendo la p ittu ra nel portarsi da luogo a luogo a lq u an to p atito , e d o ven d o si in a lc u n a p a r te r e s t a u r a r e , non v o ile (g ia c c h e in ta l tem p o il Rom anelli non e ra p iu fra ' v iv i) se non U rbano figliuolo di lu i.”

Titi, 1763, p. 17: “. . . ed incontro sop ra la porta, p er cu i si va a lia S ag res tia , vi e d ip in to a fresco p e r m ano di Gio: F ranceso Rom anelli, s. P ietro , che lib e ra un indem oni- ata , portato qu i in tiero con tu tta la m u rag lia , d a dove e oggi il sepolchro di A lessandro V II .”

N O T E S

1. On Giovanni Francesco Rom anelli (1610—62), see Passeri, pp. 305-14 ; Faldi, 1970, pp. 66 -73 ; A. Busiri Vici, 1979; Kerber, 1983.

2. A do 5 :15-16 .3. See C hapter 9.4. For the recent b ib liography on Bernini's tomb ol A lexan­

der VII, see C hapter 7, n. 62.5. The space to which Rom anelli’s pain ting w as transferred

w as o rig in ally intended for a oopraporto by Pietro da C or­tona illu strating the C alling of Peter and Andrew, which w as never executed. See Cat. SP. 6.

6. Cascioli, 1925, p. 19.7. At some point in its h isto iy (before 1925), the pain ting w as

transferred onto a canvas backing. (Ib id .)8. Ibid.; Kerber, 1983, pp. 117—18, n. 45.9. 1 am indebted to the late Carlo P ietrangeli, director of the

V atican M useum s, w ho in response to m y in q u iry con­ducted a search for the missing painbng and came up with the information concerning its present location. The paint­ing is situated in a cham ber at the south end of the benedic­tion loggia, which is being used at the moment as a kind of storage room. It hangs on a side w all in a narrow alcove and is therefore impossible to photograph adequately. The work remains officially the property of the Fabbrica of St. Peters.

10. The engrav ing d isp lays the in-stepped bottom edge char­acteristic of the oop raporti in St. P eter’s. For the draw ing by Pietro d e ’ P ietri (1663-1716), see Bodart, 1975, pp. 87 -88 and pi. 133. Bodart does not recognize that the draw ing is a copy o f R o m an elli’s fresco; he re la tes it in stead to an original composition, representing St. Peter and the Phar­isee, painted by D e’ P ietri on the occasion of his entrance into the A ccadem ia di S. Luca. The anonym ous draw ing (A lbertina 1108) w as published by Kerber, 1983, p. 38 and fig. 24.

C A T A L O G U E S P . 6

Pietro da Cortona, Calling o f Peter and Andrew [36]Unexecuted project (Fig. 185)

Over the door leading to the sacristy, in the passage between the Cappella Clementina and the south transept, the Congregation planned a oopraporto representing the C allin g of Peter and Andrew . For reasons that are unclear, the painting was never executed, but the scene would have been appropriate in a cycle of pictures cele­brating Peter's primacy, not only because Peter is usually regarded as the first of the apostles to have followed Christ,1 but because it was at his conversion that Christ changed his name, ca llin g him Peter, the rock, and thereby distinguishing him from the other apostles [John 1:42].2 As with the other oopraporti in the series, the sub­ject was chosen with careful reference to the painting’s immediate surroundings. In this case, the oopraporto was meant to be seen as a counterpart to the altarp iece directly opposite it, Passignano’s Crucifixion o f St. Peter [37] (Fig. 37). The two scenes are thematically linked, in that the conversion marks the beginning and the martyr­dom the end of Peter’s Christian life on earth (see Chap­ter 7).

The commission was awarded to Pietro da Cortona, largely at the insistence of Urban VIII, who on two sepa­rate occasions (on February 28 and again on March 27, 1628) made it known to the Congregation that he wanted the artist to be given one of the six oopraporti Only a short while before, Cortona was named to take over the Trinity altarpiece formerly assigned to Guido Reni.3 That he received a second major commission in St. Peter’s so soon after the first is an indication of his high standing with the papal family. Additional forces were probably also at work in securing him the commission. According to one document, dated February 28, the pope’s instructions regarding the assignment of a oopraporto to Cortona were first communicated by Marcello Sacchetti. It is surely sig­nificant that Sacchetti was the pope’s spokesman on this occasion, for Sacchetti, a close adviser and friend of Urban VIII, whom he served as Depooitario generate, was also Cortona’s principal patron. Indeed, it was he who had introduced Cortona to the Barberini and who had persuaded the papal family to give the artist his first pub­lic commission at S. Bibiana.4 It is likely, since his name appears in connection with the commission, that Sac­chetti influenced Urban’s decision to have Cortona paint one of the oopraporti

If Sacchetti was involved in attaining the commission for Cortona, then the subject of the oopraporto takes on an

C A T A L O G U E SP. 6 g § 2 8 3

added interest. Cortona painted three versions of the Call­ing o f Peter and Andrew in the second half of the 1620s, and at least two of them w ere for Sacchetti (F ig . 186).5 Although none of the three is directly related to the sopra- porto in St. Peter’s — they are landscape compositions and are horizontal in format - their existence is proof that Cortona was giving careful thought to the subject in the years around 1628; it also points to the intriguing possibil­ity that Sacchetti not only recommended Cortona for the job but also had a hand in selecting the subject matter.

Bernini too may have had a role in assigning the com­mission. The Acts of the meeting of the Congregation on Februaiy 5, 1628, register Urban’s decision to entrust one of the oopraporti to Bernini, to distribute according to his inclination. In another copy of the same set of Acts, a note scribbled in the margin next to this entry identifies Bernini’s choice: "He requests the sopra porto over the door to the sac­risty.’’ Unfortunately, the documents contain no further information about Bernini’s possible involvement with the commission, and if he had something to do with assigning the painting to Cortona we have no evidence of it.

Cortona never got around to painting the sopraporto, perhaps because he was too busy with other, more presti­gious commissions. In 1643^(4, the Congregation may have considered passing the commission to either Mattia Preti or Giovanni Domenico Cerrini; but the death of Urban VIII put an end to the project once and for all. In the 1670s, the site was occupied by Romanelli’s sopraporto representing St. Peter Healing with His Shadow, which had been detached from the wall at its original location [31] in order to make w ay for the tomb of Alexander VII.6 Romanelli’s fresco remained over the door to the sacristy until c. 1857, when it was replaced by Pietro Tenerani's tomb of Pope Pius VIII (Fig. 185).

D O C U M E N T S

1628, Feb. 5: "Nostro Signore ordina che si dia uno deisopraporti da dipingersi al Cavaliere Bernino, che ne

disponghi a sue int[entio]ni.” (P. 98; see also P. 99.) In another copy of the document, in the margin next to this entiy, appears the following notation: “Domanda quello sopra la porta che va alia sacrestia .” (AFSP, Piano 1— serie 3-no. 171, f. 12 lv.)

1628, Feb. 28: Giacinto Massas (?) informs the Congrega­tion of the pope’s wish that one of the sopraporti be assigned to Pietro da Cortona. Massas has been asked to do this by Cardinal Barberini, who learned of his uncle's intention from Marcello Sacchetti. (Doc. Appendix, no. 18)

1628, March 27: Carlo Ghetti informs the Congregation that the pope wants two of the six sopraporti to be assigned to Cortona and Agostino C iam pelli; the remaining sopraporti are not to be distributed without the pope’s approval. (P. 102 and 104)

Date uncertain (c. 1628): "Pietro chiamato all’Apostolato Pietro Cortonese.” (Doc. Appendix, no. 22)

1643, April 27: Mattia Preti is mentioned in connection with a commission for an unspecified sopraporto in St. Peter’s. (P. 123)

1644, April 11: Domenico Cerrini is mentioned in connec­tion with a commission for an unspecified painting in St. Peter’s. (P. 124)

N O T E S

1. The Gospels are not in accordance on this point, but see Matthew 4:18—20.

2. See Doc. Appendix, no. 17.3. See Cat. 6.4. On Marcello Sacchettis patronage of Cortona, see Chap­

ter 8, n. 50.5. The present locations of Cortona’s three versions of the

Calling o f Peter and Andrew are (1) Villa Sacchetti at Castel Fusano, near Ostia: (2) Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge;(3) Chatsworth House, Devonshire. See Goodison and Robertson, 1967, pp. 40—41; Briganti, 1982, pp. 180-81, 333-34, and pi. 74-75, 98; Merz, 1991, pp. 186-88.

6. See Cat. SP. 5 (b).

DocumentaryAppendix

NO. 1

Date: c. 1615—20 Source: BAV, Vat. Lat. 2733Comment: Published in Grimaldi, pp. 502—503. The text is

written in G rim aldi’s hand on a copy of the 1613 printed plan ol St. Peter's, designed by Carlo Mademo and engraved by Matthaeus Greuter (Fig. 6). For the reader’s convenience, each annotation is here identified

by a number in square brackets, which refers to the accompanying plan (Text Fig. IV).

[1] Altare S. Gregorij Magni papae primi, ubi corpus eius quiescit Paulo V iussu hie positum.

[2] Organa veteris Basilicae.

[3] Altare Sancti Leonis noni papae, Pauli V Pontificis Maximi iussu corpus eius hie locatum.

[4] Altare SS. Simonis et Jud ae ubi corpora eius [,«r]

2 8 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

quiescunt, a Paulo V posita per Evangelistam Cardi- nalem Cusentinum Archipresbyterum.

[5] Altare sancti Bonifacij papae 1111, ubi corpus eius requ iesc it, a Paulo V positum per C ard inalem Cusentinum Archipresbyterum.

[6] Altare Deiparae Virginis in Columna, ubi sancta cor­pora quiescunt Leonis I, II, III, et 1111 summorum pontificum , a Paulo V posita per C ard in a lem Archipresbyterum S. Petri.

[7] Altare S. Petronillae virginis ubi corpus eius requi­escit a Paulo V positum per Archipresbyterum eius Basilicae.

[8] Altare S. Ioannis Chrisostomi ubi collocabitur cor­pus eius ex sacrario.

[9] H ic hodie poenitentiarij sedent ad confessiones audiendas et e regione.

[10] Altare S. Erasmi episcopi et martyris.[11] A ltare SS . Processi et M artin ian i martyrum, ubi

sancta eorum corpora quiescunt a Paulo V posita per Cardinalem Cusentinum.

[12] Altare S. Annae.[13] Organa sacelli Gregoriani egregij artificis.[14] Altare Sanctae Dei Genetricis Mariae Virginis et S.

Gregorij Nazianzeni, ubi corpus eiusdem incliti Eccle­siae doctoris requiescit, a Gregorio XIII positum.

[15] Gregorius XIII.[16] Gregorius XIIII.[17] Leo XI.[18] Clemens VIII.[19] Altare miraculi S. Petri Ananiae et Saphirrae fraudan-

tium pretium agri, Christophori Pomarancij pictoris.[20] Altare Crucifixionis S. Petri, manu Dominici Passig-

nani pictoris.[21] A ltare m iraculi S. Petri lapsus ex aere Sim onis

Magi, manu Vanms pictoris senensis.[22] A ltare m iraculi S. Petri sanantis claudum, manu

Ludovici Cigolij pictoris.[23] A ltare m iraculi S. Petri resurrection is Thabitae

manu equitis Ballionei pictoris.[24] A ltare navicu lae S. Petri, Bernardi de Castello

Genuensis pictoris.[25] Sedes Illustrissim i et R everendissim i Scip ion is

Burghesij, Sancti Domini Nostri Pauli V nepotis, Maioris Poenitentiarij.

[26] Altare S. Basilij, manu Hieronymi Mutiani et Cae- saris Nebulae.

[27] A ltare S. H ieronym i, manu Hieronymi M utiani egregij pictoris.

[28] Paulus Papa III.

[29] Altare erigendum sacrosancto Veronicae Sudario et Lanceae, qua latus eius patuit, ubi in alto meniano haec sacrosancta divina pignora conservantur, Pauli V iussu hie posita.

[30] Altare erigendum in honorem sancti Andreae Apos­toli ubi caput eius ex alto moeniano hie ostenditur a Paulo V positum per Archipresbyterum S. Petri.

[31] Columna sancta.[32] In maximi tholi medio Altare magnum S. Petri, ubi

sacrum eius corpus requiescit et sacra beati Petri Confessio a Paulo V Pontifice Maximo magnificen- tissime ornata, ubi requiescunt Sancti Summi Pontif- ices Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Evaristus, Xystus I, Thelesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Eleutherius, Victor, Fabianus, et Ioannis I.

[33] Porta Sancta anni iubilei.

N O . 2

Date: a fte r 1623Source: BAV, Barb. Lat. 2624Comment: U npub lished

[p. 169] De Ecclesia et Cappella Sanctae PetronillaePaulus Primus transtulit corpus Sanctae Petronillae ex

via Appia in templum quod prius vocabatur Apolonis et ad portam meridionalem Basilicae Vaticanae situm erat, cuius translationis meminit Anastasius Bibliotecarius et Romualdus Salernitanus in Chronicon.

Idem Paulus dictum Apolonis templum consecravit solemnique ritu dedicavit pro laude aeternaque memoria nominis P ipini Francorum Regis, qui tunc temporis Ecclesiam Romanam sua virtute defendit, et ab Aris- tulpho et Longobardorum tiranide liberavit, [In margin: Ex epistola XV Pauli Papae] atque ex eo tempore Fran­corum reges ob Pipini memoriam peculiarem habuerunt rationem Ecclesiae Sanctae Petronillae, et donis et red- ditibus ac Sacerdotum ministerio earn auxerunt.

Praeterea Pipinus Rex Romam misit Filiam suam ut a Paulo Papa e sacro fonte susciperetur, a quo in eadem ecclesia absolutis missarum solemnibus baptismo est abluta, atque in praetioso sabano, hoc est velo, quod Pipi­nus pontifici transmiserat, suscepta fuit.

Ludovicus XI eandem Ecclesiam Sanctae Petronillae [p. 170] regio plane apparatu instaurare fecit, et pro implemento voti quod Carlotta eiux Coniux fecerat, et meritis ab Intercessione Sanctae Petronillae consecuta fuerit liberationem Caroli eorum filii tunc Delphini ab egritudine quadam Corporali, Cappellam in honorem dic- tae Sanctae in Basilicam Sancti Petri dudum constructam fieri fecit, et dotavit.

Henricus vero 4US eiusdem Ju s patronatus a Clemente 8

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X 2 8 9

sibi confirmandum curavit pro ut ex transumpto quod Illustris et Excellens Dominus Philippus de Bethume apud Sedem Apostolicam tunc temporis Orator Francisco Ver- dunensi ecclesiae, et hospitalis Sancti Ludovici Gallorum de Urbe rectori consignavit, ut in Archivio dictae Ecclesiae reponendum et conservandum die Sabati 4 Jun ii 1605.

Ludovicus XIII tabulam a Guercino depictam fieri fecit.

[p. 172] De Ecclesia et Cappella Sanctae Petronillae ius patronatus Regis Franci. [Added in another handi\ Evander de Larenas

N O . 3

Date: May 19, 1624Source: ASV, S.C. Visita Apostolica, vol. 2 Comment: Unpublished

[f. 52v] Die Dominico 19 [M aij 1624] Domini Visitatores ad eamdem Basilicam redierunt [. . .]

[f. 53] Altare Beatae Mariae Virginis in Sacello Grego- riano ab eodem [f. 53v] Summo Pontifice Gregorio XIII insigniter constructum, consacratum, ac ab eo intra mar- moream capsam ex lapide Africano reconditum Corpus Sancti Gregorij Nazianzeni, habet ligneum tabernaculum deauratum, in quo servatur Sanctissimum Sacramentum pro loci oppurtinitate experimenti gratia accomodatum, cui in superiori parte parietis ipsius altaris supereminet devota Imago Beatae Virginis de Succursu, ut volgo dici- tur, quae olim veteri in Ecclesia, atque in navi, quae dice- batur Ungarorum in Oratorio Sancti Leonis prope altare Maius erat collocata.

Adest inibi Societas Sanctissimi Sacramenti, quae ora- torium habet in E cclesia S an ctae C ath arin ae iu x ta plateam Sancti Petri proprios redditus habens cum oner- ibus, de quibus suo loco in eius oratorij Visitatione dicetur.

Adsunt in eo altari quatuor Capellani, quos idem Pon- tifex Gregorius XIII erexit, dotavit, unicuique eorum scuta 75 annuatim in tot locis montium attribuit addito onere celebrandi ab unoquoque eorum octo missas sin­gulis mensibus, quos Cappellanos ad liberam collationem sedis Apostolicae instituit.

Eodem in altari, ut fuit relatum, erat olim alter Cappel- lanus a Bernardino della Croce Episcopo Comen., qui pridem extitit eiusdem Basilicae Canonicus, ac singu- larem gessit devotionem erga sacram illam Beatissimae V irginis imaginem fundatus, qua de re d iligen ter est inquirendum, ut piae fundatoris voluntati satisfiat.

Sunt in eodem Altari Indulgentiae plenariae Perpetuae ab eodem summo Pontifice attribu tae , nempe in die Assumptionis Deiparae Virginis in Natalitio Sancti Gre­gorij Nazianzeni, nempe in die eius translationis.

Ardent continuo ante illud lampades quatuor, nec non

sex aliae cratibus ferreis appensae in introitu Sacelli, pro quibus Societas Sanctissimi Sacramenti tribuit annuatim tot olei sextarios, quot centum, et quatuor bucalia, ut vulgo dicitur conficiunt. In reliquis [f. 54] supplet Capitulum.

Adest a parte dextera eiusdem Sacelli sepulchrum ipsius Pontificis Gregorij XIII, cui e regione positum est sepulchrum Gregorij XIIII.

A sinistro latere in ingressu sacelli est altare sub invo- catione Sancti Hieronymi decenter instructum suppellec- tilibus necessarijs refertum, quod nullum habet onus annexum.

A cornu Evangelij Altaris eminet organum auro ful- gens cum duabus mansionibus [a quarum] ea, quae in superiori parte est, pro servitio organi, quae vero inferius inservit societati.

Ab altero latere e regione est altare sub Invocatione Sancti Basilij, quod non est consacratum, habet tamen Altare portable.

Prope Gregorianum sacellum in eodem dextero latere Crucis maioris ipsius Basilicae est Altare Sanctorum Pro- cessi, et Martiniani Martyrum quorum corpora sub Altari recondita sunt in capsa porphiretica clatre aenea circum- septa, estque unum ex septem altaribus. Insuper est etiam privilegiatum pro defunctis. Duo in eo adsunt Cappellani a Ricardo olim Cardinali Constantien. eiusdem Ecclesiae Archipresbytero instituti iniuncto onere celebrandi per unumquemque eorum annuatim missas sexaginta, quo­rum quilibet scuta itidem sexaginta habet in redditibus ex pensione quarumdam domorum, quorum onerum imple- mentum in libro, ubi missae annotantur, describant.

In eo celebrantur etiam singulis haebdomadibus mis­sae duae ex donatione facta Capitulo a D. Antonio M aria Aldobrandino illius Basilicae Canonico. Inspiciendum tamen est an hoc opus specialiter inhereat huic altari, quod non est consacratum habet autem altare portable super tabulam marmoream, quae consecranda foret; ante idem altare ardet lampas sumptibus sacristiae.

Huic proximum est altare sub Invocatione Sanctae Annae non consacratum, quod super marmoream mensam habet altare portable, [f. 54v] Est ibi lampas ex relicto Cristophori Pomarij ardens, qui ad hoc pium opus attribuit sacrisbae locum unum Monbs Fabricae sancb Petri.

A latere eiusdem Altaris situm est altare Sancti Erasmi nuncupatum nec consecratum , nec oneratum aliquo onere, sacra vero suppellectili sufficienter instructum.

U lterius progrediendo versus caput Ecclesiae est a ltare sub Invocatione Sancti Petri grad ien tis super aquas, vel de Navicula, quod pariter nec est consecratum, nec aliquod habet onus.

E conspectu ipsius a lta r is ex tat ostium per quod ascenditur ad Cornices et tholum Ecclesiae amplitudine admirandum.

Apud ostium adest altare, in quo sita manet antiqua lignea imago Sanctissimi Crucifixi, quae olim erat supra altare Sanctae Petronillae veteris Ecclesiae; habet men-

2 9 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

sam marmoream, inlerius tamen vacuum ad reponendum Sanctorum reliquias. A ltare est unum ex septem, ubi ardet lampas, nec est consecratum.

Sunt praeterea circumcirca ipsa altaria pleraque con- fessionalia pro poenitentiarijs ad exterorum cuiuscumque natioms contessiones audiendas.

Subsequitur altare Sanctae Petronillae, cuius Corpus in area marmorea clausum, crate aenea ibi custoditur. Supra altare nuper apposita luit Imago depicta, quae obi- tum sanctae illius Virginis repraesentat. Ante idem altare, quod est unum ex septem , a rd et lam pas E cclesiae sumptibus. Extant in eo Cappellani duo, qui dicuntur de lure patronatus Regis Cristianissim i cum onere ter in haebdomada sacrum faciendi.

In die vero Sanctae Petronillae ofFicium solemne cum missa conventuali, ac die obitus Ludovici XI Gallorum Regis nempe ultima Augusti Anniversarium pro eius anima celebrandi. Ad praesens Joannes Bara Callus ex dispensa- tione Apostolica utriusque Cappellani locum tenet, redditus ad ducentos aureos mox redacti sunt ob inopiam debito- rum, pinguiores enim [f. 55] erant antea. Vertitur tamen lis cum debitoribus pro recuperatione Bonorum.

Prope illud Altare est designatus locus pro alio altari non dum extructo, sed altaris loco modo est porta, quae inservit labris, atque artilicibus labricae ad fabrilia eorum Instrumenta ibi servanda.

E regione est ibi altare in cuius Icone depictum est insigne miraculum Pnncipis Apostolorum cum Thabitam mortuam resuscitavit in Joppe. Altare non est consecra­tum, sed habet Altare portable super mensam marmoream.

Ab eodem latere dextero inferius est columna clatribus ferre is c ircum sep ta , quae olim m anebat in tem pio Salomonis, ut superius dictum est.

Ibi prope est aenea statua Principis Apostolorum in Pontihcia sede super basem marmoream collocata, ad cu ius sacros pedes deoscu landos, a tq u e eis C aput humiliter supponendum frequens Populus devote accedit.

Ad euisdem statuae basem adest marmorea Capsula ad reponendum eleemosinas, quae pro cultu Sanctissimi Sacramenti olleruntur, eaque duplici clave est munita, quarum una penes Camerarium Societatis, altera penes virum deputatum ab eadem Societate manent.

Non longe ab ea capsula versus sacellum Gregori- anum est alia capsa lignea cum operculo stameo, in qua reponuntur eleemosinae pro fabrica.

Prope idem sacellum versus Ecclesiae Portas tres adsunt Cappellae non ornatae, nec perfectae, quae nec dum habent altaria. Ea vero, quae proprior reperitur sacello Gregoriano habet ostium, per quod ex Apostolico Palatio descendens Summus Pontilex mtra Ecclesiam ingredi potest.

Inter praedictas Cappellas sunt ltidem duo ostia, per quae superius ascenditur ad tabncae usum.

Situm est eo in loco sepulcbrum felicis recordationis Gregorij XV.

In extrema parte eius dexterae Navis Ecclesiae est porta Sancta, quae [f. 55v] proximo Anno Ju b ile i de more aperienda est.

Adsunt in Vestibulo aliae quinque portae bene muni- tae, quarum claves servantur apud Custodes Ecclesiae, quae quidem portae, quae olim argenteae erant a Leone 4°, qui inter Sanctos Pontifices recensetur conflctae, nunc ligneae existunt, ea dempta, quae inter media manet, per quam summus Pontifex dum solemniter celebrat in ponti- ficia sede delatus templum ingreditur, quae aenea est, in qua Eugenius 4 Sanctorum Apostolorum historiam, nec non sui Pontificatus gesta fusili artilic io expressit. At Paulus V in novo tempio ex metallo fuso ostium aeneum auxit, atque in medio illius portici illud reposuit.

Ab ingressu templi ab utroque latere ex istit mar- moreum Vas ad usum aquae benedictae, qua ingredientes se aspergunt; progrediendo autem ad laevum latus illius B asilicae pervenerunt ad a ltare sacelli C lem entini e regione positum altari Sanctissim i Sacramenti quod a Clemente VIII sic denominatum structura, magnificentia, ac maiestate pie aem ulatur Gregorianum sacellum, cui minime est secundum, sub eodem Altari reconditum est Corpus S.ti Gregorij Magni, sicut a lateribus altaris litteris incisum scriptum ita legitur: In hoc Altari requiescit Sanc- tus Gregorius magnus Papa Primus doctor Ecclesiae.

Erat olim altare illud in veteri tempio dicatum sancto Andreae Apostolo, aderantque in eo aliquot Cappellani a Pio Papa Secundo institu ti, quibus add id it onus, ut Dominico Die, ac 2a, 4a, et 6a feria primae haebdomadis mensis, nec non 3a, 5a leria, ac sabatho 2ae haebdomadae, et sic alternatim, perpetuo item in festivitatibus Domini Nostri, Beatissimae Virginis, Sanctorum Apostolorum, et Evangelistarum, Sancti Gregorij Papae, et Sancti Joan- nis Baptistae, et Sancti Laurentij. In die etiam omnium Sanctorum celebrare tenentur. Ju s vere praesentandi dic- tos cappellanos idem Pontifex attribuit suae familiae Pic- colomineae eorum autem Institutionem Capitulo reliquit. Fuerat ante altare illud fundatum, ac dotatum ab Antonio Latioso Foroliviensi illius [f. 56] Basilicae Canonico, et Camerae Apostolicae Clerico, ut in libro obligationum illius A ltaris apparet, de cuius dote nihil constat; est tamen inquirendum dihgenter, si aliqua de huius modi donatione extet m em oria. Est a lta re illud unum ex septem. Ardet coram eo lampas, nec est consecratum.

Inde versus chorum adest parva porta lateralis, quae ducit ad viam publicam, cuius a dextris est turris Campa- narum, a sinistris vero sacrarium.

In angulo prope chorum est marmoreus Cippus pro colligendis eleemosinis ad usum Sacristiae.

Proximum sacellum est sub invocatione Sanctorum Simonis et Judae, quorum corpora in maiori eius altari requiescere ex inscriptione ibidem apposita a Cornu Evangelij legitur in haec verba: In hoc altari condita sunt Corpora Sanctorum Simonis et Judae. In medio Altaris

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X 2 9 1

adest crates ex auricalco, supra idem Altare est insigne opus, imago P ietatis in marmore scu lpta a M ichaele Angelo Bonarota. Altare est unum ex septem, ardet 1am- pas. Eius obligationes dandae sunt in scriptis.

A latere dextro [,</<•] intra idem sacellum est Altare, in quo depicta est Imago Resurrectionis Domini Nostri quod non est consecratum, manetque nunc a tergo sedium Canonicalium.

A sinistro [.w ] vero latere pari modo est altare sub Invocatione Sancti Thomae Apostoli, quod esse dicitur sacrae Poenitentiariae ab Antonio Paravicino Cardinali Sanctae Praxedis anno Domini 1507 erectum, ac dotatum iuncto onere celebrandi in eo singulis diebus hac lege adiecta, nempe teria 2a pro defunctis, fer. 6 de Passione, Sabatho de Sancta Maria, quoties tamen praefati dies offi­cio duplici, vel semiduplici non luerint impediti. Reliquis vero diebus missam officio congruentem recitare teneantur. Cardinalis Summus Poenitentiarius deputat Cappellanum pro celebratione missarum, cui singulis mensibus scuta tria auri in auro persolvuntur. An vero Cappellanus huiusmodi onus impleat non apparet, cum dietim [1. 56v] non anno- tentur Missae, quae in eo Altari celebrantur ob diminu- tionem reddituum, qui erant olim ducatorum aureorum non implentur omnia onera. Altare non est consecratum. Est in eodem sacello a Cornu Epistolae in loco eminenti collocata statua porphiretica Sancti Andreae Apostoli, quae in veteri Ecclesia manebat supra altare, quod ab eodem Apostolo denominabatur; adest ibidem Chorus antiquus ex nuceis tabulis magno artihcio contectus, est etiam inibi locus Cantorum, in quo asservantur sacri libri ad usum Chori pro lectionibus, vel pro Cantu necessarij.

Post chorum est quaedam porta cum schala ad usum fabricae per quas ad superiores partes Ecclesiae ascenditur.

Subsequitur Altare, quod vocatur Beatae M ariae de Columna, cum in eadem marmorea Columna ex lapide, qui dicitur porta sancta depicta sit devota Imago Beatissi- mae Virginis sub eodem altari recondita sunt corpora Sanctorum Pontificum [Leonum] 1, 2, 3, et 4". Est in medio A ltaris crates cuprea absque ulla inscriptione, estque unum ex septem cum lampade ardenti.

Adest inibi proxima parva porta Ecclesiae, quae manet e conspectu Sanctae Martbae.

Contigua fere eidem portae est mansio, ubi congre- gatur capitulum, adest ibidem Cathedra, in qua casus Conscientiae per Canonicum Theologalem explicantur feria 2a uniuscuiusque haebdomadae Curati Vicecurati eiusdem Basilicae, nec non Ecclesiarum sancti Jacobi in Burgo, Sancti Spiritus in Saxia, Sancti Lazari, Sancti Angeli ad Fornaces, omnes ex obligatione assistere tenen- tur, alij vero non pauci ad libitum accedunt eadem die lunae fit canonicorum capitulum. Quadragesimali autem tempore lectio Casuum Conscientiae fit die sabathi.

E regione loci Capitularis situm est altare, in quo con- sp icitur depictum m iraculum Princip is Apostolorum

sanantis mendicum claudum sedentem ad portam spe- ciosam, ut in Actibus Apostolorum narratur. Altare non est consecratum.

[f. 57] Proximum Altare est sub Invocatione Sancto­rum Petri et Pauli, ubi coloribus expressus est Casus sce- lesti illius Simonis, qui per aerem volitans magno cum spectatorum plausu Principis Apostolorum precibus prae- ceps in terram ruit, est ex 7 unum, habetque lampadem.

Altare sequens nuncupatum Crucifixionis Sancti Petri est unum ex septem, non consecratum absque sanctorum Reliquijs, ac sine ullo onere.

In Altari e conspectu Naviculae dexterae sub invoca­tione Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Andreae, in quo depicta est Imago Principis Apostolorum, qui praemor- tuum adolescentem Imperatoris Gentilis magicis illusion- ibus caput attollentem minime vivum, sed omnino mor- tuum in Christi nomine vere suscitavit. Nullum in eo est onus, nec pariter consecratum existit.

Eiusdem Naviculae in latenbus e regione dicti altaris adsunt duo confessionalia prope unum est parva mensa, in qua describuntur in quodam libello missae votivae, apud alterum est marm orea capsu la ad recipiendum eleemosinas pro sacristia.

In ingressu proximi sacelli adsunt deposita se invicem respicientia Clementis octavi et Leonis decimi primi sum- morum Pontificum.

Est ibidem cappella, quae modo exornatur ad usum chon.

Extra idem sacellum e regione illius est sepulchrum Innocentij Papae VIII quod a veteri Ecclesia amotum, est ibi hononfice collocatum.

Sequuntur duae item Cappellae nondum perfectae, quarum ultima, quae proximior est atrio Porticus ipsius Basilicae extruitur modo ad usum sacri Baptisterij.

Post haec Domini Visitatores per eandem viam reversi sunt ad sacristiam [. . .]

N O . 4

Date: September 19, 1624 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55 Comment: Unpublished

[f. 224] Die 19 7bris 1624

Visitatio altaris sanctissimi sacramenti.Decretum fuit, candelabra [. . .] debeant mundari, similiter et crux, vel permutentur in candelabra et crucem ex onchalco, vulgo otono.

Visitatio altaris S. Basilij.Mundari candelabra.

2 9 2 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Visitatio altaris Principis Apostolorum subtus.Picturam seu imaginem SS. Apostolorum renovari per suprastitem.Eandem imaginem utrinque ex lateribus ornari pic- turis, vel aliter.Similiter repleri ornamentis vacua quae sunt ex utroque cornu altaris.

Visitatio confessionis.Curet custos ne dum oleum lampadibus infundit, decidat ex ijs quicquam super pavimentum.

Visitatio eiusdem altaris Principis Apostolorum supra. Fiant cancelli circum altare.Custos mandet pavimentum ab ea parte quae respicit portam maiorem Ecclesiae. Custos non intret in confessione nisi per anditus seu porticus subterraneas: et similiter substitutus, et [. . .] Altarista observent, et alij quicunque.

Visitatio altaris maioris in choro. Fiant cancelli

Visitatio altaris S. Thomae in choro. Crux portatur ex orichalco. Intorcium fiat ex metallo.

Visitatio altaris s. InnocentijCrux et intorcium fiant ut supra.

Die 21 eiusdem

Visitatio altaris S. Hieronymi. Nihil

Visitatio altaris S. Annae Nihil

Visitatio altaris S. Processi.Nihil

[f. 22dvJ Visitatio altaris S. ErasmiVota quae pendent affixa Iconi seu imagini altaris, auferantur et affigantur cornicibus eiusdem imagi- nis.

Visitatio altaris Sanctissimi Crucifixi Ut supra.

Visitatio altaris S. Petronillae Ut supra.

Visitatio altaris S. Tabithae Ut supra.

Visitatio altaris SS. Petri et Joannis Ut supra.

Visitatio [altaris] Sanctissimae Virginis Mariae. Nihil.

Visitatio altaris Sancti Petri in pilastro Vultus Sancti Candelabra stent recta.

Visitatio [altaris] crucifixionis S. Petri Ut supra.Provideatur de bussula e regione ad portam sacris- tiae.

Visitatio altaris S. Gregorij.Provideatur de Icone seu imagine.

Visitatio altaris SS. Petri et Andreae in Clementina. Nihil.

N O . 5

Date: Februaiy 2, 1625 Source: BAV, ACSP, Decreti 12Comment: Unpublished. Another copy of the document can

be found in ASV S.C. Visita Apostolica, vol. 2, IF. 59-61 v.

[f. 53v] Die Dominico 2 februarij 1625.Fuit factum Capitulum extraordinarium pro necessitate negotiorum infrascriptorum [. . .]

Dominus Dominicus Bassanus Commissarius Sacrae Vis- itationis de novo attulit Decreta, quae cum alias a Canon- icis visa essent indigere aliqua maiori declaratione, Visita- toribus remissa fuerant, nunc vero recepta statim fuerunt descripta prout in sequentibus folijs.

Visitatio altaris Navicellae Candelabra stent recta.

[f- 54]Decreta Sacrae Visitationis iussu Sanctissimi Domini

Nostri Papae Urbani VIII in Basilica Principis Apostolorum

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X gS 2 9 3

Ad Altare Sanctissimi SacramentiPyxis parva argentea, in qua asservatur S.mum Sacra-

m entum , iterum in a u re tu r , a l i js vero p yx id ib u s grandioribus, ad usum Sanctae Communionis, Paschali tempore, non nisi necessitate urgenti, quis eis utatur.

Ad Sanctissimum FontemNovus fons Baptismalis, quanto citius extruatur, in

sacello iam designato, sed eius formae exemplum antea Con- gregationi deferatur ostendendum, an Sanctissimo placeat.

Vicanus Parochiae Sancti Petri, annotet diligenter in libris omnia, quae scribenda sunt iuxta praescriptum Sacri Ritualis; quae vero descripta modo extant parvis in folijs, in libros distinctos, per eumdem Vicarium quanto citius transferantur.

Quo ad alia eiusdem Vicarij munia, servetur transactio inita cum Capitulo, quae est auctoritate Apostolica con- firmata.

Ad Altare ConfessionisAntiqua musiva Imago Salvatoris, quae existit in loco

unde sumuntur Pallia, tradenda Archiepiscopis, restaure- tur eodem musivo opere.

Serica omamenta in parietibus ipsius Altaris renoventur.

Ad Altare Sacelli GregorianiPerquiratur onus, quod dicitur impositum a Bernardino

della Croce Episcopo Comen. quotidie celebrandi in eo Altari, ab eodem dotato, quod si compertum fuerit, impleatur.

Ad Altare Sanctae PetronillaeC apellanus agat pro recuperatione bonorum eius

Capellae, curetque ut causae pendentes cito expediantur.

Ad Altare Sacelli ClementiniDent operam Canonici, ut onus quod olim huic Altari

in veteri Ecclesia impositum asseritur, cum sua dote ab Antonio Forolivien. eiusdem Basilicae Canonico, et Cam- erae Apostolicae Clerico, inveniatur, eoque invento, ut par est, impleatur.

Ad Universam EcclesiamBalaustra seu marmorei cancelli prope Altaria, quae

nimis angusta sunt, dilatentur, ita ut sacerdos et ministri commode Altari ministrare et inservire possint.

Altaria, quae mensas lapideas habent, consacrentur.Sacella iam designata, quae imperfecta manent, cum

primum poterit, perficiantur.

[f. 55v] De translatione onerum AltariumVeteris Basilicae ad Novam

Onus quod inerat Altari Veteris Ecclesiae nuncupato Sanctae Mariae Pregnantium celebrandi in eo ter in heb- domada, ex dote a loanne Ursino attributa, transferran- tur ad Altare Sanctae Mariae ad Columnam.

Onus Altaris Sancti Sebastiani, in quo Cappellanus a Jaco b atijs presentatus semel in hebdomeda celebrare tenetur, ad Altare Crucifixionis S. Petri transferatur.

Onus Altaris Sancti Andreae Apostoli quod a Capella- nis a Pio Papa II institutis impletur, transfertur ad Altare Sancti Gregorij Magni, quousque eidem Apostolo novum Altare constructum sit in loco designato.

Altaris Beatae M ariae ab Innocentio 8° erecti onus, quod per eius Capellanos impletur, ad Altare Sacelli erecti e regione depositi eiusdem Innocentij Pontificis, quod eius denominationem retinebit, transferatur sed quousque fuerit completum ac ornatum, alijs in Altaribus eiusdem Basilicae, vel sacristiae celebrando onera impleantur.

Onus Altaris Vultus Sancti ab Alexandro Cardinali Farnesio impositum transfertur ad Altare prope Cibo- rium, in quo Sanctissima ilia Imago servatur, quousque proprium Altare Sanctae Veronicae sacrum Sudarium una cum facie Domini Nostri impressa praeseferenti, in proximiori loco, ubi commodius fieri poterit sit erectum.

[f. 56] Item onus Altaris Sanctae Mariae de Succursu celebrandi in eo bis in hebdomada transfertur ad Sacel­lum et A ltare G regorianum , ubi est Imago eiusdem Beatissimae Virginis de Succursu.

Oneribus vero reliquorum Altarium, modo existen- tium quae eamdem retinent denominationem quam in veteri Basilica habebant, in eisdem Altaribus celebrando satisfiat; sin autem antiqua A ltaria certam denomina­tionem adhuc non h[ab]eant, poterit alijs in Altaribus in Sacrario existentibus illorum oneribus satisfieri.

Iussu Sanctissimi Domini Nostri praecipitur ut Dec- reta praedicta bis saltern in anno publice legantur, prae- sentibus Canonicis, et reliquo Clero ipsius Basilicae. Nec non quod infra quatuor dies post eorum praesentationem in lib r is C ap itu li d esc rib an tu r, ac de receptione et desc[r]iptione horum Decretorum fides in publica forma Sacrae Congregationi tradatur in actis ipsius Visitationis registranda.

N O . 6

Date: February 26, 1625Source: AFSP, Piano 1—serie 4—no. 39, biuta 4Comment: Unpublished

In Congregatione habita die 26 februarij 1625 [. . .]

Per ordine di Nostro Signore, portato dal Signore C ardinal R ivaro la e da M onsignore Prothesoriero, le Congregationi generali si faccino ogm quindici giorni, et s ’intimi sempre quattro o cinque giorni avanti, et non potendo il Signor Cardinal Capo farla per impedimento o altro, si facci in Casa del Signor Cardinal che in ordine segue di modo che non si manchi mai.

294 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Si prohibisce tanto a ll’Economo quant altri offitiali che non ricevino danari in mano loro per minima somma che sia, ma si faccino portar al Banco del Depositario.

N elle C ongregation i p iccole che di qui avan ti si faranno, intervenghino doi Prelati da dichiararsi da Nos­tro Signore, accio possino riferire in Congregatione gen- erale quello che occorrera.

Nell’aw en ire la Sacra Congregatione stima bene che sia deputato un Signore Cardinale, il quale con l ’assis- tenza di doi Prelati, Auditore, Awocato, et Economo, una volta o due al mese vegghi le Cause che vi sono, et ordini quello che si deve fare per la loro espeditione.

Si prohibisce all'Economo, et ogni altro officiale che non habbino participatione delle Cause con li Procura­tor!.

N O . 7

Date: October 12, 1626Source: AFSP, Piano 1-ser. 3-no. 159Comment: Published in Poliak, nos. 76—79

[f. 66v] Die 12. Octobris 1626. Fuit Congregatio gen- eralis Reverendae Fabricae [. . .]

Item denuo per me [i.e. Oeconomum] exhibita planta Altarium Basilicae, et inlormati de Tabulis, quae pingen- dae sunt, ac de Pictoribus, quibus luit data certa pecu- niarum summa ad inchoandum opus, ac de alijs, qui fuerunt propositi, et nominati.

Et pro nunc mandarunt scribi Illustrissimo Domino Cardinali Ubaldino legato Bononiae ut nomine Congre- gationis requirat Dominum Guidum Pictorem msignem ibi commorantem, ut velit unam ex dictis tabulis pingere.

Et quod Illustrissimus Dominus Cardinalis Lantes ad se advocet Equitem Josephum Arpinatensem pro pin- genda alia Tabula.

Et cum ex opere musivo deliberaverint fieri unam ex dictis Iconis mandabunt earn fieri, in qua immago Sanc- tae Annae delineanda est in Altare e conspectu Imaginis B eatiss im ae V irg in is M a ria e in C o lum na, et per Dominum Ioannem Baptistam C alandram in sim ili musivo opere valde pentum fieri.

N O . 8

Date: c. October 1626 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55Comment: Unpublished. The text is written in the margins

and on the verso ol the Papirio Bartoli/Matthaeus Greuter printed plan ol St. Peter’s (1623). Chapels and

altars are marked on the plan with letters corresponding to the key transcribed below (see Figs. 8—9 and Text Fig. V). The document is preserved in duplicate; variations between the two versions are given in square brackets.

[ff. 32b-32c]+ Fons Baptism alis, qui ornatur iuxta precoeptum

Sanctissimi Domini Nostri.A. Apostolorum Principi pascenti Gregem Domini.B. Pietati Dominicae sub cuius Altare sacrum Corpus

Joann is Chrisostomi Ecclesiae Doctoris conditum est, et habetur Chorus.

C. Gregorio Magno summo Pontifici et Ecclesiae Doc- tori, cuius sacrum Corpus ibi etiam requiescit.

D. Sebastiano M artiri, cuius extant sacrum Caput, et particulares Cappellam.

E. Simoni et Ju d ae Apostolis quorum sacra Corpora sub hoc Altare reposita venerantur.

F. Thomae Apostolo et sub sacrum Corpus Bonifatij Papae et Martiris asservatur.

G. Vultui Sancto Domini Nostri, cui inserviunt etiam proprij Cappellani.

H. Sanctissimae Virgini M ariae in Columna, sub quo A ltare condita sunt Corpora Sanctorum Leonis prim i, 2', 3', et 4' summorum Pontificum, et huic Altari uniri posset aliud Praesentationis eiusdem cum suis Cappellams.

I. Gloriosissimo Michaeli Archangelorum Principi.L. Petronillae Virgini, cuius sacrum Corpus sub eodem

Altare est collocatum.M. S. Annae Matri Beatissimae Virginis Mariae.N. Erasmo, Episcopo et Martiri.O. Processo & M artiniano M artiribus, quorum sacra

Corpora sub hoc A ltare conquiescunt, habentque speciales Cappellanos.

P. Ad mentem Sanctissimi.Q. Andreae Apostoli, cuius extant Venerabile Caput, et

particulares Cappellani.R. Gregoriana, in qua sanctissimum Eucharistiae Sacra-

mentum adoratur, et imago Beatissimae Virginis Suc- cursus nuncupatae veneratur, huic posset uniri Altare S. Mariae Pregnantium, cum suis Cappellanis, sub hoc Altare collocatum est Corpus Gregorij Nazia[n]zeni, episcopi & Ecclesiae Doctoris.

S. Sanctissimae Tnmtati, et omnibus Sanctis, ac pnvile- giatum pro hdehbus Defunctis.

T. P rin c ip i A posto lorum rec ip ien ti C laves Regni Coelorum.

V. Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Jesu Christo Cruci affixo. Coetera huius Basilicae A ltaria tamquam habentia suos certos, et iam determ inatos titulos, nec ideo

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X g § 2 9 5

Text Fig. V

ind igentia a lia annotatione, consulto fuerunt hie pretermissa.

Beatissime Pater In antiqua hac iam demolita Basilica inter coetera, duo A ltaria erecta consp iciebantur, alterum in bonorem Beatae Mariae Pregnantium, et aliud presentationis eius- dem Sanctissimae Virginis, in quibus Cappellani ad eos-

dem titulos ordinati statutis diebus sacrum peragebant, et qu ia locus non patitur, ut p lu ra nunc A ltaria , quam supradicta aedificentur, ne haec pia memoria temporis lapsu negligeretur, et dicti Cappellani eorum muneri cer- tis in Altaribus satisfacerent, si Vestrae Sanctitati plac- eret, posset titulus S. Mariae Praegnantium umri Sanctae M ariae Succursus nuncupatur in Cappella Gregoriana collocata supra literam 'R ’, et alter Presentationis Cappel- lae S. Virginis in Columna sub literam 'H ', quibus in locis

2 9 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

utraque eiusdem Beatissimae Virginis memoria decenter retineri, et venerari posset.

Et quia extant praeterea alij Cappellani sub titulo Sanctissimae Trinitatis, et officium Divinum sancto Mar- tiali Episcopo, ac Sancto Vincislao Bohemorum Regi in eorum festivitatibus a Canonicis recitari consuetum est, aliorumque sanctorum memoria celebratur, si pariterB. V. videretur, in Sanctissim ae Trinitatis et omnium sanctorum Cappella sub literam 'S ’, Canonici dicta offitia, et Cappellani iniunctum celebrationis onus oportune adimplere possent.

Valde cuperent Capitulum, Canonici, et Confratres sodalitatis Sanctissim i Sacram enti, ut Augustissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum, quod iam 40 et amplius annis in Gregoriana Cappella asservatur, in alia Sanctissimae Trinitatis et Omnium Sanctorum sub literam ‘S ’ transfer- etur; in loco enim magis tuto, et coeli inclementiae minus exposito, ut dicunt, collocaretur. Veruntamen, e loco magis decenti, et fidelibus a tanto tempore noto, tanto minus translerendum videtur, quia sacerdos, et ministri in Capella Chori, e conspectu Divina M isteria sollemniter celebrantes, terga verterent Sanctissim o Sacramento, quod ecclesiaticis Ritibus repugnat. Et loci distantia vix n ecessariam , nullo modo vo lun tariam , et in m inus decenti, et <minus> cognito loco translationem excusaret. Securitati autem, et inclementiae coeli, aliter quam per amotionem Sacramenti, consulen[dum] videtur.

Cappella sub literam ‘A’, in qua nunc delineatur imago Apostolorum Principis extrahentis ex ore Piscis monetam pro tributo solvendam, potius dicanda videretur eidem Principi pascenti oves Dominicas, ut supra eodem loco notatur est.

Alteri e conspectu sub literam ’T ’, in qua historia Cor- nelij Centurionis pingenda est, magis congruere videretur historia traditionis Clavium Regni Coelorum.

Et licet in anteriori parte ecclesiae in marmore sit sculpta dicta traditionis clavium historia, non repugnat, quin multo magis in medio ecclesiae insigne hoc mis- terium, llhusque memoria a fidelibus profusis praecibus, et immensis gaudijs perpetuo celebretur.

G loriosissim o M ichae li A rchangelorum P rincip i Catholicae Ecclesiae speciali Defensori, in hac sacro- sancta Basilica omni jure Altare erigendum videtur, prout suo loco sub literam T notatum est, qui locus cum nulli ex alijs sanctis hactenus assignatus reperiatur, ex speciali Divina dispensatione illius gloriae relictus, et a sanctis omnibus illi cessus videtur.

Altaria Sanctorum Apostolorum Simonis et Judae, S. Petronillae, ac SS. Martirum Processi et Martiniani illis iam dedicata, et in quibus eorum sacra Corpora recondita sunt, nullo modo mutanda, sed illibata, prout nunc extant, retinenda, et consecranda [32c: conservanda] censerem.

In antiqua Basilica supra proprium Altare venerabatur imago, et memoria S. Annae Matris Gloriosissimae Virgi­

nis; ju re ig itu r renovandum videtur in loco delineato supra literam ’M ’ e conspectu Altaris Beatissimae Virgi­nis in Columna.

Desideratur Altare Privilegiatum pro fidelibus delunctis, posset dum S. V. placeat concedi, et in Altare Sanctissimae Trinitatis, et omnium Sanctorum, vel in Cappella Sancti Gregorij Magni sub literam ‘C ’ collocari.

Haec pauca notavi c irca statum et venerationem supradictorum Altarium, ut precoeptis S. V. obtemper- arem, ilia semper, ut teneor subijciens nutibus S. V., cuius sanctissimos pedes humillime deosculor.

Humillimus Servus et Orator,Carolus de Ghettis Oeconomus

N O . 9

Date: November 4, 1626Source: AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3—no. 171Comment: Unpublished. The entire page has been crossed

out with a single diagonal stroke.

[1. 172v] 4 novembris 1626

Nota delle Tavole delle Cappelle in S. Pietro da dipingersi et dei Pittori:

Cavaliero Passignano Cappella S. Petro Piuce o v amecu<

Cavaliero Cellio Cappella del BattesmoMonsu d ’Ouett Cappella della Pieta nel

ChoroDomenichino Cappella S. Petri Ttbidabo

C lamAgostino Ciampelli Cappella di S. Simone et

GiudaAndrea Sacco Cappella di S. Gregorio

MagnoGiovannino Lanfranco Rifar la Cappella gia dip-

inta dal CastelliGio. Battista Calandra La Cappella di S. Anna di

musaico, per accompagniar la Cappella di contro della Madonna nella Colonna, c ’ha l ’ornamento intarsiato di marmi

Vi restano le in lrascritte Tavole, che potria darsi alii notati di contro:

Della Santissima Trinita,et tutti li S a n t i .......................................a Guido

SS. Processo et M artin iano.................... a Gioseppino

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X E g 2 9 7

II Crucifisso et 1 j d i- al CavalieroS. Mtchel’Arcangelo J BerninoS. C arlo .........................................................a Gio. Antonio

SpadarinoVolto Santo S. Andrea S. Sebastiano S. Erasmo

Son tutte 17

Son' proposti a dipingere le Tavole non date:

Benigno Ugolini dal Signor Cardinale del CavaliereGio. Jacopo Bolognese a m [e]m[orial]e del Signor

Cardinale di SavoiaAntonio Pomarancio et 1 , . , „• •. 1 dal Signor Cardinale Biscia Giovanni di S. Giovanni JAlbano BolognesePietro Berettini CortoneseGio. Domenico Martiniani pittore del Signor Cardinal

Padrone

N O . 10

Date: c. 1626 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55Comment: Unpublished. The following annotations are

w ritten on a copy of the 1613 M aderno/Greuter engraved plan of St. Peter’s. For the letter references, see Text Fig. VI.

[f. 32a]

A Cappella di InnocentioS. Leon Nono

BC S. Gregorio MagnoD S. LonginoE Volto Santo

S. Simone et GiudaF S. Josefo Abirimatia [= Arimathea?]GH Beata Virgine ad Columna

S. Leone primo, 2, 3, AI S. PietroL S. PetronillaM S. LucaN S. Andrea

con il corpo di S. BonifatioO S. Bastiano

PQ S. Gregorio Nazianzeno R S. TrinitaS S. Processo et Martiniano T Crucifisso

N O . 11

Date: c. Januaiy 1627 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55Comment: Unpublished. Ardant, 1891, published excerpts

of what appears to be a variant of this document, but without adequately citing his source. The names that appear below in boldface are written in pencil in the margin of the manuscript, in a different hand. As indi­cated here some of these penciled annotations have been crossed out. The plan that originally accompanied the text is missing, but is here reconstructed as Text Fig. VI.

[f. 101] Beatissime PaterQuod nuper humillimi servi Sanctitatis Vestrae Capitu-

lum, et Canonici Basilicae S. Petri Congregationi Illustris- simorum Cardinalium super fabrica exponerunt super denominatione, dedicatione, et Consecratione Altarium Basilicae, hoc verum S. V. quam decit reverentia exponunt.

In primis hoc esset ipsorum votum ac desiderium, ut singula tanti Templi sacella et Altaria bene sibi in vicem, et proportionabiliter responderent, et congrua inter ilia servaretur distantia.

2° Sicut haec non est novi Templi constructio, sed veteris redificatio et renovatio, ita etiam cuperent ut in illo veteres Altarium tituli, et denominationes quantum fieri potest retinerentur, saltern illi quibus sunt annexa onera, et assignati redditus, et quorum ratione ex anti- qua consuetudine adhuc a nostro Clero celebran[tur] off[ici]a.

3° Ut praedictorum titulorum distributio ita fieret ut totum corpus Basilicae, et singula eius sacella, quae sex principalia in quolibet latera considerari possunt, suam habeant venerationem ex Sanctorum Corporibus, et reliquijs, et suum splendorem ex luminibus seu lampadibus.

In descriptione quam vidimus facta super planta Basil­icae impressa in omnibus quae proposuimus reperitur peccatum, et defectus.

Nam primo relinquitur Altare S. Petronillae, quod est Altare principale illius sacelli, in situ non magis digno, et qui non correspondet alijs A ltaribus quae denominant alia tria sacella similia, videlicet S. Mariae ad Columnam, S. G regorij M agn i, seu C lem entinae, et S. Gregorij Nazianzeni. Praedicta in hoc eodem sacello retinentur

2 9 8 l i T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R S

Text Fig. VI

quatuor Altaria cum tamen in alijs tribus similibus extant tantum tria, nec plura possint esse si debita inter ilia et congrua servari debet distantia.

2° Peccatur contra secundam regulam, quia memoria insignis Cappellae Innocentij 8 omnino extinguitur dum illi non surrogatur peculiare Sacellum, sed tantum accessorie ad alterum titulum, scilicet ad altare S. Mariae ad Colum- nam illius onera transferantur. Iam tollitur memoria Altaris S. Bonifacij M arty r is qui erat unum ex septem

Altaribus in veteri Basilica sub quo conditum erat ipsius Corpus cum alijs Reliquijs, quae modo reconditae sunt sub Altari S. Tbomae. Praeterea nulla assignantur particularia Altaria [f. lOlv] S. Martiali episcopo, et S. Vincislao, quo­rum a nostro Clero ideo celebrantur officia ex antiqua con- suetudine quia habentur ipsorum Cappellae.

Contra tertiam regulam contingit etiam defectus, quia stante praedicta descriptione tota ilia pars Ecclesiae, quae a Paulo V addita est, et debet a Sanctitate Vestra

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X 2 9 9

perfici, consp ic ie tur v id uata C orporibus San ctis et luminibus, et dempto Altare Chori, in quo Sanctitas Ves- tra Corpus S. Jo ann is Chrysostomi condidit, ad alia quinque sacella qui [air] in hac parte remanent, vix erit qui se genuflectat.

Cum igitur praesens descriptio propter allatas rationes non videatur idonta, visum est bumiliter iudicio Sancti- tatis Vestrae aliam subijcere quae a praedictis regulis n[on] sit adeo dissona.

In qua primo Sacellum S. Petronillae, tarn quo ad numerum Altarium, quam quo ad situationem A ltaris principalis, et corporis eiusdem sanctae redditur uniforme cum altera quod est ex adverso S. Mariae ad Columnam.

2° In ea restituuntur omnes lerme tituli Altarium vet- eris Basilicae, quibus sunt annexa onera, vel quorum cel- ebrantur particularia officia.

3° Posterior pars templi quae tempore Sanctitatis Ves­trae debet ornan, et perfici habebit sua sex sacella vel ex Corporibus Sanctis, vel ex alia praerogativa reverenda, et conspicua.

Nam primo Sacellum Chori Sanctitas V estra iam ditavit Corpore S. Joannis Chrysostomi, et ornavit spe- ciosis [illegible uvW] et ex celebratione quotidiana divino- rum officiorum erit insigne et primarium.

Sacellum quod est ex adverso simili arte, et pari ampli- tudine constructum erit gloriosum si Sanctitas Sua man- det illud perfici, et ornari ad augustissimum Eucharistiae Sacram entum continendum . Vas enim illud ad hunc effectum prae caeteris amplissimum est, turn propter illius pulchritudinem, turn quia tutissima in illo tanti thesauri custodia esse potent, habet praeterea multa receptacula pro reponendis quae ad illius cultum expositionem, <et> delationem sunt necessaria, et quae in promptu esse debent; propter quas rationes saepius societas Sanctissimi Sacramenti pro hoc sacello instanter rogavit. Hoc non impedit, immo commode accidit, ut sacellum titulo Sanc- tissimae Trinitatis conscribatur.

Non obstat quod Sanctissimum Sacramentum per 40 annos in Gregoriana conservatum sit, nam initio id fac- tum est necessitate cogente, cum hoc fuerit primum sacel­lum quod in nova Basilica perfectum sit, et nunc primo tempus est perpetuum sacellum illi assignandi, multo autem Gregoriano praestat sacellum quod nos propon- imus. Nam Gregorianum non ita lacile potest undique tutis canallis [I. 102] occludi, Altare insignis Ciborij non ita capi; ver in ilia perfrigidus est, et ventis obnoxius; sunt in eo plures Cappellani a Gregorio xiii instituti, et ideo Altare est minus liberum, ut expedit[e] et incun[c]tanter Sacramentum possit populo ministrari. Quae omnia ces- sant in sacello a nobis proposito.

Non obstat quod huic sacello respondeat Sacellum Chori, et ideo fore ut qui intersunt divinis terga versant Sanctissimo Sacramento.

Nam responditur primo quod tanta est distantia, ut id

observari facile non possit, nam trium Navium latitudo intermedia est.

2° Responditur quod ille non est Chorus naturalis seu principalis Basilicae in quo sit locus seu sedes pro con- ventu publico, ubi enim Chorus erit vel ad Altare Maius seu ad Tribunam, sed est Chorus privatus Canonicorum et C leri, qui totus ab illis occupatur; et hi latera liter adstant Altari.

Duo aha sacella quae haec sequuntur et sibi in vicem e regione respondent alterum proponitur honorandum memoriae Innocentij viii in cuius conspectu sepulchrum illius iam cernitur, alterum S. Sebastiani nomini.

Restitutio Cappellae Innocentij sub titulo Praesenta- tioms Beatae Vergmis ommno videtur facienda. Is enim Pontifex fuit qui quatuor Cappellanos ad [. . .] Beneficia- torum instituit, qui et Cappellae sacrum fac[iun t], et Choro festivis diebus inserviunt, nec non pecuniam pro luminibus legavit. Is etiam fuit qui ferrum sacratissimum lanceae in Basilicam detulit, et in sacello et Ciborio pro illo conservando multum impendit. Unde iure suo Prin- ceps M assae saepius in terpellav it, et rogavit ne tarn praeclara suae lamiliae monumenta periant. Cum maxima igitur laude Sanctitas Sua hoc Sacellum veteri surrogabit, quod condecorare poterit Corpore Leonis 9 Sanctissimi Pontificis qui modo non est sub aliqua Altari ex principal- ibus, sed repositum fuit sub Altare ad latus SS. Simonis et Jud ae cum tota Basilica non esset perfecta.

Quod vero S. Sebastiano, non simplex Altare, sed unum ex his sacellis primarijs dedicetur, haec modo ratio sufficiat quod hie Sanctus est in quasi possessione exi- gendi a Sanctitate Vestra insignes, et praecipuos honores. Poterit hoc Sacellum decorari Corpore S. Bonifatij Mar- tyris cuius etiam titulus poterit cumulari. Hoc Corpus modo repositum est sub Altare S. Thomae quod non est ex principalibus, [f. 102v] sed id factum fuit quia tota Basilica non erat perfecta.

Reliqua duo Sacella, alterum ex fonte Baptismalis, alterum ex imagine antiquissima et devotissima Sanctis­simi Crucifixi suum habebunt decorem, et venerationem. Atque hac ratione tota haec pars erit insignis.

De tribus adhuc Altaribus remanet facienda mentio, viz. S. Martialis, S. Vincislai, S. Annae.

Pro S. M artiali poterit assignari Altare ad latus SS. Simonis et Judae quod correspondet Altari S. Thomae.

Pro S. Vincislao Altare quod est ad latus SS. Processi et Martiniani et correspondet Altari S. Erasmi.

Pro S. Anna optime eius veneratio continget in sacello Innocentij 8 cuius antiquus titulus est Praesentationis Beatae V irgin is cum in hac h istoria debeant depingi im agines Parentum Beatissim ae V irginis videlicet S. Joachim , et S. Annae, qui puerulam deducunt ad Tem- plum. Et debet observari quod Altare S. Annae non est antiquum in nostra Basilica, sed ex mera devotione fuit erectum a Parafrenarijs neque habet aliquod onus.

3 0 0 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

N ihil dictum est de A ltaribus Vultus Sancti et S. Andreae, nam maxima omnium laetitia accidit . . . \illegible\ ilia erigere sub proprijs Ciborijs.

Quo ad Altare S. M ichaeli Arcangelo erigendum in capite Tribunae, hoc solum posset aliquem scrupulum inijcere, quod ea pars cum sit caput Ecclesiae et respiciat Altare Maius, et ad illud quod ammodo pertineat, videri posset non convenienter dedicari alteri Sancto quam illi cui dedicata est tota Basilica, et ita observatum videmus in Tribunos aliarum Basilicarum, sed forte propter mag- nam distantiam ab Altare poterit hie scrupulus demi.

Haec habuimus quae Sanctitati Vestrae hum iliter repraesentarem us ratum, et gratum habitur quicquid Sanctitas Vestra decretura est etc.

[f. 103] Nuncupationes ac tituli Sacellorum et Altarium S. Petri, et Sanctorum Corpora qua sub eis sunt.

+ Fons Baptismalis. Titulus S. Joannis Baptistae.A . Sacellum Innocentij viii sub invocatione Praesenta-

tionis Beatissimae Virginis, S. Annae, et S. Leonis 9.

Corpus S. Leonis 9

C appellani quatuor PassignanoLampas accensa

B. Sacellum Chori. Tituli Conceptionis Beatissimae Vir­g in is , S. Jo an n is C hrysostom i, S. F ranc isc i, S. Antonij de Padua.

Corpus S . Jo an n is Chiysostom i

Unum ex septem A ltaribus DomenichinoLampas accensa -Giueep p in o

C. Sacellum Clementinum. Titulus Altaris principalis S. Gregorij Magni.

Corpus eiusdem S. Gregorij

CappellaniPrivilegiatum pro defunctis

Unum ex septem

Lampas accensa

D. Altare S. Martialis episcopi, Discipuli B. Petri.C elebratur a nostro Clero illius offlcium ratione

Cappellae

E. SS. Simonis et Judae Apostolorum.Corpora eorumdem Apostolorum Unum ex septem

Lampas accensa

F. Altare S. Thomae Apostoli.Cappellani

G. Altare Vultus Sancti.Cappellani

Lampades quinque

[f. 103v]H. Sacellum Sanctissimae Virginis ad Columnam. Tituli

N ativitatis eiusdem Sanctissim ae V irginis, ac SS. Leonum primi, 2, 3, 4.

Posset huic Altari commode uniri etiam titulus seu potius onera quae erant ad Altare S. Mariae Praeg- nantium in veteri Basilica.

Corpora eorumdem Sanctorum Leonum primi,2, 3 ,4

CappellaniUnum ex septem Giuseppino dove e la portaLampas accensa •Pnssignnna ■

I. Gloriossimo Michaeli Arcangelo vel ut erat prius des- tinatum Apostolorum Principi quando traditae illi sunt Claves Regni Coelorum. Rheno

L. Sacellum S. Petronillae.

Corpus eiusdem Sanctae Cappellani duo Lampas accensa Unum ex septem

M. Altare S. Erasmi Episcopi et M artyris. Ex antiqua devotione pendent tabellae votivae et fiunt ad illud oblationes.

N. Altare SS. Processi et Martiniani.Corpora eorumdem Sanctorum

Cappellani

Privilegiatum pro defunctis

Unum ex septem

Lampas accensa

O. Altare S. Vincislai M artyris Regis Boemiae.Recitatur a nostro C lero illius officium ratione

Cappellae.P. Altare S. Andreae Apostoli.

Ipsius caput in Ciborio

Cappellani

Lam pades tres accensae

[f. 104]Q. Sacellum Gregorianum. Titulus Assumptionis Beatae

Virginis ac S. Gregorij Nazianzeni. huic potest„ . „ addi conceptionisCorpus eiusdem oancti

Cappellani quatuor lam p as accensa

Unum ex septem si placet Sanctissimo

R. Sacellum Sanctissimi Sacramenti. Titulus Sanctissi­mae Trinitatis.

Cappellanus unusLampades accensae undecim Reno

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X g § 301

S. Sacellum S. Sebastiani M artyris, cui addi poterit etiam titulus S. Bonifatij Martyris.

Corpus eiusdem S . Bonifatij

Cappellanus unus

Lampas accensa DomenichinoT. Altare Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Cruci

affixi est maximae et antiquae venerationis.

Caetera Basilicae Altaria, tamquam habentia suos certos ac iam determinatos titulos, et ideo non indigentia alia annotatione consulto fuerunt hie praetermissa etc.

N O . 1 2

Date: February 19—20, 1627 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55Comment: Unpublished. The handwriting is Angelo Giorio’s.

[f. 106] Adi 19difebraio 1627Come Altarista, et ordinatomi dal Signor Cardinale S.

Sisto d ’ordine della Congregatione della fabrica, al quale ha rimesso il negotio. Ho parlato ad Nostro Signore per lo stabilimente degl’altari di S. Pietro conforme alia qui annessa scrittura et ordine, et mi ha fatto difficolta.

B. Prima, che il titolo della Concettione non li pare che a questo altare li convenga per <non> esservi luogo dove possi farvi l ’imagine d ’essa Concettione, quale titolo si puo aggiungere ad un’altro altare di quelli dedicati alia Madonna.

G. 2° Che l ’altare del Volto Santo in questo luogo non pare che venghi approvato da molti, et che pero non si risolve, e per rispetto del sepolchro di Paolo III et per altri rispetti.

I. 3° Che le piace piu, che facci l ’historia di S. Pietro, quando clarer regn i coelorum illi traditae fuerunt, che S. Michele, perche essendo questa la Chiesa di S. Pietro et questo il piu principale loco, e convemente sia ded- icato alia piu principale attione etc.

P . 4° Per la medesima causa dell’Altare del Volto Santo G. 2°

Q. 5° A quest altare si puo aggiungere la Concettione etc. R. 6° Sua Santita loda piu che si lasci stare, dove sta

hoggi nella Cappella di SS. Processo et Martiniano.

il 18. detto Le feci il motivo fatto daHTllustrissimo Signor Cardinale Barberino circa le Cappelle delli due bracci principali della Croce di detta Chiesa, cioe D, E, F et M, N, O, che quelle nicchie dove sono hoggi g l’altari, sec- ondo il disegno antico erano maggiori, et che potendosi

ridurre, come si crede, al primiero stato sara cosa piu magnifica, parendo che perdano in si gran spatio quelle cappellette cosi piccole.

Piacque a Sua Santita et mi ordino che se ne facesse diligenza, come si fara.

[I. 106v] Li 20 detto, calai in S. Pietro et parlai con li Signori Canonici Ubaldino et Bovio di quanto si era trat- tato con Nostro Signore, et si resto in appuntamento d esser insieme, et aggiustare il tutto secondo che parera piu conveniente, accomodandosi alii pesi antichi di S. Pietro, et alii altari piu che sara possibile.

B . l a et a lia prim a diffico lta fatta da Sua San tita si rispose, che questo era il titolo antico del Choro, et che pero pareva conveniente si ritenesse in questo choro, et benche non vi si potesse metter la Con­cettione parve che potesse bastare la Pieta che ci e nell’altare di Michelangelo.

G. 2° al secondo si rispose per a ll’hora, che essendo il Volto Santo la principale reliquia di quella Chiesa, et havendo oblighi di cappellani, non ci potesse esser luogo piu decente che sotto il medesimo Volto Santo, et che con questa occasione retti [? ] si sarebbero inghinochiati, et fatto oratione, che hora non si fa per mancamento di detto altare. Et cosi P. 4° ancora.

Che il sepo lchro di Paolo iii si possa levare , havendo cosi gran causa, et cosi honesta.

I . 3° fu approvato et lodato assai che si faccia l ’historia di S. Pietro.

P. 4° come a G. 2°

[f. 107]Q. 5° non e necessario mentre si stabilisca come sopra B. l a R . 6° che quello luogo sia troppo aperto, esposto a peri-

coli di rubbamenti, asprezza d'ana, venti, et sirmli. Di piu che impedisce l’esecutione de pesi havendo Cap- pellanie detto altare di SS. Processo etc.

N O . 1 3

Date: May 14, 1627 Source: AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3-no. 159 Comment: Published in Poliak, no. 94. For a copy of the

document, dated M ay 15, see BAV, ACSP, H55, ff.108-108v.

[f. 93v] Die 14 M aij 1627. Fuit habita Congregatio Reverendae Fabricae in Aedibus Illustrissim i et Rev- erendissimi Domini Cardinalis Gimnasij ad effectum dis-

3 0 2 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

tribuendi inter Pictores Iconas Altarium Basilicae adhuc non depictas, in qua intervenerunt infrascritti Illustrissimi Domini Cardinales:

Illustrissim i et Reverendissim i Domini C ardinales Gimnasius, Sancti Sixti, Sancti Clementis, Aldobrandi- nus, et Biscia.

Qui cupientes iuxta Mentem Sanctissimi, ut Altaria dic- tae Basilicae quanto citius perficiantur, et consecrentur, ini- unxerunt mibi Oeconomo, ut illis exhiberem Notulam Tab- ularum Altarium iam distributarum, et a quibus Pictoribus pingendae sint, et illarum pariter, quae adhuc distribuendae remanent, et Pictorum Nomina inter quos distribui possent.

Unde Ego Oeconomus exhibui Notulam praemissa continentem tenons sequentis, videlicet.Nota dei Pittori alii quali si dicono gia promesse le Tavole da farsi nelli Altari in S. Pietro.

Al Cavalier Cellio Al Domenichini A Giovanmno

Lanlranghi A Gio. Battista Calandra

Ad Andrea Saccho

Ad Agostino Ciampelli

A Gio: Antonio Spadarino

La Cappella del Battesmo La 2. Cappella a man’ dritta La Cappella, che si deve

rifar del Castelli II S. Michel Arcangelo di

Musaico La Cappella di S. Gregorio

Magno La Cappella di S. Simone et

GiudaLa Cappella Collaterale a

cornu Evangelij ai Santi Martiale et Carlo

7

[f. 94] Cappelle che si devon pongono.

II Crucihsso di Rilievo La Cappella vicina al

Battesmo gia dipinta dal Passignano che si deve mutarsi

La Cappella in contro al Choro

La Cappella de' SantiProcesso, et Martiniano

Le 2 Cappelle Collaterali alia suddetta

La Tavola da farsi nel Nicchio in cima alia chiesa

La Cappella da farsi nella porta, che va a S.ta Marta

fare, et Pittori che si pro-

PassignanoGioseppinoGuidoBerninoAlbano Bolognese Pietro Berrettini

Cortonese Gio. Domenico Martiani Benigno Ugolini Giovanni di S.

Giovannini Angelo Caroselli Gio: Giacomo Bolognese Antonio Pomarancio

12

Vi sono di piu li Altari deljMa in questi facilmenteVolto Santo, et S. Andreqnon vi si farran' dentro quadri per

esservi sopra le medesime Reliquie, et per l’angustia et poco lume, che havran’ dentro le cappellette di detti Altari.

Qua per dictos Illustrissimos visa, et perlecta, et desuper vocatis, et auditis Reverendissimis Dominis Jorio, Bovio, Cittadino, et Ubaldino eiusdem Basilicae Canonicis, et ad haec specialiter a Capitulo, ut asseruerunt, deputatis, et in hac Congregatione praesentibus, et informantibus, quatenus Sanctissimo Domino Nostro sic placeat, appro- barunt Distributionem Tabularum, et Iconarum inter nominatos Pictores, ut supra factam, et alias, quae adhuc remanent pingendae, ab infrascriptis Pictoribus delineari, et pingi decreverunt.

Iconam in Altari extremae sublimioris Basilicae partis co n stituen d am , in qua p in gen da seu ex M arm ore sculpenda, aut Metallo fundenda erit Historia Principis A posto lorum rec ip ien tis C laves R egn i Coelorum , quatenus S.mus pingi mandet, a Guido Arena, quatenus vero sculpi, vel fundi, ab Equite Bernino sculpi seu fundi deliberarunt.

[f. 94v] Cappellam prope Chorum, in qua alias ab Equite Passignano pingenda erat imago Principis Apos­tolorum extrahentis ex ore Piscis Monetam pro Tributo exsolvendo, quae nunc Presentation! Gloriosissimae Vir­ginis, ac Sanctae Annae dedicanda est, pingi per eundem Equitem Passignanum.

Aliam Cappellam e conspectu Chori in honorem Sanc­tissimae Trimtatis engendam per supradictum Guidum Arenam.

Altare Sancto Leoni Magno dedicandum prope AltareS. M a ria e in C o lum na per E quitem Jo sep h u m Arpinatem pictura ornari, et ut eo citius pingi possit, por- tam tendentem ad Ecclesiam Sanctae M arthae nunc claudi, et Altaris locum solitis aliorum Altarium ornamen- tis condecorari, et perfici mandarunt.

Domini Nostri Je su Christi Cruci affixi statuam ex Metallo fundendam, et collocandam in Cappella eidem Salvatori dedicandam prope Portam Sanctam, per Equi­tem Berninum.

Et quia adhuc pingendae supersunt Tabulae Altaris Sanctorum Processi, et Martiniam aliaeque duae Collat- erales, pro quibus supradicti alij Pictores instant de illo- rum peritia, et qualitate aliqui ex Illustrissimis Dominis certam notitiam ad praesens non habentes, rogarunt Illustrissimos Dominos Cardinales Sancti Sixti et Aldo- brandinum, ut de praemissis se diligenter informent, et deinde huic Sacrae Congregation! referant.

8

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X 3 0 3

N O . 1 4

Date: c. 1627Source: BAV, ACSP, H55Comment: Unpublished

[ f . 1 2 6 ] A l t a r i d a c o n s a c r a r s i

S. Gregorio MagnoS. Pietro, Anania, e ZaffirraCrocifissione di S. PietroSS. Simone e GiudaS. Pietro, caduta di Simon MagoS. PietroS. PetronillaNavicella di S. PietroS. ErasmoSS. Processo et Martiniano S. Vinceslao, dove e S. Anna S. Basilio S. Geronimo

R e s t a n o d a c o n s a c r a r s i l ’ i n f r a s c r i t t i

1. Presentatione della Madonna2. S. Sebastiano incontro al detto3. S. Leone 9° dove e la Tavola della Resurettione di

Nostro Signore, si deve levare il Corpo di S. Leone e porre nell’ Altare della Presentatione numero primo

4. S. Bonifatio dove e la Tavola di S. Tomasso, si deve levare il Corpo, et porre nell Altare di S. Sebastiano numero 2°

5. La Madonna della Colonna, si deve levare il Corpo diS. Leone Primo e porre nel suo Altare proprio vicino al detto numero 6

6. S. Leone primo vicino al detto non e finito.7. Tabita vicino l’Altare di Santa Petronilla non e finito.8. S. Michel Archangelo dove e il Crocifisso non e finito.9. Altare nella Cappella per salire a Palazzo della San-

tissima Trimta non e finito.10. Altare del Santissimo Crocifisso incontro al Battes-

imo non e finito.

[ f . 1 2 7 ] N o t a d e l l e C a p p e l l e d a

D I P I N G E R S I , E T D E I P l T T O R I

1. Cappella del Battesmo2. Della Presentatione3. Di S. Martiale et Carlo4. Di Santi Simone e Giuda5. Di S. Leone Magno6. S. Michel Arcangelo

1. Al Cav.o Celho2. Al Passignano3. Al Spadarino4. Al Ciampelli5. Al Guido6. Al Calandra di

Musaico

7. La Cappella fatta dalCastelli del S. Pietro, che esclama Domine ja h ’um m efa c, che si deve rifare et vi si potria pingere o il Misterio Pauce oveu m e cut, o Tibi dabo Cltu'ee R egni Coelorum

8. Di S. Erasmo9. SS. Processo et Martiniano

10. S. Vincislao11. Della Santissima Trinita12.

13. Crucifisso di Metallo

[In pencil, crudely written:]Cavalier GuidottoSopra porta

[ ■ • • ]

7. Dal Lanfranco

8. Cortonese9. Albano Bolognese

10. Angelo Caroselli11. Cavalier Gioseppe12. Domenichino13. Cavaliero Bernino

N O . 1 5

Date: c. 1627 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55Comment: Unpublished. Ff. 130a-130b are in Angelo

Giorio’s handwriting; ff. 130c—130d are in a different, neater handwriting.

[f . 130a] A l t a r d i S . L e o n e

Dovendosi nell’Altare di S. Leone che si disegna di fare in S. Pietro e riporvi il suo corpo dipingere qualche historia del medesimo Santo, pare che molto a proposito si possa pigliare per soggetto quando questo Santo libero Roma dall’Invasione di Attila Re degl’Hunai con l'aiuto e assistenza visibile di S. Pietro.

Potra dunque il Pittore d istribuirla in maniera, che diversamente divisata da quello che si vede rappresentata nelle Camere e Loggie, si salvi il decoro della Chiesa et la reverenza e maesta dell’Altare.

Si facci che lTmagine di S. Leone venghi nel sito piu degno et in vista vicina et in atto che la faccia possa essere [f. 130a v] riguardata e reverita dal popolo. Si dipinga huomo di gran statura, di maestoso e grato aspetto, in habito papale cioe sottana, rocchetto, mozzetta, stola et mitra.

Stia in atto di fanellare con Attila, al quale piu presto comandi che supplichi. Appresso di lui, quasi come in una nuvola, si raffiguri S. Pietro in habito sacerdotale con spada in mano, minacciando verso Attila. Si vegghino intomo al

3 0 4 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Santo g l’Imbasciatori del popolo Romano, e questi si veg- ghino supplichevoli e riverenti. Ci sia ancora appresso al Santo clerici e preti in habiti lunghi, con la tonsura all'an- tica. Attila si dipinga all’incontro del [f. 130b] Santo, rever- ente e chino, ma di aspetto crudele e barbaro e vestito d ’habito militare e straniero, assistito da capitani e soldati, i quali si vegghino in atto di gran maraviglia per l ’insolita humiliatione di Attila. Si puo lontano far companre qualche mostra di esercito che dia a sacco e fiamme qualche citta.

II luogo dove si rappresenta il congresso puo esser ameno e di bella prospettiva, dove Mincio sbocca nel Po.

Si awertischi, che le figure tanto di S. Leone quanto di Attila si faccino a piede, non a cavallo.

[I. 130c] Sono molti i soggetti che si potrebbero cavare dall’Historia della vita di S. Leone Magno da rappresen- tarsi in Pittura nella Tavola, che si deve fare all Altare di questo Santo.

Per il piu proportionate alia Chiesa di S. Pietro, et msieme al genio e maniera del Pittore, si propone la liber- atione d ’lta lia d a ll ’Invasione d e ll’esercito d ’A ttila Re degl’Hunai, a persuasione di S. Leone, ma assistito da S. Pietro.

Quest’Historia per proportionarla a un’Altare, dove si celebra, si deve aw ertire di rappresentarla molto diversa- mente di quello si vede dipinta nelle sale, e nelle logge.

11 luogo dunque dove accadde il fatto si puo rappre- sentare verso il mantovano ameno e di bella prospettiva, non molto lontano dove il fiume Mincio sbocca nel Pado.

Devesi compartire in modo l ’Historia che la figura di S. Leone venghi a tenere il mezo del quadro, et il sito piu degno, et sia in vista piu vicina. Si rappresentera di bel- l ’aspetto, grave, e venerabile, con sottana, rocchetto, mozzetta, stola, e mitra, in atto di porgere per farla giurare a Attila la scrittura della promessa di non offender Roma.

[f. 130c v] Attila seita, barbaro, di fiero aspetto, in questa attione si dovera dipingere humile, reverente, e timido fuori dell’usato. Dara la destra e promettera la fide di far tornare a dietro l’esercito. L'habito suo sara capric- cioso e straniero. Quello congresso si rappresenta a piede e non a cavallo in mezo dell’Altare.

Appresso a S. Leone, si deve quasi in una nugola dipingere San Pietro, il quale fu visto solamente da Attila, ma non da altri; havera l ’habito sacerdotale, ma sara in atto di minacciare con spada in mano, rivolto verso Attila. Se li puo dalla spalla farli pendere una Chiave per mag- giorm ente denotarlo in quel modo, che si vede nella medaglia stampata nel Baronio tomo 6, foglio 254, che come riferisce il medesimo Baronio si puo credere che fussi fatta al tempo di S. Leone, forse in questa memoria.

Per comitiva del santo Pontefice si possono dipingere molti Clerici con habiti all’antica scoperti, con la tonsura grande come si vede nella medaglia detta di sopra. Si

devono aggiungere ancora in compagnia del Santo g l’lm- basciatori del Popolo Romano, ch’andorno seco, e questi potranno rappresentarsi in ginocchioni in atto di pregare.

[f. 130d] Dall’altro lato appresso a Attila si possono dipingere Capitani e Soldati barbari, ma in atto di stu- pore e maraviglia per la subita et insolita mansuetudine di A ttila . Si puo da questo lato ancora piu lontano tar apparire mostra d e ll’essercito d ’Attila che, vittorioso, abbruci e rovini citta e terre, et in questo il Pittore ha il campo libero di far apparire Cavalli etc.

Utile ancor soggetto sarebbe quello, et a proposito della Chiesa di S. Pietro, ma non forse tanto a gusto del Pittore quando fu S. Leone orando alia Confessione di S. Pietro accertato della condonatione, e remissione de suoi peccati fuori di quelli dell’impositione delle mani.

Si potrebbe rappresentare la Confessione ancora di S. Pietro e San Leone avanti a quella prostrato, S. Pietro che le apparisca in mezo a uno splendore dentro al quale si legghino in una cartella che esca quasi dalla bocca di S. Pietro quelle parole: Oravi pro te di/nuioa ount tibi omnia pec- ca ta tua p ra eter i/natn impooitionui manuum . Baronio nel- l ’anno 461, tomo 6, pagina 252. etc.

N O . 1 6

Date: c. 1627 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55Comment: Unpublished. The text is in Angelo Giorio’s

handwriting.

[ f . 130g] T a v o l a d i S. W e n c e s l a o

La C appella di S. W enceslao e antich issim a in S. Pietro, fu fabricata, ornata e dotata da Hincone Vescovo Olumncense come e notato nel libro de’ benefattori della nostra Chiesa.

Si vede ancora come vi era dipinto il sudetto santo nel libro lasciato da Jacom o Grimaldi, dove sono dehneati gl'Altari demoliti nell’ultima parte della Chiesa vecchia.

Hoggi dovendosi rinovare il suo Altare e la sua Imag­ine in Tavola non molto grande nel sito collaterale a SS. Processo e Martiniano, pare che si possa fare in questa maniera.

In mezzo della Tavola rappresentare il Santo giovane di bell e maestoso aspetto, come noto il Suno, vestito di habito Imperiale, come si vede [f. 130g v] vestito nella p ittu ra an tica, con un Stendardo in mano, dentrovi l ’Aquila nera in campo bianco, con la spada e targa. E perche e notato che questo santo nelle sue attioni tanto auliche quanto militari fu piu volte visto esser assistito e serv ito da A ngeli, per ornam ento e em pim ento del Quadro ne quattro canti vi si potranno molto a proposito dipingere quattro Angeli, uno con un giglio in mano a

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X g g 3 0 5

denotare la sua verginita, l ’altro con una spada a denotare 1’arme che visibilmente in un Duello insigne gli Angeli li sumministravano, il 3° con una palma a denotare il suo martirio, e il 4° con una corona. E perche [f. 130h] il Santo nelle nostre parti non e cosi noto, a pie del quadro si puo lasciare il spatio per una Cartella dove sia il nome del Santo: S. Wenceolaiu Boemorum Dux Martyr.

La Tavola di S. Erasmo, che sara nell’altra Cappella collaterale di SS. Processo e Martiniano nel sito medes- imo dove e hoggi, si potra fare che contenga il martirio del sudetto santo nella forma che si vede nella Tavola che vi sta hoggi. Solamente si aw erta di mutare il sito del tri- bunale del tiranno, accio l ’lmagine del tiranno non venghi a risedere in mezzo dell’Altare, ma si faccia da un lato.

N O . 1 7

Date: January 11, 1628 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55 Comment: Unpublished

[f. 112] lllustrissim o et Reverendissimo Signore mio osservandissmo.

Desiderando io di servire Vostra Signoria Illustrissima e di levarle fatica, mi sono risoluto d ’inviarle l ’annesso ristretto della scrittura, che hieri le invio il Signore Canon- ico Ubaldini, intorno alle pitture, che s ’hanno a fare in San Pietro. Supplico Vostra S ignoria Illustrissim a a voler gradire questo mio riverente affetto, et a non tenermi per temerario, se io m’ingerisco dove ella non m’ha dato segno de ’ suoi commandamenti. E poi, ch ’io ho la penna in mano, ard iro anco di rappresen tarle , che ho veduto desiderio in questi Signori Canonici che le pitture, che s ’hanno a fare sopra alle sei porte, rappresentino il Pri- mato di San Pietro. Nell’annessa dunque scrittura, se bene ho notato sedici argomenti, si riducono pero a dodici sola­mente, essendovene quattro, in altretante cappelle. Basta che tra 12 vi saranno de’ belle et insigni historie signifi­cant! il medesimo Primato. Le altre che aggiongo, della Negatione, Confessione, et Lagrime di Pietro, saranno per qualch’altro luogo, se cosi parera a Nostro Signore.

Di piu le metto in consideratione di fare la scielta, et per ordine distribuirla a suoi luoghi, e pittori.

Signore, l ’affetto e devotione, che tengo a quella sacrosanta Basilica, mi fa troppo ardito. Lo confesso, gliene chieggo perdono, et a Vostra Signoria Illustrissima bacio le mani. Di casa il di xi di Gennaio 1628.

Di Vostra Signoria Illustrissima e Reverendissima

Servitore humilissimo et obligatissimo, Giovanni Battista Confalonieri

[f. 113] Ristretto dell’historie per la Basilica di San Pietro cavate dalli sacri Evangelisti, e tutte sono ordinate al Primato di esso Prencipe delli Apostoli.

1. Joannis 1. Vocatio Petri, et mutatio nominis, ubi de A ndrea quando prim um in v en it fratrem suum Simonem, et adduxit ilium ad Jesum .

2. Joannis 21. Quando tradita fuit Petro summa potes- tas ecclesiastica illis verbis: "Pasce oves meas.”

3. M atthaei 14. Ubi solus Petrus, una cum Domino ambulat super aquas. [In m argin: extat Altare]

4. Matthaei 17. Ubi Dominus iubet solvi tributum pro se, et Petro.

5 et 6. Lucae 5 et Joannis 21. Quibus locis explicantur duo miracula Christi, edita in Piscatione Petri.

7. Lucae 24. Quod Petrus primus fuit, cui Dominus pedes lavit.

Ex Actis Apostolorum8. Actorum 1. Ubi Petrus tamquam Paterfamilias col-

ligit in unum coetum discipulorum, et unum eligen- dum esse docet in locum Judae.

9. Actorum 2. Ubi post acceptum spiritum sanctum, Petrus omnium primus promulgavit Evangelium, et prima ilia concione tria millia hominum convertit.

10. Actorum 3. Ubi primum miraculum in testimonium fidei a Petro fit: "Aurum et argentum non est mihi,” etc. [In margin: extat Altare]

11. Actorum 5. Ubi Petrus tamquam summus, et divinus Judex agnovit, et damnavit hyprocrysim et fraudem Ananiae et Sapphirae. [In margin: extat Altare]

12. Actorum 10. Ubi Petrus omnium prim us incip it praedicare Gentilibus et soli ipsi visio ilia ostenta est. Et pulchre dicitur ei macta et manduca, ubi de vase illo velut linteo.

[f. 113v]13. Actorum 12. Ubi pro Petro in carcere constituto oratio

fiebat sine intermissione ab Ecclesia ad Deum pro eo.

Ex alijs Auctoribus14. Quod Christus suis manibus solum Petrum baptiza-

verit.15. Quod Petrus primum Heretiarcham Simonem Magum

primus detexit, ut patet Actorum 8, et postea damnavit, et plane extinxit. [In margin: extat Altare]

16. Quod sub finem vitae Petri, C hristus ipse Petro apparverit, et roganti: "Domine quo vadis?” respon- dere dignatus sit, "Venio Romam iterum crucifigi.”

P raeter d icta loca, vel d ictas praerogativas, quae probant primatum Sancti Petri, sunt alia argumenta ex quibus deduci possunt historiae Sancti Petri pro Pic- toribus.

3 0 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

Petri negatio.Petri lacrymae et poemtentia.Petri mors. [//; margin: adest Altare]Petri umbra sanabat aegrotos.

[f. 114]Argumenta

Pro Pictoribus, qui debent picturis exprimere S. Petri historias, super sex portis in sacrosancta eiusdem Apos­tolorum Principis Basilica constitutis.

Deducta ex Evangeliorum libris; ex Actibus Apostolo­rum et ex varijs auctoribus.

Omnia sunt ordinata ad probandum Primatum Sancti Petri a Christo Domino institutum.

Primum argum entum h abetu r ex loco E vangelij Matthaei cap. 16, ubi Apostolo Petro summa potestas Ecclesiastica promittebatur illis verbis: “Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Et tibi dabo claves Regni Caelorum: et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in caelis, et quodcumque solvens super terram erit solutum et in caelis.”

Hoc loco sub duabus metaphoris promissum fuit Petro totius Ecclesiae Principatus. Prior metaphora est lunda- menti, et aedificij. Posterior est clavium.

II Argumentum habetur Joannis cap. 21, ubi eadem ilia potestas, eidem Petro data fuit. Sunt autem haec verba: "Simon Joannis, diligis me plus his? Pasce oves m eas,” etc. His autem verbis dem onstratur primo soli Petro dictum esse "Pasce oves meas," deinde verbo illo "Pasce traditam esse summam Ecclesiasticam potes- tatem . Postremo illis verb is "oves meas" universam Christi Ecclesiam esse designatam.

III Argumentum deducitur ex singulanbus varijsque Praerogativis S. Petri, ad eiusdem Primatus confirma- tionem. Prima praerogativa est mutatio nominis; nam Joan. 1 ait Dominus Petro: “Tu es Simon filius Jonae. Tu vocaberis Cephas.” Ubi est duplex praerogativa, l a quod soli Petro ex omnibus Apostolis nomen mutaverit. Altera, quod tale nomen ei dederit, quod petram signifi- caret.

[L 114v] IV Argumentum et 2a Praerogativa ex modo, quo ab Evangelistis Apostoli numerantur. Semper enim primo loco ponitur Petrus. Matthaei 10, Marci 3, Lucae 6, Actorum 1.

V Argumentum et 3a Praerogativa habetur Matthaei 14, ubi solus Petrus una cum Domino ambulat super aquas. [In margin: extat Altare quod renovatur]

VI Argumentum et 4a Praerogativa est ilia peculiaris revelatio facta soli Petro, Matthaei 16. Insigne enim privi- legium est, quod Petrus primus omnium Apostolorum a Deo edoctus, cognovent summa mysteria nostrae fidei, distinctione videlicet Personarum in Deo, et Incarna- tionem, illis verb is: "Tu es C hristus Pilius Dei v iv i.”

Respondens autem Jesus, "Dixit ei. Beatus es Simon Bar Jona, quia caro et sanguis," etc.

VII Argumentum et 5a Praerogativa est Matthaei 16, ubi dicitur: "Et Portae inleri, non praevalebunt adversus earn.” Quo verbo <non> solum promittitur perpetua sta- bilitas Ecclesiae umversae, sed etiam petrae, supra quam lundatur Ecclesia.

VIII Argumentum et 6a Praerogativa est Matthaei 17, ubi Dominus iubet solvi tributum, pro se, et Petro. "Da, inquit, illis pro me, et te.” Ubi Petrus prae omnibus alijs fuit praelatus.

VI111 Argumentum et 7a Praerogativa sumitur ex cap. V Lucae et Joannis 21, in quibus locis explicantur duo miracula Christi, edita in piscatione Petri; quorum pri­mum designat Ecclesiam militantem; secundum Eccle­siam triumphantem.

X Argumentum et 8a Praerogativa est Lucae 22, ubi Dominus a it: "Simon ecce Satanas expetiv it vos, ut cribraret, sicut triticum. Ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficeret fides tua. Et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos.” Quibus verbis clarissime Dominus ostendit Petrum fore Principem et caput fratrum suorum.

[f. 115] XI Argumentum et IX Praerogativa est quod Christus resurgens primum omnium ex Apostolis Petro se videndum praebuerit, colligitur ex illis verbis Lucae 24: "surrexit Dominus vere, et apparuit Simoni.”

XII Argum entum et X P raerogativa quod Petrus prim us fuit, cui Dominus pedes lav it, ut exponit S. Augustinus, in cap. 3 Joannis.

XIII Argumentum et XI Praerogativa Joannis 21, ubi Petro soli mortem Christus praedixit, et mortem crucis. "Cum senueris, inquit Dominus, extendes manus tuas, et alius cinget te, et ducet, quo tu non vis.” Hoc autem dixit (addit Evangelista) significans, qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum.

Deinde ibidem subiungit Dominus, loquens ad Petrum: "Sequere me.” Cum enim Dominus oves Petro commendas- set, et mortis genus praedixisset, quasi concludens omnia uno verbo ait: "Sequere me," id est, esto id, quod fui, et vivens et monens, age pastorem ammarum dum vivis, et postea per crucis mortem transite hoc mundo ad Patrem.

Praerogativae S. Petri ex Actis Apostolorum et Epistola ad Galatas

XIV Argumentum et praerogativa 1 Actorum 1, ubi Petrus tanquam Paterfamilias colligit in unum coetum discipulorum, et unum eligendum esse docet in locum Judae.

XV Argumentum et praerogativa 2 Actorum 2, ubi post acceptum Spiritum Sanctum, Petrus omnium primus promulgavit Evangelium, et prima ilia concione tria millia hominum convertit.

XVI Argumentum et praerogativa 3 Actorum 3, ubi

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X § § 3 0 7

primum m iraculum in testimonium fidei a Petro fit: “Aurum [I. 115v] et argentum non est mihi. Quod autem habeo, hoc tibi do.” [In m argin: Adest altare]

XVII Argumentum, Praerogativa 4 Actorum 5, ubi Petrus tanquam summus et divinus Judex , agnovit, et damnavit hypocrysim et fraudem Ananiae et Sapphirae. [In margin: Adest altare]

XVIII Argumentum, Praerogativa 5 Actorum 9, ubi sic legimus: “Factum est,” cum Petrus transiret per omnes etc., sicut Dux in exercitu, mquit Chiysostomas.

XIX Argumentum, Praerogativa 6 Actorum X, ubi Petrus omnium primus incipit praedicare Gentilibus, sicut ipse omnium primus praedicaverat Judaeis, et soli ipsi visio ilia ostenta est, qua monebatur tempus esse praedicandi G entilibus, ubi etiam pulchre d ic itu r ei: Macta et manduca, nam capitis est manducare etc.

XX Argumentum, Praerogativa 7 Actorum 12, ubi pro Petro in carcere constituto oratio fiebat sine intermissione ab Ecclesia ad Deum pro eo, unde etiam insigni miraculo liberatus est.

XXI Argumentum, Praerogativa 8 Actorum 15, ubi Petrus in Concilio primus loquitur, et sententiam eius Jacobus, omnesque alij sequuntur.

XXII Argumentum, Praerogativa 9 est ad Galatas 1, ubi Paulus dicit: “Post annos tres ascendi Hierosolymam videre Petrum etc.,” tamquam se maiorem, inquit oecu- menius.

[f. 116] Praerogativae ex alijs AuctoribusXXIII Argumentum, Praerogativa l a, quod Christus

suis manibus Petrum baptizaverit.XXIV Argum entum , P raero gativ a 2, quod solus

Petrus a Christo Episcopus ordinatus luerit.XXV Argumentum, Praerogativa 3, quod Petrus pri­

mum Heretiarcham Simonem videlicet Magum primus detexit, ut patet Actorum 8, et postea dam navit, et plane extinxit, ut scribunt scriptores. [In m argin : Adest altare]

XXVI Argumentum, Praerogativa 4, quod Romae potissimum Petrus sedem suam divino iussu collocaverit. Signum enim apertum Principatus Petri esse videtur.

XXVII Argumentum, Praerogativa 5, quod sub finem vitae Petri, Christus ipse Petro apparuerit, et roganti: “Domine quo vad is?” respondere dignatus sit: “Venio Romam iterum crucifigi."

Ex his praerogativis, non ignoro nonnullas esse, quae vix aut nullo modo, pictura exprimi possmt. Planes etiam superesse ad praesentem necessitatem non me latet. Sed, quae supersunt, possent pingi in aediculis. Aediculas vocat Vitruvij Commentator, quas nos vulgari vocabulo, nicchias vocamus.

[f. 119v] Per g l’altari in S. Pietro sopra le porte

N O . 1 8

Date: Februaiy 28, 1628Source: AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1—no. 216, biuta 3Comment: Unpublished

[I. 95] Molt’Hlustre Signore et Padrone Osservandissimo II Signore Cardinale Padrone mi ha commandato lacci

intendere a Vostra S ignoria come il Signore Marcello Sachetti questa mattina nell’uscire di Concistoro, gli ha detto esser mente di Nostro Signore che Pietro Cortonese oltre il quadro che deve lare in Santo Pietro, depinghi anco uno di quei sopraporti, et che pero Vostra Signoria vadi lento ad impegnarsi con altri, cosi anco, quando gli tornera quomodo il Signore Cardinale dessidera dirgli due parole. Io poi incontro volentieri queste occasioni per riccordare a Vostra Signoria la mia devota osservanza, et le faccio riverenza. Di casa li 28 febraio 1628 etc.

Di Vostra Signoria Illustnssima Obligatissimo Servitore

Giacinto Massas [?]

[f. 96v] Al Molt’Illustre Signore et Padrone mio Osser­vandissimo il Signore Carlo Ghetti Economo della R. Fabrica di Santo Pietro

N O . 19

Date: c. August, 1628Source: AFSP, Piano 1—serie 1—no. 216, biuta 3 Comment: Unpublished

[f. 97] Signor Ghetti mio.Nostro Signore ricordi a cotesti Illustrissimi Signori miei

Padroni la Navicella, et desidera in ogni maniera che in questi tempi si metta in securo per la conservatione di essa.

Del S. Pietro daHTllustrissimo Signor Cardinal Lante intenderanno il pensiero di Sua Santita, quale potranno esam inarlo et stim andolo bono, p ig liar intorno a cio quella risolutione che le Signorie loro Illustrissime stimer- anno bene, et questo e quanto devo significarle.

C irca quello che spetta al sopra porta pretesto da Flaminio Alegretti [air], Sua Santita si rimette alia Congre- gatione et cosi il Signor Cardinal Barberino, il quale ricorda che si procuri che siano boni quelli, a quali si danno simili quadri; non esclude pero questo, perche non lo conosce. II Cavalier Giuseppino puo dame pieno ragguaglio, se cotesti Signori Illustrissimi havessero difficulta per il detto Ale- grini, et con grazia a V. S. bacio le mani. Di casa etc.

Al suo servizio,Angelo Giorij

[On reverse: Al Signor Carlo Ghetti]

3 0 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

N O . 2 0

Date: Between Ju ly 22, 1626 and September 17, 1628 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55 Comment: Unpublished

ff. 132] Infrascripta sunt Altaria consecratain Basilica S. Petri

A ltare maius SS . Apostolorum fuit consecratum a Fel[icis] Rec[ordationis] Clemente Papa 8 anno 1594, in quo non fuerunt reconditae aliae reliquiae ob reverentiam Corporum eorundem Apostolorum etc.

Altare subterraneum subtus praedictum, antiquitus consecratum in cuius medio adest sigillum ferrea crate munitum, cum reliquijs etc.

A ltare S . G regorij N az ian zen i, iu ssu S [a n c ta e ] Memforiae] Gregorij Papae XI11 ab Illustrissimo Cardi­nale Ju lio Antonio Sanctorio consecratum fuit Anno Domini 1580, 3 idus Junij, in quo praeter Corpus ipsius S. Gregorij reconditae fuere infrascriptae Reliquiae, viz. [. . .]

Altare S. Joannis Chrysostomi, iussu Sanctissimi ac Beatissimi Patris Domini Nostri Urbani Papae VIII con­secratum fuit ab Illustrissimo et Reverendissimo Domino Scipione Cardinale Burgbesio die 22 Ju lij 1626, in quo praeter Corpus eiusdem Sancti infrascriptae Reliquiae reconditae sunt, viz. [. . .]

[f. 132v] Infrascripta sunt Altaria non consecratasubtus adsunt infrascripta SS. Corpora etc.

A ltare S. Gregorij Papae Primi, privilegiatum pro defunctis, in eo adest Corpus eiusdem.

Altare S. Leonis Papae IX, in quo est Icona Resurec- tioms Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, adest Corpus eiusdem.

Altare SS. Simonis et Judae, ubi erat Chorus tempo- raneus, adsunt Corpora eorundem sanctorum Apostolo­rum.

Altare S. Bonifacij Papae 4', prope supradictum adest Corpus eiusdem.

Altare Beatae Virginis M ariae ad Columnam, adsunt Corpora SS. Leonum Primi, 2', 31, 41.

Altare S. Petronillae, adest Corpus eiusdem.A ltare SS . Processi et M artin ian i, adsunt Corpora

eorundem, est privilegiatum pro Defunctis.Supradicta SS. Corpora translata fuerunt e veteri in

novam Basilicam et recondita in supradictis A ltaribus [ . . . ]

[f. 133] Altaria non consecrata,in quibus non adsunt Corpora Sanctorum

Altare Crucifixionis S. Petri Altare Lapsus Simonis Magi Altare Quando S. Petrus erexit Claudum Altare Quando S. Petrus suscitavit Tabitam.

Altare ubi adest antiqu[u]s Crucifixus olim existens in Altare S. Petronillae.

Altare Naviculae.Altare S. Erasmi Altare S. Annae Altare S. Basilij Altare S. HieronymiAltare SS. Petri et Andreae, quando ad pedes Sancti

[praedicti] corruit Zaffirra.

N O . 21

Date: September 12—17, 1628 Source: BAV, ACSP, H55 Comment: Unpublished

[f. 93] SS. Reliquia apposita sub altaribus BasilicaeIn nomine Domini Amen. Pr[aes]enti publico Instru-

mento, cunctis ubique pateat evidenter, et sit notum, quod Anno a Nativitate eiusdem millesimo sexcentesimo vigesim o octavo Pontificatus V in Christo Patris, et Domini N ostri Domini U rbani D ivina P rovidentia Papae Octavi die 12 Septembris, coram Reverendi in Christo Patribus et Domini Domini M ario Bovio, et Dominico Cicchino Sacrosanctae Vaticanae Basilicae Principis Apostolorum de Urbe Canonicis, Maioribus Sacristis, fuerunt extractae Reliquiae adnotatae in sin­gulis infrascrip tis A ltaribus ex quadam Theca nucea inaurata, asservata in Armario SS. Reliquiarum eiusdem Basilicae, in qua est Inscriptio viz. In hac Theca conditae sunt R eliqu iae Sanctorum , quorum nomina singulis Involveris notantur etc. In eorundem Altarium sigillis collocandae, quae de mandato Sanctissimi Domini Nos­tri consecranda erunt Dominica proxima futura XIV post Penth. 17 supradicti mensis. Quae quidem Altaria consecranda, et Reliquiarum nomina sunt infrascripta, videlicet:

A ltare S. G regorij M agn i Papae Prim i, cu i non fuerunt assignatae Reliquiae, quia sub eo reconditum iam fuerat Corpus eiusdem sub die 8 Januarij 1606, seu etc., prout patet publico Instrumento rogat, per Reverendum Dominum Jacobum Grimaldum in eius Instrumentorum Libro, [I. 93v] asservato in Archivo p[raedic]tae Basili­cae fol. 40 et 41, ad quod etc.

A ltare, in quo est H istoria Ananiae et Zaffirae, ut habetur in Actis Apostolorum Cap. V, cui fuerunt assig­natae viz. Reliquiae S. Sebastiani M artyris, S. Severi Archiepiscopi Ravennae Confessoris, Reliquiae mar- tyrum, cum schedula memoriae Consecrationis Altaris S. M arci Evangelistae Anno 1576, 13 Decembris, a Rev- erendo Domino Thoma Goldovello Episcopo Asaphen., quod Altare fuit disecratum Anno Domini 1606, prout ex

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X 3 0 9

Instrum ento su p rad ic ti R everen d i Dom ini J a c o b i Grimaldi in dicto libro, fol. 85, ad quod etc.

Altare Crucifixionis S. Petri, cui fuerunt assignatae viz. Reliquiae S. Innocentij, S. Mauritij et sociorum mar- tyrum, M/Xl Virginum, cum hac adnotatione in perga- meno viz. A ltare Privilegiatum pro mortuis in Veteri Basilica, amotum sub Paulo V Pont. Max. Reliquiae S. Innocentij, SS. M auritij et Sociorum M artyrum, M/11 Virginum, ob memoriam Altaris Sanctae Mariae in Turri unde istae Reliquiae fuerunt primo receptae, et postea in Altare mortuorum collocatae, rogantur maiores sacristae ut perpetuo serventur de dicta Altaris (detto delli morti) dissecratione extat rog[atu]s dictus Jacobus Grimaldus in dicto eius Libro, fol. 11, ad etc.

Altare SS. Apostolorum Simonis et Jud ae , cui (etsi eorum Corpora sub eo fuerint iam recondita sub Anno Domini 1605, 27 Decembris, prout de dictae reconditio- nis Instrumento fuit rogatus dictus Jacobus Grimaldus in dicto Libro, fol. 27) fuerunt nih il[om inu]s assignatae Reliquiae S. Leonis IX Papae et Confessoris, etc.

[f. 94] Altare, ubi est pictus Lapsus Simonis Magi, cui fuerunt assignatae Reliquiae receptae ex sigillo Altaris D. Guillermi de Perrerijs Rotae Auditoris etc. De dicta dis­secratione est rogatus supradictus Jacobus Grimaldus in iamd. Libro, fol. 86, ad quod etc.

Altare, ubi est pictus SS. Joannes, et Petrus, qui sanat Claudum ad Portam speciosam, cui fuerunt assignatae viz. Reliquiae SS. Cyri et Johannis, S. Nicolai Episcopi et Confessoris, S. Blasij M artyris, cum hac schedula in pergameno, Anno 1606, die 25 Januarij fuit dissecratum Altare Sanctissim i Vultus Sancti, et in fronte mensae superioris erat sigillum ferro munitum, in quo erant inclusae supradictae Reliquiae prout latius in Libro dicto- rum Instrumentorum Jacobi Grimaldi, fol. 86, etc.

Altare S. Petronillae, sub quo Anno 1606, 15 Januarij, eius Corpus fuit collocatum, prout in Instrumento per supradictum Jacobum G rim aldum ro gatu r in dicto Libro, fol. 49, non fuerunt ei assignatae Reliquiae.

A ltare consecrandum in honorem S. M ich ae lis Archangeli, in quo ad praesens est Imago Sanctissim i Crucifixi, cui fuerunt assignatae Reliquiae receptae ex sig­illo Altaris S. Mariae de Febribus in aedicula veteris sec- retarij in eius demolitione Anno Domini 1604, 7 Augusti. De dictae dissecrationis Instrumento est rogatus supradic­tus Jacobus Grimaldus in dicto Libro, fol. 12 etc.

Altare S. Erasmi Episcopi et M artyris, cui fuerunt assignatae Reliquiae Altaris eiusdem Sancti in veteri iam demolita Basilica, sub Paulo V amoti Reliquiae S. Valentini Martyris, S. Alexij Confessoris, S. Catharinae Virginis et Martyris. De dissecratione dicti Altaris est rogatus dictus Jacobus Grimaldus in dicto Libro, fol. 10, ad quod etc.

[f. 94v] Altare SS. Processi et Martiniani Martyrum, in quo eorundem C orpora fuerunt recond ita Anno Domini 1605, 28 Decembris, non fuerunt ei assignatae

Reliquiae. De repositione eorundem Corporum in dicto A ltare est rogatus supradictus Jacobus Grimaldus in dicto Libro, fol. 30 etc.

Altare S. Annae consecrandum in honorem S. Winces- lai M artyris fuerunt ei assignatae Reliquiae receptae prima die Octobris, 1615 [air], ex mensa lapidea Altaris SS. Apostolorum Simonis et Jud ae prout de dicta Altaris dissecratione est rogatus dictus Jacobus Grimaldus in eius Libro fol. De Reliquiis S. Mariae Aegyptiacae Virgi­nis, SS. 40 Martyrum, S. Alexij Confessoris etc.

Altare S. Basilij Confessoris, cui fuerunt assignatae Reliquiae ex Altari SS. Processi et Martiniani Martyrum Anno Domini 1605, Pauli V Pont. Max. i u s s u , ut novum Templum perficeret amotum fuit supradictum Altare, in medio mensae superioris extabat sigillum, in quo reper- tum fuit Vasculum stamneum rotundum parvum his stemmatibus signatum [coat o f arnu<\ ab una parte erant litterae JE REM IA S, ab alia parte signi litterae defuerant intus aderant nomina Rehquiarum in membranis, quas corrosit humiditas etc.

A ltare S. H ieronym i etc. cu i fuerun t ass ign a tae Reliquiae cum hac Inscriptione viz. Ista ossium SS. frus- tra fuerunt hie posita per Illustres et Reverendos Domi­nos Germanicum Fidelem , Antonium M ariam Aldo- brandinum, et Ugonem Ubaldinum, Canonicos dictae Basilicae ex aeneo Tabernaculo inaurato, facto ad instar sepu lchri, in quo haec era t Inscriptio : R eliqu iae S. Stephani protomartyris, et plurimorum Sanctorum M ar­tyrum, etc.

[f. 95] Quae Reliquiae omnes sic in supradictis Cap- sulis stamneis, et plumbeis ac involveris in supradicta Theca repertae, fuerunt relictae in Archivo dictae Basili­cae, et ipsa Theca clusa, et in dicto Armario Reliquiarum recondita etc., super quibus etc. Actum Romae in memo- rato Archivo praesentibus ibidem Reverendis Dominis Carolo Antonio Vaccaio uno ex Magistris Ceremoniarum Sanctissimi, Andrea Amico et Gaspare Altadiana M ag­istris Ceremoniarum dictae Basilicae, omnibus Clericis Beneficiatis eiusdem testibus etc., rogatis etc.

Ego Joannes Baptista Nardonus Pbr. Romanus publi- cus Dei gratia apostolica auctoritate notarius de praemis- sis rogatus in fidem etc., scripsi, subscripsi, et publicavi requisitus etc.

Die 15 Septembris 1628Coram per Illustri et Reverendissimo Domino Ugone

U baldino B asilicae P rincip is Apostolorum de Urbe Canonico etc., fuerunt recognitae Reliquiae supradictae, ex trac tae su p rad ic ta die 12 eiusdem mensis etc., et omnes repertae fuerunt, iuxta formam adnotationum, et Instrumentorum supra assignatorum, excepta ReliquiaS. Severi assignata Altari Historiae Ananiae et Zaffyrae, quae non fuit reperta in suo Involvero. In Involvero vero Reliquiarum assignatarum Altari S. Vinceslai, fuerunt

310 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

inventa haec nomina Reliquiarum in schedula intus dic­tum Involverum etc. v id e lice t R e liq u iae S . M ariae Aegyptiacae Virginis, SS. 40 Martyrum, S. Alexij Con- fessons, Reliquia Involvera cum suis schedulis concor- dare reperta sunt, quae Reliquiae [f. 95v] in Involveris ex serico ormesino rubei coloris positae, et ligulis sericeis rubeis ligatae in Capsellis novis plumbeis cum tribus gra- nis Incensi a sopradicto Reverendissimo Domino recon- ditae fuerunt. Deinde idem Reverendus Dominus eas- dem reverenter desumpta detulit ex p[raedic]to Archivio in Armarium, ubi asservatur Cathedra lignea S. Petri existens prope Altare Reliquiarum etc. et clavem secum detulit etc. super quibus etc. Actum Romae In Archivo, et prope Altare supra memoratis praesentibus ibidem Reverendis Dominis Andrea Amico Clerico Beneficiato et Magistro Caeremoniarum eiusdem Basilicae, Cornelio Franciscuccio S. T. Doctore et ad Curam Animarum C urato , ac A urelio Z ainello fam ilari eiusdem Rev- erend issim i Domini U gonis U bald in i testib us etc., rogatis etc.

Ego Joannes Baptista Nardonus Pbr. Romanus publi- cus Dei gratia apostolica auctoritate Notarius de praemis- sis rogatus in fidem scripsi, subscripsi, et publicavi reqisi- tus etc.

[f. 97] Die vero 17 mensis Septembris [1628]

[f. 98] lllustris admodum, ac Reverendissimus Dominus F ab ritiu s A ntinova A rch iep iscopus M ateran u s , et A cherontinus, consecravit A ltare S. Gregorij Papae Primi Confessoris, cuius Corpus sub eo requiescit in honorem Dei et eiusdem S. Gregorij etc. Altare histo- riae Ananiae et Zaffirae in honorem Dei, et B. Petri Apostoli, et Capsulam plumbeam cum Reliquijs etc. in eo inclusit. Altare Crucifixionis S. Petri in honorem Dei, et eiusdem Apostolorum Principis, et Reliquias in eo inclusit etc. [. . .]

Admodum lllu s tr is et R everend issim us Dominus Alexander de Sangrio Patriarcha Alexandrinus consecravit Altare SS. Simonis et Judae in honorem Dei, et eorundem Apostolorum Simonis et Judae, quorum Corpora sub eo sunt recondita, et Reliquias ei assignatas inclusit. [. . .]

[f. 98v] lllustris admodum ac Reverendissimus Domi­nus Joannes Baptista Alterius Episcopus Camerini, con­secravit A ltare ubi est pictus Lapsus Simonis M agi in honorem S. Petri Apostoli et Reliquias inclusit, et Altare SS. Joann is et Petri, qui ad Portam speciosam erigit claudum in honorem eiusdem Apostolorum Principis, et Reliquias in eo similiter inclusit. [. . .]

l llu s tr is admodum ac R everend issim us Dominus Joannes Thomas Mallonus Episcopus Sibinicensis [? ] consecravit Altare S. Petronillae, cuius Corpus sub eo requiescit in honorem Dei, et S. Petronillae Virginis, et

Altare S. M ichaelis Archangeli in honorem eiusdem S. Michaelis, et reliquias [f. 99] in eo inclusit. [. . .]

Admodum lllu s tr is et Reverendissim us Dominus Antonius Ricciullus Episcopus Bellicastrensis, et [Urbis] Vicesgerens consecravit Altare SS. Processi et Martiniani martyrum, quorum Corpora sub eo sunt recondita, in honorem Dei, et eorundem sanctorum etc. A ltare S. Erasmi Episcopi et martyris in honorem eiusdem sancti et reliquias in eo inclusit. Altare S. Wencesclai martyris in honorem eiusdem, et reliquias similiter inclusit. [. . . ]

Admodum lllu s tr is et R everendissim us Dominus Andrea Caracciolus Archiepiscopus Sipontinus conse­cravit Altare S. Basilij Confessoris in honorem Dei, et eiusdem Sancti, et Altare S. Hieronymi in honorem Dei, et S. Hieronymi, et Reliquias in singulis inclusit. [. . .]

N O . 2 2

Date: c. 1628Source: AFSP, Piano 1-serie 3-no. 171Comment: Unpublished. Docs. 9 and 22 are written on

consecutive pages and in the same hand. The former isdated November 4, 1626; the latter is undated but onthe basis of its content is certainly later.

[f. 173] Nota delle Cappelle et sopraporti in S. Pietroet dei Pittori che le Pingeranno

Crucifisso di Metallo Cavalier BerninoS. Sebastiano DomenichinoTrinita Pietro CortoneseS. Vi[n]cislao Angelo CaroselliSanti Processso et Martiniano __ Albano Bolognese

Monsu ValentinoBolognia \iukkc)\

S. Erasmo Monsu PussinoS. Michel Arcangelo di M usaico__ Giovanni Battista

CalandraS. Leone Magno Cavalier GioseppeSanti Simone et Giuda Agostino CiampelliSanti Martiale et Carlo SpadarinoCappella del Choro / Monsu VouetPresentatione al Tempio j Cavalier PassignanoCappella del Battismo Cavalier CelioCappella di S. Gregorio / Andrea SacchiCappella del Castello Modice f id e i_ _ Giovanni Lanfranco15

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X g g 3 1 1

Sopraporti1 Quando Pietro piange il suo

peccato __________________ Cavalier Guidotti2 Paoce ooeo meao _____________ Andrea Sacchi3 Tibi babo claveo ______________Antonio Pomaranci4 Pietro chiamato all’Apostolato_Pietro Cortonese5 Quand’e carcerato in Roma,

et battezza________________ Agostino Ciampelli6 Quando Cristo gli lava li p iedi_Cavalier Baglione

21

Concetti per sopraporti quando il Signor gli lava li piedi quando li apparisce dopo la Resurretione quando e liberato di carcere quando li e mostrato il linteoquando li apparisce Cristo a Roma, et li dice Domine

quo oadio quando stava predicando

N O . 2 3

Date: 1628Source: BAV, Barb. Lat. 2969Comment: Published in Herklotz, 1996, pp. 421—25. An

earlier draft of the letter, with slight textual differences, can be found in Barb. Lat. 2984 (unpaginated).

[f. 22v] Alla Santita di Nostro Signore Papa Urbano VIII*

Si notano alcuni errori di momento fatti da Pittori in due Altari della Basilica Vaticana

*

Beatissimo Padre Havendo la San tita Vostra con la gloriosa, e sempre memorabil consecratione della Basilica Vaticana con- giunta felicemente quella bella sposa a Christo suo sposo, e conseguito alia sola quel fine, al quale in tant anni, con tante spese e fatiche tan ti Pontifici non han potuto arrivare; deve da qui innanzi [f. 23] con ogm spirito procurare di conservarla sempre pura, schietta, e libera d ’ogni macchia a gl'occhi del sposo suo, e far in modo, che i marmi, i bronzi, le gioie, e i colori, e tutti g l ’altri ornam enti, che di g io rn ’in giorno per m aggiorm ente abbellirla se l ’andarano aggiugnendo, non la sconcino o guastino in conto alcuno, ma anzi sempre piu vaga la rendino, e a mille doppie g l’arrivino la bellezza, accio il suo sposo, il quale continuamente con occhi amorosissimi la rim ira, vedendola tu tta bella, qui ancora d ir possi

quelle parole, che d un altra sua sposa favoritissima dir soleva, Tota pulcbra eot, e t macula non eot in te; e lodar possi in s iem ’insiem e la B eatitud in e vostra , che con cura esquisitissima n’havra havuta, l ’habbi ridotta a termine tale, che non si ritrovi in quella cosa dentro ne fuori, la quale da chi si vogli si possi riprender o emendare.

E perche le pitture annoverar si sogliono fra i piu belli ornamenti, che a giorm nostri si facino nelle chiese; e diceS. Gregorio che le pitture sono i libri degl’ignoranti; [in margin: Nel. Reg.o lib. 9.o epistola 9.a] perche quod legen- tibiu ocriptura, hoc ibiotio cernentibuo preotat pictura; quia in ip.ia ignaranteo t’ibent quid oequi be bean t, in ipoa legun t qui litterao neociunt; sendo noi sicurissimi, che Christo Signor nostro ama per molti rispetti, che con queste sorti di ornamenti si abbellischi la sposa sua, e che la sposa medesima non li sprezza, quando pero sono tali, che oimplicium corba excitant ab p ieta tem ; deve premer principalmente la Beatitudine Vostra, accio le pitture le quali di tempo in tempo in quella Santa Basilica si faranno, sijno irreprensibili, sijno tali che edifichino i semphci, e non scandahzino i litterati, in somma, che non habbino in se cosa minima d ’inhonesto, d'impudico, o profano, non mostrino scoperte quelle parti del corpo, che per vergogna [f. 23v] la natura ha procu- rato occultare; ne quelle, che corronpon la mente, affasci- nano g l’occhi, et infiammano la libidine (perche queste sorti di pitture il sposo in estremo l ’odia, e la sposa sua castissima l ’aborrisce), ma sijno tali, che le faccie, le mem­bra, i corpi, g l ’ornamenti, e le vesti spirino devotione, invitino a riverenza, e cosi giuditiosamente in tutte le sue parti guidate sijno, che non si ritrovi in esse cosa muna contraria alle scritture, alle traditioni, a ll’istorie, alle buone cerim om e, a r it i sac ri; perche le p ittu re che senza quest osservanze nelle chiese si fanno, tirando a se g l’occhi di chi curiosamente le mira, provocano il riso, causan dis- prezzo, scemano la devotione, e partoriscono altri effetti totalm ente contrarij a quel fine, per il quale espor si sogliono nelle chiese.

Questo dico 10 con l’humilta mia solita alia Beatitudine Vostra perche havendo i mesi adietro veduti e ben con- siderati i due A ltari, de lla Presentatione della Beata Vergine, e di S. Gregorio fatti ultimamente nella Basilica sopradetta, mi par che da pittorij sij stata usata li poca accuratezza, che non si sijno nel farli osservate le buone regole, che in questi propositi ci vengono prescritte da Santi Padri; che si sijno i Pittori alluntanati troppo licen- tiosamente dalla verita dell’istoria; che habbin mostrato di haver poca cognitione de’ riti antichi, e di haver lavorato piu tosto a capriccio, che sopra il sodo delle scritture.

Perche per incominciar da.ll'Altare della presentatione, l ’imagine di Nostra Signora li dipinta mostra piu anni assai, che non haveva ella veramente quando al tempio fu presentata: g l ’istorici ecclesiastici affermano, che non eccedesse ella a ll’hora d ’eta di tre anni; [in margin: Nicef.

3 1 2 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

Hist, libro 2 capitolo 3 - Baronio nell’appar. a g l’Annali] Usavano g l’Ebrei di offerir al tempio i figliuoli suoi di quell eta: Samuele [f. 24] picciolissimo slatato subito fu dal Padre e dalla madre offerto al tempio a servir a Dio.

Le vesti poi della Beata Vergine quel Pallio e quella Tonaca non mi piaciono; perche se ben puo esser vero, cbe per quei tempi le femine d eg l’Ebrei usassero la Tonaca, e il Pallio, tuttavia non par verissimile, che por- tassero le donne grandi e picciole queste vesti. Mentre Samuel fu fanciullo, non porto egli il Pallio mai, [in m ar­gin: Lib. p.o dei Re cap. 2.o] ma solamente quella picciola Tonacuccia, che le havea fatta la madre sua; Gioseppe [in margin: Genesi cap. 37] sendo picciolo non portava Pallio, ma sola quella Tonaca Polimita, cioe di seta di varij colori, che fatta g l’haveva Giacob suo padre, quella cbe g l’in- vidiosi fratelli tinsero poi nel sangue di quel capretto, per far creder al Padre, che una fiera lo havesse mangiato, ma fatto poi grande in Egitto, e cosa chiara che alia tonaca aggiunse il Pallio, quello che il casto e pudico giovine volontariamente lascio fuggendo dalle mani della sua lib id inosa padrona. Sarebbe stato meglio certo, che havesse il Pittore li vestita quella picciola Verginella con una bianca Tonaca cinta al petto; perche cosi quella forma di veste havrebbe mirabilmente detto a g l’anni, et il color bianco alia Virginita.

Al Sacerdote nel A ltar medesimo dipinto, si posson fare molte oppositioni, delle quali sara questa la princi­pale: che il sacerdote della legge antica portava in testa per ornamento la Cidari, che era un cappello di bianco lino, fatto come una mezza sfera, sopra il quale ve n’era un a ltro di color celeste de lla grandezza m edesima, haveva questo tre corone d ’oro dalla parte di dietro, che da un orecchio a ll’altra lo cingevano; dalla parte dinanzi haveva una lama d ’oro legata [f. 24v] alia Cidari sopra la fronte del sacerdote, nella quale era scritto o intagliato il Sanctum Domini, cioe l ’ammirabil nome di Dio, ornamento il piu venerabile, che portasse quel Sacerdote: Nell’anti- chita d ’Giudei descrive Gioseffo la C idari con queste parole precise: Porro Pileo utebantur, quali caeteri Sacerboteo (era questo il cappello di bianco lino del quale dicessimo poco fa) ouper quern extabat alum oimilut ex hyacinto variatim, hunc aurea corona trip lici orbine circunbabat, in qua epee! a ban- tu r ca licu li aurei, qualee cibemue in herba, qiuie apub ruu bicitur Daccharim, apub Graecoo herbaria,’ Hyoocyamuo: Raccontando poi come stasse e che effetto facesse nella C idari la corona, dice, euutmobi corona ab occipicio circa tempora utraque procebebat, nam fron tem uiti ca licu li non ambiebant, eeb lorum quobbam latum aureum, quob ea crie characleribue Dei nomen ind ium babebat. Tale dunque era la Cidari, cosi descritta da chi forse l ’havea veduta: Hor facci veder la Santita Vostra l'omamento, la bella Cidari, che in quel Altare ha posta in testa a quel suo sacerdote il Pittore, e trovara che non e cidari, ne in conto alcuna se le assimiglia, ma e un vero e real Turbante all’usanza Turchesca, che fa stomaco

a chi lo vede, che habbi qualche poca cognitione di simil cose.

Quanto poi alle vesti del Sacerdote, si e li ancora il Pit­tore ingannato assai, le ha poste in dosso l ’una sopra l ’al- tra tre vesti, tutto che il sacerdote dell’antica legge real- mente non ne havesse altre che due, una di bianco lino longa fino a piedi con le maniche, ben assetata alia vita, e stretta assai, l ’altra di color celeste, che si diceva per tal rispetto la G iacin tina senza m aniche, ma haveva da fianchi certe aperture, per le quali il sacerdote metteva fuori le braccia, andava questa [f. 25] ancora fino a terra: Haveva nella parte inferiore attorn attorno sospese cam- panelle d ’oro, e mela granate, e si cingeva con una cinta di color bianco, rosso, e celeste, tessuta in modo che pareva una spoglia di serpe: Portava poi sopra queste il superum erale, che chiamavano i Giudei l ’Effod, fatto d un miscuglio d ’diversi colori, che le copriva le spalle et il petto, ma non le braccia; descendeva questo fino al cin- golo solamente, era aperto circa un palmo nel petto, et in quell’apertura vi si ponea il rationale, che era una lama d ’oro con dodeci gioie dentro, nelle quali erano intagliati i nomi delli dodeci Patriarchi: e finalmente nelle punte delle spali haveva due gioie grandi, nelle quali similmente intagliati erano i nomi delli detti dodeci Patriarchi: si vedi diligentemente e per minuto, se nel vestir quel suo Sacer­dote ha osservato il Pittore le regole sopradette e quando non, se le ordini vivamente, che affatto lo spogli, e lo rivesti di nuovo tutto da capo a piedi; perche certo e ver- gogna, che nella Basilica Vaticana, che e una delle prime del mondo, a giomi nostri si vedino maschere cosi fatte.

Ha fatto ancora nel Altare medesimo due sacerdoti del ordine inferiore vestiti di bianco ma con la testa scoperta, il che e notabil errore; perche i sacerdoti di quella sorte mai stavan scoperti, [in m argin : Gioseffo al luogo pre- detto] ne anco quando sacrificavano, ma tenivano in testa sempre cappelli di bianco lino fatti come una mezza sfera con certi veli intrecciati attorno, e se li legavano in testa accio sacrificando non li cadessero: si facci dir al Pittore, che metti in testa a questi i cappelli suoi soliti; perche sendo l ’inverno quella chiesa fredissima quei poverelli corrono rischio d ’incatararsi. E questi sono l piu gravi errori, che si notino nel predetto Altare della Presenta- tione di M aria Vergine Nostra Signora.

[f. 25v] M a nel Altare di S. Gregorio molte piu imper- fettioni si vedono, o piu importanti, non si e quasi cosa la dentro, che sij ben fatta. Primieramente l ’imagine di quel Santo non e naturale, ne in cosa alcuna se li assimiglia: il Card. Baronio ne suoi Annali porta un ritratto naturalis- simo di quel Santo Pontefice, doveva di la il Pittore cavarne una copia, e non lavorare a capriccio, dipingendo con faccia grinza, bocca torta, e sdentato un Pontefice, che per cosa certa sapiamo esser stato huomo bellissimo: Giovanni Diacono [in m argin : Nella Vita di S. Gregorio lib. 4 cap. 84] descrivendo la persona e le fattezze di S.

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X 3 1 3

Gregorio, dice ch'egli era: otatura uu ta et bene form ata , fa c ie de fa c ie i paternae longitudine, et /naternae rotunditate, ita medie temperata, u t cum rotunditate quadam decentiuiime cideretur ew e deducta. Barba paterno more oubfulva, e t modica, ita calvavter, ut in medio fron te geme/b’v cincinoo raruoculov babe a t et dextror.mm reflexov [. . . ] etc. Tale era dunque S. Gregorio mentre vivea: si metti questo ritrato Hora appresso quello, che li ha fatto il Pittore, e si vedran subito le differenze grandi, che in tutte le parti sono tra questo e quello.

[f. 26] Nel vestir poi quel Pontefice si e ingannato il Pittore assai. Primieramente ad un Pontefice, che visse mille e piu anni sono, ha posta in dosso una Pianeta, non di quelle si usavano a tempi ch ’egli vivea, ma una di quelle si usano a tempi nostri, differentissima da quelle, che si usavano anticamente, il che certo e considerabilis- simo errore: Bisogna vestir g l’huomini, che si dipingono, conforme al modo che si usava mentre essi viveano, e non come si veste a ll’hora che si dipingono: sarebbe cosa ridi- colosa, se dipingendo io un senatore antico o un consule d ’Romani, le mettessi in dosso in luogo della tunica una zimara, o in vece di Pallio l’invogliessi in un feraiollo. Ma c e di peggio ancora, g l’ha posta la pianeta subito sopra l ’alba, senza metterle prima la Tunica e la Dalmatica, il che e mancamento grandissimo, perche non han costu- mato mai i sommi Pontefici di celebrar messe solenni senza prima mettersi queste vesti: Ne puo qui iscusarsi egli con dire, che non era quella messa solenne, ma pri- vata, perche lo condannano il Diacono e il Suddiacono, che a quel Pontefice stan da canti. Ne qui finisce l ’errore, si e scordato il Pittore di metterle il Pallio al collo, manca­mento notabile e di momenta, che ha bisogno di emenda, che in niun modo si puo ne deve tolerare; chi e cosi sem- plice, che non sappi, che i sommi Pontefici usano il Pallio in ogni luogo, et in ogni giorno quando celebrano solene- mente? Un altro Pittore nella chiesa dei Santi Apostoli ha posto il Pallio a S. Tomasso Cantuariense sopra il Plu- viale che non vi andava, e questo non l ’ha posto a S. Gre­gorio sopra la pianeta, che in ogni modo ci andava. Se queste pitture restaranno cosi, con questi errori, perche sogliono far esempio, in processo [f. 26v] di tempo potran dir quelli che verranno dopo di noi, che ne tempi passati g l’Arcivescovi sopra il pluviale portavano il Pallio, e che i Pontefici anticamente senza il Pallio solevano gia cele- brare. Se il Pittore havesse veduta prima l’imagine di S. Gregorio predetta che il Card. Baronio porta ne suoi Annali, havrebbe imparato li come vestir dovea quel Pon­tefice e non sarebbe incorso in questi errori gravissimi. Non restaro pero qui di dirle, che quando a questa pit­tura si aggiunghi il Pallio (il che in ogni modo stimo si deve fare) per non urtar in un inconveniente simile a quello della Pianeta, sara necessario aggiungerle il Pallio non come si usa al presente, ma quale anticam ente si usava, quale si vede dipinto nell’imagine sopradetta, e quale lo descrive Giovanni Diacono, [in margin: Vita di S.

Gregorio lib. 4, c. 84] il quale ne dice queste parole: Pallio mediocri a dextero, viz. humero .mb pectore .mper .itomachum cir- cu latun deducto, deinde .m rjum p er vinuitrum humerum pout ter- gum depovito, cuiiut pare altera uuper eundem humerum venienv propria rectitudine non p er medium corpori), ved ex latere pendet. In questo modo si portava il Pallio al tempo di San Gre­gorio, et in questo modo si dovra aggiunger alia detta sua imagine.

Che poi il Pittore nell’Altare medesimo habbi dipinta la colomba a ll ’orecchio di quel Pontefice non e picciol errore; perche non si deve cio fare, se non quando si dipinge quel Santo in <atto> di scrivere o di studiare. Lo dice chiaram ente il medesimo Giovanni Diacono con queste parole: [in m argin : Vita di S. Gregorio libro 4°, capitolo 70] Hinc eat, qiwd conjuetudinaliter Spiritu,i Sanctuo in .ipecie columbae .rnper vcribentio Gregorij caput depingitur etc. Egli mostro che non havea veduto tanto oltra, con quella lic en za che si sog liono p ig lia r i P itto ri, ha voluto dipingerle la colomba, se ben li quel Santo non scrive, ne sta in atto di studiare.

[f. 27] E anco error notabile (se ben questo forse sara conosciuto da pochi) che habbi il Pittore dipinto quel sud­diacono con la Tonicella Rossa alia sinistra di S. Gregorio, sendo cosa certissima che a tempi suoi i suddiaconi per ordine espresso di quel Pontefice non portavan la Toni­cella, ma vestivano l ’Alba sola: lo dice il Santo medesimo iscusandosi con certi, che di questa cosa lo riprendevano con queste parole: [in margin: Nel Registro (epistolarum), nella lettera a Giovanni Vescovo Siracusano. Giovanni Diacono lib. 2.o c. 21] Subdiacono.i autem u t vpoliatov pro- cedere fa c e rem, antigua coruiuetudo Eccle.mie fu it ; oed quia placuit cuidam novtro Pontifici, ne.icio cui, qui eat vevtitoo procedere pre- cepit. Nam ve.itra e eccle.iiae traditionev a Graecui acceperunt? Unde habent ergo hodie, ut .mbdiaconi in linei) tunicio procedant, nivi, quia hoc a M atre .ma Romana Eccle.iia perceperun t? Ha buttato dunque il tempo il Pittore facendo al suddiacono quella Tonicella, poiche a quei tempi non la portava.

M a che habbi posto quel Regno li sopra l ’Altare, nel qual mostra habbi quel Pontefice celebrato, e errore, che forse supera tutti g l’altri, e tale che in niun modo si deve dissimulare: e cosa chiarissima questa, che a tempi di S. Gregorio il Regno non era in uso ne forse la mitra, come diro piu chiaram ente nella mia L iturgia Pontifica: So benissimo io, che non sono mancati di belli ingegni, i quali per mostrar, che il Regno del Papa fosse in uso a tempi di quel Santo Pontefice, han detto che havesse egli origine da quel Regno gioiellato, che Clodoveo Re di Francia mando in dono a S. Pietro al tempo di Papa Ormisda, del quale parla Anastasio Bibliotecario nella vita di quel Pontefice con queste parole: [in margin: Anas­tasio nella vita di Papa Ormisda] Eodem tempore venit Reg- num cum g em mid precio.iui.iimL> a R ege F rancorum Clodoveo CbrLitiano donum Beato Petro. Io nondimeno, seben tengo per fermo che sij il Regno molto antico ornamento de’

3 1 4 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

Sommi Pontefici, e che [f. 27v] alia dignita Pontificia per molte cause ragionevolissime si convenghi; credo non sij tanto antico quanto altri stimano: e alle parole di Anasta- sio, sopra le quali principalm ente questi si fondano, rispondo, che il Regno mandato a S. Pietro da Clodoveo, non era cosa, che si potesse portar in testa, ma era una tal forma di corona, che si soleva suspender per ornamento sopra g l’Altari, e di questi tal Regni moltissimi ve n'erano anticamente per le chiese di Roma, uno d ’oro ne lece Leone 3.o in S. Pietro sopra l ’Altare di S. Petronilla di peso di libre due e tre oncie; un altro simile d ’oro sopra l ’Altare di S .ta M aria in Trastevere con molte gioie di peso di libra una; un altro pur d ’oro con gioie sopra l ’altare di S. M aria in Domnica di peso di libre due, e molt altri ne racconta Anastasio fatti dal detto Leone e da altri sommi Pontefici sopra diversi Altari in varie chiese di Roma. [//; m argin : Anastasio nella vita di Leone 3.o] Onde e leggierezza notabile il voler dire, che il Regno, il quale in certi giorni piu solenm dell anno porta in testa il Sommo Pontefice, habbi havuto il suo origine da quel Regno, che dono a S. Pietro il Re Clodoveo, poiche (com ho detto) non era altro quello, che una tal sorte di corona con gioie, che per quei tempi per ornamento sospender si soleva sopra gl'Altari.

E perche altri con quelle parole: [in margin: Leone IX contra Michael imperatore, Innocentio 3.o serm. p.o di S. Silvestro] Conrtantinur recede nr Bizantium coronam capitii n i l coital Beato Silver Ira canferre, red ipre pro rereren t la eleriealir coronae, vel utilitatir canra, nalitil earn portare; s ’ingegnano di provare, che il Regno del Papa havesse i suoi principij a tempi di Constantino, ducento e ottant anni in circa innanzi il Ponteficato di S. Gregorio. A questi rispondo primieramente, che quelle parole non provano in modo alcuno l ’intento loro; perche quel [I. 28] Voluit canferre, e quel Noluit portare, mostrano bene, che dal canto di Con­stantino ci fu il pensiero e la volonta di donare, ma che S. Silvestro per humilta non volse accettar il dono, onde non segui, ne hebbe effetto la donatione, perche contratti sim- ili non si celebrano bene quando da una delle parti si entra il Noluit, bisogna che d'ambo le parti concorsi il Voluit. E poi quando ben Constantino donata havesse con elfetto a S. Silvestro la sua Corona, non poteva certo esser questa se non una delle tre, che quel imperatore portar soleva, cioe, o quella di lauro, che porto sempre innanzi ncevesse il battesmo, o la gemmata ch ’era una fascia lavorata di gioie, che portav’ egli attorno la fronte e le tempie ricevuto che hebbe il battesmo; o la radiata che haveva certe punte d ’oro rivolte a ll’in su come si usano da Prencipi a giorni nostri, che alcune poche volte in testa le fu veduta; ma niuna di queste ha che far col Regno del Papa, o in conto alcuno se li assimiglia, ne per i tempi passati se l ’ha assimigliata mai; perche questo Regno anti­camente altro non era, se non un certo cappello di panno d ’oro di forma p iram idale, che nella parte superiore

haveva un gran nodo di perle in mezzo il quale stava una bellissima e ricchissima gioia, e nella parte inferiore una lam a d ’oro larga tre d ita, che lo g irava tutto attorn ' attorno: M a accio non pari che vogli io impugnar l'opin- ione d ’altri, e tenir in tanto nascosta la mia, diro breve- mente quello senti in questo proposito: Cred’io sicura- mente, che Constantino con effetto donasse a S. Silvestro la sua corona, e fosse quella che si diceva la gemmata; e tengo ancora per fermo che S. Sdvestro l ’accettasse perche non dice quel testo: Noluit acceptare, ma, Noluit earn portare: l ’accetto egli, ma ne lui, ne alcuno di suoi succes­sor! per il spatio di quattrocento cinquant’anni in circa [t. 28v] non la volsero portar mai. Finalmente uno di quei Pontefici, che vissero fra I’anno settecento cinquanta, e l ’anno ottocento di Christo, raccordato forse del dono della predetta corona fatto a S. Silvestro da Constantino risolvesse portarla, stimandola ornamento digmssimo della dignita Pontificia, e con effetto la portasse, haven- dole pero aggiunto prima il cappello di panno d'oro con quegl'altri ornamenti, de’ quali dicessimo poco fa. E cosa certissima questa, che del Regno del Papa se n ’incomincia trovar qualche memoria cento cinquant’anni in circa dopo la morte di S. Gregorio e non prima; la onde non resta iscurato il Pittore, perche quando bene sij vero, che il Regno del Papa habbi havuto origine da quella corona, che dono a S. Silvestro il Gran Constantino, nondimeno perche l'uso del Regno, non principio, com’ ho detto, se non cento e cinquant'anni dopo la morte di quel santo Pontefice, volendo rapresentar col penello un attione fatta da lui, non doveva certo metter li il Regno, sendo cosa quella che a ll’hora non era in uso, ne meno si conosceva per nome, o si sapeva cio ch’egli fosse.

E se pur licentiosamente il Pittore voleva farlo, non dovesse egli almeno dipingerlo tale, quale hora e, con le tre corone, che Bonifatio 8.o h aggiunse, con g l’ornamenti di che l ’arricchi Paolo 2.o e con la forma che prese al tempo di Giulio 2.o, ma doveva farlo tale quale da princi­pio si usava, quale era innanzi Bonifatio 8.o, perche non mancavano luoghi in Roma, da quali n ’havrebbe potuto cavar la forma, s ’egli non la sapeva.

Non e poi picciol errore, che habbi dipinto il Regno sopra 1’Altare, sendo cosa certissima questa, che antica­mente non solo non si costumava di porlo sopra l’Altare, ma ne anco si portava mai in chiesa; l ’uso suo ordinario era questo, non si portava mai se non alle cavalcate solenni: Quando cavalcava il Papa alia statione, montato ch’era a cavallo [f. 29] pigliava il Regno, e lo portava lino alia chiesa dov'era la statione, ma innanzi ch’entrasse in chiesa se lo levava: Finita la messa solenne, uscito di chiesa, e montato a cavallo lo ripigliava, e lo portava fino a Palazzo: Si vedra meglio ancora questa verita nella mia Liturgia Pontificia, dove mostraro, che non solo non por­tava mai il Regno in chiesa il Pontefice, ma ne anco i stra- tori, che custodivano questo Regno dopo che il Pontefice

D O C U M E N T A R Y A P P E N D I X 3 1 5

se l'haveva levato, mentre si celebrava la messa solenne, con quello non entravano mai in chiesa.

Finalm ente v ’e in quest A ltare medesimo un altro errore, che perd sara da pochissimi conosciuto, e questo e, che ha posto il Pittore i candelieri con i lumi accesi sopra l ’A ltare, nel quale mostra che habbi quel Santo PonteFice celebrato, e pur e verissimo questo, che a tempi di S. Gregorio cio non si faceva; portavano g l’Acohti sette gran candelieri innanzi al Papa, quando andava egli a ll’Altare per celebrare, et a ll’introito della messa li mette- vano dinanzi l ’A ltare tre per parte, et uno nel mezzo: Prima che si leggesse l ’Epistola i medesimi Acoliti li met- tevano in una linea, che princip iava verso l ’A ltare, e finiva verso la sede del Papa. Finito l ’Evangelo si mette- vano presso l'Altare della parte di dietro in una linea, tre per parte, et uno nel mezzo, e li stavano Fino che era finita la messa; a ll’hora li ripigliavan g l’Acoliti e con quelli in spalla se n’andavano innanzi il Pontehce verso la sagris- tia. N ell'A ltare innanzi l ’offertorio non ci stava cosa veruna, e dopo l ’olfertorio non altro che patere e calici pieni di vino et pane per occasione di consecrarli accio il popolo si potesse communicare, come, a Dio piacendo, nella detta nostra Liturgia PontiFicia mostraremo.

Ho mostro, Beatissimo Padre, questi errori a diverse persone intendenti, accio li facesser saper a Vostra San­tita, et ordinass’ella, che si dovessero quanto prima emen- dare: Han’ conosciuto tutti questi mancamenti [f. 29v] et han detto concordi con me che vi si dovrebbe rimediare: Ma perche vedo, che niuno mai si e curato Fin hora di lar l ’ufficio, ho preso ardimento di descrivergleli in questa carta; si degni riceverla con la solita sua benignita, come cosa, che viene dalle mani di chi sommamente decorum dUicjit domuo Dei, e che prega sempre per la longa vita e felicita della Santita Vostra quam etc.

Della Santita VostraHumillissimo e devotissimo servo,

Michele Ixmigo

N O . 2 4

Date: c. 1625—35Source: AFSP, 2 Piano—serie 10—no. 6 Comment: Unpublished

[F. 712] Illustrissimo et Reverendissimo SignoreAlessandro Vaiani Pittore fiorentino humilissimo, et

devotissimo Servitore di Vostra Signoria Illustrissim a desideroso darsi a conoscere in questa Citta nella sua pro- fessione, con Fare qualche opera publica confidato nella benignita grande de Vostra Signoria Illustrissima la sup- plica humilmente a degnarsi far’uFFicio tale presso l ’lllus- trissimi Signori Cardinali della Congregatione della Fab-

rica di S. Pietro, che voglino in grazia di Vostra Signoria Illustrissim a dargli a dipingere una tavola d ’Altare in detta Chiesa di S. Pietro, ch’egli non mancara con ogni suo studio, et sapere di lar honore a Vostra Signoria Illus­trissima, et a tutti g l ’altri Illustrissimi Signori Cardinali della Congregatione dar gusto, et sodislattione, piacendo al Signor Iddio, che tal grazia gli sia concessa.

[on veroo: A ll’Illustrissimo et Reverendissimo Signore il Signor Cardinal Borghese, per Alessandro Vaiani Pittore, per haver una Tavola in S. Pietro]

N O . 2 5

Date: Shortly before March 10, 1632 Source: AFSP, Piano 1-ser. 1—no. 216, buota 3 C om m ent: Unpublished. Although the letter is dated

March 13 in another hand, it must have been written a few days earlier, lor its receipt is acknowledged in the minutes of the Congregation of March 10, 1632: “Alberto de Rubeis pictore, petente sibi concedi ali- quam tabulam pingendam in hac Basilica. Ad Eminen- tissimum Dominum Cardinalem Vidonum.” (AFSP, Piano 1—serie 3-no. 172, f. 1 lOv)

[f. 167] Eminentissimi SignoriAlberto de' Rossi romano pittore humillissimo ora-

tore de ll’Eminentissimi loro 1’espone che essendosi da fare alcune opere di pittura nella chiesa di Santo Pietro per tanto supplica l ’Eminenzie loro a volerli far gratia di conum erarlo fra gli altri pittori a quali si ha da d is­tr ib u te dette opere, che oltre a ll’honore del quale non m anchera larsi, ne restera eternam ente obligato alle Eminenzie loro Reverendissmu. Quam Deus etc.

[1. 168v] Alii Eminentissimi Signori Cardinali della Sacra Congregatione della Fabrica di Santo Pietro, per Alberto de’ Rossi romano pittore.

N O . 2 6

D ate: c. 1635Source: AFSP, Piano 1-ser. 1—no. 216, buota 3 Comment: Unpublished

[1. 198] Beatissimo PadreMario Balassi Fiorentino humilissimo servitore dell’Ec-

cellentissima Casa Barberina, supplica humilissimamente la Santita Vostra, che ordini alia Congregatione sopra la fabrica di S. Pietro, accio egli sia ammesso per fare uno de’ quadri, de’ quali al presente si trova haver bisogno la Chiesa di S. Pietro. Si obliga detto Mario servire con ogni

3 1 6 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

studio, e diligenza, e particolarmente fare, che la Pittura si conservi eterna quanto il Musaico. Ha servito alia feli- cissima memoria dell’Eccellentissimo Signor D. Carlo per il qual signore fece il quadro della Trasfiguratione di Christo per la Chiesa de’ Cappuccini, e similmente fece la copia della Trasfiguratione che dipinse Raffaello per San Pietro Montorio, et al presente ha fatto d ’ordine della Santita Vostra il Quadro per la Chiesa di S. Caio, nel quale v ’e dipinto Christo, quando apparve a lia M ad- dalena nell’orto. Che di tal grazia etc. Quam Deus etc.

[f. 198v] Alla Santita di Nostro Signore, per Mario Bal- assi fiorentino Pittore.

[In a different bandi\ All’Economo della fabrica. Non vuol’ che si faccino piu quadri per adesso.

N O . 2 7

Date: February 6, 1656 Source: BAV, Barb. Lat 2624Comment: Unpublished. Another copy of the document is

preserved in ASV, S. C. Visita Apostolica, vol. 5, ff. 96-97.

[p. 11] Decreta [Sacrae Visitationis] pro Ecclesia Basili­cae S. Petri [die 6 februarij 1656]

1. In Altari S. Petri, ubi representatur casus Simonis M agi omnino celebretur, et ne illud sit expositum ventorum flatibus, fiat expensis Fabricae S. Petri bussula de ligno ante januam ex adverso positam, cum introitu per earn ex utraque parte. [In margin: 1. Fabricae onus est, de quo simul cum alijs faciendis data fuit notula per sacristas maiores Eminentissimo Archiepiscopi, et ab ipso Ministris Fabricae]

2. In A ltare C rucifissionis Sancti Petri, ob similem causam ibidem fiat. [In margin: 2. Ut ad proximum]

3. Cathedra Sancti Petri reponatur in capite Ecclesiae inter duo sepulchra Pauli III et Urbani VIII cum decenti ornatu expensis Fabricae Sancti Petri, et in loco altari [s] demoliendi ponatur Baptisterium, cuius structura sit aenea, et par coeteris Ecclesiae omatibus expensis pariter, et per ministros eiusdem Fabricae. [In margin: 3. Ministri Fabricae incumbunt operi]

4. Altare S. M ariae de Febribus demoliatur per M in­istros Fabricae, et imago ob popoli devotionem trans- feratur cum suis oneribus in aliud altare, quod extat

in crypta magna sub eadem invocatione. [In margin: Ministris Fabricae intimatum fuit]

5. Columna, ad quam confugiunt aenergumeni ponatur ex adversa parte eiusdem cappellae per eosdem Fabri­cae Ministros, ita ut ab introeuntibus in [p. 12] eccle- siam de facili conspiciatur, nec eo introducatur aliquis aenergumenus nisi cum assistentia duorum de servi- entibus in Sacrario. [In margin: 5. Ad impletum]

9. Septem altaria, quae ante constructionem et perfec- tionem sex cappellarum anterioris partis Basilicae distributa fuerunt [p. 13] in posteriori tamen parte distribuantur, modo in utraque parte et ubi modo sunt, quae sequuntur:Primum altare Beatissimae Virginis in Cappella Gre­

goriana SS. Processi et MartinianiS. Michaelis ArchangeliS. PetronilllaeS. Mariae de Columna SS. Simonis et JudaeS. Gregorij Magni

In posterum ponantur ab Ecclesiae Praefectis tabulae hoc indique:In altari Sanctissimi CrucifixiBeatissimae Virginis in Cappella GregorianaSS. Processi et MartinianiCathedrae PetriSS. Simonis et JudaeS. Gregorij MagniS. Joannis Chrisostomi

[In margin: 9. Translata Cathedra ad implebitur]

X. Candelabra et cruces ligneae omnino tollantur, et fiant expensis Fabricae Sancti Petri de auricalco, et sint conformes omnes tarn in magnitudine quam in forma, exceptis illis quae ponuntur in altaribus sub- terraneis, quae debent esse minores. [In m argin : X. Ad impletum]

XI. Candelabra pariter pro intortitijs, et quae possunt Fieri lign ea habeant eamdem formam et m agni- tudinem respective [p. 14] sed nullum sit altare tarn superius quam inferius quod non habeat suum can­delabrum, et fiant expensis Fabricae ut supra. [In margin: XI. Ad impletum, et Fabrica promisit quam primum providere] [. . .]

Appendixes

A P P E N D I X I

THE CARDINALS OF THE SA C RA CONGREGAZIONE DELLA REVERENDA

FABBRICA DI S. PIETRO (1605-C. 1650)

(1605-1620)(1605-1621)(1605-1616)

(1606-1626)

(The name of each cardinal is followed by the dates of his cardinalate and the dates of his tenure on the Congregation.)

Gio. Evangelista Pallotta (1587- Aug. 22, 1620)

Benedetto Giustiniani (1586—Mar. 28, 1621)Pompeo Arrigoni (1596—April 4, 1616)Francesco M aria del Monte (1588—

Aug. 27, 1626)Alfonso Visconti (1599—Sept. 29, 1608)Bartolommeo Cesi (1596-Oct. 18, 1621)Marcello Lante (1606—April 19, 1652)Maffeo Barberini (1606—Aug. 6, 1623)Pietro Paolo Crescenzi (1611 —

Feb. 19, 1645)Jacopo Serra (1611—Aug. 19, 1623)Scipione Borghese (1605—Oct. 3, 1633)Luigi Capponi (1608—April 7, 1659)Stefano Pignatelli (1621—Aug. 12, 1623)Ippolito Aldobrandini (1621-Ju ly 19, 1638) (1622-1638) Domenico Ginnasi (1604-M arch 12, 1639) (1623—1639) Ottavio Rodulfi (1622—Ju ly 6, 1624)Domenico Rivarola (1611-Jan . 4, 1627)Laudivio Zacchia (1626—Aug. 30, 1637)

= S. Sisto (1626-29)

-1608)-1621)-1652)-1623)

( -1645)( -1623)(1620-1633) (1620-1659) (1621-1623)

(1623-1624) (1624-1627) (1626-1637)

Lelio Biscia (1626—Nov. 19, 1638)Gio. Domenico Spinola (1626—

Aug. 11, 1646)= S. Clemente (1626—29)= S. Cecilia (1629-46)

Girolamo Vidoni (1626/27-Oct. 30, 1632) Gregorio Naro (1629-Aug. 7, 1634) Bernardino Spada (1626—Sept. 10, 1661) Francesco Barberini (1623—Dec. 10, 1679) Benedetto Ubaldi (1633—Jan . 20, 1644) Stefano Durazzo (1633—Ju ly 11, 1667) Gio. Battista Pallotta (1629—Jan . 22, 1668) Marcantonio Franciotti (1637—

Feb. 8, 1666)Ottaviano Raggi (1641—Dec. 31, 1643) Pietro Donato Cesi (1641-Jan . 30, 1656) Mario Theodoli (1643-June 27, 1650) Fausto Poli (1643—Oct. 7, 1653)Francesco Adriano Ceva (1643—

Oct. 12, 1655)Tiberio Cenci (1645—Feb. 1653)Orazio Giustiniani (1645-Ju ly 25, 1649) Camillo Pamphili (1644—Ju ly 26, 1666) Cristoforo Vidman (1647—Sept. 30, 1660)

3 1 9

(1626-1638)

(1627-1646)

(1627-1632)(1630-1634)(1632-1661)(1633-1679)(1634-1644)(1634-1667)(1635-1668)

(1637-1666) (1642-1643) (1642-1656) (1643-1650) (1644-1653)

(1644-1655)(1645-1653)(1646-1649)(1646-1666)(1648-1660)

A P P E N D I X I I

THE SALARIED STAFF OF THE REVERENDA FABBRICA

DI S. PIETRO C. 1620-C. 1650

I. T h e B u r e a u c r a t i c S t a f f I I . T h e A r t i s t i c S t a f f

Econorrw Architect

Propertio Giorgi 1619-1621 Carlo Maderno 1603-1629Agostino Brasca Lomacci 1621-1625 Gian Lorenzo Bernini 1629-1680Carlo Ghetti 1625-1637Andrea Ghetti 1637-1660 Sopraotante

Pietro Albertini 1616-1621Segretario Santi Moschetti 1621-1622Paolo Roverio 1596-1638 Gio. Battista Calandra 1622-1629Claudio Roverio 1638-1655 Agostino Ciampelli 1629-1630Andrea Ghetti 1655-1660 Francesco Giordano 1630-1634

Luigi Bernini 1634-1638Notaw Pietro Paolo Drei 1638-1644Paolo Roverio 1596-1638Claudio Roverio 1638-after 1655 Fattore

Silverio Bianchi 1617-1622Cornpututa Andrea Costa 1622Stefano Bonanni 1612-1625 Filippo Brecioli (Acting) 1622-1623Francesco Scacchi 1625-1633 Guido Antonio Costa 1623-1625Carlo Aldovrandi 1633-1636 Giovanni Fabbri 1623-1629Vincenzo Bardino 1636-1664 Benedetto Drei 1629-1637

Pietro Paolo Drei 1637-1638Other officer:

Giuseppe Drei 1638-1644Judge Matteo Albertini 1648-1650Lawyer Giacomo Balsimelli 1650-1684ArchivistChaplain

3 2 0

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

AASS

ACSPAFSPAlfarano

ASRASVb.BAVBNRDBI

GNS

Grimaldi

Guide rionali

t ed

Archivio dell'Arciconfraternita del Santissimo Sacramento in S. Pietro Archivio Capitolare di S. Pietro Archivio della Fabbrica di S. Pietro Tiberio Alfarano, De Ba.<ilicae Vati- canae antiguLsima e t nova structura, ed. M. Cerrati, Rome, 1914 Archivio di Stato, Rome Archivio Segreto Vaticano baiocco/baiocchiBiblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Biblioteca Nazionale, Rome Dizionario biografico degli italiani, mul­tiple vols., Rome, 1960-present Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe, RomeGiacomo Grimaldi, Descrizione della Basilica Antica d i S. Pietro in Vaticano, ed. R. Niggl, Vatican City, 1972 Guide rionali di Roma, multiple vols., Rome, 1967—present

I CCD

P. or Poliak

Passeri

Saur

sc.Thieme- Becker

Vasari-Milanesi

Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome Oskar Poliak, Die Kunsttatigkeil unter Urban VIII., II, Vienna, 1931 Giovanni Battista Passeri, Vite d e ’p it­tori, ocu ltori et arcb itetti da 11 'anno 1641 a l l ’anno 1 6 73 ..., ed. J . Hess, Leipzig and Vienna, 1934Allgemeines Kiinstlerlexikon. Die bilden- den K iinstler a ller Zeiten und Volker, multiple vols., Munich and Leipzig,1983—presentscudobcudiThieme, Ulrich and Felix Becker, Allgemeines Lex ikon der bildenden Kiin- stler con der Antike bi> zur Gegenwart,37 vols., Leipzig, 1907—50 Giorgio Vasari, Le vite d e ’piu eccellenti pittori, scu ltoriedarch itettori, ed. G. Milanesi, 9 vols., Florence, 1878-85

321

ARCHIVAL AND MANUSCRIPT SOURCE S CITED

k sM

Rome, Archivio dellArcicon)rate rutin del Santuuimo Sacramento

(■ S. ~Ptetro (AASS)(currently on deposit at the AFSP)Vol. 37

Vol. 169

Vol. 191

Rome, Arcbicio Capitolare di S. Pietro (ACSP)(currently available in the BAV, although the Chapter's diaries are still kept in the archive of the sacristy)Decreti 11

Decreti 12

Diari 2

Diari 10

Diari 11

Diari Id

Diari 25

Distribuzioni mensili 64

Distribuzioni mensili 65

Distribuzioni mensili 66

Distribuzioni mensili 67

Distribuzioni mensili 68

Inventari 32

Manoscritti vari 9

Manoscritti van 46

Turni 13

Turni 19

A64 ter

HI

H2

H3

H55

H59b

H59c

H95

H96

Rome, Arcbicio della Fabbrica di S. Pietro (AFSP) Piano 1—serie 1-no. 2

Artisti diversi. Munizione

Piano 1—serie 1—no. 7 Artisti diversi, 1614—34

Piano 1—serie 1-no. 8 Materie diverse

Piano 1-serie 1—no. 16 Artisti diversi, 1542—1675

Piano 1-serie 1—no. 20Scritture diverse, 1611—1741

Piano 1—serie 1—no. 21Scritture diverse, 1584—1668

Piano 1-serie 1—no. 175 Minute di lettere, 1626-28

Piano 1—serie 1—no. 216 [Miscellaneous material]

Piano 1—serie 2—no. 71Congregaziom, 1571—1630

3 2 3

324 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 3 Memorie diverse

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 12 Memorie diverse

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 159 Decreta, 1625—29

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 159a Decreta, 1612-25

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 160 Decreta, 1629-36

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 162 Decreta, 1642-53

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 163 Decreta, 1653—60

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 170 Decreta

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 171 Decreta, 1626—29

Piano 1—serie 3—no. 172 Decreta, 1629—34

Piano 1—serie 4—no. 21 Spese diverse, 1614—32

Piano 1-serie 4-no. 39 Risolutioni, 1612-25

Piano 1—serie armadi—no. 75 Entrata e uscita, 1572-79

Piano 1—serie armadi—no. 152 Spese, 1596-97

Piano 1—serie armadi—no. 156 Entrata e uscita, 1597

Piano 1—serie armadi—no. 159 Entrata e uscita, 1598

Piano 1—serie armadi—no. 162 Spese, 1598-1600

Piano 1—serie armadi—no. 171 Denari a buon conto, 1601—04

Piano 1—serie armadi—no. 236 Spese diverse, 1621-23

Piano 2—serie 10—no. 6Folia et positiones, 1600—30

Piano 2—serie armadi—no. 72 Atti e conti, 1600—99

Piano 2—serie armadi-no. 152 Registra di lettere, 1627—28

Piano 2—serie armadi—no. 258 Lettere, Sept.-Dec. 1626

Rome, Archivio di Stato (ASR)30 Notai Capitolini—Ufficio 38 (Paulus Roverius), vol. 11

Cartari-Febei, vol. 74

Cartari-Febei, vol. 75

Cartari-Febei, vol. 76

Rome, Archivio Segreto Vaticano (ASV)Miscellanea Arm. VII, no. 3

Miscellanea Arm. VII, no. 4

Sacra Congregazione della Visita Apostolica, vol. 2

Sacra Congregazione della Visita Apostolica, vol. 5

Sacra Congregazione della Visita Apostolica, vol. 129

Rome, Biblioteca Apootolica Vaticana (BAV)Barb. U t. 1772

Barb. U t. 2152

Barb. U t. 2624

Barb. U t. 2719

Barb. U t. 2818

Barb. U t. 2819

Barb. U t. 2964

Barb. U t . 2969

Barb. U t . 2974

Barb. U t . 2984

Barb. U t. 4510

Barb. U t. 4512

Barb. U t. 4730

Barb. U t. 4731

Barb. U t. 5322

Urb. U t. 1073

Urb. U t. 1099

Vat. U t. 2733

Vat. U t . 5514

Vat. U t. 8622

Vat. U t. 9907

Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale (BNR)Ms. Fondi Minori, Prov. Claustrale, Varia X

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Abromson, Morton, Painting in Rome during the Papacy o f Clement VIII (1592—1605). A Documented Study, Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1976 (Garland Press, 1981).

Ackerman, Jam es, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance, ” Journal o f the Society o f Architectural Ili.itori- ana, XIII, 1954, pp. 3-11.

The Architecture o f Alichelangelo, 2nd ed., Chicago, 1986.Acta Sanctorum, 58 vols., Antwerp, 1643-1867; 2nd ed., 67

vols., Paris, 1863—1925.Alfarano, Tiberio, De Basilicae Vaticanae Antiquitoima et nova

otructura [Studi e teoti, 26], ed. M. Cerrati, Rome, 1914.Allgemei/uv Kiinotlerlexikon. Die bildenden Kiinotler aller Zeiten and

Vtilker, multiple vols., Munich and Leipzig, 1983-present.Alveri, Gasparo, Roma in ogniotato, 2 vols., Rome, 1664.Andrews, Keith, Adam Ehheimer, Oxford, 1977.Andrieu, Michel, “La Rota porphyretica’ de la Basilique

Vaticane, ” Ale'langeo d ’arche'ologie et d ’hLttoire, LXVI, 1954, pp. 189-218.

Anselmi, Alessandra, “Gli architetti della Fabbrica di San Pietro,” in In urhe a rch ite cts . Modelli, duegni, mature. La profeo.tione dell’architetto, Roma 1680-1750, ex. cat., ed. B. Contardi and G. Curcio, Rome, 1991, pp. 272—80.

Apolloni Ghetti, Fabrizio, "Santi Ghetti scalpellino e imprenditore, ” L’lThe, XL, nos. 3—4, 1977, pp. 22—39.

Arbeiter, Achim, Alt-St. Peter in Geochichte and Wutoenochaft, Berlin, 1988.

Ardant, Georges-Maurice, L’Autel de Saint Alartial a Saint- Pierre de Rome, Limoges, 1891.

Aurigemma, Maria Giulia, "Del Cavalier Baglione," Storia dell’arte, no. 80, 1994, pp. 23—53.

Baglione, Giovanni, Le nove chie.ie di Roma, Rome, 1639 (ed. L. Barroero, Rome, 1990).

Le cite de ’ pittori, ocultori et architetti . . . , Rome, 1642 (facs. ed. V. Mariani, Rome, 1935).

Baldinucci, Filippo, Notizie dei p ro fw o r i del dutegno da Cimahue in qim, ed. F. Ranalli, 7 vols., Florence, 1845—47 (facs. ed., Florence, 1974—75).

Vila di Gian Lorenzo Bernini, ed. S. Samek Ludovici, Milan, 1948.

Banti, Anna, Giovanni da San Giovanni: Pittore della contrad- dizione, Florence, 1977.

Baronio, Cesare, Annaleo eccleviaotici . . . , 19 vols., Lucca, 1738-46.

Barroero, Liliana, “Antonio Pomarancio tra due Giubilei: 1600-1625," Bollettinod’arte, LXVIII, 1983, pp. 1-16.

Bartolotti, Franco, La medaglia annuale dei romani pontefici da Paolo Va Paolo VI, Rimini, 1967.

Basso, Michele, I privilegi e le conouetudini della Referenda Fab- hrica di San P ietro in Vaticano (.tec. XVI-XX), 2 vols., Rome, 1987-88.

Battaglia, Roberto, Crocifutoi del Bernini in S. Pietro in Vaticano, Rome, 1942.

La Cattedra berniniana di San Pietro, Rome, 1943.Bauer, Linda, “L’lnventario dei beni di Antonio Pomarancio

e alcune note sulla vita e l ’opera del pittore," Bollettino d ’arte, LXVIII, 1983, pp. 31^54.

Beggiao, Diego, La vitita paotorale di Clemente VIII (1592-1600): Aopettidirifornui poot-Tridentina a Roma, Rome, 1978.

Bellori, Giovan Pietro, Le Vite d e ’pittori, ocu/tori e t architetti nutderni, Rome, 1672 (ed. E. Borea, Turin, 1976).

Beltrami, Luca, La Roma di Gregorio XIII negli Avvin' alia Carte Sahauda, Milan, 1917.

Benocci, Carla, “Pietro Francesco Garoli pittore di 'prospet- tive’ e la cultura accademica romana degli inizi del Set- tecento,” in Temi di decorazione dalla cultura de/l’artificio alia poetica della natura, ed. E. Debenedetti, Rome, 1990, pp. 13-40.

Berninie le arti vitive, ed. M. Fagiolo, Florence, 1987.Bernini in Vaticano, ex. cat., Rome, 1981.Bernini, Domenico, Vita del ca va lier Gio. Lorenzo Bernino,

Rome, 1713.Bernini, Giovanni-Pietro, Giovanni Lanfranco (1582—16J7),

2nd ed., Parma, 1985.Bernstock, Judith, "Bernini’s Tomb of Alexander VII,” Saggi

e memorie diotoria dell’arte, XVI, 1988, pp. 167—90.

3 2 5

3 2 6 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Bibliotheca Sanctorum, 12 vols., Rome, 1961—70.Blaauw, Sible de, Cultiu> et decor: Liturgia e architettura nella

Roma tardoantica e medic vale [Studi e teoti, 355—56], 2 vols., Vatican City, 1994.

Blunt, Anthony, The French Drawing,! in the Collection of I lit Alajeoty the K ing at Windoor Caotle, Oxlord, 1945.

The Paintingo o f Nicola,! Pouooin. A Critical Catalogue, Lon­don, 1966.

Nicola,i Pouooin, New York, 1967 (a)."Two Drawings for Sepulchral Monuments by Bernini,”

in Fwoayo in the Hhtory o f Art presented to Rudolf Wittkower, London, 1967 (b), pp. 230—32.

"Further Newly Identified Drawings by Poussin and His Followers,”AlaoterDrawing,!, XVII, 1979, pp. 119—46.

Art and Architecture in France, J 500-/700, 4th ed. (revised), Harmondsworth, 1982 (a).

Guide to Baroque Rome, New York, 1982 (b).and Hereward Lester Cooke, Rinnan Drawing.! o f the XVII

and XVIII Centurie.i in the Collection o f Her Alajeoty the Queen at Windoor Caotle, London, 1960.

Bober, Phyllis, Drawingo a fter the Antique by Amico Aipertini, London, 1957.

Bodart, Didier, Deooino de la collection Thomao Aobby a la Biblio- theque Vaticane, Vatican City, 1975.

Boggis, R. J . E., Praying for the Dead, London, 1913.Boiron, Stephane, La controceroe ne'e de la qtierelle deo reliqueo a

lepoque du Concile de Trente (1500-16-10), Paris, 1989.Bologna, Ferdinando, L’incredulita del Caravaggio e I’eoperienza

delle cooe natura/i’, Turin, 1992.Bonanni: see Buonanni.Bonito, Virginia, "The St Anne Altar in Sant'Agostino in

Rome: A New Discoveiy,” Burlington Alagazine, CXXII, 1980, pp. 805-12.

Bonnefoy, Yves, Rome 1650, Paris, 1970.Borea, Evelina, Domenichino, Milan, 1965.

"Gian Domenico Cerrini, opere e documenti,” Proopettioa, no. 12, 1978, pp. 4-25.

“Date per il Baglione,” Storia d e l l ’arte, XXXVIII-XL, 1980, pp. 315-18.

Borghini, Raflfaello, Itripooo, Florence, 1584.Borsi, Stefano, Roma di Urbano VIII. La pianta di Giovanni

Alaggi, 1625, Rome, 1990.Borzelli, Angelo, L’Aiounta del Lanfranco in S. Andrea della Valle

giudicata da Ferrante Carli, Naples, 1910.Boschetto, Antonio, "Per la conoscenza di Francesco Albani,

Pittore (1578—1660),” Proporzioni, II, 1948, pp. 109—146.Bosi, Mario, and Piero Becchetti, SS. Alichele e Alagno (Le

Chieoe di Roma illuotrate, CXXVI), Rome, 1973.Bottari, Giovanni Gaetano, Dialoghi oopra le tre arti del duiegno,

Lucca, 1754.Raccolta dt lettere oulla pittura, ocultura ed architettura, 7 vols.,

Rome, 1754-73.and Stefano Ticozzi, Raccolta di lettere oulla pittura, ocultura

ed architettura, 8 vols., Milan, 1822-25.Bousquet, Jacques, "Les relations de Poussin avec le milieu

romain,” Acteo du Co/loqtie Nieolao Pouooin, ed. A. Chastel, Paris, 1960, 1, pp. 1-18.

“Valentin et ses compagnons,” Gazette deo Beaux Arto, XCII, 1978, pp. 101-14.

Boyer, Ferdinand, "Simon Vouet, Nicolas Poussin, Claude Lorrain et le principat de l ’Academie romaine de Saint- Luc, ” Bulletin de la Socie'te' de FHiotoire de I Art Franqaio, 1949, pp. 79-85.

Braham, Allan, and Hellmut Hager, Carlo Fontana. The Draw­ing.! at Windoor Caotle, London, 1977.

Bralion, Nicolas de, Leo curiooitez de lim e et de I ’autre Rome, 2 vols., Paris, 1655—59.

Brauer, Heinrich, and Rudolf Wittkower, Die Zeichnungen deo Gianlorenzo Bernini, 2 vols., Berlin, 1931.

Braun, Joseph, Der chriotliche Altar in oeiner geoch ichtlichen Fntwicklung, 2 vols., Munich, 1924.

Breviarium Romanian ex decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini. . . , 3rd ed., 4 vols., Ravensburg, 1889.

Briccio, Giovanni, Relatione oomnuiria deloolenne apparato e cerenw- nia, fatto nella baoilica di S. Pietro di Roma per la canonizatione de gloriooioanti Ioidore diAtadrid, Ignatio di Loyola, Franceoco Xave- rio, Tereoa di Gieou, e Filippo Nerio Fiorentino, Rome, 1622.

Briccolani, Vicenzo, Deocrizione della oacrooanta Baoilica Vati­cana . . . , 3rd. ed., Rome, 1816.

Briganti, Giuliano, "L’Altare di Sant’Erasmo, Poussin e il Cortona," Paragone, XI, 1960, pp. 16-20.

IIPalazzo del Quirinale, Rome, 1962.Pietro da Cortona, 2nd ed., Florence, 1982.et al., / Bamboccianti, Rome, 1983.

Brosse, Charles de, Lettreo familiereo our llta lie, ed. Y. Bezard, 2 vols., Paris, 1931.

Brugnoli, Maria Vittoria, “II soggiorno romano di Bernardo Castello e le sue pitture nel Palazzo di Bassano di Sutri,” BollettinodArte, XLII, 1957, pp. 255-65.

Bruno, R affaele , Roma. P in a co teca C apito lina (Altioei dlta/ia-AIeravig/ie d lta lia ), Bologna, 1978.

Bullarium romanum, 9 vols., Prato, 1845-54; 24 vols., Turin, 1857-72.

Buonanni, Filippo, Numiomata oummorum pontificum Templi Vaticanifabricam indicantia, Rome, 1696.

Ordinum equeotrium et m ilitarium ca ta logu e in imaginibuo expooitu.!, 3rd. ed., Rome, 1724.

Burckhardt, Jacob, The Altarpiece in Renaiooance Italy, ed. and trans. P. Humfrey, Cambridge, 1988.

Buser, Thomas, "Jerome Nadal and the Early Jesuit Art in Rome,” Art Bulletin, LVIII, 1976, pp. 424—33.

B usiri-V ici, Andrea, La C olonna Santa d e l tem p io d i Geriuialemme ed iloarcofago di Probo Anicio, Rome, 1888.

Busiri-Vici, Andrea, "Inediti di Giacomo Galli, detto ‘Lo Spadarino',” Antichita viva, XIII, 1974, pp. 22—28.

"Ancora sullo Spadarino’,” Antichita viva, XIV, 1975, pp. 39-43.

"Altri inediti dello Spadarino," Anlologia di belle arti, I, 1977, pp. 343-46.

“Contributi a Giovanni Francesco Romanelli,” Anlologia di belle arti. III, 1979, pp. 100—106.

Calenzio, Generoso, La vita eg lio cr it t i del Cardinal Ceoare Baro­nio, Rome, 1907.

Galvesi, Maurizio, La rea/ta del Caravaggio, Turin, 1990.Calvi, Giulia, Storia di un anno dipeote, Milan, 1984.Calvi, Jacopo Alessandro, Notizie della vita, e delle opere del Cav­

aliere Gioan Franceoco Barbieri detto il Guercino da Cento, Bologna, 1808.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y E g 3 2 7

Campbell, Malcolm, "An Antique Source for an Early Drawing by Pietro da Cortona," Art Bulletin, XLV, 1963, pp. 3 6 0 -6 1 .

Campori, Giuseppe, Lettere artistiche inedite. . ., Modena, 1866.Cancellieri, Francesco Girolamo, De secretarial Basilicae Vati-

eanae veterb ae novae libri II, 4 vols., Rome, 1786.Descrizione della Ba.tilica Vaticana, Rome, 1788.Staria de'solem tipossesside'somm ipontefici, Rome, 1802.

Canuti, Fiorenzo, IIPerugino, 2 vols., Siena, 1931.Capgrave, John, Ye Solace o f Pilgrimes. A Description o f Rome

circa A.D. 1150, ed. C. A. Mills, London, 1911.C aravaggio in S icilia, i l su o tempo, i l su o in fliu so , ex. cat.,

Palermo, 1984.Carlile, Christopher, A discourse o f Peters lyfe, peregrination and

death. Wherein b p lain ly prosed . . . that Peter teas never at Rome. Furthermore that neither Peter nor the pope it the head o f Chrbtes church, London, 1582.

Carpiceci, Alberto, La Fabbrica di S. Pietro, Rome, 1983."La Basilica Vaticana vista da Martin van Heemskerck,”

Bollettino d ’arte, 44—45, 1987, pp. 67—128.Cascioli, Giuseppe, La Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticana: I nuosi

lasori deipilastri, Rome, 1914.“ Document! inediti dell’Archivio Gapitolare di S. Pietro,”

Roma, I, 1923, pp. 151-54, 255-56, 451-55; II, 1924 (a), p p . 521-54; III, 1925, p p . 39-40, 231-32, 279-80, 423-26, 473-75, 518-19; IV, 1926, p. 184 (Index).

Guida Ulustrata a l nuoso museo di San Pietro, Rome, 1924 (b).Cecchetelli Ippoliti, Rodolto, La tomba dt Papa Alessandro VIII

nella Basilica Vaticana, Rome, 1921.Celio, Gaspare, Memoria delli norni d e ll’artefici delle pitture che

sono in alcune chiese, fa ccia te, e palazzi di Roma, Naples, 1638 (ed. E. Zocca, Milan, 1967).

Chadour, Anna Beatriz, “Der Altarsatz des Antonio Gentili in St. Peter zu Rom,” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, XLIII, 1982, pp. 133-93 .

Chantelou, Paul Freart de, Journal du voyage du cavalier Bermn en France, ed. L. Lalanne, Pans, 1885.

Diary o f the Cavaliere Bernini’s Visit to France, ed. A. Blunt, trans. M. Corbett, Princeton, 1985.

Chappell, Miles, and W. Chandler Kirwin, "A Petrine Triumph: The Decoration of the Navi Piccole in San Pietro under Clement VIII,” Storia dell arte, XXI, 1974, pp. 119—170.

Chastel, Andre, The Sack o f Rome, 1527, Washington, 1983.Cherubini, Giovanni Battista, Le cose m eravigliose d e ll’alma

eittd di Rama, Rome, 1609.Cinotti, Mia, M ichelangelo M erisi detto il Caravaggio: Tutte le

opere, Bergamo, 1983.Clark, Anthony, Studies in Roman Eighteenth-Century Painting,

ed. E. Bowron, Washington, 1981.Claussen, Peter, "Der Wenzelsaltar in Alt St. Peter: Heili-

genverehrung, Kunst und Politik unter Karl IV.,” ZeitschriftfiirKunstgeschichte, XLIII, 1980, pp. 280—99.

Cohelli, Giacomo, Notitia Cardina/atus, Rome, 1653.Collectionb Bullarum Sacrosanctae Basilicae Vaticanae, 3 vols.,

Rome, 1747-52.Cook, George Henry, Mediaeval Chantries and Chantry Chapeb,

revised ed., London, 1963.Corradini, Sandro, “La collezione del cardinale Angelo Gio­

rio, ” Antologia di belle arti, I, 1977, pp. 83-94.

"La Quadreria di Giancarlo Roscioli,” Antologia di belle arti, III, 1979, pp. 192-96.

Coste, Jean, “I casali della Campagna di Roma all'inizio del Seicento, ” Archivio della Societa Romana di Storia Patria,XCII, 1971, pp. 41-115.

"I casali della Campagna Romana nella seconda meta del Cinquecento,” Archivio delta Societa Romana di Storia Patria, XCIV, 1973, pp. 31-143.

Costaguti: see Ferrabosco.Costello, Jane, The M artyrdom o f Saint Erasmus, Ottawa,

1975.Crelly, William, The Paintings o f Simon Vouet, New Haven,

1962.Cropper, Elizabeth, “On Beautiful Women, Parmigianino,

Petrarchbmo, and the Vernacular S ty le ,” Art Bulletin, LVIII, 1976, pp. 374-94.

Cuzin, Jean-Pierre, “Pour Valentin,” Revue de/Art, XXVIII, 1975, pp. 53-61.

"Un chef-d'oeuvre avorte de Simon Vouet: Le Saint Pierre et les Malades’ commande pour Saint-Pierre de Rome,” in “II se rendit en Italic": Etudes offertes a Andre' Chastel, Rome, 1987, pp. 359-70.

D Amico, Fabrizio, “Su Paolo Guidotti Borghese e su una congiuntura di tardo manierismo romano,” Ricerche di storia d ell’arte, XXII, 1984, pp. 71-102.

Dargent, Georgette, and Jacques Thuillier, “Simon Vouet en Italie,” Saggi e m emorie di storia d e ll’arte, IV, 1965, pp. 27-63.

Davies, David, "The Relationship of El Greco’s Altarpieces to the Mass of the Roman Rite,” in The Altarpiece in the Renaissance, ed. P. Humfrey and M. Kemp, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 212-42.

Davies, Martin, National Gallery. Early Netherlandish School, London, 1945.

De' Dominici, Bernardo, Vite d e ’ pittori, scu ltori ed architetti napoletani, 3 vols., Naples, 1742.

Dejonghe, Maurice, Roma santuario nuiriano, Bologna, 1969.De Corno, Carlo, "Un Avversario del Marino: Ferrante

Carli," Studisecenteschi, XVI, 1975, pp. 69-155.Del Re, Niccolo, “La Sacra Congregazione della Reverenda

Fabbrica di S. Pietro,” Studi romani, XVII, 1969, pp.288-301.

De Maio, Romeo, M ichelangelo e la controriform a, Rome, 1978.

De’ Rossi, Domenico, Disegni di vari a ltari e cappelle, Rome, 1713 (Gregg reprint, 1972).

Dictionnaire de the'ologie catho/ii/ue, 15 vols., Paris, 1899-1950.DiFederico, Frank, "Documentation for the Paintings and

Mosaics of the Baptismal Chapel in Saint Peter's, ” Art Bulletin, L, 1968, pp. 194—98.

The /Mosaics o f Saint P eter’s: Decorating the New Basilica, Uni­versity Park, PA, 1983.

Disegni dei Tosconi a Roma ( 1580—1620), ed. M. Chappell, W.C. Kirwin, J . Nissman, S. Prosper! Valenti Rodino, Florence, 1979.

Dix, Gregory, The Shape o f the Liturgy, London, 1945.Dizionario biografico degli italiani, multiple vols., Rome, 1960-

present.D’Onofrio, Cesare, Roma vista da Roma, Rome, 1967.

3 2 8 T H E A L T A R S A N D A L T A R P I E C E S O F N E W ST. P E T E R ' S

Roma net Seieento, Florence, 1969: edition of Fioravante Martinelli, Roma ornata da/l'architettura, pittura e ocoltura, ms. Casanatense 4984, 1660—62.

Dowley, Francis, “Carlo Maratta, Carlo Fontana, and the Baptismal Chapel in Saint Peter’s, ' Art Bulletin, XLVII, 1965, pp. 57-81. ^

Duchesne, Louis, 0rig inc. < d f culte chre'tien. Etude our la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne, 5th ed., Paris, 1925.

Ducrot, A., "Histoire de la Cappella Giulia au XVle. siecle depuis sa fondation par Jules II (1513) jusqu’a sa restau- ration par Gregoire XIII ( 1578),” /Melange,’ d ’arcbeotogie el d ’hiotoire, LXXV, 1963, pp. 179-240, 467-559.

Dvornik, Francis, The Life o f St. Wenceolao, Prague, 1929.Dykmans, Marc, L’Oeuvre de Patrizi Pueo/omini ou le ce'remonial

papal de la premiere Renaiooance [Studi e teoti, 293-94], 2 vols., Vatican City, 1980-82.

Elze, Reinhard, Die Ordine.t fu r die Weihe und K ronung deo Kaitert und der Kai'erin, Hannover, 1960.

Enciclopedia Cattolica, 12 vols., Vatican City, 1948—54.Enggass, Robert, Early Eighteenth-century Sculpture in Rome, 2

vols., University Park, PA., 1976.Erbentraut, Regina, Der Genueoer M aler Bernardo Ca.itello

15577-1629. Leben und Olgemdlde, Freren, 1989.Ettlinger, Leopold, Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo, Oxford, 1978.Eubel, Konrad, Hierarchia Catholica medii et recentioru aei’i, 6

vols., Regensburg, 1913—58.Evelyn, John, The Diary o f John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer,

London, 1959.Fabriczy, Cornelius de, “La statua di S. Andrea all’ingresso

della Sagrestia di S. Pietro, " L’Arte, IV, 1901.Fagiolo, Marcello, “L’Attivita di Borromini da Paolo V a

Urbano VIII,” Studi .nil Borromini [Atti del Convey no pro- moooo dall’Accademia Nazionale di S. Luca\, Rome, 1967, I, pp. 5 9 -75 .

Fagiolo dell'Arco, Maurizio and Marcello, Bernini Una intro- duzione a l gran teatro del barocco, Rome, 1967.

Faldi, Italo, “Paolo Guidotti e gli affreschi della ‘Sala del Cavaliere’ nel palazzo di Bassano di Sutri,” Bollettino d ’arte, XLII, 1957, pp. 278-95.

“II Cavalier Bernini, il Cavalier Baglione e il Cavalier Guidotti Borghese," Arte antica e nwderna, 13/16, 1961, pp. 297 -9 9 .

Pit tori viterbeoi di cinque oecoli, Rome, 1970.Fehl, Philipp, “Improvisation and the Artist’s Responsibility

in St. Peter’s, Rome: Papal Tombs by Bernini and C anova,” XXV. In tern a tion a le r K on g re,to f i i r K unot- geochiehte, Vienna, 1986, pp. 144—15.

"L'umilta cristiana e il monumento sontuoso: La tomba di Urbano VIII del Bernini,” in Bernini e le arti viiive, ed. M. Fagiolo, Rome, 1987, pp. 185—207.

Felibien, Andre, Entretieno our lev vieo et our leo ouvrageo deo pluo excelleno peintreo ancieno et moderneo, 4 vols., Trevoux, 1725 (facs. reprint, 1967).

Feliciangeli, Bernardino, I I cardinale Angelo Giorio da Camerino e G. L. Bernini, Sanseverino (Marche), 1917.

Felini, Pietro Martire, Trattato nuovo delle cooe maraviglwoe del- I ’alnui Cittd di Roma . . . , Rome, 1610 (ed. S. Waetzoldt, Berlin, 1969).

Ferrabosco, Martino, Architettura della Baoiliea di San Pietro, Rome, 1620.

Architettura della Baoiliea di S. Pietro in Vatieano . . . da Mon- oignore Gio. Batliota Cootaguti oeniore maggiordomo di Paob> V fatta eoprimere, e intagliare in piii tavole da Martino Ferra- booco, 2nd ed., Rome, 1684.

Ferrari, Oreste, Bozzetti ita lian i dal manieriomo a l barocco, Naples, 1990.

ffolliott, Shiela, “Casting a Rival into the Shade: Catherine de’ Medici and Diane de Poiriers,” Art Joiwnal, XLVIII, 1989, pp. 138-43.

Filippo Juvarra a Torino. N uoviprogettiper la citta, ed. A. Griseri and G. Romano, Turin, 1989.

Finugio, Girolamo, Relatione delle m agnificen ce che oon nella Baoiliea Vaticana, Rome, 1645.

Fiorani, Luigi, "Le visite apostohche del Cinque-Seicento e la societa religiosa romana,” Ricerche per la otoria religiooa di Roma, IV, 1980, pp. 53-148.

Fischer Pace, Ursula, "Monsignore Gilles van de Vivere, Giacinto Gimignani, Pietro Testa e l'altare di S. Erasrno nelle chiesa di S. Maria della Pieta in Campo Santo Teu- tonico,” in Pouooin et Rome, ed. O. Bonfait et al., Paris, 1996, pp. 137-51.

Fontana, Carlo, I l Tempio Vatieano e oua origine, Rome, 1694.Forcella, Vincenzo, Iocrizioni delle chieoe e d ’altri edifici di Roma

daloeco/o X l fino aigiorninootn , 14 vols., Rome, 1869-84.Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Pio, “Come i SS. Processo e Martini-

ano divennero i carcerieri dei Principi degli Apostoli,” Note agiografiche, fasc. 3 [Studi e teoti, 22], Rome, 1909, pp. 35-39.

Francia, Ennio, 1506-1606: Storui della cootruzione del nuovo San Pietro, Rome, 1977.

Storuz della cootruzione del nuovo San Pietro da /Michelangelo a Bernini, Rome, 1989 (a).

"II Tesoro e le sue vicende nella basilica di San Pietro,” in l a baoiliea di San Pietro, ed. C. Pietrangeli, Rome, 1989 (b),pp. 307-19.

Frank, Eric, “Pollaiuolo's Tomb of Innocent VIII," in Verroc­chio and l a t e Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, ed. S. Buie et al., Florence, 1992, pp. 321—42.

Fransolet, Mariette, “Le S. Andre de Francois Dusquenoy a la Basilique de S. Pierre au Vatican, 1629—1640,” Bulletin de llnotitut Hiotorique Beige de Rome, no. 13, 1933, pp. 227-90.

Freedberg, David, "The Representations of Martyrdoms during the Early Counter-Reformation in Antwerp,” Burlington Magazine, CXVIII, 1976, pp. 128-38.

“The Origins and Rise of the Flemish Madonna in Flower G arlands,” M iin chner Ja h rbu ch der Bildenden Kunot, XXXII, 1981, pp. 115-50.

Freiberg, Jack , The Lateran in 1600. Chruitian Concord in Counter-Reformation Rome, Cambridge and New York, 1995.

Frey, Karl, "Zur Baugeschichte des St. Peter. Mitteilungen aus der R everendissim a F abbrica di S. P ietro," Jah rbu ch der koniglieh preuoziochen Kunotoamm/ungen, XXXI (Beiheft), 1911; XXXIII (Beiheft), 1913.

Friedlander, Max, Dieric Bouto and Jooo van Gent, in Early Nether/andiih Painting, III, Leyden, 1968.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y g S 3 2 9

Friedlaender, Walter (and Anthony Blunt), The Drawings o f Nicolas Poussin, 5 vols., London, 1939-74.

Caravaggio Studies, Princeton, 1955.Nicolas Poussin, London, 1966.

Frommel, Christoph, “Die Peterskirche unter Papst Julius II im Licht neuer Dokumente," Romisches Jahrhuch fu r Kunstgeschichte, XVI, 1976, pp. 57-136.

Fumaroli, Marc, "Rome 1630: Entree en scene du specta- teur,” in Roma 1650. II trionfo delpennello, ex. cat., ed. O. Bonfait, Milan, 1994, pp. 53—82.

Galassi Paluzzi, Carlo, La Basilica di S. Pietro, Bologna, 1975.Gallonio, Antonio, Historic delle sante sergini romane, Rome,

1591.Gardner, Julian, "Altars, Altarpieces, and Art Histoiy: Leg­

islation and Usage,” in Italian Altarpieces 1250—1550. Function and Design, ed. E. Borsook and F. Superbi Giof- fredi, Oxford, 1994, pp. 5—19.

Garms, Jorg, Quellen aus dem Archie Doria-PamphilJ zur Kunst- tatigkeit in Rom unter Innocent X., Rome and Vienna, 1972.

Diiegni di Luigi Vanvitelli nelle collezioni puhhliche di Napoli e di Caserta, ex. cat., Naples, 1973.

Gentili, Otello, Macerata sacra, Rome, 1967.Gere, John, “Drawings by Niccolo Martinelli,” Master Draw­

ings, I, 1963, pp. 3-18.and Philip Pouncey, Italian Drawings in the Department o f

Prints and Drawings in the British Museum: Artuts Working in Rome, c. 1550toe. 1650, 2 vols., London, 1983.

Giampaoli, Umberto, II Palazzo Ducale diAIassa, Massa, 1979.Giardini, Claudio, Considerazioni intorno ad un modello per Attila

[Racco/ta di studi su i beni culturali ed amhientali delle Marche, 14], Rome, 1989.

Giess, Hildegard, Die Darstellung der Fusswaschung Chrisli ui den Kunstwerken des 5.-12. Jahrhunderts, Rome, 1962.

Giffi (Ponzi), Elisabetta, “Alcune proposte per Antonio Pomarancio,” Bollettino d ’arte, LXVIII, 1983, pp. 17-30.

“Per il tempo romano di Pietro Paolini e gli inizi di Angelo Caroselli," Prospettiva, no. 46, 1986, pp. 22—30.

“Per lo Spadarino,” Prospettiva, no. 50, 1987, pp. 71—81.Gigli, Giacinto, Diario romano (1608-1670), ed. G. Ricciotti,

Rome, 1958.Giglioli, Giulio, Regesti di handi, editti, notificazioni e provvedi-

menti diversi relativi alia citta di Roma ed alio stato pontificia, IV (1623-1639), Rome, 1932.

Giovanni Francesco Barhieri, il Guercino, 1591—1666, ex. cat., ed.D. Mahon, Bologna, 1991.

Giovanni Francesco Barhieri, il Guercino, 1591-1666. Diiegni, ex. cat., ed. D. Mahon, Bologna, 1992.

Gizzi, Epifanio, Breve descrizzione della Basiltca Vaticana, Rome, 1721.

Glass, Dorothy, "Papal Patronage in the Early Twelfth Cen­tury. Notes on the Iconography of Cosmatesque Pave­ments," Journa l o f the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXXII, 1969, ppi 386-90.

Gonzalez-Palacios, Alvar, “Giovanni Battista Calandra, un mosaicista alia corte dei Barberini," II Seicento: Documenti e interpretazumi, Ricerche di storia dell arte, I-11, 1976, pp.211-40.

Goodison, J . W., and G. H. Robertson, Catalogue o f Paint­

ings, Fitzwi/liam Museum, Cambridge: II. Italian Schoob, Cambridge, 1967.

Gradara, Costanza, Pietro Bracci, scultore romano, 1700—1775, Milan, 1920.

Graf, Dieter, Die Handzeichnungen des Giuseppe Passeri 2 vols., Diisseldorf, 1995.

G ram berg, W erner, Die D iisse ld o r fer Sk izzenb iicher des Guglielmo della Porta, 3 vols., Berlin, 1964.

“Guglielmo della Portas Grabmal fiir Paul III. Famese in San Pietro in Vaticano,” Romisches Jahrbuch f i i r Kunst­geschichte, XXI, 1984, pp. 253-364.

Grangier de Liverdis, Balthazar, Journal d un voyage de France et d Italic, Paris, 1667.

Grassi, Luigi, Bernini pittore, Rome, 1945.Grigaut, Paul, "A Bozzetto for St. Peter’s ’Cattedra’,” Art

Quarterly, XVI, 1953, pp. 124-30.Grimaldi, Giacomo, Descrizione della Basilica Antica di S. Pietro

in Vaticano, ed. R. Niggl, Vatican City, 1972.Guercino e le collezioni capito/ine, ex. cat., ed. S. Guarino et al.,

Rome, 1991.Guerrieri Borsoi, Maria Barbara, “Dalla Fabbrica di San

Pietro alia Chiesa di San Domenico a Urbino: Copie di originali vaticani riutilizzate per volonta del cardinal Annibale Albani,”Antichita viva, XXVIII, 1989, pp. 32—40.

Guide ruma/i di Roma, multiple vols., Rome, 1967-present.Guido Reni 1575—1652, ex. cat., Los Angeles, 1988.Guglielmi, Carla, “Intorno all'opera pittorica di Giovanni

Baglione,” Bollettino d ’arte, XXXIX, 1954, pp. 311-26. sv Giovanni Baglione, DBI, V, 1963, pp. 186—91.

Guthlein, Klaus, "Quellen aus dem Familienarchiv Spada zum romischen Barock, ” RiimLiches Jahrbuch fiir Kiuistgeschichte, XVIII, 1979, pp. 173-246 and XIX, 1980, pp. 175-250.

Hall, Marcia, Renovation and Counter-Reformation. Vasari and Duke Cosimo in Santa M aria Novella and Santa Croce: 1565-1577, Oxford, 1979.

Hammond, Frederick, Miuuc and Spectacle in Baroque Rome. Barberini Patronage under Urban VIII, New Haven and London, 1994.

Harper, John, The Forms and Orders o f Western Liturgy from the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century, Oxford, 1991.

Haskell, Francis, Patrons and Painters, 2nd ed., New Haven and London, 1980.

and Nicolas Penny, T ate and the Antique, New Haven and London, 1981.

Hautecoeur, Louis, “I mosaicisti sanpietrini del Settecento,” L’arte, XIII, 1910, pp. 450-60.

Heimann, Adelheid, "Trinitas Creator Mundi, ” Journal o f the Warburg Institute, II, 1938-39, pp. 42-52.

Heimburger Ravalli, M inna, Alessandro A lgardi scu ltore, Rome, 1973.

Held, Julius, and Donald Posner, 17th and 18th Century Art, Englewood Cliffs, N J, 1971.

Herklotz, Ingo, "Michele Lonigo als Kunstkritiker. Su einer historisehen Rezeption der Altarbilder von Sacchi und Passignano in St. Peter, ” in Are naturam aduivans. Festschrift fiir Matthias Winner, Mainz am Rhein, 1996, pp. 413—29.

Herrmann-Mascard, Nicole, Les Reliques des saints. Formation coiituniiere d ’un droit, Paris, 1975.

3 3 0 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. P E T E R ’S

Herz, Alessandra, "Cardinal Cesare Baronio’s Restoration of SS. Nereo ed Achilleo and S. Cesareo de’ Appia,” Art Bulletin, LXX, 1988, pp. 590-620.

Herzberg, A.-J., Der heilige Mauritiao. Ein Be it rag zur Gere hie hie <)er deutchen Maurtiuo-Verehrung, Diisseldorl, 1936.

H ess, Jacob, "Note manciniane,” M iinchner Jahrhueh tier Bildenden Kun.it, XIX, 1968, pp. 103-20.

Hetherington, Paul, Pietro Cavallini A Study in the Art o f Late Medieval Rome, London, 1979.

Hibbard, Howard, Bernini, Harmondsworth, 1965.“Guido Reni’s Painting of the Immaculate Conception,”

Bulletin o f the Metropolitan Muoeum o f Art, 1969, pp. 19—30.Carlo Maderno and Roman Architecture 1580-1650, London,

1971.“ Ut picturae sermones’: The First Painted Decorations of

the Gesit, ” in Baroque Art: The Jeouit Contribution, ed. R. Wittkower and I. Jaffe, New York, 1972, pp. 29—47.

Pouooin: The Holy Family on the Stepo, London, 1974.Hind, Arthur, Early Italian Enqravinqo, 7 vols., London,

1938-48.Hook, Judith , “Urban VIII: The Paradox of a Spiritual

Monarchy,” in The Courto o f Europe: Politico, Patronage and Royalty 1T00—1800, ed. A. Dickens, London, 1977, pp.213-31.

Hope, Charles, “Altarpieces and the Requirements of Patrons,” in ChrLtianity and the Rena Loanee. Image and Rcligwuo Imagination in the Quattrocento, ed. T. Verdon and J . Henderson, Syracuse, NY, 1990, pp. 535-71.

Humfrey, Peter, "Co-ordinated Altarpieces in Renaissance Venice: The Progress of an Ideal,” in The Altarpiece in the Renaiooance, ed. P. Humfrey and M. Kemp, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 190-211.

The Altarpiece ui Renaiooance Venice, New Haven and Lon­don, 1993.

Hunter, John, The Life and Work o f Girolamo Siciolante da Ser- moneta, Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1983.

I! Seicento fiorentino. Arte a Firenze da Ferdinando I a Coo uno III. Pittura, Florence, 1986.

Incisa della Rocchetta, Giovanni, "Le vicende dei tre quadri d’altare,” Roma, X, 1932, pp. 255-70.

“II Bozzetto del S. Venceslao’ di Angelo Caroselli," Bollet- tino dei Muoei Comunali di Roma, XII, 1965, pp. 22—27.

Isnello, Domenico da, IIconvento della SS. Concezione d e’ Padri Cappuccim m Piazza Barberini di Roma, Viterbo, 1923.

Italian Altarpieceo 1250—1550. Function and Deoign, ed. E. Bor- sook and F. Superbi Gioffredi, Oxford, 1994.

Jaco b us de Voragine, Leqenda Aurea, ed. T. Graesse, Vratislava, 1890.

The Golden Legend, trans. G. Ryan and H. Ripperger, New York, 194 i .

Janson, H. W., The Sculpture o f Donatello, 2 vols., Princeton, 1957.

Johns, Christopher, Papal Art and Cultural Politico: Rome in the Age o f Clement XI, Cambridge and New York, 1993.

Johnston, Catherine, “Dessins de Guido Reni,” L’Oeil, no. 169, 1969, pp. 2 0 -2 7 .

Jounel, Pierre, Le Culte deo oainto da no leo baoiliqueo du Latran et du Vatican au douzieme oiecle, Rome, 1977.

Jungmann, Josef Andreas, The Ataoo o f the Roman Rite, trans. F. Brunner, 2 vols., New York, 1951-55.

Kantorowicz, Ernst, “The Baptism of the Apostles,” Dumbar­ton Oako Papero, IX-X, 1955-56, pp. 203-51.

Kauffmann, Hans, “Berninis Tabernakel," Miinchner Jahrhueh der bildenden Kun.it, VI, 1955, pp. 222—42.

Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini. Die f igu r lich en Kompooitionen, Berlin, 1970.

Kerber, Bernhard, “Erganzungen zu Romanelli,” Gieooener Beitrage zur Kunotqeochiehte, IV, 1983, pp. 33—137.

Kirwin, W. Chandler, “Bernini’s Baldacchino Reconsidered," RomLcbeo Jahrhueh fu r Kunotqeochiehte, XIX, 1981, pp. 141-71.

"Cardinal Baronius and the ’M isteri’ in St. Peter’s,” in Baronia e /’arte. Atti del eonvegno internazionale diotudi (Fond eotudibaroniani, II), Sora, 1985, pp. 3-20.

See also Chappell and Kirwin.Kishpaugh, Mary Jerome, The Feaot o f the Preoentation o f the

Virgin Mary in the Temple: An HLtorical and Literary Stueh/, Washington, DC, 1941.

Kmpping, John Baptist, Iconography o f the Counter Reformation m the Netherlando, 2 vols., 2nd ed., Leiden, 1974.

Kohren-Jansen, Helmtrud, Giottoo Navicella. Bildtradition, Deutung, Rezeptionogeochiehte [Romioche Studien der Biblio- theca Hertziana, 8], Worms, 1993.

Korte, Werner, "Die ’Navicella’ des Giotto,” in Feotochrift Wilhelm Finder, Leipzig, 1938, pp. 223-63.

Koortbojian, Michael, “Disegni for the Tomb of AlexanderVII,” Journal o f the Warburq and Courtauld Inotituteo, LIV, 1991, pp. 268-73.

Kraus, Andreas, Dao peipotliche Staatooekretariat unter UrbanVIII. 1625-16-11, Freiburg, 1964.

Krautheimer, Richard, “A Christian Triumph in 1597,” Eioayo m the Hiotory o f Art preoented to Rudolf Wittkower, London, 1967, pp. 174-78.

Rome: Profile o f a City, 512—1508, Princeton, 1980.et al., Corpuo Baoilicarum Chriotianarum Romae, V, Vatican

City, 1977.La Baoilica di San Pietro, ed. C. Pietrangeli, Rome, 1989.La Blanchardiere, Noelle de, “Simon Vouet, Prince de 1’A-

cademie de Saint-Luc, ” Bulletin de la Socie'te'de I’HLtoire de I ’Art FranqaL, 1972, pp. 79—93.

La Canonizzazwne dei Santi Ignazio di Loiola, fondatore della Com- paqnia di Geoii, e Franceoco Saverio, apootolo d e ll’Oriente, Rome, 1622.

La Croix, Pierre, Memoire hiotorique our leo inotitutiono de la France a Rome, 2nd ed., Rome, 1892.

Lamping, A. J . , Ulriehuo Velenuo (Oldrich Velenoky) and hie Treat Le aqain.it the Papacy, Leiden, 1976.

Lane, Barbara, “Rogier’s St. John and Miraflores Altarpieces Reconsidered," Art Bulletin, LX, 1978, pp. 655-72.

The Altar and the Altarpiece. Sacram ental Themeo in Early NetherlandLh Painting, New York, 1984.

La pittura emiliana del ‘600, ed. A. Cera, Milan, 1982.L’arte degli anni oanti. Roma 1500—1875, ed. M. Fagiolo and M.

L. Madonna, Milan, 1984.Lassels, Richard, The Voyage o f Italy, Paris, 1670.Laureati, Laura, "Brevi aggiunte al catalogo di Domenico

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 3 3 1

Cresti detto il Passignano,” in Scritti in onore di Giuliano Briganti, Milan, 1990, pp. 147-59.

Lavin, Irving, Bernini and the Crossing o f Saint Peter's, New York, 1968.

Bernini and the Unity o f the Visual Arts, 2 vols., New York and London, 1980.

“Bernini’s Baldachin: Considering a Reconsideration,” Romisches Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, XXII, 1984, pp. 405-13.

et al., Drawings by Gianlorenzo Bernini from the Museum der Bildenden Kilnste, Leipzig, Princeton, 1981.

Lavin, Marilyn Aronberg, Seventeenth-Century Barberini Docu­ments and Inventories o f Art, New York, 1975.

Piero della Francesca ’s 'Baptism o f Christ ’, London, 1981.L’edificio a pianta centrale. Lo ssilappo del disegno architettonico nel

Rinascimento, ex. cat., ed. M. Licht, Florence, 1984.Lees-Milne, James, Saint P eter’s, Boston, 1967.Leopold, Silke, Stefano Landi Beitrdge zur Biographic. Unter-

suchungen su r weltlichen and geistliche Vokalmusik, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1976.

Leti, Gregorio, Itinerario della Corte di Roma . . . , 3 vols., Valenza, 1675.

Lewine, Milton, "Vignola’s Church of Sant’Anna de’ Palafre- nieri in Rome,” Art Bulletin, XLVII, 1965, pp. 199-229.

Lieure, Jules, Jacques Callot, 5 vols., Pans, 1924-29.Lioni, Ottavio, and Fausto Amidei, Ritratti dt alcuni celebrt pit­

tori del secolo XVII. . . , Rome, 1731.Loevinson, Ermanno, “Quadri della famiglia Fagnani,”

L’arte, X III, 1910, pp. 134-15 .Loire, Stephane, "Les 'Tableaux de Rome’ graves par

Jacques Callot: Leurs sources et leur contexte,” in Jacques Calbrt (1592-1655). Actes du colloque . . . Paris et Nancy, Paris, 1993, pp. 93—136.

Ludovico Carracci ex. cat., ed. A. Emiliani, Bologna, 1993.Lunadoro, Girolamo, Re la tim e della corte di Roma . . . , Brac-

ciano, 1650.Lunelli, Renato, L’Arte organaria del Rinascimento in Roma e g l i

organidiS . Pietro in Vaticano . . . [Historiae Musicae Cultures Biblioteca, 10], Florence, 1958.

Maccarrone, Michele, “La storia della Cattedra,” in La catte- dra lignea di S. Pietro ui Vaticano [Memorie della Pontificia Accademui Rornana diArcbeologia, 10], 1971, pp. 3—70.

Magnuson, Torgil, Rome ui the Age o f Bernini, 2 vols., Stock­holm, 1982-86.

Mahon, Denis, Studies in Seicento Art and Theory, London, 1947.“Poussin au carrefour des annees Trente," Actes du Colloque

N icolas Poussin, ed. A. Chastel, Paris, 1960, I, pp.237-64.

I I Guercino. Catalogs critico dei dipinti Bologna, 1968.IlGuercino. Catalogs critico deidisegni, Bologna, 1969.and Nicolas Turner, The Drawings o f Guercino in the Collec­

tion o f Her M ajesty the Queen a t Windsor Castle, Cam­bridge, 1989.

Male, Emile, L’Art reliqieux apres le Concile de Trente, Paris, 1932.

Rome et ses vieilles eglises, Paris, 1942.The Gothic Image. Religunis Art in France o f the Thirteenth Cen­

tury, trans. D. Nussey, New York, 1958.

Malvasia, Carlo Cesare, Felsina pittrice, ed. G. Zanotti, 2 vols., Bologna, 1841.

The Life o f Guido Reni, ed. and trans. C. and R. Enggass, University Park, PA, and London, 1980.

Mancini, Giulio, Viaqqio p er Roma, ed. L. Schudt, Leipzig, 1923.

Considerazionisullapittura, ed. A. Marucchi and L. Salerno, 2 vols., Rome, 1956.

Marini, Maurizio, “11 Cavaliere Giovanni Baglione pittore e il suo “angelo custode” Tommaso Salini pittore di fig­ure. Alcune opere ritrovate,” Artibiui et huitoriae, no. 5, 1982, pp. 61-74.

Marsicola, Clemente, “Note alio Spadarino," Prospettiva, no. 16, 1979, pp. 45-52.

Martin, Gregory, Roma sancta (1581), ed. G. Parks, Rome, 1969.

Martinelli, Fioravante, Roma ricercata nel suo sito, Rome, 1707. See also D’Onofrio, Cesare, 1969.

Martorelli, Luigi, Storia del Clero Vaticano, Rome, 1792.M artyrologium romanum . . . Gregorij XIII Pont. Maximi ittssu

editum, Rome, 1584.Masetti Zannini, Gian Ludovico, “Pieta e ‘furberia’ a San

Pietro e dintorni: Episodi e conversazioni di mezzo sec­olo (1550—1600),” Strenna deiRomanisti, XXXVII, 1976, pp. 143-62.

Mauquoy-Hendrickx, Marie, Les K itampes des Wierix con­s t rvees au Cabinet des K itam pes de la Biblioteque Royale Albert I.er, 3 vols., Brussels, 1978-83.

Melasecchi, Olga, "Gaspare Celio pittore (1571—1640): Pre- cisazioni ed aggiunte sulla vita e le opere,” Studi romani, XXXVIII, 1990, pp. 281-302.

Menichella, Anna, “Documenti della Reverenda Fabbrica di San Pietro per il ciborio berniniano del Santissimo Sacramento," Archivio della Societa Romana dt Storia Patrui, CXVI, 1993, pp. 213-41.

Mercalli, Marica, ”L'Angelo di Castello: La sua iconografia, il suo significato,” in LAngelo e la Citta, ex. cat., Rome, 1987, pp. 95-118.

Merz, Jorg, Pietro da Cortona. Der Aufstieg zum fiihrenden Maler im barocken Rom, Tubingen, 1991.

Millon, Henry, “An Early Seventeenth Century Drawing of the Piazza San Pietro,” Art Quarterly, XXV, 1962, pp. 229-41.

and Craig Hugh Smyth, “Michelangelo and St. Peter’s: Observations on the Interior of the Apses, a Modei ol the Apse Vault, and Related Drawings," Romisches Jahrbuch f i i r Kunstgeschichte, XVI, 1976, pp. 137—206.

Alissale romanum, 6th ed., Rome, 1953.Moller, Renate, Der romuiche Alaler Giovanni Baglione. Leben and

Werk u n te r b e son d er e r B er iick s ich tigu n g s e in e r stilgeschichtlichen Stellung zwischen ManierLunus und Barock, Ph.D. diss., Munich, 1989 (Munich, 1991).

Mojana, Marina, Valentin de Boulogne, Milan, 1989.Mola, Giovanni Battista, Breve racconto delle miglio opere d ’ar-

chitettura, scu ltura et pittura fa t t e in Roma . ■ . , ed. K. Noehles, Roma /’anno 1665, Berlin, 1963.

Molanus, Joannis, De Historia SS. Imaginum et Picturarum pro vero earum usu contra abusus Libri IV, Louvain, 1594.

3 3 2 T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

Mombrizio, Bonino, Sanctiuirium, seu vita? sanctorum, 2 vols., Paris, 1910.

Montagu, Jennifer, "Antonio and Gioseppe Giorgetti: Sculptors to Cardinal Francesco Barberini,” Art Bul­letin, LII, 1970, pp. 278-98.

"Un dono del Cardinale Francesco Barberini al Re di Spagna, ” Arte illustrata, IV, 1971, pp. 42-51.

Alessandro Algardi, 2 vols., New Haven and London, 1985.Roman Baroque Sculpture. The Industry o f Art, New Haven

and London, 1989.Montel, Robert, "Un 'Casale' de la Campagne romaine de la

fin du XIVe siecle au debut du XVI le: Le domaine de Porto, d ’apres les Archives du Chapitre de Saint Pierre,” /Melanges de I ’Ecole Franqaise de Rome. Mcryen age - Temps modernes, LXXXIII, 1971, pp. 31-87.

"Le ‘Casale’ de Boccea, d ’apres les Archives du Chapitre de Saint-Pierre (fin XlVe-fin XVIe siecle),’’ /Melanges de I ’Ecole Franqaise de Rome. Aloyen a ge — Temps modernes, XCI, 1979, pp. 593-617; XCVII, 1985, pp. 605-726.

“Les chanoines de la Basilique Saint-Pierre de Rome des Statuts Capitulaires de 1277-1279 a la fin de la Papaute d ’Avignon: Etude prosopographique,” Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, XLII, 1988, pp. 365-450; XLII1, 1989, pp. 1-49,411-79.

Moorman, John, A Hhtory o f the Francucan Order, from Its Ori­g in s to the Year 15/7, Oxford, 1968.

Moreno, Paolo, “Ispirazione dall’antico nella pittura del Sei- cento,” Bollettino d ’arte, XLIX, 1964, pp. 117—26.

Moroni, Gaetano, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da San Pietro sino a i nostrigiorni, 109 vols., Venice, 1840-79.

Mortoft, Francis, Francui Alortoft: Hut Book, Being hi) Travels through France and Italy 1658-1659, ed. M. Letts, London, 1925.

Munoz, Antonio, "Le pitture del portico della vecchia Basil­ica Vaticana e la loro datazione, ” Nuovo bollettino di arche- ologia, XIX, 1913, pp. 175-80.

"La formazione artistica del Borromini," Rassegna d ’arte, XIX, 1919.

"Francesco Borromini nei lavori della Fabbrica di San Pietro,” in Scritti in onore di Bartolomeo Nogara, Vatican City, 1937, pp. 317-24.

Nava Cellini, Antonia, "Un tracciato per l’attivita ritrattistica di Giuliano Finelli," Paragone, XI, 1960, pp. 9—30.

Nees, Lawrence, A Tainted Alantle. Hercules and the Classical Tradition at the Caro/ingian Court, Philadelphia, 1991.

"Audiences and Reception of the Cathedra Petri," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, CXXII, 1993, pp. 57-72.

Nicolai, Nicola Maria, De Vaticana Basilica D id Petri a c de ejus- dem privileges, Rome, 1817.

Nicolas Poussin 1594-1665, ex. cat., ed. P. Rosenberg and L.- A. Prat, Paris, 1994.

Nicolson, Benedict, Caravaqgism in Europe, 3 vols., Turin, 1989.

Nissman, Joan, Domenico Cresti (II Passignano), 1559—1658, a Tuscan Painter in Florence and Rome, Ph.D. diss., Colum­bia University, 1979.

Noehles, Karl, "Zu Cortonas Dreifaltigkeitsgemalde und Berninis Ziborium in der Sakramentskapelle von St.

Peter,” Riimiscbes .lahrbuch fur Kunstgeschichte, XV, 1975, pp. 169-82.

"V isualisierte Eucharistietheologie. Ein Beitrag zur Sakralikonologie im Seicento rom ano,” Aliinchner Jahrhuch der Bildenden Kunst, 29, 1978, pp. 92—116.

See also Mola, Giovanni Battista.Nussdorfer, Laurie, Civic Politics in the Rome o f Urban VIII,

Princeton, 1992.Oberhuber, Konrad, Poussin. The Early Years, New York, 1988.Old e~> /Modern Alaster Drawings [Lucien Goldschmidt, Inc.,

catalogue no. 55], New York, 1983.Olivetti, Simona, "II ciborio della Sacra Lancia di Innocenzo

VIII: Un’impresa quattrocentesca dimenticata,” Storia de/l’arte, no. 71, 1991, pp. 7-24.

Orbaan, Johannes, "Der Abbruch A lt-Sankt-Peters,” Jah rhu ch der koniglich preuszutchen Kunstsamm/unqen, XXXIX (Beiheft)', 1919, pp. 21-117.

Documenti su l barocco in Roma [Miscellanea della R. Societa di Storia Patria, 6], Rome, 1920.

Ostrow, Stephen, "Recent Acquisitions, 1966—67,” Rhode Island School o f Design. Bulletin, LI V, 1967.

Ostrow, Steven, "The Tomb of Cardinal Francisco de Toledo at S. Maria Maggiore: A New Work by Gia­como della Porta and Egidio della Riviera," Ricerche di storia dell’arte, XXI, 1983, pp. 83-96.

"Marble Revetment in Late Sixteenth-Century Chapels,” in II 60. Essays honoring In ’ing Lavin on bis Sixtieth Birth­day, ed. M. A. Lavin, New York, 1990.

Art and Spirituality in Counter-Reformation Rome. The Shtine and Pauline Chapeli in S. Alaria Alagqiore, Cambridge and New York, 1996.

Ottani (C avina), Anna, "Su Angelo Caroselli, pittore romano,” Arte antica e nwderna, XXXI-XXXII, 1965, pp.289-97.

sv Angelo Caroselli, DBI, XX, pp. 548-50.Paeseler, W., "Giottos Navicella und ihr spatantikes Vor-

bild,” Riimiscbes Jahrhuch fur Kunstgeschichte, V, 1941, pp. 49-152.

Pagano, Sergio, "Le visite apostoliche a Roma nei secoli XVI-XIX. Repertorio delle fonti,” Ricerche per la storia religiosa di Roma, IV, 1980, pp. 317—464.

Panigarola, Francesco, Beati Petrigesta, Asti, 1591.Panofsky-Soergel, Gerda, "Nachtrage zu Stefano Landis

Biographie,” Analecta m usico logica , XXII, 1984, pp.69-129.

Panvinio, Onofrio, Le sette chiese principali di Roma, trans. M. A. Lanfranchi, Rome, 1570.

De primatu Petri et apostolicae sedut potestate libri tres, Venice, 1591.

Papi, Gianni, "Una precisazione biografica e alcune inte- grazioni al catalogo dello Spadarino,” Paraqone, XXXVil, 1986, pp. 20-28.

"Sull ’attivita di Antonio Circignani, pittore caravaggesco, ” Paragone, XLI, 1990, pp. 95—114.

Parks, George, The English Traveler to Italy, I, Rome, 1954.Pascoli, Leone, Vite d e’pittori, scu ltoriedarchitettim oderni. . . , 2

vols., Rome, 1730-36 (facs. reprint, Rome, 1933).Passeri, Giovanni Battista, Vite de ’pittori, scultori e t architetti

B I B L I O G R A P H Y gS 3 3 3

dull’anno 1641 rino a ll’anno 1675. . . , ed. J . Hess, Leipzig and Vienna, 1934.

Pastor, Ludwig von, The HLttoru o f the Paper, 40 vols., Lon­don, 1924-53.

Patrignani, A., "Le medaglie papali del periodo neoclassico, 1605—1799: I. Da Paolo V a Clemente IX,” Bollettino del Circolo N umirmatico Napoletano, XXXVII, 1952, pp.35-82.

Pecchiai, Pio, “Costanza Magalotti Barberini, cognata di Urbano VIII,” Archivi (Roma), XVI, fasc. 2, 1949, pp. 11—41.

Pellicciari, Armanda, "Giovanni Giacomo Sementi, allievo di Guido Reni,” Bollettino d ’arte, LXIX, no. 24, 1984, pp. 25^40.

Pepper, Stephen, Guido Reni, Oxford, 1984.Perrier, A., "Les representations iconographiques de Sainte

Valerie et des saints cephalophores, ” Bulletin de la Socie'te' Archeologie et d ’Hirtoire du Limourin, LXXXII, 1948, pp. 85ff.

Petra, Vincenzo, De Sacra Poenitentiaria Aportolica, Rome, 1712.Petrocchi, Massimo, Roma nel Seieento, Bologna, 1970.Piazza, Carlo Bartolomeo, Efemeride vaticana per i pregi eccleri-

artici d ’ogni giorno dell'augurtirrima Barilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano, Rome, 1687.

Pichi, Girolamo, Raccolta delle piu divote memorie rpettanti alia venerabilLirima Biuiilica Vaticana, Rome, 1782.

Pietro Terta 1612—1650: Printr and Drawingr, ex. cat., ed. E. Cropper, Philadelphia, 1988.

Poliak, Oskar, "Ita lien ische K iinstlerbriefe aus der Barockzeit, ” Jahrbueh der koniglich preurzirchen Kunrt- rammlungen, XXXIV (Beiheft), 1913, pp. 1—70.

"Ausgewahlte Akten zur Geschichte der romischen Peter- skirche (1535—1621),” Jahrbueh der kiiniglich preurzirchen Kunrtrammlungen, XXXVI (Beiheft), 1915, pp. 21-117.

Die Kunrttatigkeit unter Urban VIII., 2 vols., Vienna, 1928 and 1931.

Pope-Hennessy, John, The Drawingr o f Domenichino in the Collec­tion o f Hu Majertg the King al W'uidror Cartle, London, 1948.

Donatello ’r Relief o f the Areenr um with Chrirt Giving the Keyr to Peter, London, 1949.

Italian Renaurance Sculpture, New York, 1985.Posner, Donald: see Held and Posner.Posse, I Ians, Der romirche Aialer Andrea Sacchi, Leipzig, 1925.Preimesberger, Rudolf, "Die Ausstattung der Kuppelpfeiler

von St. Peter, Rom, unter Papst Urban VIII.,” Jahrer- und Tagungrbericht der G oerrer-G erellrchaft, LXXXIV, 1983, pp. 30-55.

"Berninis Statue des Longinus in St. Peter,” in Antiken- rezeption ini Hochbarock, ed. H. Beck and S. Schulze, Berlin, 1989, pp. 143—53.

"Skulpturale Mimesis: Mochis HI. Veronika," in Akten der 28. internationalen Kongrerrer fu r Kunrtgerch 'ichte, Berlin, 1993, II, pp. 473-82. '

Pressouyre, Sylvia, Nicolar Cordier. Rechercher ru r la rculpture a Rome autour de 1600, 2 vols., Rome, 1984.

Prodi, Paolo, Ricerca ru lla teorica delle a r t i figu ra tiv e nella Riforma Cattolica, Bologna, 1984.

Prosperi Valenti (Rodino), Simonetta, "Un pittore fiorentino

a Roma e i suoi committenti,” Paragone, XXIII, 1972, pp. 80-99.

"Ancora su Agostino Ciampelli disegnatore, Antichita viva, XII, 1973, pp. 6-17.

Diregni fioren tin i (1560—1640) dalle collezioni del Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stanipa, Rome, 1977.

rv Agostino Ciampelli, DBI, XXV, pp. 122-26."Allegrini: Francesco o Flaminio?” in Nuove ricerche in nuir-

g in e alia mortra ‘Da Leonardo a Rembrandt: DLtegni della Biblioteca Reale di Torino. ’ Atti del Convegno lnternazionale di Studi, Turin, 1991, pp. 232—33.

Raffaello in Vaticano, ex. cat., Milan, 1984.Rahner, Hugo, "Navicula Petri. Zur Symbolgeschichte des

romischen Primats,” Zeitrchrift fu r katolirche Theologie, LXIX, 1947, pp. Iff.

Rasmussen, Niels, O.P., "Iconography and Liturgy at the Canonization of Carlo Borromeo,” Analecta Romana InrtitutiDanici, XV, 1986, pp. 119—50.

Rastelli, G. B., Dercrittione della pompa et del apparato fatto in Roma per la tranrlatione del Corpo di S. Gregorio Nazianzeno dal Alonirtero di S. Alaria di Campo Alarzio nella Chiera di S. Pietro nella Cappella Gregoriana . . ., Perugia, n.d. (1580).

Raymond, John, An Ituierary contayning a Voyage made through Italy in the yeare 1646, and 1647, London, 1648.

Reau, Louis, Iconographie de Part chre'tien, 3 vols., Paris, 1955—59.Renazzi, Filippo Maria, Compendia di teorica e dipratica ricavato

dalli decreti e riroluzioni originali della Sacra Congregazione della Referenda Fabbrica di S. Pietro, Rome, 1793.

Reynolds, Christopher, The Aluric Chapel at San Pietro in Vati­cano in the Later Fifteenth Century, Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1982.

Ricci, Fausto, Conriderazioni, e orazioni di Faurto Ricci, per vir- itare la racrorancta Barilica Vaticana, e i VII altari della mederima, Rome, 1754.

Rice, Eugene, St. Jerom e in the Renauirance, Baltimore and London, 1985.

Rice, Louise, “Urban VIII, the Archangel Michael, and a Forgotten Project for the Apse Altar of St. Peter's,” Burlington Alagazine, CXXXIV, 1992, pp. 428-34.

"La coesistenza delle due basiliche,” in L’arehitettura della Barilica di S. Pietro: Storia e cortruzione [Quaderni dell’Irti- iuto di Storia dell’Architettura], forthcoming.

Rietbergen, Peter, "A Vision Come True: Pope Alexander VII, Gianlorenzo Bernini and the Colonnades of St. Peter’s, " Alededelingen van het Nederlandr Inrtituut te Rome, XLIV-XLV, 1983,'pp. 111-63.

Ripa, Cesare, Iconologia, Rome, 1603 (facs. Hildesheim, 1970).Robertson, Clare, ‘IIgran carduiale’: Alerrandro Farnere, Patron

o f the Artr, New Haven and London, 1992.Roma 1650. II trion fo del pennello, ex. cat., ed. O. Bonfait,

Milan, 1994.Roma 1500—1875. L’Arte deglianniranti, ex. cat., ed. M. Fagiolo

and M. L. Madonna, Milan, 1984.Roma Sancta. La Citta delle bardiche, ed. M. Fagiolo and M. L.

Madonna, Rome, 1985.Ronen, Avraham, "Divine Wrath and Intercession in Pietro

da Cortona’s Frescoes in the Chiesa Nuova,” RomLcher Jahrbueh f i i r Kunrtgerch'ichte, XXV, 1989, pp. 179-205.

3 3 4 gi T H E ALTARS A N D A L T A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

Rossi, Ermete, under the heading "Roma ignorata,” Roma, IX-XVII, 1931-39, passim.

Rossi, Gian Vittorio (Janus Nicius Eiythraeus), Pinacotheca imagiifnum illimtrinm, 3 vols., Cologne, 16-45—48.

Rostirolla, Giancarlo, “La Cappella Giulia in S. Pietro negli anni del magistero di Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina,'' in Atti del Convegno di Stubi Palectruiiani, Palestrina, 1977, pp. 99-283.

Rottgen, Herwarth, 11 Cavalier d'Arpino, ex. cat., Rome, 1973.Rubin, Miri, Corpuc Chrmti. The Euehari.it in Late Medieval Cul­

ture, Cambridge, 1991.Salerno, Carlo Stefano, "Precisazioni su Angelo Caroselli,”

Storia bell Arte, no. 76, 1992, pp. 346—61.Salerno, Luigi, "L’Opera di Antonio Pomarancio,” Commen-

tari, III, 1952, pp. 128-34."Intorno a Filippo Napoletano, Angelo Caroselli, Salvator

Rosa e altri," Storia bel/’arte, V, 1970, pp. 34—65.I dipinti del Guercino, Rome, 1988.

Sandrart, Joachim von, Acabemie ber Bau-, Bilb- and Alab/erey- Kiiihite von 1675, ed. A. R. Peltzer, Munich, 1925.

Schaar, Eckhard, "Carlo Maratta and his Pupils in the Bap­tismal Font of Saint Peter's," Art Bulletin, XLV1, 1966, pp. 414—15.

See also Sutherland Harris and SchaarSchlegel, Ursula, "I crocifissi degli altari in San Pietro in

Vaticano, ” Anlichila viva, XX, 1981, pp. 37—42.“Zum Grabmal Alexanders VII (1671—1678),” Mitteilun-

gen bee K unvth iitoriichen Institu te in Florenz, XXVIII, 1984, pp. 415-22.

Schleier, Erich, "Drawings by Lanfranco for the Altar of St. Leo the Great in St. Peter's,” Alcmter Drawing.!, V, 1967 (a), pp. 35—39.

"A Bozzetto by Vouet, not by Lanfranco,” Burlington Alag- azine, CIX, 1967 (b), pp. 272-76.

"Vouet’s Destroyed St Peter Altar-piece: Further Evi­dence,” Burlington Alagazine, CX, 1968, pp. 573—74.

“Les projets de Lanfranc pour le decor de la Sala Regia au Quirinal et pour la Loge des Benedictions a Saint- Pierre, ” Revue be Part, VII, 1970, pp. 40—67.

"Two New Modelli for Vouet’s St Peter Altar-piece,” Burlington Alagazine, XIV, 1972, pp. 91-92.

Dmegni bi Giovanni Lanfranco (1582-16-17), Florence, 1983.Schmidtbauer, Peter, "Prolegomena zu einer Sozialgeschichte

des Kapitels von St. Peter im Vatikan,” Romuiche.i IIm- tormcheMitteilungen, XXVIII, 1986, pp. 243-301.

"Das Einkommen der Domherren von St. Peter im Vatikan vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert,” Romicchec HictormcheAlitteilungen, XXIX, 1987, pp. 315—35.

Schroeder, Heniy, Canon.! and Decree.i o f the Council o f Trent, St. Louis, 1941.

Schiitze, Sebastian , '“ Urbano inalza Pietro, e Pietro Urbano.’ Beobachtungen zu Idee und Gestalt der Ausstattung von Neu-St. Peter unter Urban VIII.,” Romuiche.i Jahrluich fu r Kunctgeccbichte, XXIX, 1994, pp.213-87.

Scott, John Beldon, "Papal Patronage in the Seventeenth Cen­tuiy: Urban VIII, Bernini, and the Countess Matilda," in L’Age b ’or bu mecenat, 1598-1661, Paris, 1985, pp. 119—27.

hnage.t o f Negation. The Painted Ceiling.! o f Palazzo Barberini, Princeton, 1991.

"Patronage and the Visual Encomium during the Pontifi­cate of Urban VIII: The Ideal Palazzo Barberini in a Dedicatory Print, ” Memoir.i o f the American Academy in Rome, XLH995, pp. 197-234.

Sedlmayr, Hans, "Der Bildkreis von neu St. Peter in Rom,” in Epochal unb Werke: Gevammette Schriften zur Kunct- gecchichte, II, Vienna, 1960, pp. 7—44.

Seieento: Le ciecle be Caravage baiui lev collection.! frangamec, ex. cat., Paris, 1988.

Semmler, Josef, Dim pap.it/iche Staatccekretariat in ben Pontif- ikaten Pault V. unb Gregor.i XV. (1605—1625), Rome, 1969.

Sergardi, Lodovico, Ragguaglio della volenne trcmlaz'wne del Corpo bi S. Leone Magno, cegu ita g l i 11 Aprile 1715 nella Bcmilica Vaticana, Rome, 1715.

Serobine. La pittura oltre Caravaggio, ex. cat., Milan, 1987.Severano, Giovanni, Afemorie .mere belle cette chiece bi Ronui.. .,

2 vols., Rome, 1630.Shearman, John, Raphael'.! Cartoonc in the Collection o f Her

M ajecty the Queen and the Tapectriec fo r the Siotine Chapel, London, 1972.

"II tiburio di Bramante,” Studi branuintecchhi [Atti del con- grecco internazionale], Rome, 1974, pp. 567—73.

S iebenhiiner, H erbert, "Umrisse zur Geschichte der Ausstattung von St. Peter in Rom von Paul III. von Paul V. (1547—1606),’’ in Fectcchrift f i i r Hanc Sedlmayr, Munich, 1962, pp. 229—320.

Silos, Giovanni Michele, Pinacotheca, cive romana pictura et jculptura, Rome, 1673 (facs. ed. with trans., M. Basile Bonsante, 2 vols., Rome, 1979).

Silvan, Pierluigi, "I cicli pittorici delle grotte vaticane. Alcuni aspetti poco noti dell opera di Giovan Battista Ricci da Novara e di Carlo Pellegrini,” Arte lombarda, XC-XCI, 1989, pp. 104-21.

"Le origini della pianta di Tiberio Allarano," Atti della Pon- tificia Accabemia Romana bi Archeologia, LXII, 1992, pp. 3-23.

Simon Vouet. Acteo bu collogue international, ed. S. Loire, Paris, 1992.

Sinding-Larsen, Staale, Iconography and Ritual. A Study o f Ana­lytica l Percpectiveo, Bergen, 1984.

Sindone, Raffaele, Altarium, et religtiiarum cacrocanctae Bacili- cae Vaticanae. . . beccriptio hmtorica, Rome, 1744.

Smollett, Tobias, Travelc through France and Italy, ed. F. Felsenstein, Oxford, 1981.

Solinas, Francesco, "Ferrante Carlo, Simon Vouet et Cas- siano dal Pozzo. Notes et documents inedits sur la peri- ode romaine,” in Simon Vouet. Actec bu collogue interna­tional, Paris, 1992, pp. 135-47.

Soprani, Raffaello, Vite b e’ p it tori, ccu ltoriebarchitettigenove.il, ed. C. Ratti, 2 vols., Genoa, 1768.

Spear, Richard, "Some Domenichino Cartoons,” M acter Drawingc, V, 1967, pp. 144—58.

Caravaggio and bio Follower,!, Cleveland, 1971.Domenichino, 2 vols., New Haven and London, 1982.

Specchio bi Roma barocca. Una guiba inebita delXVIIcecolo, ed. J . Connors and L. Rice, expanded ed., Rome, 1991.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 3 3 5

Spezzaferro, Luigi, "La Pala dei Palafrenieri,” in Col/oquio oul tema Caravaggw e i Caravaggeochi, Rome, 1974, pp. 125-37.

Spike, John, Italian Baroque Paintingu from New York Private Collection.!, Princeton, 1980.

S. Sabina [Tevori d'arte eriitiana, 1.4], ed. C. Faldi Guglielmi, Bologna, 1966.

Stein, Meir, "Notes on Italian Sources of Nicolas Poussin,” Konothiotorik Tidukrift, XXI, 1952, pp. 5—12.

Steinberg, Leo, "Guercino's 'Saint Petronilla’," in Studicu in Italian Art and Architecture, 15th through 18th Centurieo, ed. H. Millon, Memoirv o f the American Academy in Rome, XXXV, 1980, pp. 207 -4 2 .

Stengel, Karl, Commentariuo rerum geutarum vanctiivim i apou- tolorum principLt Petri, Augsburg, 1620.

Stone, David, Theory and Practice in Seicento Art: The Example o f Guercino, Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1989.

Guercino Afouter Draftoman. ICorfu from North American Col­lection.!, ex. cat., Bologna, 1991.

Subleyrau 1699-17J9, ex. cat., ed. O. Michel and P. Rosen­berg, Rome, 1987.

Suckale-Redlesfsen, Gude, The Black Saint Maurice, Houston and Munich, 1987.

Sutherland H arris, Ann£? "A Contribution to Andrea Camassei Studies," Art Bulletin, LI I, 1970, pp. 49-70.

Andrea Sacchi, Princeton, 1977."La dittatura de Bernini," in Bernini e le arti viuive, ed. M.

Fagiolo, Rome, 1987, pp. 43—58.and Eckhard Schaar, Die Handzeichnungen von Andrea Sacchi

und Carlo Alaratla, Dusseldorf, 1967.The Age o f Caravaggio, ex. cat., New York, 1985.The Altarpiece in the Renaiuuance, ed. P. Humfrey and M.

Kemp, Cambridge, 1990.The Illuutrated Bartuch, multiple vols., New York, 1978-pre-

sent.Theisen, Reinold, Alauu Liturgy and the Council o f Trent, Col-

legeville, MN„ 1965.Thelen, Heinrich, Franceoco Borromini: Die Handzeichnungen, I,

Graz, 1967 (a).Zur Entutehungugeuchichte der Hochaltar-Architektur von St

Peter in Rom, Berlin, 1967 (b).The Renaiuuance from Brunelleuchi lo Michelangelo: The Repreuenta-

tion o f Architecture, ex. cat., ed. H. Millon and V. Mag- nago Lampugnani, Milan, 1994.

Thiem, Christel, Florentiner Zeichner deu Friihbarock, Munich, 1977.

"The Florentine Agostino Ciampelli as a Draughtsman," ATauterDrawingu, IX, 1971, pp. 359-64.

Thieme, Ulrich, and Felix Becker, Allgemeineu Lexikon der bildenden Kiinutlcr von der Ant ike bui zur Gegenwart, Leipzig, 37 vols., 1907-50.

Thoenes, Christof, "St. Peter als Ruine," Zeitucbrift f i ir Kun.it- geochichte, XLIX, 1986, pp. 481-501.

"'Peregi naturae cursum.' Zum Grabmal Pauls III.,” in Feotochrift f i t r Hartmut Biermann, Weinheim, 1990, pp. 129-41.

“Alt- und Neu-St.-Peter unter einem Dach. Zu Antonio da Sangallos 'Muro Divisorio’," in Architektur und Kuti.it im Abendland. Feotochrift zur Vollendung deu 65. Lebeujahreu

von Gunter Urban, ed. M. Jansen and K. Winands, Rome, 1992 (a), pp. 51-62.

'M adernos St.-Peter-E ntw iirfe," in An A rch itectu ra l Progreuu in the Renaiuuance and Baroque. Eiuayu in Architec­tural HLitory Preuented to Hell/nut Hager on bio Sixty-uixth Birthday, ed. H. Millon and S. Scott Munshower, Uni­versity Park, PA, 1992 (b), I, pp. 170—93.

See also Wolff Metternich and Thoenes.Thuillier, Jacques, "Poussin et ses premiers compagnons

fran9ais a Rome," in Acteu du collogue Nicolao Pouuuin, ed. A. Chastel, Paris, 1960, I, pp. 71—116.

See also Dargent and Thuillier.Titi, Filippo, Studio di pittura, ucoltura et architettura nelle chieue

di Roma, Rome, 1674.Deucrizione delle pitture, uculture e architetture eupoute a l pubblico

in Roma, ed. G. Bottari, Rome, 1763 (facs. ed., Flo­rence, 1967).

Tittoni, Maria Elisa, "La Santa Petronilla a Parigi: Un episo- dio delle 'conquetes artistiques’," in Guercino e le collezioni capitoline, ed. S. Guarino et al., Rome, 1991, pp. 24—27.

Toesca, Ilaria, "Due opere del Siciolante," Paraqone, XVI, 1965, pp. 57-59.

Tolnay, Charles de, The Youth o f M ichelanqelo, Princeton, 1947.

Torelli, Andrea, Herou in uo/io divinitatui .live de rebuo geutii in uacro principalu Urbani VIII Pont. Opt. Alax. Panegyricuu, Bologna, 1639.

Torrigio, Francesco Maria, Della Navicella di mouaico, Viterbo, 1618.

Diario vaticano cioe breve modo di fa r Oratione ogni giorno nella uacrouancta Bauilica di S. Pietro di Roma, Rome, 1622.

Sacro pellegrinaggio delle IV chieue dell’anno de! Giubileo, Rome, 1625. ‘

N arratione d e l l ’o r ig in e d e l l ’antich iuuim a Chieua d i S anti Alichel Arcangelo e Alagno V. et Al., Rome, 1629.

Le uacregrotte vaticane, Rome, 1635.I uacri trofei romani del trionfante prencipe degli apoutoli San

Pietrogloriouiiuimo, Rome, 1644.See also Trattato delle Indulgenze.

Totti, Pompilio, Ruitretto delle grandezze di Roma, Rome, 1637.Ritratto di Roma moderna, Rome, 1638.

Trattato delle Indulgenze conceuue a i VI! altari della Bauilica di S. Pietro cavato delle opere del Torrigio, Ascoli, 1638.

Tratz, Helga, "Werkstatt und Arbeitsweise Berninis," RomLt- cheu Jahrbuch fiir Kunotgeochichte, XXIII/XXIV, 1988, pp. 395-483.

"Die Ausstattung des Langhauses von St. Peter unter Innocenz X .,” Romuicheu Jahrbuch f i t r Kunotgeochichte, XXVII-XXVIII, 1991-92, pp. 337-74.

Tronzo, William, "The Prestige of St. Peter’s: Observations on the Function of Monumental Narrative Cycles in Ita ly ,” Studieo in the HLitory o f Art, XVI, 1985, pp. 93-112.

Turcio, Genesio, La Bauilica di S. Pietro, Florence, 1946.Un’antologia direutauri. 50opere d ’arte reotaurate dal I974a l 1981,

ex. cat., ed. D. Bernini, Rome, 1982.Valentin et leu caravageoqueo franqaiu, ex. cat., ed. A. Brejon de

Lavergnee and J . P. Cuzin, Paris, 1974.

3 3 6 T H E ALTARS A N D A LT A R P IE C E S OF N E W ST. PETER 'S

Valentini, Agostino, Iai Patriarcale Basilica Vaticana, 2 vols. Rome, 1855.

Van Mander, Carl, Le I Acre Des Peintres, ed. and trans. H. Hymans, 2 vols., Paris, 1885.

Vannugli, Antonio, "Giacomo Boncompagni Duca di Sora e il suo ritratto dipinto da Scipione Pulzone,” Prospettioa, no. 61, 1991, pp. 54—66.

"Per Jacopo Zucchi: Un’Annunciazione a Bagnoregio ed altre opere," Prospettioa, nos. 75-76, 1994, pp. 161-73.

Van Os, Henk, /llarias Demut und Verherrlichung in Her sienesis- chen Male rei 1500—1-150, s'Gravenhage, 1969.

Sienese Altarpieces 1215—1460: Form, Content, Function: 2 vols., Groningen, 1988—90.

Vasari, Giorgio, Le site De’ piu eccellenti pittori, scultori ed arc bile t- tori, ed. G. Milanesi, 9 vols., Florence, 1878-85.

Vasco Rocca, Sandra, SS. Trinita Dei P ellegrini \Le Chicse Di Roma illustrate, 133], Rome, 1979.

Santa Bibiana [IjC Cbiese Di Roma illustrate, n.s. 14], Rome, 1983.

Vatican SplenDour. Masterpieces o f Baroque Art, ex. cat., ed. C. Johnston et al., Ottawa, 1986.

Veggio, Maffeo, De rebus antiquis memorabilibus ba,ii/icae Sancti Petri Romae, in Acta SS, June, VII, Antwerp, 1717, pp. 61-85.

Velenus, Ulricus, In hoc libel/o . . . probatur Apostolum Petrum Romani non senisse, tuque illicipossum, proinDe satis frioole eS temere Romanus Pontifex se Petri successorem iactat o ' nomi­n a l Basel, 1520.

Venturi, Lionello, "La 'Navicella' di Giotto,’’ L’arte, XXV, 1922, pp. 4 9 -6 9 .

Vermeulen, Jan : see Molanus, Joannes.Vespignani, Giovanni Carlo, CompenDium prioilegiorum Res.

Fabricae S. Petri, ed. G. Baldassini, Rome, 1762.Villoslada, Ricardo, "Algunos documentos sobre la musica

en el antiguo Seminario Romano," Archiouim Historicum Societatis lesu, XXXI, 1962, pp. 107-38.

Vitzthum, Walter, Disegni ilaliani Della Collezione Santarelli sec. XV-XV1II, Florence, 1967.

review of K. Andrews, National Gallery o f ScotlanD. Cata­logue o f Italian Drawings, in Burlington Magazine, CXI, 1969, pp. 6 9 0 -9 1 .

Voelker, Evelyn, Charles Borrom eo’s ‘Instructiones Fabricae et Supellectihs Ecclesiasticae, ’ 1577. A Translation with commen­tary anDanalysis, Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University, 1977.

Von Bernini but Piranesi. Romuiche Architekturzeichnungen Des Barock, ex. cat., ed. E. Kieven, Stuttgart, 1993.

Voss, Hermann, Die Malerei Der Spiitrenaiisance in Rom unD Flo- re/iz, 2 vols., Berlin, 1920.

Vouet, ex. cat., ed. J . Thuillier et al., Paris, 1990.Waetzoldt, Stephan, Die Kopien Des 17. JahrhunDerts nach

Mataiken unD WanDmalereien in Rom, Vienna, 1964.Wallace, William, "Michelangelo’s Rome Pieta: Altarpiece or

Grave Memorial, " in Verrocchio anD Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, ed. S. Buie et al., Florence, 1992, pp. 243—55.

Ward-Perkins, John Biyan, "The Shrine of St. Peter and Its

Twelve Spiral Columns,’’ Journal o f Roman StuDies, XLII, 1952, pp. 21-33.

Waterhouse, Ellis, Italian Baroque Painting, 2nd ed., London, 1969.

Roman Baroque Painting, Oxford, 1976.Wazbinski, Zygmunt, "II cardinale Francesco Maria del

Monte e la fortuna del progetto buonarrotiano per la basilica di San Pietro a Rome: 1604—1613,” in An Archi­tectural Progress in the Renaiisance anD Baroque. K<says ui Architectural Hiitory presenteD to Hellmut Hager on his Sixty - sixth BirthDay, ed. H. Millon and S. Scott Munshower, I, pp. 146-69.

"Simon Vouet et le Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte: Une hypothese sur le mecenat d'Henri IV a Rome," in Simon Vouet. Actes Du collogue international, Paris, 1992, pp. 149-67.

II Cardinale Francesco /Maria Del Monte 1549-1626, 2 vols., Florence, 1994.

Weil-Garris Brandt, Kathleen, "Michelangelo’s Pieta for the Cappella del Re di Francia," in “I l s e renDit en Ita lic”: Etudes offertes a Andre Chostel, Rome, 1987, pp. 77—119.

Weis, Adolf, "Ein Petruszyklus des 7 Jahrhunderts im Querschiff der vatikanische Basilika," Romuiche Quar- tahchrift, LVIII, 1963, pp. 230-70.

Wild, Doris, Nicobui Poiuisin, 2 vols., Zurich, 1980.Wittkower, Rudolf, Gian Lorenzo Bernini The Sculptor o f the

Roman Baroque, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1981.Art anD A rch itectu re in I ta ly 1600—1750, 3rd ed., Har-

mondsworth, 1982.See also Brauer and Wittkower.

Wolff Metternich, Franz, Die Erbauung Der Peterskirche zu Rom im 16. JahrhunDert, Vienna and Munich, 1972.

Bramante unD St. Peter, Munich, 1975.and Christof Thoenes, Die fr i ih en S t.-P eter-E ntw iirfe

1505—1514, Tubingen, 1987.Wood, Carolyn, "Visual Panegyric in Guercino’s Casino

Ludovisi Frescoes," Storia Dell’arte, LVIII, 1986, pp. 223-28.

The Ind ian S um m er o f B o logn ese P a in tin g : G regory XV (1621—25) andLudooisi Art Patronage in Rome, Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, 1988.

Wood-Legh, Kathleen Louise, Perpetual Chantries in Britain, Cambridge, 1965.

Zeri, Federico, "Intorno a Gerolamo Siciolante," Bollettino d ’arte, XXXVI, 1951, pp. 139-49.

Zinke, Detlef, "A hitherto unknown version of St. Michael’ by the C avaliere d ’Arpino," B urlin gton /Magazine, CXXXI1, 1990, pp. 29^0 .

Zocca, Emma, so Gaspare Celio, DBI, XXIII, pp. 423-25.Zollikofer, Kaspar, Berni/iii Grabmalfiir Alexander VII.jFihtion

unD R epra sen ta tion [R om ische S tudien der B ib iotheca Hertziana, 7], Worms, 1994.

Zuccari, Alessandro, Arte e committenza nella Roma Di Caraoag- gio, Turin, 1984.

Index I: General

Works of art in St. Peter’s are not identified by location; all other works of art are in Rome unless otherwise indicated. Numbers in italics refer to the illustrations.

Aachen, 241Abbatini, Guidobaldo, 169 Accademia di S. Luca, 149, 211, 282 Acciaiuoli, Niccolo, 237 Agresti, Livio

Last Supper, Oratory of the Gonfalone, 125; 171 Albani, Francesco, 137, 147-48, 226, 230, 233, 236; Docs. 9,

13-14, 22 Alberti, Leon Battista, 256 Albertini, Betto, 202 Albertini, Matteo, 320 Albertini, Pietro, 320 Aldobrandini family, 13Aldobrandini, Antonio Maria, 14, 233, 237; Docs. 3, 21 Aldobrandini, Ippolito, card., 76, 102, 138, 226, 229, 233,

236-37, 240, 319; Doc. 13 Aldovrandi, Carlo, 320Alexander VII, pope, 2, 87, 90, 116, 185, 190, 266-67, 269-70 Alfarano, Tiberio, 20, 34; 5 Algardi, Alessandro, 116

St. Leo Repulsing Attila the Hun, 2, 109, 116, 156, 161, 163, 167, 169, 171; Cat. 18; 16-1

Allegrini, Flaminio, 139, 148—49; Doc. 19 frescoes in Ss. Cosma e Damiano, 149

Allegrini, Francesco, 148 Altadiana, Gaspare, Doc. 21 Altieri, Gio. Battista, Doc. 21 Amici, Andrea, 12, 51, 88, 178—79; Doc. 21 Amici, Luigi

tomb of Gregory XVI, 32 Angeloni, Francesco, 193, 195 Antinori, Fabrizio, Doc. 21 apostle cycles, 31-33 apostolic succession, 1, 72, 123, 132Archconfratemity of the Holy Sacrament in St. Peters, 63,

70-71, 96-97, 122, 208, 210, 212, 278-80; Docs. 3,8, 11

Architect of St. Peter’s, see Fabbrica di S. Pietro

archpriest of St. Peter’s, 9—10, 13, 15, 36, 68Aragona, Inigo d’Avalos d ’, card., 39, 42Arpino, Cavaliere d’, see Cesari, GiuseppeArrigoni, Pompeo, card., 9, 34, 319Aspertini, Amico, 234astrology, 213Attila the Hun, 257-58

Baglione, Giovanni, 2, 137, 154, 189, 271—73; 170Cbritt Delivering the Magdalen from the Influence o f the Devil,

present location unknown, 273 St. Peter Railing Tahitha, Fabbrica di S. Pietro (fragments

only), 28, 124, 171; Docs. 1, 3; 40 Washing o f the Feet (lost), 121, 125-27, 209; Cat. SP. 1;

Doc. 22Balassi, Mario, 143, 151, 159; Doc. 26

Noli Ale Tangere, Florence, private coll., 143 Transfiguration, S. Maria della Concezione, 143 Transfiguration (copy after Raphael), 143

Balsimelli, Giacomo, 320 Bar, Jean de, Doc. 3Barberini family, 13, 68, 143, 150-51, 222, 224 Barberini, Antonio, the Elder, card., 68, 150 Barberini, Antonio, the Younger, card., 68, 183, 276 Barberini, Carlo, 140, 143, 242-43; Doc. 26 Barberini, Francesco, the Elder, card., 10, 13, 68, 69, 132, 138,

145-49, 151-52, 154, 160, 163, 183, 188, 193, 205, 206, 211, 226-27, 229-42, 233, 236-37, 239-40, 248, 254-55, 260, 264, 279-82, 319; Docs. 9, 12, 18, 19

Barberini, Francesco, the Younger, card., 128 Barberini, Maffeo, card., see Urban VIII, pope Barberini, Taddeo, 139, 272, 274 Barbieri, Gio. Francesco, see Guercino Barbo, Marco, card., 20 Bardino, Vincenzo, 320Baronio, Cesare, card., 24, 31-32, 33, 55, 127, 176, 238 Bartoli, Papirio, 78-79, 294; 8-9 Bassano, Domenico, 64, 94; Doc. 5

3 3 7

3 3 8 IN D E X I: G E N E R A L

Batoni, PompeoFall o f Simon Maguo, S. Maria degli Angeli, 171

Benedict XIII, pope, 254, 260, 271 Benedict XIV, pope, 9 Benevento, Pietro de’, 249 Bernascone, Pietro Paolo, 50Bernini, Gianlorenzo, 2, 61-62, 65, 89, 90, 95, 102, 106, 116,

124, 137, 144-16, 148, 160, 169, 183-86, 188,214-15, 228, 230, 232, 246, 250, 260-61, 266, 272, 275, 283, 320; Docs. 9, 13-14, 22; 68-70, 85,167

baldacchino and crossing, 2—3, 50, 64, 73, 116—17, 124, 133, 183, 190, 191,267, 271; 7/

Cathedra Petri (apse), 2, 26, 27, 50, 90, 98, 116-17, 152,162, 167, 170, 171, 190, 272; Cat. 19; 71,168,172

Cathedra Petri (baptismal chapel), 111-12, 170, 266; Cat. 3( b ) ; «

Martyrdom o f St. Sebaotian, Madrid, Thvssen-Bornemisza coll., 193

nave decoration, 48, 116 Paoce Oreo Aleao, 252, 275 sacrament tabernacle, 207, 209—10; 97, 102 sacrament tabernacle (provisional), 207-208, 212 St. Bibiana, S. Bibiana, 244 St. Longmuo, 190, 239tomb of Alexander VII, 120, 131-32, 281-83; 67, 182 tomb ol Countess Matilda of Canossa, 115; 107 tomb of Urban VIII, 87, 124, 203, 266—67; Doc. 27; 168

Bernini, Luigi, 112, 190—92, 320 Berrettini, Pietro, oee Cortona, Pietro Berrettini da Bethune, Philippe de, Doc. 2 Bianchetti, Ludovico, 21, 40, 216, 221 Bianchetti, Lorenzo, card., 40 Bianchi, Gioseppe, 128 Bianchi, Pietro

Immaculate Conception with Sto. Francio, Anthony o f Padua, and John Chryoootom, S. Maria degli Angeli, 217, 219,221; 108

Bianchi, Silverio, 320 Bichi, Metello, card., 13 Bilheres Lagraulas, Jean de, card., 40, 53, 216 Bisante, Pietro Paolo, 139Biscia, Lelio, card., 74-76, 102, 219, 243, 248, 319; Docs. 9, 13 Bohemia, 20, 238—39 Boldrini, 273-74; 174 Bologna, 51, 113, 138

S. Petronio, 113 Bonanni, Stefano, 320 Bonasone, Giulio, 119 Boniface VIII, pope, 21—22, 95 Bonvicino, Ambrogio

Giving o f the Keyo, 81, 133, 156; Doc. 8 Borghese, Cavaliere, oee Guidotti, Paolo Borghese family, 13Borghese, Scipione, card., 10, 15, 45, 68, 85, 128—29, 137,

141-12, 165, 187-88, 217, 218, 219, 278-80, 319; Docs. 1, 20, 24

Borgianni, OrazioSt. Carlo Borromeo, S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, 234

Borromeo, Carlo, oee saints, Carlo Borromeo

Borromini, Francesco, 69, 202, 217, 219, 257 Bouts, Dirk

Alartyrdom o f St. Eraomuo, Louvain, St. Peter, 225, 231; 126 Bovio, Mario, 75—76, 101—102, 213; Docs. 12—13, 21 Bracci, Cesare, 270 Bracci, Pietro

tomb of Benedict XIV, 125, 132, 271, 273; 169 Bramante, Donato, 17, 27, 264, 278 Brasca Lomacci, Agostino, 320 Brecioli, Filippo, 320 Brill, Paul, 25Brughi, Gio. Battista, 191, 196 Buonanni, Filippo, 2

Caetani, Onorato, 22 Caffarelli family, 13 Caffarelli, Monsignor, 221Galandra, Gio. Battista, 137, 183, 256, 280, 320; Docs. 7, 9

Archangel M ichael (mosaic), Macerata, Duomo, 110, 116, 156-58, 163, 165, 171, 172, 185; Cat. 16; Docs.13-14, 22; 155

Callot, Jacques, 25, 41, 225, 231, 253-54, 256; 50, 57-41, 57, 125

Camassei, Andrea, 2, 137, 151, 154-55; 175-77Peter Baptizing hut Jailero Proceoouo and Martinian (lost), 121,

126-27, 133, 144, 155, 272; Cat. SP. 2 Camera Apostolica, 115

Auditor General, 10 Treasurer General, 10

Campi, Pietro PaoloSt. Giuliana Falconieri, 129; 66

Camuccini, Vincenzo, 249St. Simon and St. Jude (mosaics), 246 Doubting o f Thomao (mosaic), 171, 242; 147

Canali, Giambattista de’, 22 canonizations

Carlo Borromeo, 85 Diego of Alcala, 18 Hyacinth, 42quintuple canonization of Filippo Neri, Francis Xavier,

Ignatius of Loyola, Isidor, and Teresa of Avila, 51, 53-54, 279-80

Canova, Antoniotomb of Clement XIII, 126, 132, 273; 175

Cappella Giulia, 48-49 Cappella Sistina, 49cappelbini Innocenziani, oee Chapter of St. Peter’s Capponi, Luigi, card., 319 Capranica family, 197 Capuchins, 68, 150, 220 Caracciolo, Andrea, Doc. 21 Carafa, Antonio, card., 216 Caravaggio, Michelangelo Merisi da

Burial o f St. Lucy, Siracusa, S. Lucia, 54 Calling and Alartyrdom o f St. Matthew, S. Luigi dei

Frances!, 131, 235, 238 Entombment o f Chriot, Vatican Pinacoteca, 171, 214 Madonna dei Palafrenieri, Galleria Borghese, 43—15, 86,

240, 249; 60

IN D E X I: G E N E R A L 3 3 9

Carlile, Christopher, 127 Carlo, Ferrante, 218—19, 221 Carnival, 208Caroselli, Angelo, 2, 137, HO, 148, 151, 154, 226, 234, 241;

Doc. 13; 143Madonna and Child with St.i. Francb and Anthony o f Padua

Helping SouL< in Purgatory, S. Maria della Concezione, 241

St. Wenceolao, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 105,107, 110, 140, 148, 161, 164, 170, 172; Cat. 12; Docs.14-15, 22; M2, M6

Salome, Bergamo, Accademia Carrara, 241 Vanitao, Galleria Corsini, 241

Carracci, Annibale, 269-70 Carracci, Ludovico

Body o f St. Sebaotian Thrown into the Cloaca Maxima, Malibu, J . Paul Getty Museum, 193

Calling o f St. Matthew, Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale, 178 Castel Fusano, Villa Sacchetti-Chigi, 232 Castello, Bernardo, 50, 142, 253-56; Docs. 1, 9, 13—14, 22

Chriil Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water (lost), 28, 41, 50, 71, 130, 133, 142-43, 206, 210, 252-56; Docs. 1, 9, 13-14, 22;-//

Castello, Domenico, 252; 79, 8-1,199 Castel Porziano, Chapel of St. Helen, 12 Castel Sant'Angelo, Archives of, 122 Castro, war of, 115 Catechism, 80 cava bate, 12Cavalieri, Giacomo de', card., 140; Doc. 9 Cavalieri della Concezione della B. Vergine, 68 Cavallini, Pietro, 21, 39, 183, 185 Ceccarelli, Gio. Domenico, 277 Cecchino, Domenico, Doc. 21 Celio, Gaspare, 2, 137, 141H2, 166-67; 85

Adoration o f the Crooo, Gesu, 217Baptbm o f Chriot and frescoes in the vault of the baptismal

chapel (lost), 69-70, 80, 82, 87, 110-12, 141, 153,156, 162, 165-66, 170, 183, 190, 191; Cat. 3 (a);Docs. 9, 13-14, 22

Concert o f Angeb, S. Francesco a Ripa, 187; 86 Cenci, Tiberio, card., 319 Cerrini, Gian Domenico, 131, 137, 276, 283 Cesari, Giuseppe, called Cavaliere d ’Arpino, 2, 109, 115,

137, 146, 148-49, 150, 154, 206, 233, 257-61,263-65; Docs. 7, 9, 11, 13-14, 19, 22

ArchangelAlicbael (mosaic), Macerata, Duomo, 110, 116, 156-58, 165, 171, 172, 185, 260; Cat. 16; 155

mosaics in the dome of St. Peter's, 27, 33, 50, 156, 188,260; 49

Cesarini family, 13 Cesi, Bartolommeo, card., 34, 319 Cesi, Monsignor, 213 Cesi, Pietro Donato, card., 319 Ceva, Francesco Adriano, card., 319 chantries, oee chaplaincies chaplaincies, 19-20, 28, 64, and passim Chapter of St. Peter's, 7, 12-16, 17, 64, 66-69, 70, 72-77, 78,

91-103, 105-109, 114, 121, 154, 184, 192-93,

197-98, 200, 216, 238, 247, and passim; Docs. 5, 8, 11,12,13,17

altarbta, 76, 100; Doc. 12 assets and income, 14 beneficiali, 12-14, 186, 203-204 canons, 12-15, 22, and passim cappellani Innocenziani, 13, 20, 93-94, 98, 197-200,

202-204; Docs. 5, 8, 11 chiericibeneficiati, 12—14, 186, 203—204 dependencies, oee Rome, churches, S. Balbina; S. Caterina

della Rota; S. Tommaso in Formis Master of Ceremonies, 12, 51, 88 supernumerary members, 13

Charlemagne, emperor, 52, 113 Charles 1, king of England, 179 Charles IV, emperor, 20, 239, 241 Charles V, emperor, 113 Charles VIII, king of France, 182; Doc. 2 Ciampelli, Agostino, 2, 61, 121, 126, 137, 144—45, 150-51,

154, 183, 185, 273-74, 283, 320; Doc. 22 Birth o f the Virgin, S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, 131 frescoes and altarpieee in S. Bibiana, 144 frescoes in the chapel of Urban VIII, Vatican Palace, 144 Sl.i. Simon and Jude M iraculously Turning the Serpen to agairut

the Perouin Magiciano, Studio dei Mosaici, 71, 105,110, 144, 171-72, 216, 242, 273; Cat. 14; Docs. 9, 13-14, 22; 150

Torture o f St. Vitalb, S. Vitale, 234 Ciarpi, Baccio, 137, 139, 151 Cibo family, 13, 203 Cibo, Camillo, 204 Cibo, Domenico, 13 Cibo, Innocenzo, 13 Cibo, Lorenzo Mari, card., 93, 197, 203 Cibo Malaspina, Alberico, 198, 203-204 Cibo Malaspina, Carlo, 94, 200, 202, 204; Doc. 11 Cigoli, Ludovico Card! called, 32-34, 48, 120; 5

St. Peter Healing the Lame Alan, Fabbrica di S. Pietro(fragments only), 28, 124, 130, 171; Docs. 1, 3; 59

Cittadini, Luigi, 75—76, 102; Doc. 13 Clement VII, pope, 8Clement VIII, pope, 9, 22, 23, 27^34, 36-38, 41, 42, 50, 53,

62, 72, 82, 87, 118-19, 121, 132-33, 139, 143, 156, 158, 171, 178, 189, 199, 225, 232, 236, 238, 241, 243, 244, 246, 252, 257, 258; Docs. 2-3, 20

Clement XI, pope, 195 Clement XII, pope, 221 Clement XIV, pope, 172, 250 Cocchi, Filippo, 238 Collaert, Adriaen, the Younger, 217 Collegio Romano, 139 Colonna, Agnese, 22 Conception of the Virgin, 67—68, 101Confalonieri, Gio. Battista, 121—22, 271—73, 276, 280; Doc. 17 Confraternity of the Palafrenieri, 44H5, 86, 97, 240, 249;

Doc. 11Congregation of the Fabbrica di S. Pietro, oee Fabbrica di S.

PietroConstance, emperor, 222

3 4 0 IN D E X I: G E N E R A L

Constantine, emperor, 1, 14, 23 contracts, 162 Cordier, Nicolas

Aaron, S. Maria Maggiore, 205 coronation, imperial, 113—15, 213, 215 coronation, papal, 88 Cornelius the centurion, 192Cortona, Pietro Berrettini da, 2, 121, 130—31, 137, 1-44—45,

147, 149, 150, 151, 226, 230-32, 233, 234, 236, 276, 280-81; Cat. SP. 6; Docs. 9, 13-14, 18, 22; 100-101

Calling o f Peter and Andrew, Castel Fusano, Villa Sacchetti- Chigi, 283; 186

Calling o f Peter and Andrew, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, 283

Calling o f Peter and Andrew, Chatsworth, 283 frescoes in Palazzo Barberini, 149, 281 frescoes in S. Bibiana, 144, 226, 282 frescoes in S. Maria in Vallicella, 209, 213 mosaics in the right side aisle of St. Peter's, 209 Trinity, 110, 147, 169, 171, 228, 282; Cat. 6; Doc. 22; 97,102

Costa, Andrea, 320 Costa, Guido Antonio, 320 Costanzi, Placido

St. Peter Railing Tabitha, S. Maria degli Angeli, 171 Council of Trent, 2, 62, 80 Council, First Vatican, 48Counter Reformation, 2, 10, 23, 26, 56, 80, 88, 128, 156,

187, 194, 199, 222, 252 Coxie, Michael

Reourrectum (lost), 42 Crescenzi, Gio. Battista, 141, 253—54, 256 Crescenzi, Pietro Paolo, card., 137, 141—42, 186—87, 189,

256,319 Cresti, Domenico, oee Passignano Cristofari, Fabio, 170, 184, 186Cristofari, Pietro Paolo, 179, 191, 195-96, 205, 229, 240, 254Croce, Bernardo della, 22, 63; Docs. 3, 5Crusade, 8, 10cult of relics, 56, 222cult of saints, 56Curia, 9-10Curtio oeneoe, 42cycles of altarpieces, 28—29, 31—34

Dani, Padercolo, 262 Daniele da Volterra

Aooumpt'wn, S. Trinita dei Monti, 181 Dante Alighieri, 80Della Porta, Ardicino, the Elder, card., 243 Della Porta, Ardicino, the Younger, card., 243 Della Porta, Giacomo, 15, 23, 25 Della Porta, Guglielmo, 23, 155

tomb of Paul III, 50, 87, 124, 203, 266-67; Docs. 1, 27;168

Del Monte, Francesco Maria, card., 9, 66, 85, 137, 142, 180, 181, 188, 198, 203, 216, 218, 219, 221, 222-23, 242, 319

Diana, 178Diocletian, emperor, 194, 225

dispensations, sale of, 8, 10 Docci, Giovanni, 250Domenichino, Domenico Zampieri called, 2, 51, 71-72, 118,

137, 150, 151; Docs. 9, 11; 92-93 Ecotaoy o f St. Francii, S. Maria della Concezione, 171,

214-15, 248Loot Communion o f St. Jerome, Vatican Pinacoteca, 25, 171;

29Martyrdom o f St. Seha.itian, S. Maria degli Angeli, 110, 153,

164, 170, 172; Cat. 4; Docs. 13-14, 22; 91 Portrait o f Gregory XV and hit Nephew Cardinal Ludooioi,

Beziers, Musee des Beaux-Arts, 51 St. Cecilia Diitributing her Worldly PoMeooiono and Martyrdom

o f St. Cecilia, S. Luigi dei Francesi, 131 St. Cecilia Refusing to Wonhip the Pagan Idol, S. Luigi dei

Francesi, 235, 238; NO Domitian, emperor, 55 Donatello

sacrament tabernacle, sacristy, 186 Dacid, Florence, Museo Nazionale, 178

Dosio, Giovan Antonio, 15, 15 Drei, Benedetto, 280, 320 Drei, Giuseppe, 320 Drei, Pietro Paolo, 215, 320 Duperac, Etienne, 7 Durazzo, Stefano, card., 319 Diirer, Albrecht

Trinity, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 209

Eggenberg, Johann Anton von, 114 Elsheimer, Adam

Martyrdom o f St. Lawrence, London, National Gallery, 226; 151

Ephesus, temple of Diana at, 178 Ercolano, Giacomo, 43eucharist, 26-27, 36, 48, 63, 82, 96-97, 101, 125, 207-209,

212-13, 244; Docs. 3, 5, 8, 11 Eugenius IV, pope, Doc. 3 ex—votos, 63, 84; Docs. 4, 11

Fabbri, Giovanni, 320Fabbrica di S. Pietro, 7-12, 15, 17, 38, 47, 51, 62, 65,

115-16, 145, 155, 162, 163, 165, 172, 175, 188, 189, 210, 256, 266, and passim

Architect of St. Peters, 11-12, 15,47, 65, 105, 190 College of Sixty, 8-11Congregation, 7, 9-12, 62, 64-65, 66-70, 71-73, 74-77,

78-91, 100-103, 108-109, 118-19, 137-42, 153-56, 158—60, 162-64, 165, 170—71, and passim; Docs. 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 24-26, 27

Cardinal Prefect, 9—10, 65, 138, 142; Doc. 6 cardinal members, 9—12, 65, 141-42, 319, and passim congregazionigenera/i, 10, 65; Doc. 6 congregazianiparticolari, 10, 65; Doc. 6

econo,mi, 11, 74-76, 79, 100, 143-45, 148, 204, 244; Docs.6- 8, 13, 18, 27

factor, 11copra,!tante, 11, 145, 245, 273, 251

Fagnani, Prospero, 140, 148, 239-41

I N D E X I: G E N E R A L 5 4 1

Falda, Giovanni Battista, 118 Farnese family, 15Farnese, Alessandro, card., 15; Doc. 5 Farnese, Odoardo, card., 14 Farnese, Ranuccio, 189 Fedeli, Germanico, 243; Doc. 21 Ferdinand II, emperor, 114, 150 Ferdinand III, emperor, 114 Ferrabosco, Martino, 87, 256; 7, 35, 64 Ferri, Ciro, 229, 232festivals and processions, 12, 70—71, 278—80 Fibbia, Antonio Galeazzo, 138, 211 Filarete

bronze doors, 132; Doc. 3 Florence, 61, 143—44, 193 Fontana, Carlo, 64, 170, 183, 187, 189-90, 275; 88 Fontebuoni, Anastasio

Death o f the Virgin, S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, 131 Forty Hour devotions, oee Quarant'ore devotions France, 52—54Franciotti, Marcantonio, card., 319Franciscans (oee aloo Capuchins; zoccolanti), 67—68Franciscucci, Comelio, Doc. 21Franzone, Giacomo, 261Frederick III, emperor, 113Funi, Achille

St. Jooeph Patron o f the Universal Church (mosaic), 171, 245; 149

Gallonio, Antonio, 55, 238Garoli, Pietro Francesco, 123, 277; 180—8/Gavotti, Abbot, 237 Gelasius II, pope, 225 Gentili, Antonio, 179, 182 George III, king of England, 195 Gherardi, Cesare, card., 13 Ghetti, Andrea, 320Ghetti, Carlo, 74-76, 79, 100, 145, 148, 204, 235, 246, 283,

320; Docs. 7-8, 13, 18-19 Gimignani, Giacinto

Martyrdom o f St. Ercuimuo (lost), 232 Ginnasi, Caterina, 141Ginnasi, Domenico, card., 9, 73, 74, 76, 102, 138, 140,

141-42, 187, 189, 204, 210, 230, 233, 235, 250, 258, 264, 277, 319; Doc. 13

Giordani, Guido, 274 Giordano, Francesco, 320 Giorgi, Propertio, 320Giorio, Angelo, 13, 76, 100-102, 106-109, 145, 148, 226,

239, 259, 264-65; Docs. 12-13, 15-16, 19 Giotto, 185

/Madonna (lost fresco fragment), 237 Navicella (mosaic), 148, 151, 252, 254, 256; Doc. 19; 158

Giovanni Antonio da Brescia, 238 Giulio di Pietro, 165, 188 Giustiniani, Benedetto, card., 9, 319 Giustiniani, Orazio, card., 261, 319 Goldwell, Thomas, Doc. 21 Gondi, Framjois de, 147

gospel and epistle sides, 31, 37-38, 105 Gozzadino, Marcantonio, card., 13 Greco, El

Aioumplion, Toledo, Museo de Santa Cruz, 182 Gregory IV, pope, 221 Gregory VII, pope, 115Gregory XIII, pope, 17, 23-29, 39, 41, 42-<3, 50, 55, 63, 97,

119, 120, 125, 156, 171, 175, 221,257, 264; Docs. 1, 3, 11, 20

Gregory XV, pope, 2, 13, 48, 50-54, 57-58, 61, 69, 158, 175, 180, 208,219

Greuter, Matthaeus, 78-79, 280, 287, 294, 297; 6, 8-9, 61 Grimaldi, Giacomo, 36, 106-107, 182; Docs. 1, 16; 16—26,

109,144 Grippa, Girolamo, 190Guercino, Gio. Francesco Barbieri called, 51, 150, 219-20,

235; 74Burial and Reception into Heaven o f St. Petronilla, Pinacoteca

Capitolina, 2, 39, 47, 52-58, 86, 92-93, 102, 158,161, 164-65, 167, 169, 170, 172, 183, 223, 229, 249, 257, 277; Cat. 1; Docs. 2-3; 75

Ecotaoy o f St. Francio, Paris, Louvre, 178 frescoes in the Casino Ludovisi, 51, 54, 179 Glory, Palazzo Lancellotti, 179 Suicide o f Dido, Galleria Spada, 177

Guerra, Giovanni, 12Canonization o f Diego o f Alcala, Vatican Palace, 18

Guidi, Domenico, 263 Guidotti, Orsola, 278Guidotti, Paolo, 2, 70, 137, 141-12, 150, 153, 278-80; Doc. 14

Denial and Lamentation o f St. Peter (lost), 121, 128—30, 149, 154, 164-65, 272; Cat. SP. 5 (a); Doc. 22

Haroy Gusman, Caspar de, 168 Heemskerck, Maertin van, 10—11 Henry IV, emperor, 115 Henry IV, king of France, 251; Doc. 2 Hercules, 226-27, 232, 234-35 Hollanda, Francisco de, 234 Holstenius, Lucas, 13 Holy Year

of 1575, 24,84 of 1600, 32of 1625, 38, 62, 64-65, 70-71, 244, 278; Doc. 3 of 1650, 38

Hynco, Bishop of Olmirtz, 20, 238; Doc. 16

Iacobazzi, Cristoforo de’, card., 83, 192; Doc. 5 indulgences, 20—21, 63, 184

sale of, 8, 10 Ingelheim, 241Innocent VIII, pope, 13, 20, 53, 93-94, 98, 175, 197-200,

203-204; Doc. 11 Innocent X, pope, 2, 109, 113, 115-16, 131, 155-56, 252,

260, 266 Innocent XII, pope, 106 Inverno, Francesco, 212, 274 Inverno, Marcantonio, 215 Ionic order, 178, 181

342 I N D E X I: G E N E R A L

Jacobus de Voragine, 31, 176, 245Jacopino del Conte, oee Leonardo da Pistoia and Jacopino

del Conte Jacopo da Empoli, 244 Jerusalem, temple of, 162, 185 John XIX, pope, 105, 247, 249 John XXIII, pope, 245 Jourdain, bishop of Limoges, 105, 247, 249 Julius II, pope, 1, 7, 14, 23, 34, 46, 48, 65, 114

Landi, Stefano, 13, 73, 140, 233, 235, 237 Landini, Taddeo

Worthing o f the Feet, Quirinal Palace, 26, 125, 271; 55—54 Lanfranco, Giovanni, 2, 57, 115, 133, 137, 143, 146, 150,

151, 154, 181, 183, 205-206, 210-11, 256, 260-61; 161-65

Aooumption, S. Andrea della Valle, 253 Cbri.it Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water, benediction

loggia, 71, 110, 130, 133, 142, 146, 160, 169, 170, 172, 206, 210; Cat. 17; Docs. 9, 13-14, 22; 157

c frescoes in the chapel ol the Crucifix,^183, 185, 218, 253; 81 frescoes in the Sacchetti chapel, S. Giovanni dei

Fiorentini, 185 Langueil, Richard Olivier de, Doc. 3 Lante, Marcello, card., 9—10, 74—75, 195, 319; Docs. 7, 19 Larenas, Evander de, Doc. 3 Lasso, Orlando di, 128 Laziosi, Antonio, Docs. 3, 5 legali pii, oee pious legacies Lent, 101,208 Leo X, pope, 259, 264 Leo XI, pope, 9, 34Leonardo da Pistoia and Jacopino del Conte

Virgin anti Child with St. Anne between Sto. Peter ant) Paul, sacristy, 22, 41, 44-45, 85, 238, 240; Doc. 14; 58

Longhi, SillaAaron, S. Giovanni in Laterano, 205

Lonigo, Michele, 166, 201, 222, 260, 265, 268-70; Doc. 23 Louis XI, king of France, 53, 175, 182; Docs. 2, 3 Louis XIII, king of France, 53, 206, 219; Doc. 2 Ludovisi family, 51Ludovisi, Ludovico, card., 51, 53, 175, 180 Ludovisi, Niccolo, 12

Macerata, 172, 250Maderno, Carlo, 34, 47, 62, 65, 70, 78-79, 81, 87-88, 99,

105-106, 125, 189, 219, 242-43, 244, 287, 297, 320; 6, 65

Magalotti, Costanza, 140 Magalotti Vaini, Lucretia, 140 Maggi, Giovanni, 38-41; 50 Maggi, Gio. Paolo, 34 Malloni, Gio. Tommaso, Doc. 21 Mancini, Francesco

St. Peter Healing the Lame Alan (mosaic), 171 Mancini, Giulio, 13, 231 Maratta, Carlo, 169, 170, 195

Baptuim o f Cbri.it, S. Maria degli Angeli, 167, 170, 190-91; 89

Marino, Gio. Battista, 280 Marsyas, ancient statue of, 235, 238; 159 Martiani, Gio. Domenico, 139, 226, 231, 233, 236; Docs. 9,

13Martinelli, Niccolo, 42—43

St. Thomao (lost), 42-43, 69, 241 Martyrology, Roman, 55Massa, Prince of, oee Cibo Malaspina, Alberico and CarloMassas, Giacinto, 145; Doc. 18Matteis, Paolo de’, 168Maximilian I, emperor, 113medals, papal, 89—90, 126, 252Metz, Conrad, 271Michelangelo, 15, 22, 23, 27, 29, 32, 34-35, 62, 120, 169,

222;-/Piela, 21, 31, 40, 53, 66-69, 81-82, 101, 185, 206-207,

216-21, 244, 246; Docs. 3, 12; 55, 80, 82,119 Mino da Fiesole, attributed to

Crucified Chriot between the Virgin and St. John, S. Balbina, 21 Mongardini, Pietro, 231 Montano, Giuseppe, 179, 194, 205, 254 Monterotondo, 143 Moschetti, Santi, 320 Mucanzio, Gio. Paolo, 34 Muceioli, Carlo

Chriil o f the Sacred Heart Appearing to St. Margaret Alary Alaeogue (mosaic), 171

music, 13,48-49, 70-71, 128, 186, 191, 203-204 Muti family, 13 Muziano, Girolamo, 156

St. Jerom e Preaching in the Wilderneoo, S. Maria degli Angeli, 25-26, 171; Doc. I; 28

St. BaoilCelebrating the Alao.i (lost), 25—26, 171; Doc. 1; 50

Napoleon, 222, 228 Nardone, Gio. Battista, Doc. 21 Naro, Gregorio, card., 319 Nebbia, Cesare

Canonization o f Diego o f Alcala, Vatican Palace, 18 St. Jerom e Preaching in the Wilderneoo, S. Maria degli Angeli,

25-26, 171; 28 St. Baoil Celebrating the Alaoo (lost), 25-26, 171; Doc. 1; 50

Nebula, Girolamo, 139 Nero, emperor, 233 Nicolas III, pope, 95 Nobili, Marcello de’, 22

Ocko von Vlasim, Johann, 20, 239 Oderico, Oratorian priest, 261 onera, 64, 72—73, 92, 96, 97, and passim Oreggi, Agostino, card., 13 Orsini, Giovanni, 64; Doc. 5 Orsini, Napoleone, 14, 247, 249 Orsini, Orsina, 14, 247

palafrenieri, oee Confraternity of the Palafrenieri Palagi, Camillo and Guido, 188, 243, 277 Palermo, 193Pallavicino, Antonio, card., 241, 244; Doc. 3

IN D E X I: G E N E R A L g g 3 4 3

Pallotta, Gio. Battista, card., 319PaJlotta, Gio. Evangelista, card., 9—10, 15, 36, 319; Doc. 1Pamphili, Camillo, card., 258, 264, 319Pandino, Giulio Cesare, 280Panigarola, Francesco, 122Panvinio, Onofrio, 15, 122Papal States, 8, 10, 14papacy, 1, 3, 23, 28, 31, 56, 62, 90—91, 99, and passim parade floats, 70—71, 278—79 Paris, 147, 179, 223, 229

Notre-Dame, 147 Paschal I, pope, 233, 237 Paschal II, pope, 24, 257 Passeri, Giuseppe, 223

Peter Baptizing hit Ja Here Processus and Martinian, Urbino, S. Francesco, 275

Passignano, Domenico Cresti called, 2, 61, 69, 71—72, 118, 137, 143-44, 150-51, 154, 163, 197, 199, 201, 204, 245-46; Docs. 9, 11, 13

Assumptum and frescoes in the Barberini chapel, S.Andrea della Valle, 144

Crucifixion o f St. Peter, Fabbrica di S. Pietro (fragments only), 28, 40, 50, 69, 131, 143, 158, 171, 189, 204, 242, 245, 282; Doc. 1; 57

Doubting o f Thomas, sacristy, 43, 69—71, 79, 83, 105, 110, 143-44, 161, 163, 171, 172, 204, 228; Cat. 13; Doc. 14; 148

Presentation o f the Virgin (lost), 71, 102, 110, 130, 143—44, 149, 159, 163,165, 166; Cat. 5 (a); Docs. 11, 13-14, 22, 23

Recovery o f the Body o f St. Sebastian, S. Andrea della Valle, 193

Recovery o f the Body o f St. Sebastian, Naples, Capodimonte, 181-82; 78

Paul I, pope, 52, 175; Doc. 2 Paul II, pope, 20 Paul III, pope, 17, 240, 244Paul V, pope, 9, 12, 15, 23, 26, 33, 34-41, 43-46, 47, 48, 50,

56, 62, 79, 81, 83-84, 87, 93, 95, 102, 104-105, 120, 125, 132-33, 141, 156, 164, 166, 175, 192, 196, 204, 221, 225, 231, 232, 238, 241, 244, 246, 256, 257, 268; Docs. 1,3, 11,21

Pellegrini, Carlo, 137, 214-15Conversion o f St. Paul, Propaganda Fide, 215 frescoes in the sa cregrotte, 214 St. Bernard (cartoon), Palazzo Barberini, 214—15 Alartyrdom o f St. Maurice and the Theban Legion, Vatican

Pinacoteca, 112, 115, 143, 159, 171, 172, 228, 246; Cat. 7; 106

Penitenziere maggiore, 48, 68, 128—29, 241—13; Docs. 1, 3penitenzieri, 22, 129, 241—43; Docs. 1, 3Penitenzieria Apostolica, 129, 244; Doc. 3Periers, Guillaume de, Doc. 21Perino del Vaga, 21, 237, 244Perugino, 203, 216Peruzzi, Baldassare, 17Pepin the Short, 52; Doc. 2Petrine cycles, 28—29, 33—34, 72, 80—81, 118—33Philip III, king of Spain, 53

Philip IV, king of Spain, 264Piccolomini, Francesco Bandino, 22, 221Pietri, Pietro de’, 169, 281—82Pignatelli, Stefano, card., 13, 319pilgrims and pilgrimage, 52, 70, 84, 99, 111, 193Piligrini, Matteo, 204Pinturicchio

Virgin and Child Appearing to Pope Innocent VIII (lost), 21,197-98, 200, 204; i ’d

Piranesi, Gio. Battista, 275; 178 pious legacies, 8, 10 Pius II, pope, 221; Docs. 3, 5 Pius V, pope, 199 Pius VI, pope, 22, 39 plague, 193, 197 Poli, Fausto, card., 13, 319 Pollaiuolo, Antonio

tomb of Innocent VIII, 94, 197-200, 203; Docs. 3, 5, 11; 96

tomb of Sixtus IV, treasury, 112, 203, 216; 105 Pomarancio, Antonio, 2, 137, 139—40, 150, 153, 226; Docs.

9, 13Giving o f the Keys (lost), 121, 123-24, 132, 154, 266, 272,

275; Cat. SP. 4; Doc. 22 Pomarancio, Cristofano, see Roncalli, Cristofano Pomarancio, Niccolo, father of Antonio, 141, 278 Pomarancio, Niccolo, son of Antonio, 277 Pomario, Cristoforo, Doc. 3popular devotion, 20-21, 84-85, 111-12, 189-91, 257 Portugal, 8, 10Poussin, Nicolas, 2, 137, 147-48, 154, 220-21; 128-50

Death o f Germanieus, Minneapolis, Institute of Arts, 147—48 Death o f the Virgin (lost), 147Alartyrdom o f St. Erasmus, Vatican Pinacoteca, 41, 84, 105,

107-108, 110, 147-48, 151, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169-70, 172, 214, 221, 234, 235, 236, 239, 242; Cat. 10; Docs. 15, 22; 127

Pozzo, Cassiano dal, 147—48, 218, 230, 232 Presentation of the Virgin, 198—200, 204 Preti, Gregorio, 181 Preti, Mattia, 131, 137, 181, 276, 283 primacy of Peter, 26, 118, 121—22, and passim private patronage, ban on, 12, 45, 53, 86 Procaccini, Andrea, 196 Propaganda Fide, 51 Protestant Reformation, 2Protestants and Protestantism, 8, 23, 26, 31, 56, 88, 127,

128, 256 Provenzale, Marcello, 252 Pucci, Fausto, 180 Pulzone, Scipione

Pieta, Gesu, 217 purgatory, 19, 54, 246

Quarant’ore devotions, 101, 208, 212—13

Raggi, Ottavio, card., 319 Rancourt, Adriano, 128 Raphael, 169, 238, 280

344 IN D E X I: G E N E R A L

Archangel Michael, Paris, Louvre, 250 Diiputa, Vatican Palace, 26, 207, 209 St. Leo Repulsing Attila the Hun, Vatican Palace, 259, 263;

Doc. 15; 165 Iran figuration, Vatican Pinacoteca, 143, 171; 55

Raspatino, Francesco, 195 Ravaglio, Girolamo, 138, 210 Regno of Naples, 8, 10 relic of the True Cross, 13 relics, categories of, 36Reni, Guido, 2, 102, 137, 138-39, 141, 147, 150-51, 159,

160, 163, 181, 206-207, 209-12, 228, 230, 235, 237, 258-61, 263-64, 266, 282; Docs. 7, 9, 11, 13 -1 4 ;^

Archangel /Michael, S. Maria della Concezione, 171, 250—52 Concert o f AngeL, S. Gregorio al Celio, Oratory of S. Silvia,

212Crucifixion o f St. Peter, Vatican Pinacoteca, 245, 248; 171 Trinity, S. Trinita dei Pellegrini, 212

Ricci, Donato, 272, 277, 279 Ricci, Gio. Battista, 110, 145 Ricci, Prospero, 272, 277, 279 Ricciolini, Niccolo, 254 Ricciuli, Antonio, 111; Doc. 21Rivarola, Domenico, card., 139, 142, 253-55, 276-77, 319;

Doc. 6Rodulli, Ottavio, card., 319 Romanelli, Gio. Francesco, 2, 137, 149, 154, 167

Presentation o f the Virgin, S. Maria degli Angeli, 130, 149, 162, 170, 172, 201-202; Cat. 5 {by, 95

St. Peter Healing with hit Shadow, benediction loggia, 119, 121, 130,' 132, 133, 167, 169, 172, 205, 272, 279, 283; Cat. SP. 5 (b); 184

Romanelli, Urbano, 281-82 Rome

Banco di Santo Spirito, 263-64 Casino Ludovisi, 51, 179 catacombs

of Domitilla, 18, 52, 175 of St. Agatha, 19, 233of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, see catacombs of

Domitilla churches

Chiesa Nuova, see S. Maria in Vallicella Gesu, 217pilgrimage basilicas, 193, 197 S. Agata dei Qoti, 194S. Andrea della Valle, 253; Barberini chapel, 144, 193 S. Anna dei Palafrenieri, 45 S. Balbina, 21 S. Bibiana, 144, 231,282 S. Caio, 143 i V o C. 24.S. Carlo ai Catinari, 237S. Caterina in Piazza S. Pietro, Doc. 3S. Caterina della Rota, 248Ss. Cosma e Damiano, 149; Baglione chapel, 272S. Crisogono, 141S. Croce in Gerusalemme, 197S. Francesco a Ripa, Albertoni chapel, 187; 86S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, 131; Sacchetti chapel, 185

S. Giovanni in Laterano, 1, 25, 31, 129, 160, 197 S. Gregorio al Celio, 197; Oratory of S. Silvia, 212 S. Gregorio in Campo Marzio, 24 S. Lorenzo in Lucina, 197 S. Luigi dei Francesi, 131, 238, 235 S. Marco, 20S. Maria degli Angeli, 172S. Maria della Concezione, 68, 143, 150—51, 241 >S. Maria della Consolazione, 131 S. Maria del Popolo, 197S. Maria Maggiore, 129, 160, 197; Sistine and Pauline

chapels, 23 S. Maria in Trastevere, 197 S. Maria in Vallicella, 209 S. Maria in Via, Lombardi chapel, 221; 120 Ss. Nereo e Achilleo, 32 S. Paolo fuori le mura, 197 St. Peter’s, see Index IIS. Pietro in Montorio, tempietto, 278, 280; 183 S. Pietro in Vmcoli, 194, 196 Ss. Quattro Coronati, 140 S. Sebastiano al Palatino, 193 S. Sebastiano fuori le mura, 193 S. Tommaso in Formis, 22, 43, 237 S. Trinita dei Pellegrini, 212 S. Vitale, 234

columnsMarcus Aurelius, 178, 181 Trajan, 178, 181; 77

convent of S. Maria in Campo Marzio, 24 Forum of Trajan, 162, 232 Museo Petriano, 191, 281 palaces

Barberini, 68, 149, 150, 281 Cesarini, 12 Lancellotti, 179 Quirinal, 88, 179, 235, 240

Cappella Paola, 26, 49, 51, 125 Sala Regia, 26, 125

Vatican, 26, 27, 125; Doc. 3private chapel of Urban VIII, 144 Sistine chapel, 49, 51, 57 Sala Ducale, 126

Pantheon, 95 V a Margutta, 238 Villa Medici, 238

Roncalli, Cristofano, 139, 141, 277Peter Piuiiihing Sapphira, S. Maria degli Angeli, 28, 41, 139,

170-71; Docs. 1,3; 56 Roscioli, Gio. Maria, 154, 274 Rossi, Alberto de’, 139; Doc. 25 Rossi, Angelo de’

tomb of Alexander VIII, 123, 132, 277 Rossi, Francesco de’, 102 Rossi, Matteo Gregorio de’, 104 Rossi, Mattia de’

tomb of Clement X, 132, 276 Rota, Sacra, 10 Roverio, Claudio, 320

I N D E X I: G E N E R A L 3 4 5

Roverio, Paolo, 162, 188, 320 Rughesi, Fausto, 34

Sabbatini, Lorenzo Deposition, 21-22

Sacchetti, Marcello, 144-45, 147, 282-83; Doc. 18 Sacchi, Andrea, 2, 121, 123-24, 131, 137, 142, 150, 151, 154,

169, 180-81, 267, 270, 277; Cat. SP. 3; Doc. 22; 123, 179

Joachim and the Angel, Lateran Baptistery, 205 Miraculous Maos o f St. Gregory, Vatican Pinacoteca, 71, 105,

110, 159, 160, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 201, 229, 260, 276; Cat. 9; Docs. 9, 13, 22-23; 122

St. Andrew, sacristy, 3, 170 St. Helen, sacristy, 3, 170 St. Longinus, sacristy, 3, 170 St. Veronica, sacristy, 3, 170

Sack of Rome, 2, 183 sacrifice, Roman scenes of, 235, 238; 158 saints

Adalbert, 239Alexis, relics of, 231, 240; Doc. 21 Ambrose, 26Anacletus, body of, Doc. 1Andrew, 30, 100; head of, 22, 36, 50, 100, 221; Docs. 1, 8,

11Anne, 41, 44-45, 85, 86, 97-98, 102-103, 200, 203-204,

205, 238, 249; feast of, 98, 200, 203 Anthony of Padua, 67-68, 216 Antoninus, 231 Athanasius, 26, 269-70 Augustine, 26, 269—70 Bartholomew, 231 Basil, 25; relic of, 25 Blaise, relic of, Doc. 21 Boniface, relic of, 185, 271Boniface IV, 42, 95; body of, 36, 38, 42, 93, 95-96, 192,

196, 241-43; Docs. 1,8, 10-11, 14, 20 Bridget, 231Candidus, relic of, 194-95, 271Carlo Borromeo, 62, 85-86, 94, 103, 187, 189, 238, 247;

Docs. 9, 13-14, 22 Catherine of Alexandria, relic of, 231; Doc. 21 Clementia, relic of, 185, 271 Celestine, relic of, 214 Cletus, body of, Doc. 1 Cyrus and John, relic'of. Doc. 21 Eleutherius, body of, Doc. 111,000 martyred companions of St. Ursula, relics of, 37;

Doc. 21 Erasmus, 83—85, 104, 225 Evaristus, body of, Doc. 1 Fabianus, body of, Doc. 1 Fortunata, relic of, 185 Francis, 67-68, 216 Francois de Sales, 176 Forty Martyrs, relics of, 240; Doc. 21 Gregory of Nazianzus, 24—25; body of, 24—25, 27, 37, 63,

86, 105; Docs. 1, 3, 8, 11; relic of, 24

Gregory the Great, 19, 24, 25, 222, 224, 242; body of, 24,36-457, 79, 86, 105, 221, 223; Docs. 1, 3, 8, 11, 20-21

Honestus, relic of, 254 Hubert, 176Hyginus, body of, Doc. 1Innocent, relic of, 37, 194-95, 271; Doc. 21Irene, 194, 196James Major, 30Joachim, 97, 204John Chrysostom, 26, 217, 269-70; body of, 36-38, 81,

95-96, 217, 219; Docs. 1,8, 11 John the Baptist, 33, 187 John the Evangelist, 30, 271-72 John I, body of, Doc. 1 Joseph of Arimathea, 100 Jerome, 25; relic of, 25 Laureatus, relic of, 194—95 Lawrence, feast of, 88Leo I, 19, 257-59; body of, 33, 36, 38, 102, 257, 259-60,

264; Docs. 1 ,3 ,8 , 10-11, 14, 20 Leo II, body of, 33, 36, 38, 257, 264; Docs. 1, 3, 8, 10-11,

20Leo III, body of, 33, 36, 38, 257, 264; Docs. 1, 3, 8, 10-11,

20Leo IV, body of, 33, 36, 38, 257, 264; Docs. 1, 3, 8, 10-11,

20Leo IX, body of, 36, 38, 42, 83, 96, 99, 192, 196, 246, 248;

Docs. 1,10-11, 14, 20; relic of, Doc. 21 Linus, body of, Doc. 1 Longinus, 100 Luke, 100 Lucius, relic of, 271 Mansuetus, relic of, 254 Margaret, relic of, 205 Mark, 20Martial, 103, 104-105, 247-18Mary of Egypt, relic of, 240; Doc. 21Maurice and the Theban Legion, 214, 216; relics of, 37;

Doc. 21 Menna, relic of, 205Michael Archangel, 88-91, 98, 103, 157, 249-50, 265;

feast of, 88, 249-50, 265 Nicolas of Bari, relic of, Doc. 21Paul, 30—33, 192, 257—58, 260; body of, arc Index II, tomb

of the Apostles Peter, 1, and passim; body of, see Index II, tomb of the

ApostlesPetronilla, 52, 55-56, 175, 181-82; body of, 18, 24, 36, 39,

52, 55-56, 79, 86, 97, 102, 175-77, 179; Docs. 1-3,8, 11, 20-21; feast of; 56, 164-65, 178-79, 182; head of, 178-79, 182

Pius, body of, Doc. 1 Placidus, relic of, 214Processus and Martinian, 83, 104, 126—27, 233, 236, 273;

bodies of, 18, 36-37, 55, 79, 100, 104, 127, 232-33, 235, 273; Docs. 1, 3, 8, 11, 20-21

Procopius, 239Sebastian, 100, 192-94, 196; feast of, 197; head of, 96,

194, 197; Doc. 8; relic of, Doc. 21

3 4 6 I N D E X I: G E N E R A L

Severo, relic of (lost), Doc. 21Simon and Jude, 83, 104, 244-45; bodies of, 19, 36—37,

55, 79, 83, 104, 244, 246; Docs. 1, 3, 8, 10-11, 20-21 Sixtus I, body of, Doc. 1 Stephen, relics of, Doc. 21 Sylvester, 268Thelesphorus, body of, Doc. 1 Theodora, 248 Thomas, 30, 104, 244 Valentine, relic of, 231; Doc. 21 Valeria, 247—49 Veronica, 100Victor, body of, Doc. 1; relic of, 194—95, 271 Victoria, relic of, 185 Wenceslas, 20, 104, 238-39

Sammaruchi, Michelangelo, 262San Clemente, card., oee Spinola, Gio. Domenico, card.Sandrart, Joachim von, 227—28Sangallo, Antonio da, the Younger, 15, 17San Giovanni, Giovanni da, 137, 140, 183, 226, 232; Docs.

9, 13frescoes in Ss. Quattro Coronati, 140

Sangro, Alessandro de, Doc. 21 San Sisto, card., oee Zacchia, Laudivio, card.Santa Cecilia, card., oee Spinola, Gio. Domenico, card.Santi di Tito, 150, 244Sant’Onofrio, card, di, oee Barberini, Antonio, the Elder,

card.Santori, Giulio Antonio, card., Doc. 20Savoia, Maurizio di, card., 140, 233, 235, 237, 263; Doc. 9Scacchi, Francesco, 277, 320Scannarola, Gio. Battista, 87Sebastiano del Piombo, 234oede vacante, 175, 180Segni, Monsignor, 262“segretario del cardinal Vermiense," 41, 225Sementi, Gian Giacomo, 140-41, 226, 233, 235-37, 258,

263; Docs. 9, 13 oepolchro, 208, 212-13 Sergius 11, pope, 257 Serodine, Giovanni, 137, 139—40 Serra, Jacopo, card., 319 Sforza, Alessandro, 221 ship of fools, 256Siciolante da Sermoneta, Girolamo

Virgin and Child Appearing to Pope Boniface VIII, with Sto.Francit and Boniface o f Tauriut, S. Tommaso in Formis, 22, 39, 233, 237; 55

Sixtus IV, pope, 66- 68, 81, 198-99, 216 Sixtus V, pope, 9-10, 23, 199 slate, 158, 160 Sodoma, 234soul-masses, 14, 19, 24, 27, and passim Soria, Gio. Battista, 69, 89, 120, 184-85, 190, 202, 215, 222,

230, 236, 240, 243, 246, 248 Spada, Bernardino, card., 319 Spada, Virgilio, 116, 261Spadarino, Gio. Antonio Galli called, 2, 137, 247;

Doc. 9

St. Valeria Carrying her Head to the Altar where St. Martial io oaying Mom, sacristy, 103, 105, 110, 171—72, 234; Cat. 15; Docs. 13-14, 22; 155

Spain, 8, 10, 53—54 Specchi, Alessandro, 85, 88 Speroni, Francesco, 70, 278Spinola, Gio. Domenico, card., 76, 102, 211, 258, 263—64,

278-79, 319; Doc. 13 Stengel, Karl, 122 Stephen II, pope, 52, 175 Strozzi, Giulio, 265 Strozzi, Pietro, 12 Subleyras, Pierre

St. Baoil Celebrating Maoo, S. Maria degli Angeli, 25, 171; 51

Sweerts, MichaelArt Lite Studio, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 234

Symmachus, pope, 244

Tansillo, Luigi, 128Tempesta, Antonio, 234, 245; 154, 151Tenerani, Pietro

tomb of Pius VIII, 132, 281, 283; 185 Testa, Pietro, 232 Theodoli, Mario, card., 319 Thorvaldsen, Bertel, 120 Tiarini, Alessandro, 137, 177, 233; Doc. 22

Alartyrdom and Reception into Heaven o f St. Barbara, Bologna, S. Petronio, 177; 76

Tirabosco, priest, 243 Titian

Death o f St. Peter /Martyr (lost), 232 • 5 7Gloria, Madrid, Prado, 40, 209 / r>rn cj IO ,

Torriti, JacopoVirgin and Child with Sto. Peter and Paul Presenting Pope

Boniface VIII (lost), 2 h 21 Tournier, Nicolas

Denial o f Peter, present location unknown, 234 translations of relics, 24, 36—38, 52, 81, 127, and passim Transubstantiation, 27 Treter, Thomas, 225Trometta, Niccolo, see Martinelli, Niccolo Ubaldi, Benedetto, card., 319 Ubaldini, Francesco, 243Ubaldini, Roberto, card., 13, 138, 210, 213; Doc. 7 Ubaldini, Ugo, 75-76, 101-102, 212; Docs. 12-13, 17, 21 Ugo da Carpi

St. Veronica between Sto. Peter and Paul, Fabbrica di S.Pietro, 21

Ugolini, Benigno, oee Vangelini, BenignoVNVM EX VII ALTARIBVS, 39Urban VIII, pope, 2, 10, 13, 58, 61-65, 68, 73-77, 87,

100-103, 111-16, 142-45, 146-52, 154, 155-58, and passim; Docs. 5-6, 8, 11-13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26

Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, 61family chapel in S. Andrea della Valle, 143—44, 193 member of the Congregation, 62, 198, 203, 319 poetry, 130and the nave of new St. Peters, 34, 62

I N D E X I: G E N E R A L 3 4 7

Urban VIII, coronation of, 88-90devotion to St. Michael, 88—91, 98, 157, 249—51 devotion to St. Sebastian, 192-93 exequies of, 87, 266preference for Florentine artists, 61-62, 69, 143-46 relations with Floly Roman emperor, 113-15 and the plague, 193 and the war of Castro, 115

Vaccario, Carlo Antonio, Doc. 21 Vaiani, Alessandro, 139; Doc. 24 Valens, emperor, 25 Valentin de Boulogne, 2, 137, 148, 150

Allegory o f Rome, Villa Lante, 237 Concert, Paris, Louvre, 234Denial o f Peter, Florence, Fondazione Longhi, 234; 1)6 Martyrdom o f Sto. Proceoouo and Martinian, Vatican

Pinacoteca, 40, 105, 110, 127, 148, 151, 162, 164, 166-67, 170, 172, 227-28, 239; Cat. 11; Doc. 22; 155, 135

Portrait o f cardinal Franceoco Barberini (lost), 237 Valesio, Francesco, 265 Van Dyck, Anthony, 235Vangelini, Benigno, 139—40, 226, 231, 233, 236; Docs. 9, 13 Vanni, Francesco, 31

Fall o f Sunon Maguo, Fabbrica di S. Pietro, 28, 171; Docs. 1,3 ; 38

Vanni, Raffaele, 170, 229, 231, 254 Vanvitelli, Luigi, 186, 205 Velenus, Ulricus, 127 Venice, 20, 163

S. Marco, mosaics workshops of, 156 Venosa, Principessa di, 12 Verdun, Francois de, Doc. 3 Verne, Guglielmo, 128 Veronese, Paolo

Martyrdom o f Sto. Primiut and Felicianua, Padua, Museo Civico, 232

Vidman, Cristoforo, card., 319Vdoni, Girolamo, card., 109, 148, 255, 259, 261, 265, 315,

319Vienna, 114, 172 Vignola, Jacopo Barozzi da, 23 Visconti, Allonso, card., 319 Visconti, Nicola, 22Visitations, Apostolic, 62-65, 73, 83, 94, 106, 184, 192,

198-99, 222, 266; Docs. 3-5, 27 Vitruvius, 178Vouet, Simon, 2, 47, 66-68 , 70-71, 72, 74, 118, 137, 150,

151, 159, 177, 205-206, 211, 280; 111-15 Crooo with Sto. Francui and Anthony o f Padua, God the Father,

and Angelo with Symbolo o f the Paooion (lost), 47, 67—68, 81, 106, 109, 110, 164, 169, 206, 207, 211; Cat. 8; Docs. 9, 22

,>Weyden, Rogier van der, workshop of

Exhumation o f St. Hubert, London, National Gallery, 176;75

Wierix, Hieronymus, 80 Wladislaus, crown prince ol Poland, 13

k washing of the feet, papal, 126

Zacchia, Laudivio, card., 74-76, 102, 138, 226, 229, 233, 236, 240, 243, 248, 254-55, 319; Docs. 12-13

Zainello, Aurelio, Doc. 21 zoccolanti (Observant Franciscans), 68, 106, 220 Zuccari, Federico, 42, 249

Canonization o f St. Hyacinth, S. Sabina, 42 frescoes in the portico of old St. Peters, 24, 132

Zucchi, JacopoAocenoion, S. Lorenzo Nuovo, S. Lorenzo, 39, 42, 249; 52 Glorification o f the Virgin, sacristy, 40-41, 63, 221-22; 56 Reourrection, S. Lorenzo Nuovo, S. Lorenzo, 39, 42, 247;

Docs. 3, 14, 20; 59

Index II: St. Peter's

New St. Peter's, 2, -1—15, 50, 61 altars

Apostles, .tee high altarapse altar, 2, 16, 87-91, 98-99, 100, 101-103, 116, 152,

155, 161-62, 170, 190, 250, 265-71; Docs. 8-13, 27; 71,168

Cathedra Petri (apse), je e apse altar Cathedra Petri (baptismal chapel), 112, 116, 152, 170,

189-92, 266; Doc. 27; 84 Conception of the Virgin, and Sts. Francis and

Anthony of Padua, 66-69, 74, 81-82, 86, 95-96, 101, 110, 206, 216-21, 280; Docs. 8-9, 11-12, 20, 27; 108, 116-18

Crucifix, 21, 80, 87, 110, 112, 152, 182-86, 189; Docs.8-11, 13-14, 22, 27; 79-85

high altar, 3, 16, 18, 27-28, 33-35, 39, 41, 50, 64, 78,80, 87, 98-99, 100, 116, 123, 127, 133; Docs. 1, 4, 11,20; 71

Madonna della Colonna, 39-40, 43, 49, 64, 79, 86, 91, 93-94, 102, 156, 199-200, 204, 221, 249-50, 257, 260, 264; Docs. 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-14, 20, 27; 54

Madonna della Febbre, 112, 184; Doc. 27 Madonna del Soccorso, 24-25, 27, 36, 37, 39, 41, 63,

79, 91, 101, 105, 108, 199, 207-208, 212, 264; Docs.1,3-5, 8, 10-11,20, 27-, 27

Navicella, 28, 110, 252-56; Docs. 1, 3-4, 9, 13-14, 17, 20; 156

papal, .tee high altarPieta, .tee altar of the Conception of the Virgin, and St.

Francis and Anthony of Padua portable, 63, 87, 111, 189; Doc. 3 Presentation of the Virgin, 70, 72, 94-98, 104, 110, 144,

165, 197-205; Docs. 5, (8), (9), 10-11, 13-14, 23,94 St. Andrew (projected), 100; Docs. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 St. Anne, .tee altar of St. Wenceslas St. Basil, 25-29, 72; Docs. 1, 3-4, 14, 20-21; 51 St. Boniface IV, .tee altar of St. Thomas St. Erasmus, 37, 41, 83-85, 104, 107, 110, 138, 225-^2;

Docs. 1, 3-4, 8-9, (10), 11, 13-14, 16, 20-21, 22; 42-45,124

St. Gregoiy of Nazianzus, .tee altar of the Madonna del Soccorso

St. Gregoiy the Great, 36-37, 39, 40, 63, 71, 79, 86, 105, 110, 221-24, 249; Docs. 1, 3-5, 8-14, 20-23,27; 121

St. Jerome, 25-28, 72; Docs. 1, 3-4, 14, 20-21;-^St. John Chrysostom, .tee altar of the Conception of the

Virgin, and Sts. Francis and Anthony of Padua St. John the Baptist, 80, 82, 87, 104, 110, 112, 141,

186-90; Docs. 9, 11, 13-14; 88 St. Leo I, 2, 27, 41, 49-50, 86, 92, 102, 115, 146, 161,

257-65; Docs. 13-15, 22; 160 St. Leo IX, .tee altar of St. Martial St. Martial (formerly of St. Leo IX), 14, 42, 83, 95,

103, 104, 110, 171, 246-49; Docs. 1, 3, (4), (8), (9),(10), 11, 13, 14, 20, 22,46,152

St. Maurice, 112-15, 143, 171, 213-16; 105-105 St. Michael Archangel, 39, 44, 86, 92, 110, 157, 183,

249-52, 272; Docs. (1), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9), (10),(11), 13-14, 20,21,22, 27; 154

St. Nicolas of Bari, 170, 184St. Peter, .tee high altarSt. Peter, Crucifixion of, 28, 37, 39, 64, 83, 192; Docs.

1,3-5, 14, 17, 20-21,27 St. Peter defeating Simon Magus, 28-29; Docs. 1, 3-4,

14, 17, 20-21, 27 St. Peter healing the Lame Man, 28; Docs. 1, 3-4, 14,

17,20-21St. Peter punishing Sapphira, 28; Doc. 1, 3—4, 14, 17,

20-21,55St. Peter raising Tabitha, 28-29, 39; Docs. 1, 3—4, 14, 20 St. Peter walking on the Water, .tee altar of the

NavicellaSt. Petronilla, 21, 36, 39, 50, 52-57, 72, 79, 86, 92, 95,

102, 161, 165, 175-83, 239, 249, 257, 272; Docs.1-5, 8, 11, 14, 20-21, 27; 72

3 4 8

IN D E X II: ST. PETER 'S 349

Sts. Processus and Martinian, 14, 36—37, 39, 41, 55, 73, 79,83, 101, 104, 110, 127, 138, 140, 162,208,212, 232-38, 249; Docs. 1, 3-4, 8-9, (10), 11-14, 20-21, 22, 27; 42, 44,132

St. Sebastian, 70, 72, 95-96, 110, 153, 192-97, 242;Docs. (8), (9), (10), 11, (13), 14, 22; 90

Sts. Simon and Jude, 36—37, 39, 40, 48, 55, 66, 71, 79, 83, 104, 110, 171, 212, 216, 218, 238, 244-46; Docs. 1, 3-4, 8-9, (10), 11, 13-14, 20-21, 22, 27; 47,149

St. Thomas (formerly of St. Boniface IV), 42—43,69-70, 79, 83, 93, 95, 104, 110, 129, 144, 161, 241-44; Docs. 1, 3-4, 8, (10), 11,14, 20; 48,147

St. Veronica (projected), 100; Docs. 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13

St. Wenceslas (formerly ol St. Anne), 41, 44—45, 85,94, 104, 106, 110, 138, 161,238-41; Docs. 1 ,3 ,4 ,(8), (9), (10), 11, 13-14, 16, 20, 21, 22-.42, 45,141

seven privileged altars, 39, 41, 44, 52, 84, 175, 233;Docs. 3, 11,27

Trinity, 81, 91, 93, 96-97, 101, 110, 112,205-13, 228, 238, 249, 258-59; Docs. 8-11, 13-14, 22; 97,102

baptismal font, 64, 95-96, 106, 112, 185-91, 266, 270;Docs. 5, 8, 11, 27; 88

benediction loggia, 51, 133, 144, 282 campanili, 115—16; Doc. 3chair of the Penitenziere maggiore, 48, 128—29; Doc. 1; 66 chapels (oee aLw altars)

baptismal, 15, 64, 69, 72, 79-80, 82, 87, 104, 112, 141, 153, 162, 165-67, 170, 182-83, 186-89, 190-91, 196, 275; Docs. 5, 9, 11, 13-14, 27; 84, 88

Choir, 12, 15, 40, 52, 66-69, 72-73, 74, 80, 81-82, 92, 95-96, 97, 101, 106, 112, 118, 130, 164, 169, 185, 203, 205, 207, 208, 216-21, 244; Docs. 8-9, 11-12; 108,116-18

Choir (provisional), 40, 42, 47—49, 62, 66, 69, 83, 96, 120, 128-29, 179, 198, 212, 216, 218-19, 244; Docs. 3-4, 20

Clementina, 23, 27-28, 36-^8, 39, 40-41, 48, 63, 71,86, 105, 120, 121, 130, 132, 145, 156, 198, 203, 221, 223; Docs. 3, 11; 121

Gregoriana, 17, 23-27, 28, 33, 36-458, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 63, 72, 79, 82, 86, 91, 96-97, 101, 105, 108, 120-21, 125-26, 127, 156, 183, 199, 207-209, 212-13, 271-72; Docs. 3, 8, 11, 27; 27, 32-33

nave, 48, 52, 62, 64-65, 72, 79-82, 92, 95-97, 118, 121, 133, 151; Doc. 3

New Sacristy, 15, 47, 52, 72, 81-82, 93, 96, 112, 121, 143, 203, 205-11, 213, 215, 253-54; 62,104

sacrament, 26, 36, 39, 48, 63, 82, 96-97, 105, 125-26, 207-10, 271; Docs. 3-5 ,8 , 11

transept, 28, 29-33, 48, 82-83, 86, 92, 104-105, 151; Doc. 12

ciboriaBernini, 207, 209-10; 97, 102 Bernini (provisional), 207-208, 212 Donatello, 186of Gregory XIII in the Cappella Gregoriana, 26, 39, 63,

101, 244; Doc. 3; 50 collection boxes, 63; Doc. 3

columns, 119—20 cottanello, 48, 267 gia llo antico, 162, 227, 232, 267 granite, 48, 119 porphyry, 162, 238 portaoanta, 162, 205 spiral, 125, 213, 215

confeMw, 47, 50, 111, 166, 189-90; Docs. 1, 4-5 confessionals, 48, 128—29; Docs. 1, 3 consecration, 73construction, 1—2, 7—12, 15, 17, 45-46, 47, 48, 62, 73; 10—15 crossing, 3, 33, 36, 50, 53, 124, 133, 257 crucifix, wooden, 39, 52, 87, 95, 106, 110, 182-86, 249,

272; Docs. 3, 11,20-21; 51, 79 crucifixes and candlesticks, 63, 185; Docs. 4, 27 dome, 17-18, 27, 34, 62, 156; 49 doors, bronze, oee Index I, Filarete facade, 33, 35, 45-46, 62, 81, 115, 133, 156; 1 miracle-working images

Madonna del Soccorso, 24—25, 27, 39, 63, 105, 108, 257; Docs. 3, 5, 8; 27

Madonna della Colonna, 40, 49, 87; Docs. 3, 7; 54 Madonna della Febbre, 112, 184—86; Doc. 27

nave, 34-35, 45, 48, 62, 116navipiccole, 3, 23, 25, 27—29, 50, 119-21, and passim; 55,

182,185 organs, 120

of Alexander VI, 120-21, 237; Doc. 1 of Gregory XIII, 120-21, 185, 208, 213, 272; Docs. 1, 3 portable, 48, 186

pavement, 27, 48, 50pontifical throne, 88, 90, 98, 117, 123-24, 265-66, 268-70 pontifical choir, 78, 87, 89, 117, 123-24, 266, 270; 65-64 porphyiy rota, 113porta oanta, 65, 182-83, 185-86, 221; Docs. 1, 3, 13 portico, 132-33, 252, 279Probus Anicius, sarcophagus of, 64, 95, 106, 185, 189-90,

270relics (peeaLw Index I, saints)

Cathedra Petri, 78, 90, 111-12, 116, 187, 189-91, 265-67, 269-70; Docs. 21, 27; feasts of, 51, 111, 267

colonna oanta, 50, 185; Docs. 1, 3, 27; 61, 82 cross, 186lance of Longinus, 36, 50, 94, 100, 197—200, 203; Docs.

1 , 1 1Sudarium (volto oanto), 20, 36, 50, 100; Docs. 1,5, 12

oacregrotte, 21, 27, 198 cappella Clementina, 27 altar of St. Andrew, 3, 170 altar of St. Helen, 3, 170 altar of St. Longinus, 3, 170 altar of St. Veronica, 3, 170 altar ol the Madonna della Febbre, 184 fresco decoration, 107, 144, 214, 241

sacristy, 22, 36-37, 41,43,45, 81-82, 96, 111, 184,189-92, 198, 217, 219; Doc. 3

oopraporti, 3, 50, 119-33, 141, 143-15, 147-51, 153-55, 159-60, 168-69, 172, 271-83; Docs. 17, 18, 19, 22; 65,178,180-81

3 5 0 IN D E X II: ST. P E T E R ’S

statuesfounders of religious orders, 129 St. Andrew (anonymous 16th-century), 22; Doc. 3 St. Peter (bronze), 100; Docs. 3, 19 St. Peter (marble), 31

stoups, Doc. 3tomb of the Apostles, 1,16, 27-28, 31, 33, 36-37, 64, 78,

80, 84, 87, 98-99, 121, 127, 133, 225, 232; Doc. 20 tombs

Alexander VII, 120, 131-32, 281-83; 67, 182Alexander VIII, 123, 132, 277Benedict XIV, 125, 132, 271, 273; 169Clement VIII (provisional), Docs. 1, 3Clement X, 132,276Clement XIII, 126, 132, 273; 175Gregory XIII, 23; Docs. 1,3Gregory XIV, Docs. 1, 3Gregory XV (provisional), Doc. 3Gregory XVI, 52Innocent VIII, 94, 198-200, 203; Docs. 3, 5, 11; 96Leo XI (provisional), Docs. 1, 3Matilda of Canossa, 115; 107Paul III, 50, 87, 124, 203, 266-67; Docs. 1,12, 27; 168Pius VII, 120Pius VIII, 132, 281,283; 185 Sixtus IV, 112, 203; 105Urban VIII, 87, 124, 203, 266-67; Doc. 27; 168

vault decorationmosaic, 3, 25-26, 27, 33, 48, 50, 69, 144, 146, 156, 209 stucco, 27, 29-31, 48, 50, 52, 145, 183, 279

Old St. Peter’s, 5 altars

Apostles, Me high altarConceptron ol the Virgin, and Sts. Francis and

Anthony of Padua, 21, 66, 81; Doc. 12; 109-110 Crucifix, 21, 24, 39, 55, 95, 175, 183; Doc. 3; 2? high altar, 17, 20, 87, 113, 125, 265 Madonna della Colonna, 40 Madonna della Febbre, 37; Doc. 21 Madonna de Conventu, Me altar of Innocent VIII Madonna del Soccorso, 22, 25; Doc. 5 Madonna in Turri, Doc. 21 Madonna Praegnantium, 64, 199; Docs. 5, 8, 11 of the Dead, are altar ol St. Leo IX of Innocent VIII, 20-21, 93-94, 197-200, 202-204;

Docs. 5, 8; 19-20 sacrament, are altar of Sts. Simon and Jude St. Andrew, arc altar of St. Gregory the Great St. Anne, 22, 41, 43-44, 85, 202, 240; Docs. 8, 11 St. Boniface IV, 21-22, 93, 95; 21 St. Erasmus, 37, 41, 83-84, 225, 231; Doc. 21; 26 St. Gregory the Great, 19, 22, 24, 1 13, 221, 224; Doc.

3, 5; 25St. Leo I, 19, 24, 108, 257; Doc. 3 St. Leo IX, 21, 37, 246, 249; Doc. 21 St. Mark, 20-21; Doc. 2b, 19 St. Martial, 93-95, 105, 247

St. Maurice, 1 12—14 St. Peter, err high altar Sts. Peter, Paul, and Andrew, Doc. 21 St. Petronilla (err aLw altar of the Crucifix), 18, 52—53,

175Sts. Philip and James, 24Sts. Processus and Martinian, 19, 233, 237; Doc. 21 St. Sebastian, 64, 83, 96, 100, 192; Doc. 5 Sts. Sebastian, Gorgonius, and Tiburtius, 192 Sts. Simon and Jude, 19, 21, 26, 36—37, 39, 125, 183,

244; Doc. 21; 25 St. Thomas, 42, 241,243-44 St. Veronica, arc altar of the Sudarium St. Wenceslas, 20-21, 93-94, 106-107, 225, 231,

238-39, 241; Doc. 16; /-/4-/J seven prrvtleged altars, 20, 39, 93, 221, 233, 249, 257;

Doc. 11 Sudarium, 21; Docs. 5, 21; 2-1

altarpieces, anonymous paintedSt. Erasmus, 22, 41, 83-84, 107-108, 225-26, 241;

Docs. 4, 16; 125 St. Wenceslas, 21, 106-107, 239-11; Doc. 16; 141-145

apse, 17, 156, 265; 16 chapels, oratorres, etc. (arc aLw altars)

John VII, 132,215Madonna della Febbre, 18, 82, 175, 184, 186 St. Boniface IV, 22, 40, 233 St. Hadrian, 189St. Petronilla, 18, 40, 52-53, 175, 192, 216; Doc. 2 St. Thomas, 22, 43Sistine choir, 21, 40, 66-68, 81, 186, 203, 216, 219, 244;

Doc. 12; 109-110 Secretarium, 22, 40, 184, 186, 192, 216

ciborium ol Sixtus IV, 132, 238, 265 columns, spiral, 244 crucifix, wooden, 21, 39, 175 doors, bronze, err Index I, Filarete dividing wall, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 46, 125; 10,16,18 mosaics, 156nave, 15, 17-18, 21-23, 24, 26, 28, 33-38, 43, 72, 84, 85,

106, 120, 132, 156, 198, 233, 257; 10-15,16-19 pontifical throne, 265 porphyry rota, 113,16 portico, 24, 132 statue of St. Andrew, 22, 221 Him no, 17, 27, 264; 14-15tomb of the Apostles, 17-18, 27, 108, 113, 244, 264 tombs

Boniface VIII, 21 Canali, Giambattista de’, 22 Colonna, Agnese, 22 Croce, Bernardo della, 22 Innocent VIII, 197, 199 Nobili, Marcello de’, 22 penitenzieri, 22 Sixtus IV, 216 Visconti, Nicola, 22

Figures

t e *

F ig . 1. St. Peter’s b as ilic a

3 5 4 | | F I G U R E S

t c i i n o g r a p h i aIS QVA INDICANTVP

BASIL IC A. AL TARIA

Fig. 2. Plan of new St. Peter’s, from Filippo Buonanni, N um utm ata oum m orum p on tificu m . . . , 1696 (photo: Hertziana)

F IG U R E S U1 3 5 5

ATcmpw Anlitho ixaa Bfiliia-3 ■ CorttL ton fun Partin intern v .CPiane euunbL’ Lag/jit Ji*riSi>mmi?"F

seal mu rettutre Llmprratnri ■V CirtJi lie faghtmo ntupuao i d Temo E flrtr i d Pehna AfaJUuo-F P in t4 aranie muni J Trnpto nrliui

mo-uxfUSoaliu JiSiJkVJcu IriJjnrUre ^ (t_rrj/Jer/’ tOkekfioii Ccjare Avpo/h

l i Monaflmo JiSunMarhno •1 Monifbno JiS-£tfmo nuM dour

U im o b P n d Eiii.fi- 07 K CMo iHP’A&dr.atntoluSy-iiuli.rir*/. ■ Tiup*oiiS rttreni8uVtpl tUPnAc prm,- M Tiupia iiS^Aton, Jtlhftitt N Msnljlml diSmSt-fixo mr.mJaAJnmif 0 Cutemi,fatniauiattu,U7rrtaV Oiuf* iiiSaaufu’ficl.f.MZlSCn7,TuU p. (.hflirSSJitrid/XhjiiMU tbSS SrflUr rBtulb ■A T/npw /rna in ProtoPrfetoiiuCmoA Pjui- S Cimrrrto c Joule JiSaa Pirtn rs amffiientji

Jil ire o Santa rtaltn Santi mi/ipiln- W 7* LibranoJit onftrtm

VSairj/Au\, X CntBnldC»iuA.nm»Orinu

( \ 'Y - CV 1> M M 'D -fln Z ~ z

_ \ d Cn*

8

o | f t Stpoiuru i t SiJhtYiiiirioJlof.tnluAp— -.■ .-•tShnrCori-

uoAtmhsitaSepollura i t I GmJ-J-ruyalto JttieRnuro- ntMfaptU W° ■ Sfpofoio JiCnlaPodtCbrittii QitrfAA iootaS-‘ uo't\7r Sepou-VBemori, i n k C,-J*iilfM mi. ■ imrnrire-. yi intimraiiSaJixiTftnBnCmiMiiParU-

■{ • a ilL a iL A lart& SA&mff’j-A hart iS lh - .lh A p U mMUauot | OJMcLcaidtA** auPaiUaT'ntilaffiiUMlMtJ atififrn tamirieiiijWj yfiAPIiitniJraMnBtmbiVf/Ajt im p t c P i e n h m t t l t V i f u m a C H t m - m 'Ml JiJf^’JtroPny p MBntfartStpbmiTMc.

£y ffCM,aaAts-uiiahiimihJmr% *bu7?J tp ilA C ryB .tcM ouiA Sjh V UStfilmri MTu IIIninfvSotfiflU, fm u tu Bfo/mj-o ViiitammiAnmfmi

jg-JUSttnn •W SiphmtdiPivV.

tifi.H m icS ijhV a SU trueiitj/nin- .

IrlnuuU SifiliH -aii A bU m X L uioM

St S t f i t i & i i i MU A fm S trM fl’ 3-u a t Jn f fu n teS f- .nrnbSTA nieu AH, Vdk- ,

SfAinr, i iS G i y f t l l

tizi& i■ m A /iinPu l l - ,IlsLhnf*£A

yr AlwrnhS Glait’nA/HA ft Atm i/iSon G iiprim

IiKJSJ$4S&.rot Alrun itS tli’ * j,..r: ’■

I c l Alntn t,SA,uU pripo ps it pub t to SijyuluriiMuS&i lotA hur ifi.r Lud,ob}uOnim

i taSrpuhun a W . . A tM tV lr ffS P™ lOlAi-uli.l'mMuillZf

r o i’S tnbri JiPeeijf 107 £A alukcAJnrt JlS- At m il l nnflM-m r u i i t im k U “

Seputura iiLtnX' tt.

uiUStJXiP l'U'i

SjAJaniSSLrtnaatiG im isJaO ium iCataniaStfimtfi-Carinnlt

N A tm t d iS tfn ii/ t Cib~»SttS fcrtm {SaSmlnnAOv/-'

W W diiG reSX N - ' geAInrritlltntlP, X n it il iS tp i lm r t i i ' i j f f l arimUCnte

8k \mCaifit a t Alt a

m SffSanVft?% \\ThwA ? .

- MS Pinro iia n faLuJcuitaRt iiFrani

t6 l.C m n * 2 i# S im rf*no,jmMlTOjKZ

l&rCnptlh J im - JM-11 rainutile Oj?oiu tU anheteS rpa lm re- „ „

l 6 p ’A ltare JiS - (h o Cb$ft}noA rim jC I$i

ilajudJt/anaStrJiBt

PlASTA DULA iACKAT 15S -nAlll-JOA DI $*riETBD MEt VATICANDIRITTA

‘M o*** * i u n p * Jon^ JU S am poA num olm p io m yu / h f ir a u . i t , touutmwtaltamnha

tm n m t u i tm a u a ■ rtrn/ tm no, t J in im nn d ill , noun jnanta, tom e

tt AtxiHlU'Z, Z-Utv OrciirM Juu fun-i main OB, i t M em .S/roUr, iitirmnr N

. f ' c ’a J i l T i^ fti urrfo LOuultmt ■• i Otnerio J i S L m l in e J im ,fn , , Cmri

J tSm L ..* . t - l /> + ' . •If- Ontario JiS ’A Juans Prmo ■Va£zri/in?XTZizi$.as S

Hub prmiPaee- \ ii9-C‘ ,ttbiiBaMiipmab(u,CA,SM, J : l ’t

Or&u Coribmb

H h-Hh-

x mT T T T 1

Fig. 3. After Tiberio Alfarano, Plan of old St. Peter’s superimposed over new St. Peter's (1590) (pboto: Hertziana)

3 5 6 F IGURES

Fig. A. Etienne Duperac after Michelangelo, Plan of new St. Peter’s, 1569 (photo: Hertziana)

I CHS O C R APHIA- T E M P U • DI V I-PE T R I • RO M A E *1 hi b o n a r o t i . f l o r e n t i n i A mS TE p h a n o -MODVl.UV-ACCVRATE ■ P R O P O R T I O N A T F Q V E

A N N O • D O M I N I

VATICANO'UX'H.SEMPLAM MICHAF.LIS- A N G E L I • PAR1.SIEN.SI IN llX N C - FORMAM CVM-.SVKS

NE AT A . F.T. f N ■ tV C EM-AE D I T A OO D L X 1 X

F I G U R E S f U 3 5 7

Fig. 5. Cigoli, Project for the completion of new St. Peter’s, c. 1606. Florence, Uffizi, A 97 (photo: Soprmtendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici, Florence)

3 5 8 F IGURES

fttr

Fig. 6. Matthaeus Greuter after Carlo Maderno, Plan of new St. Peter’s, 1613, with handwritten annotations by Gia­como Grimaldi, c. 1615—20. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, ff. 490v^(91 (photo: BAV)

Fig. 7. P lan of new St. P eter’s, c. 1620, from M artino Ferrabosco, A rch ite ttu ra d e lla B au ilica d i S. P ie t r o . . . , 1684 (photo: Colum bia U niversity, A very L ib rary)

3 6 0 H FIGURES

a sfd itibn ibu s x j f la t th a m

pro cu r m a ton g n fe ilm c ,

Greukt are inscts/p sit. 161.3J *, ?• r r* ' * m

Saaj/SadeCatC, C.

C pfantam f£(& T e m p i S * fP e t r t cumnonnuiiis^ a d e f d m D ' P B f a c t a m defm ea tam .

J fry n crto K .. e t f M uro cfie s i ditue/a uatr cfie sono da tT.

Coro

fitia h <DS atrjfik d eM tr cr

ru s ty *iE.% attisfenb T ,C apped* ffrtya rta d 'g

Cappedk 3m A > dsfatSeo dk re fk rd de Came />

p er p a r At IZtdsue di mezgo JL. Jd tu ca c d !CM atte ( o/taSfrad ait COPO fiQ ied i dedh (die

K--_ ; v f*

Quotro Q ttasfri e fie s i danno t& Jareper fid o 1 C am paniS'sports ettes' saA aPmJuon'. <P .

O tto Q utpitsp e r- ornam en to e t eom m o

dtta.sepnap Q ,Torfn Santa “ft. . P orte dette Tiaue Cot. iatrrate. S Vet aftro'Pordeo cfie eon i f tempo puo' sc-

p u itvrr a torna taps*.aftfis dtS nraUifiafix

S i C. oneie iinoM,

o o g g pSods rwA&nnk fir palm 1 l o o

*00

Fig. 8. Matthaeus Greuter after Papirio Bartoli, Plan of new St. Peter's, 1623, with additions made by the Congre­gation of the Fabbrica in 1626. BAY, ACSP, H55, f. 32b (photo: BAY)

F I G U R E S gj§ 3 6 1

(1Pfantam cfizfi 'Tcmjifi S tl‘T>ctrt ad ,co dent T i'F h . fa cfatti

jr *( je y n a tp sHtiro cbesi

a d d ih b n ib u s p ro c i u r m a tb t t p e f e tS o n e M attd au s Q rcu tc t a t e m s a jfjit. 162.3 ■

O tto cP u friti p c r- ornatncnto

dtia, scpn a ti' Q .Torta Santa ( R . 'Porte de/tr 7iaue Cof iatrra/e. S

V n a/fra Portico c/fe con it

da C

Fig. 9. Matthaeus Greuter after Papirio Bartoli, Plan of new St. Peter’s, 1623, with additions made by the Congre­gation of the Fabbrica in 1626. BAV, ACSP, H55, f. 32c (photo: BAV)

Fig. 10. A fter M aertin van H eem skerck , N ew St. P eter’s under construction , v iew ed from the north, w ith the d iv id ing w a ll and the nave of old St. P eter’s v isib le on the left, c. 1538. Berlin, K upferstichkabinett

F ig. 11. M aertin van H eem skerck, V iew of new and old St. Peter's from the south, c. 1538. Berlin , Kupfer­stichkabinett

FIGURES 3 6 3

Fig. 12. G iovanni G uerra, Transportation of the obelisk, show ing new St. Peter's under construction on the left and the nave of old St. P eter’s a t the center, 1586 (photo: H ertziana)

Fig. 13. G iovan Antonio Dosio, V iew of the facade and nave of old S t. P eter ’s, w ith new St. P eter’s in the background, 1575. F lorence, Uffizi (photo: H ertziana)

3 6 4 FIGURES

Fig. 14. Anonymous, Interior of new St. P eter’s under construc­tion, show ing B ram ante ’s t ib u rw housing the tomb of the Apos­tles and the high altar, c. 1570. H am burg, K unsthalle

Fig. 15. Giovan Antonio Dosio, Interior of new St. Peter’s under con­struction, w ith a v iew from the south transept tow ard B ram ante’s t ib u - rio , c. 1564. Florence, Uffizi (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni Artis- tic i e Storici, F lorence)

F I G U R E S gg 3 6 5

zuEcmlo v - 2 o n t - M a y e • «o m i g m t i a J T ^

wu 9: g

ySSH V-*

J eSFiu^ ciyty u e u n jV a t i c a .n < $ B a s i l i c ^ c u m cd tAYibiAfl ($ j6 o t y J

Fig. 16. Giacomo Grimaldi, Interior of the nave of old St. Peters, w ith a v iew tow ard the dividing w all. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, ff. 104v-105 (photo: M usei Vatican!)

3 6 6 l i F I G U R E S

®@®3 K3 S ©©##!

Giacomo G rim aldi, In terior facade of old St. P eters . BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, if. 120v 121 (photo. BAV)

F IG U R E S H 367

Fig. 18. Giacomo Grim aldi, The d iv id ing w a ll as seen from the nave of old St. P eter’s. BAV, ACSP, A64 ter (photo: BAV)

3 6 8 F IG U RES

IfctttU Scuctyfrm Qtodary Vemu<e

Fig. 19. Giacomo Grim aldi, P artia l v iew of the outer north side aisle of old St. P eter’s, show ing the a ltar o f St. M ark and the and tomb of Innocent VIII. BAY, ACSP, A64 ter (photo: BAV)

F I G U R E S I I 3 6 9

Fig. 21. Giacomo G rim aldi, Chapel of St. Boniface IV. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, f. 8 (photo: BAV)

Fig. 20. Giacomo Grim aldi, Chapel of Innocent V III. BAV ACSP, H70, f. 293 (photo: BAV)

3 7 0 H FIGURES

r(lov.

r r f V V

- *»" * • '-'■T ~

Fig. 22. Giacomo G rim aldi, Chapel of the C rucifix . BAY B arb . Lat. F ig. 23. Giacomo G rim aldi, Chapel of St. Gregory. BAV, Barb. Lat. 2733, f. 61 (photo: BAV) 2733, f. 49 (photo: BAV)

FIGURES gl 3 7 1

Fig. 25. Giacomo Grim aldi, Chapel of Sts. Simon and Ju d e . BAV, ACSP, A64 ter (photo: BAV)

H .y c w x w n t 4 i b o r j j m u r ’ m S \(p l l b a n * S r-\ >' in V f n . ■ ' . " i n i I- ■ t . .s . r , « tc k ,», / i iu - V ‘ ’ 'cr r r; f e n

Fig. 24. G iacomo G rim ald i, C hapel of the Su dariu m . BAV, B arb . Lat. 2733, f. 92 (photo: BAV)

372 H F IGURES

F ig . 26 . G iacom o G rim ald i, C h ap el o f S t . E rasm u s. BAV, F ig. 27. A ltar of the M adonna del Soccorso, C appella G regoriana ACSP, A64 ter (photo: BAV) (photo: 1CCD)

F IG U RES H 373

Fig. 28. G irolam o M uziano and C esare N ebbia, St. J e r o m e P r e a ch in g in th e W ild ern ed o . Rome, S . M aria degli A ngeli (photo: A linari)

374 m F IG U RES

Fig. 29. Altar of St. Jerome, with a mosaic reproduction of Domenichino s Loot Communion o f St. Jerome (photo: ICCD)

fit.

FIG U R E S H 375

Fig. 30. Jacques Callot after Girolamo Muziano and CesareNebbia, St. Badil Celebrating the Madd, c. 1610 (photo: GNS)

Fig. 31. A ltar of St. B asil, w ith a mosaic altarp iece designed by P ierre Sub leyras representing St. B a j i l C e leb ra t in g th e M add

3 7 6 H§ F I G U R E S

Fig. 32. E ast w a ll o f the C ap pella G regoriana, w ith L u ig i A m ici’s tomb of G regory X VI (c. 1854) in co rp orating the door into the chapel of the Trin ity (photo: ICCD )

F ig. 33. E ast w a ll of the C appella G regoriana, in reverse, w ith Taddeo Landim ’s re lie f in position over the door (detail), c. 1615, from M artm o Ferrabosco, A rch lte ttu ra d e lla B a o ilica d i S. P ie tr o . . . , 1684 (photo: H ertziana)

Fig. 34. Taddeo Landini, Warding of the Feet, late 1570s. Rome, Palazzo Ouirinale (photo: ICCD)

F IG U R E S gel 377

Fig. 35. A ltar of the Transfiguration, form erly of S t. Peter punish­ing Sapph ira (photo: ICCD )

Fig. 36. Cristofano Roncalli, St. P e t e r P u n i jh in g S apph ira , mosaic reproduction (photo: ICCD )

3 7 8 H F I G U R E S

7 In Bat?* S. Betri

Fig. 38. Jacques Callot after Francesco Vanni, F all o f SimonAiaguo, c. 1610 (photo: GNS)

Fig. 37. Ja cq u e s Callot after Domenico Passignano, C ru cifix ion o f St. P eter, c. 1610 (photo: G N S)

F IG U R E S HI 3 7 9

Fig. 40. Jacques Callot after Giovanni Baglione, St. Peter RaLingTabitha, c. 1610 (photo: GNS)

Fig. 39. Jacques Callot after Cigoli, St. Peter Healing the Cripple,;. 1610 (photo: GNS)

F ig. 41. (L eft) J a c q u e s C allo t after B ernardo Castello , C h ris t S u m m o n in g P e t e r to W alk on th e Water, c. 1610 (photo: G N S)

Fig. 42. (B elow ) V iew of the three chapels in the north transep t (photo: author)

3 8 0

Fig. 43. Stucco decorations in the chapel of St. E rasm us, 1597—99 (photo: ICCD )

Fig. 44. Stucco decorations in the chapel of Sts. Processus and Martinian, 1597—99 (photo: ICCD)

3 8 2 H F I G U R E S

Fig. 45. Stucco decorations in the chapel of St. W enceslas, 1597—99 (photo: ICCD )

Fig. 46. Stucco decorations in the chapel of the C rucifixion of S t Peter, form erly of St. M artial, 1597-99 (photo: ICCD )

FIG U R E S m 383

Fig. 47. Stucco decorations in the chapel of Sts. Simon and Ju d e , 1597—99 (photo: ICCD )

Fig. 48. Stucco decorations in the chapel of St. Thomas, 1597—99 (photo: ICCD)

3 8 4 FIG U R E S

Fig. 49. Dome o f St. Peter’s, with mosaics designed by Cavaliere d’Arpino, 1603—12 (photo: Anderson)

FIG U R E S 3 8 5

a g .;jry a gA L i AKIB*

>'N V'M EXVfJ A i r A R lB V i •T& K Si. IN C A Pf I I ACiRKJORIA'*

V N V M 'e X V I I A L T A M B W VNVM EX Vit ALTARJBV?

W" EX Vil ALTARIBVS V N V M E X V II A L T A R IB V

1\ v lU pv-Y V ls ilA N TV R ROM/f FT EST SECVNDA.xs ' ‘ i :to (fi'Ww t '- A. V , . £mt ■■■.£&&&£. vantmnn eSufutttr maxmu* ttjumm fmrs Jtr-SandSs 'Bbn&.&fi** measOSr.>$**&tim0-M&f-n i ' a i •w3.7'rt*3 S a fj tm r &&,t»>nf*s. dL e'T tf& m , S m S m m S

f-j&k t> auuia '

I S i j C A 31 v e ECCLETl* S . PETRI IN VAT1GANO V ‘Viu ,’tf Afixrii’tacS,fJOr Temy/if *&\<uu Jut ft Jutlf rrTfy Atii&fXtf- '■*&>& t6ef’ 6>»**mr S m fu t A tr J&s£s .jtor C*?n$ S . i l f t f i tr fkti* » m t t J u d r .’(tfbr, ii C4M t SS .jfa i& w .%■ m m ertt •R f& tm t t ft r e a te d j2 >**>• t4Vuu t * C&, Jj, ' ,n ,?„<,• Te/ia v<*-.M0f f j u k m d i i <tU « ? .n P'j & W » fX V lnuna ri'A its i’ r.-^ aaau rr in e t ' r a p ? ' "Porte

Fig. 50. G iovanni M agg i, V iew of St. P eter’s, w ith insets representing the high altar, the sacram ent altar, and the seven priv ileged altars, c. 1620 (photo: H ertziana)

3 8 6 li F I G U R E S

Fig. 51. W ooden crucifix , today located in the cham ber between the chapel of the P ieta and the chapel o f St. Sebastian (photo: F abbrica d i S. P ietro)

F I G U R E S 1U 3 8 7

g. 52. Jacopo Zucchi, A ocenoion , c. 1583. S. Lorenzo Nuovo, S. Lorenzo Fig. 53. Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta, Virgin a n d C h ild A ppea rin g to P op e B o n i fa c e VIII A ccom pan ied b y S tc. F r a u d ) a n d B o n i fa c e o f T au ruo , c. 1574. Rome, S. Tommaso in Formis (photo: ICCD)

3 8 8 F I G U R E S

F I G U R E S g i f 3 8 9

Fig. 55. Michelangelo, Pieta, 1497-1500 (photo: ICCD) Fig. 56. Attributed to Jacopo Zucchi, Glorification o f the Virgin. St. Peter’s, Sacristy (photo: Musei Vaticani)

Fig. 57. Jacques Callot after the anonymous M artyrdom o f St. Eraomuo formerly over the altar of St. Erasmus in old St. Peter’s, c. 1610 (photo: GNS)

F I G U R E S H 3 9 1

Fig. 60. Caravaggio, Madonna dei Palafrenieri, 1605—1606. Rome, Villa Borghese. (photo: ICCD)

3 9 2 F I G U R E S

VISTA INTERIOR £ "

CHI ESA DI S. PIETROLN V A T I C A N O .

S ca la m o d u la t o n a d e palm: f a s

DELLA

Fig. 61. Matthaeus Greuter, Longitudinal section of St. Peter’s, showing Paul V’s baldachin over the high altar, the colonna oanta in the northeast crossing pier, and the gate of the Cappella Gregoriana, 1625 (photo: Hertziana)

F I G U R E S H 3 9 3

>* **•& n i !***%'?% i %*mnH* m m«m ddm wf k k'km mm«m tmm\d dm dffiU

m

Fig. 62. Stucco decorations in the vault of the chapel of the Trinity, formerly the New Sacristy, c. 1621—25 (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

Fig. 63. Carlo Maderno, Project for the crossing and apse of St. Peter’s, c. 1616—20. Florence, Uffizi, A 265 (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici, Florence)

F I G U R E S | | 3 9 5

Fig. 64. Project for a pontifical choir in the apse of St. Peter’s, c. 1620, from Martino Ferrabosco, Architettura deLla Baoilica di S. Pietro

1684 (photo: ICCD)

Fig. 65. Anonymous, Project for an apse screen , show ing the empty oopraporti on either side. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 5590 (photo: Royal Library)

Fig. 66. Chair of the Penitenziere nmggiore, 1612, with Paolo Campi’s statue of St. Giuliana Falconieri, 1732 (photo: Musei Vaticani)

F I G U R E S H 3 9 7

Fig. 67. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Tomb of Alexander VII, 1672—78 jphoto: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

Fig. 68. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Project for the tomb of Alexander VII. Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art (photo: museum)

3 9 8 H F I G U R E S

Fig. 70. Gianlorenzo Bernini and workshop, Project for the tomb of Alexander VII. United States, private collection

Fig. 69. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Project for the tomb o f AlexanderV II. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 5603 (photo: RoyalLibrary)

F I G U R E S I S 3 9 9

Fig. 71. View of the high altar and baldacchi.no, with the apse altar and Cathedra Petri behind (photo: Saskia)

4 0 0 FIG U R E S

t o m m K M M c a a a t tm m r r r : . , - - ■? **.*T ~1^ t . i u 8u !ou «u «t1a ^ ;mni wi m ;*u«n«; jam as im jfiauSLiS f f i X . n y j f l

i»c to*Ik.

Fig. 73. G uercino, B u r ia l a n d R ecep tio n in H eaven o f S t. P e tro n illa , 1621—23. Rome, P inacoteca Capito lina (photo: Anderson)

4 0 2 fH F IG U R E S

Fig. 74. Guercino, P reparato ry study for the B u r ia l a n d R ecep t io n in H eaven o f St. P e tro n illa , 1621. W indsor Castle, Royal L ibrary, inv. 2756 (photo: R oyal L ib rary )

F I G U R E S H 4 0 3

Fig. 75. School of Rogier van der W eyden, T he E x hum a tion o f St. H ubert, c. 1437. F ig. 76. A lessan d ro T ia rin i, M a r t y r d o m a n d R e c e p t io n in London, National G allery (photo: museum) H ea v en o f S t. B a rb a ra , c. 1607—11. Bologna, S . Petronio

(photo: V illani)

4 0 4 If FIG U R E S

Fig. 77. Column of Trajan (deta il), Rome (photo: Anderson) Fig. 78. Domenico Passignano, R eco v e r y o f th e B o d y o f S t. S ebautian , 1602. N aples, M useo d i Capodim onte (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni A rtistic i e Storic i di N apoli)

F I G U R E S I I 4 0 5

Fig. 79. Domenico Castello, Chapel o f the Crucifix, c. 1644. BAV, Barb. Lat. 4409, f. 17 (photo: BAV)

4 0 6 F I G U R E S

Fig. 80. Chapel of the Pieta, formerly of the Crucifix (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

F I G U R E S I S 4 0 7

Fig. 81. G iovanni Lanfranco, AnqeLt A dorin g th e CroM, 1629—32 (photo: ICCD )

4 0 8 If F IG U R E S

Fig. 82. Chapel of the the P ieta, form erly of the C rucifix , w ith a v iew tow ard the righ t arm of the chapel, w ith the co lo n n a o a n ta in front of the door designed by G ianlorenzo B ernini. The bronze putti ho ld ing a crow n over the V irg in 's head date from 1637. (photo: A linari)

F ig . 83. A lessandro Specch i, Door designed by G ianlorenzo Bernini in the chapel of the C rucifix (photo: H ertziana)

Forta tu tio (of/f/tUa d*lJanOsjim^ itfla. Ji.tst/tso ‘■Vatu-on a. Ja iZuf Gte BxrruK!

Fig. 84. Domenico Castello, Chapel of the Cathedra Petri, c. 1644. BAV Barb. Lat. 4409, £ 18 (photo: BAV)

410 H FIG U R E S

Fig. 85. G aspare Celio, P reparato ry study representing the Baptism of Christ, p robab ly for his altarp iece in the b ap tism al chapel, c. 1624. F lorence, U ffizi, 11810 F (photo: Soprm tendenza p er i Beni A rtistic i e Storici, F lorence)

FIG U R E S f l 4 1 1

Fig. 86. Gaspare Celio, C on cer t o f A ngelo, c. 1622. Rome, S. Francesco a R ipa, Chapel of the B lessed Ludovica A lbertom (photo: ICCD )

412 H F IG U R E S

Figs. 87a and 87b. Wooden model of the reliquary chair for the Cathedra Petri, c. 1636, with its shutters closed and open. St. Peter’s, depo<titl of the Fabbrica (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

F IG U R E S Hg 4 1 3

CylPTMtLA DHL PONTZ AT T ESIM A LB NELLA BA SILICA VATlCJtlJA

Fig. 88. (Above) Alessandro Specchi after Carlo Fontana, Bap­tismal chapel (photo: Hertziana)

Fig. 89. (Right) Carlo Maratta, Baptism o f Chriot, mosaic repro­duction (photo: ICCD)

It..'. :

414 FIG U R E S

Fig. 90. Chapel of St. Sebastian (photo: ICCD)

F IG U R E S H 415

Fig. 91. Domenichino, Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, 1628—31. Rome, S. Maria degli Angeli (photo: ICCD)

416 11 FIG U R E S

Fig. 92. Domenichino, Preparatory study for the M artyrdom o f St. Sebaotian. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 620 (photo: Royal Library)

Fig. 93. Domenichino, Preparatory study for the Martyrdom o f St. Sebastian. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 619 (photo: Royal Library)

Fig. 94. Chapel of the Presentation of the Virgin (photo: ICCD)

4 1 8 | | F I G U R E S

Fig. 95. Gian Francesco Romanelli, Preoentation o f the Virgin a t the Temple, 1638-J2. Rome, S. Maria degli Angeli (photo: ICCD)

FIG U R E S || 419

Fig. 96. Antonio Pollaiuolo, Tomb of Innocent V III, 1498 (photo: ICCD)

4 2 0 i l F IG U R E S

Fig. 97. Pietro da Cortona, Trinity, 1628-32, with Bernini’s sacrament tabernacle in the foreground, 1673-75 (photo: Saskia)

F I G U R E S HI 4 2 1

Fig. 99. Guido Reni, P reparato ry d raw ing for the Trin ity a ltar- p iece , 1627. E d in b urgh , N atio n a l G a lle ry o f Sco tlan d , inv. D4890/5 (photo: m useum )

422 FIG U R E S

Fig. 100. (Above) Pietro da Cortona, P reparatory d raw ing for the T rin ity altarp ieee. W indsor Castle, Royal L ib rary , inv. 4533 (photo: Royal L ib rary)

F ig . 101. (L eft) P ietro da C ortona, P rep ara to ry d raw ing for an altarp ieee representing the Trinity w ith the V irgin in terced ing on behalf of m ankind. Formerly Devonshire collection, Chatsworth (photo: Courtauld Institute of Art)

F I G U R E S g f 4 2 3

' IBOKlU III ZSUIS/.O IXIKATC S'. » l I’l l CGUilCATO S0VSA XiAUARZ p m A s i

Fig. 103. A ltar of St. F rancis, form erly of St. M aurice

Fig. 102. Francesco d e ’ Rossi, Sacram ent altar, show ing Pietro da Cortona’s Trin ity altarp iece behind B ern in i’s sacram ent taberna­cle (photo: H ertziana)

424 |S FIG U R E S

F ig. 104. (Left) M atteo Gregorio Rossi, P lan o f S t. P e te r ’s, 1687 (d e ta il o f the sacram ent chapel, illu strating the proxim ­ity of the a lta r of St. M aurice [at no. 33] and the tomb of S ix tu s IV [a t no. 34 ], The tomb of the Countess M atild a is at no. 31) (photo: H ertziana)

F ig . 105. (B e lo w ) A nton io P o lla iuo lo , Tomb of S ix tus IV, positioned in front of the a lta r form erly of St. M aurice (photo: Anderson)

FIG U R E S H 425

Fig. 106. Carlo Pellegrini, Martyrdom o f St. Maurice and the Theban Legion, 1636/38^40. Vatican Muse­ums, Pinacoteca (photo: museum)

426 || F IG U R E S

Fig. 107. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Tomb of the Countess Matilda, c. 1633-37 (photo: Saskia)

Fig. 108. Altar of the Chapel of the Choir. Mosaic altarpieee designed by Pietro Bianchi, Immaculate Conception with Sto. Fran­co), Anthony, and John Chryoootom, 1747

FIG U R E S US 427

if. * ft i »'.• -i

Fig. 110. Giambattista Ricci da Novara, Choir chapel of Sixtus IV in old St. Peters. St. Peter's, dacregrotte (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

Fig. 109. Giacomo Grimaldi, Choir chapel of Sixtus IV in old St. Peter's. BAV Barb. Lat 2733, f. 131 (photo: BAV)

428 FI GURES

Fig. 111. Simon Vouet, Preparatory drawing of Peter Healing with Hi) Shadow. Princeton, Art Museum, inv. x l953—103 (photo: museum)

Fig. 113. Simon Vouet, Preparatory oil sketch for his altarpiece in the Chapel of the Choir. Great Brrtain, private collection (photo: Royal Academy of the Arts)

4 3 0 H F I G U R E S

Fig. 114. Simon Vouet, Preparatory oil study for the angels in the upper left corner of the altarpieee. Private collection

Fig. 115. Simon Vouet, Preparatory oil study for the angels in the upper right corner of the altarpieee. Pri­vate collection

F IGURES 431

I

-------------------------- i ■....■ — ■» ■------------1

Jlffro-.ie neuc tidinh, chefi/emnc d a S ig ■ C a i ' c ln f ! C hoved r J ’ 0 C ancm ct di S jPieti'C ■

F ig . 116 . (A b o v e ) A n o n y m o u s , F u n e r a r y c e re m o n y fo r M a r ia C lem entina Sob ieska in the Chapel of the Choir, c. 1735. Berlin, Kunst- b ibliothek (photo: S taatliche M useen zu Berlin , Kunstbibliothek)

Fig. 117. (Left) D etail of Fig. 116

Fig. 118. (Below ) Giovanni B attista Falda, Chapel of the Choir, showing the P ie td on the a ltar in front of Vouet's altarpiece (detail) (from F. Ehrle and H. Egger, D ie C one la vep llin e. B e itr d g e z u ih r e r E ntw ick lungdged ch ich te, Vat­ican City, 1933, pi. 20)

4 3 2 FIGURES

F ig . 119. G iu lio B onasone a f te r M ich e lan g e lo , PLeta, 1547 (photo: I CCD )

Fig. 120. W ooden crucifix of uncertain date, in front of a fres­coed altarp iece designed to accomm odate it, c. 1620. Rome, S. M aria in Via, Lom bardi chapel (photo: author)

FIGURES 433

ALTAI

Fig. 121. Altar o f St. Gregory (photo: ICCD)

434 IS F IGURES

Fig. 122. Andrea Sacchi, Miracul/m.) M o m of St. Gregory, 1625—27. Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca (photo: museum)

FIGURES H 435

Fig. 123. A ndrea Sacch i, P reparato ry d raw ing for the M ira cid ou ,) /Ma,ui o f S t. G rego ry . W indsor Castle, R oyal L ibrary, xnv. 4857 (photo: R oyal L ib rary)

4 3 6 || F IGURES

Fig. 124. Chapel of St. Erasmus (photo: ICCD)

FIGURES US 437

i.Caiict fe e t S - feR A > y M V ~ S — ___________ if

F ig . 125. J a c q u e s C allo t after the anonym ous A la rty rd om o f S t. E raom uo form erly over the a ltar of S t. E rasm us in old S t. Peter's (deta il), c. 1610 (photo: G N S)

Fig. 126. D irk Bouts, A la rty rd om o f S t. E raom uo, c. 1460—65. Louvain , St. P eter (photo: Institut Royal du Patrim oine A rtistique)

4 3 8 g f F IGURES

Fig. 127. Nicolas Poussin, Martyrdom of St. Eraomuo, 1628-29. Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca(photo: museum)

F IGURES |S 4 3 9

Fig. 128. N icolas Poussin, P reparato ry d raw ing for the M a r ty r - F ig. 129. N icolas Poussin, P reparato ry d raw ing for the M a r ty r ­d om o f S t. E ra o m a j. M ila n , A m b ro s ian a , C od F 253 (ph o to : d om o f S t. E ra om uo . F lorence, U ffizi, 885 E (photo: Soprin ten-M edieval Institute, U n iversity of N otre D am e) denza per i B en i A rtistic i e Storic i, F lorence)

4 4 0 IS F IGURES

Fig. 130. N icolas Poussin, P reparato ry oil sketch for the M a r- F ig . 131 . A d am E ls h e im e r , M a r t y r d o m o f S t . L a w r e n c e ,t y r d o m o f S t. E ra o m iu . O ttaw a , N atio n a l G a lle ry o f C an ad a c. 1600-1601. London, N ational G a lle iy (photo: museum)(photo: museum)

F IG U RES I I 441

Fig. 132. Chapel o f Sts. Processus and Martinian (photo: ICCD)

4 4 2 H FIGURES

Fig. 133. Valentin, M a rty rd om o/Sto. P ro ceoou o a n d M a rtin ia n , 1629—30. Vatican M useum s, P inacoteca (photo: museum)

F IG U RES If 4 4 3

Fig. 134. Antonio Tempesta, M a rty r d om o fS to . P e la g ia a n d R e pu t m a , 1591 (photo: G N S)

Fig. 135. Detail of Fig. 133

444 H F IG U RES

Fig. 137. M arriage o f P eleu j and Tbetio, terra-cotta Campana relief, first century A .D . Paris, Louvre (line drawing from Salomon Reinach, Repertoire de re lu fogreco e t romaino, II, Paris, 1912, p. 262)

F I G U R E S $ 3 445

Fig. 138. (Above) Roman sacrifice scene. Florence, Uffizi (photo: Soprintendenza per 1 Beni Artistici e Storici, Florence)

Fig. 139. (Right) Maroyao. Florence, Uffizi (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici, Florence)

Fig. 140. Domenichino, St. Cecilia Refuting to Worship the Pagan Idol, 1612-15. Rome, S. Luigi dei Frances! (photo: ICCD)

4 4 6 H F IGURES

Fig. 141. Chapel of St. Wenceslas (photo: ICCD)

F IGURES IS 447

"ig. 142. Angelo Caroselli, St. Wenceulau, 1627—30. Vienna, Kunst- listorisches Museum (photo: museum)

Fig. 143. Angelo Caroselli, Preparatory sketch for the St. Wences­las altarpiece. Rome, Museo di Roma (photo: museum)

Fig. 144. Giacomo Grimaldi, Altar of St. Wenceslas in old St. Fig. 145. Giambattista Ricci da Novara, Altar of St. Wenceslas in Peter's. BAV, ACSP, A64 ter, 1. 29 (photo: BAV) old St. Peter’s. St. Peter's, dacregrotte (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

Fig. 146. A. Mannelli after Angelo Caroselli, St. Wenced- lad (detail) (from Agostino Valentini, La patriarcale Badil- ica Vaticana, 1885, I, pi. 52)

Fig. 147. Chapel of St. Thomas (photo: ICCD)

4 5 0 H F IGURES

JFig. 148. Domenico Passignano, The Doubting o f Tho mad, 1624—26. St. Peters, Sacristy (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

FIGURES II 4 5 1

Fig. 149. Chapel of Sts. Simon and Jude (photo: ICCD)

4 5 2 FIGURES

Fig. 150. Agostino Ciampelli, Sts. S im on an d J u d e M ira cu lo u s ly T urn ing th e S erp en ts a g a in s t th e P ersian M agician s, 1626—29. Vatican City, Studio dei Mosaici (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

FIGURES 4 5 3

. > t : - 4 s t u r J j t k r f t e l a t t / j i t t h # .i t '

cmftruk-

mrrSjtrjentum induXfrt’ivjvmrt mmjjm m/i fmmv fmtimif ■

''%t0fcdai fcwAd/t/f, S -SIMON APLV-5Fig. 151. Antonio Tempesta, St. Simon (photo: GNS)

4 5 4 g f F IGURES

Fig. 152. Chapel of the Crucifixion of St. Peter, formerly o f St. Martial (photo: ICCD)

F I G U R E S f H 4 5 5

Fig. 153. Spadarino, St. Valeria Carrying Her Head to the Altar Where St. M artial lo Saying Made, 1629—32. St. Peter’s, Sacristy (photo: Anderson)

456 m F IGURES

Fig. 154. Altar of St. Michael (photo: ICCD)

F I G U R E S H 4 5 7

Fig. 155. Giovanni Battista Calandra after Giuseppe Cesari, St. Michael, 1627—28. Macerata, Duomo

4 5 8 F I G U R E S

Fig. 156. Altar o f the Navicella (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

F IG U RES H 459

Fig. 157. Giovanni Lanfranco, Chrht Summoning Peter to Walk on the Water (fragment), 1627—28. St. Peter’s, Benediction Loggia (photo: Musei Vaticani)

4 6 0 II FIGURES

Fig. 158. (Above) Giotto, NaviceLla, c. 1300 but heavily restored. St. Peter’s, portico (photo: Alinari)

Fig. 159. (Right) Domenico Castello, Interior facade of St. Peter’s, showing Giotto’s Navicella in the lunette, c. 1644. BAV, Barb. Lat. 4409, f. 3 (photo: BAV)

art Oiii< 11,1/, il

Fig. 160. Altar o f St. Leo I (photo: ICCD)

Fig. 161. Giovanni Lanfranco, Preparatory drawing lor St. L ea R epuL in g A ttila th e H un. Naples, Museo di Capodimonte (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici di Napoli)

Fig. 162. Giovanni Lanfranco, Preparatory drawing for St. Leo R ep u ls in g A ttila th e H un. Naples, Museo di Capodi­monte (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici di Napoli)

h

r .

Fig. 163. Giovanni Lanfranco, Prepara­tory drawing for St. L eo R epuL in g A ttila th e H un. Naples, Museo di Capodimonte (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni Artis­tici e Storici di Napoli)

4 6 2

Fig. 164. Alessandro Algardi, St. Leo Repuloing Attila the Hun, 1646-53 (photo: Brogi)

F IGURES

Fig. 165. Raphael, St. Leo RepuLing Attila tbe Hun, 1513—14. Vatican Palace, Stanza d’Eliodoro (photo: Musei Vatican!)

Fig. 166. Anonymous, St. M ichael Bringing tbe Tiara to Urban VIII, 1640. London, British Museum (photo: museum)

F IG U RES 4 6 5

Fig. 167. Bernini workshop, Project for the Cathedra Petri, 1657. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 5614 (photo: Royal Library)

4 6 6 H FIGURES

Fig. 168. Bernini, Cathedra Petri, 1667—66 (photo: ICCD)

Fig. 169. Pietro Bracci, Tomb of Benedict XIV, 1759 (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

4 6 8 I S F I G U R E S

Fig. 170. G iovanni Baglione, C hriut W auh ing th e F e e t o f th e A pootleu, c. 1628. Rome, G alleria B orgh­ese (photo: ICCD )

469

Fig. 173. Antonio Canova, Tomb of Clement XIII, 1784—92 (photo: Fabbrica di S. Pietro)

Fig. 174. Boldrini, Copy after A ndrea Cam assei's P e t e r B a p tiz in g Hid F ig. 175. A ndrea Cam assei, S tu d y for P e t e r B a p tiz in g Hid .Jai/erj,J a ii e rd . V atican C ity, S tud io dei M o sa ic i (photo : F ab b r ic a di S . c. 1630. Vatican M useum s, P inacoteca (photo: museum)Pietro)

SI:

Fig. 176. A ndrea Cam assei, S tu d y connected w ith P e t e r B a p t i s in g Hid F ig. 177. A ndrea Cam assei, S tu d y connected w ith PcLer B a p tiz in gJaLler/t. France, private collection Hid JaiL erj. U nited States, private collection

F I G U R E S H i 4 7 3

iUiiiUikiiih

Fig. 178. G iovanni B attista P iranesi, View o f th e i n t e r i o r o f S t. P e t e r d (detail show ing C am assei’s d op ra p o rto on the righ t). The M etropolitan M useum of A rt, G ift o f M rs . C a r ll T u cker in m em ory o f C a r ll Tucker, 1962. [62 .545 .8 (6 )]

F ig. 179. A ndrea Sacch i, P rep ara to ry study for the P a o ce O reo A leao. F lorence, U ffizi, inv. 9517 (photo: Soprin tendenza per i Beni A rtistici e Storici, F lorence)

4 7 4 F I G U R E S

Fig. 180. P ietro Francesco Garoli, V iew of the in terior of St. Peter's, c. 1682. Turin, G alleria Saubauda (photo: museum)

Fig. 181. D etail of F ig. 180, show ing Pom arancio's o op ra p o r to

4 7 6 II FIGURES

F ig . 182. (L eft) Tomb of A lexan der VII (photo: ICCD )

Fig. 183. (Below ) Anonymous stuccoist, T he D en ia l a n d L a m en ta t io n o f S t. P eter, 1628. Rome, S. Pietro in M ontono, Tempietto (photo: author)

F IG U R E S H 4 7 7

S. P IE T R O CHE L IBERA V E N E R G U M K X A

Fig. 184. N. Sangiorgio after Gian Francesco Romanelli, Peter Healing with Hie Shadow (from Agostino Valentini, La patriarcale Badilica Vaticana, 1885, II, pi. 42)

4 7 8 FIGURES

Fig. 185. (Left) Pietro Tenerani, Tomb of Pius VIII, c. 1857 (photo: ICCD)

Fig. 186. (Below) Pietro da Cortona, C a llin g o f P e te r and Andrew, 1627—29. Castelfusano, Villa Chigi (photo: ICCD)

Following the completion o f the construction o f new St. Peter’s in the first quarter o f the seventeenth century, a series o f monumental altarpieces was commissioned to decorate its altars. The leading artists o f the day participated in the campaign —among them Algardi, Bernini, Cortona, Domenichino, G uercino, L anfranco, Poussin, Sacchi, Valentin , and Vouet — and the w orks they produced include many o f the most celebrated masterpieces o f the Roman Baroque. Here for the first time the altarpieces o f St. Peter’s are considered collectively, within the liturgical and artistic program o f the building as a whole. The book offers a comprehensive analysis o f this criti­cal chapter in the history o f Italian Baroque art and provides insight into the mechanisms, motives, and meanings o f papal patronage in the premier church o f Catholicism.

MONUMENTS OF PAPAL ROMEThis series, published in association with the American Academy in Rome, exam ines important works commissioned by the Popes during the Renaissance and Baroque periods, that is, from 1400 to 1800. Based on pri­mary archival research and close archaeological examination of the monu­ments (including painting, sculpture, and architecture), monographs in this series will demonstrate how the arts patronage policy of the Popes was close­ly allied with their political ambitions in a manner closely analogous to that of the Roman emperors, whom the Popes were consciously mimicking.

9780521554701