Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 10 recto (Ashby 17): New St Peter’s
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/17
Purpose
Folio 10 recto (Ashby 17): New St Peter’s
Aspect
Plan
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:1300
Inscribed
[Drawing] .S. PETRI (‘Of St Peter’); 11 [early seventeenth-century hand]
[Mount] 17 [x2]
Signed and dated
- c.1513/14
Datable to c.1513/14
Medium and dimensions
[Drawing] Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over stylus lines and compass pricks; on laid paper (232x165mm), stitching holes along left edge, rounded corners at right, inlaid (window on verso of mount)
[Verso] Blank
[Mount] Frame lines, in pen and dark brown ink, 10mm apart
[Verso of mount] Window (224x158mm)
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
[Drawing] Anchor in circle topped with six-pointed star (variant 4; cut at left) [Mount] Fleur-de-lys in circle surmounted with crown (variant 1; cut by bottom edge of window)
Notes
As the caption (written in antique-inspired capitals) attests, this drawing shows a scheme for New St Peter’s in Rome, one of the many produced for the rebuilding of the church during the pontificates of Julius II (1503–13) and Leo X (1513–21). It proposes a Latin cross design, with a nave seven bays in length, flanked by double aisles and preceded by an arched portico fronted with engaged columns. The crossing is marked out by four enormous piers – each the width of an aisle – and from it emerge the transepts and chancel, which are in large part identical, each terminating in an apse and a semi-circular ambulatory.
The design, however, has various inconsistencies, especially at the external junctions of the nave, transepts and chancel. Each of these four corners is handled differently, with the left side of the building being considerably less elaborate than the right. To the rear of the left transept is a square space almost certainly conceived as a bell tower, since it resembles in both wall thickness and articulation the pair of presumed towers attached to the nave in front; and to the front of this transept, there is nothing in the equivalent position apart from a door in the wall. To the rear of the right transept is an additional corner bay giving access to a vast rectangular room behind, almost certainly intended as a sacristy; and to the front of this transept there is an additional square bay that was probably conceived as a further tower. Given all the differences between the drawing’s two halves, it is possible that the two were developed as two different projects.
These variations, moreover, are accompanied by several pentimenti and other changes of mind that can be listed as follows. (1) An isolated fragment of a cruciform pier, just to the left of the chancel, and two cruciform piers embedded in the chancel’s left wall suggest that an outer ambulatory running around the chancel was being considered. (2) The junctions at the fronts of the transepts indicate similar changes of intention, the presumed tower to the right being originally drawn as closed off from the church’s interior (lines now partly erased), and only accessible via an external door. (3) Two short parallel lines cutting through the nave wall on the left, just in front of the crossing piers, suggest a tower was being considered here to match the others around the crossing. (4) The two towers attached to the nave were clearly added after the nave walls were drawn. (5) The plan is incomplete at the front, where the end wall of the nave is not fully inked in, and the portico is partly missing, while the perimeter steps at the bottom are also left unfinished.
It might be concluded that the drawing, considering its unfinished state and the sheer number of alterations, was an actual project drawing, but this is highly unlikely given the absence of project drawings elsewhere in the codex. Instead, it is more likely to be a tidied, or semi-tidied, version of a project drawing by someone connected with the rebuilding of St Peter’s, which was itself sketchy, difficult to read, and unresolved in many areas, and also showing multiple, perhaps even superimposed, variations in design. The identity of this figure has been a matter of controversy. Ashby, basing his opinion on remarks supplied to him by Heinrich von Geymüller, had regarded the project represented by this drawing as being linked unambiguously with Bramante, and had rejected the possibility of Giuliano da Sangallo’s authorship. Frommel, instead, saw it as having far greater affinities with schemes devised by Giuliano (Frommel 1994). The reality, however, is that these two positions are not actually incompatible with each other, and that the Coner plan could well record a scheme developed in Giuliano’s circle which was based on a previous design drawn up by Bramante. The plan is, in fact, easily related to designs for St Peter’s produced by Bramante himself, in particular his ideas for a longitudinal scheme (see Cat. Fol. 19r/Ashby 31). This is recorded in an autograph drawing (Florence, GDSU, 20 A), probably dating from c.1510 rather than earlier as sometimes claimed (Thoenes 2013–14), since it is conceptually consistent with Bramante’s other late works (Hemsoll 2019b, pp. 138–40), and it imagines away the now-mostly-built choir that had been begun during the pontificate of Nicholas V (1447–55). Like the Coner drawing, it has crossing piers that are very much more massive than in earlier projects, and these are fronted on their angled faces – as in the Coner drawing – by pairs of enormous, engaged columns; it shows the beginnings of a nave, again with double aisles separated by piers; and it depicts arms that similarly end in apses encircled by ambulatories, which also have pilaster-framed niches on their inside faces. However, just as it has elements that can be seen as originating with a St Peter’s design produced by Bramante, it also has features that have close parallels in earlier schemes by Giuliano da Sangallo. For example, the presumed sacristy with its internal columns recalls the vestibule to the sacristy attached to the church of Santo Spirito in Florence that was built to Sangallo’s design (1489), while the six-bay column-fronted portico is virtually identical to the one he envisaged for his Palace of the King of Naples in 1488 and recorded in his Codex Barberini, and the one he conceived for the facade of San Lorenzo in Florence and recorded his Taccuino Senese. Certain other features, moreover, have close counterparts in three known schemes by Sangallo for St Peter’s from c.1514/15. For instance, they all follow the same general pattern of a Latin-cross layout of a nave and apsidal arms with ambulatories, and, in the cases of the two schemes shown with porticoes (Codex Barberini, fol. 64v and Florence, GDSU, 7 Ar), these are set out with frontal columns, even though they are more elaborate in design than the one shown on the Coner sheet. All of them also have exteriors faced, as in the Coner plan, with a giant order of pilasters overlaid onto wider strips; and one of them (Florence, GDSU, 7 Ar) features sacristies with column-lined vestibules and presents the building, just like in the Coner plan, as raised on a stepped platform. These later Sangallo drawings, therefore, appear closely related to the Coner plan, which would thus record an earlier moment, or experimental intervention, in what was a rapidly evolving project.
Since the Coner plan seems closely connected with Giuliano da Sangallo, it needs to be asked when the drawing on which it was based was actually produced. There is no reason to suppose that the Coner drawing dates from any later than the other drawings in the original compilation, which means that it must likewise have been made in 1513/14 and before Bramante’s death in April 1514, with the prototype already being in existence, although produced probably not so very long before. A likely scenario, therefore, is that this original plan was executed some time after the accession of Leo X (March 1513), and probably around January 1514 which was when Giuliano da Sangallo was appointed as an assistant to Bramante on St Peter’s (Von Pastor 1891–1953, 8, pp. 360–64), although it is possible that Giuliano had already been approached owing to Bramante’s failing health shortly before that time.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Bramante] Florence, GDSU, 20 Ar (Bruschi 1969, p. 576); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Siena, BCS, Ms. S.IV.8 (Taccuino Senese), fol. 21v [façade of S. Lorenzo] (Borsi 1985, p. 258); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 64v (Hülsen 1910, p. 68; Borsi 1985, pp. 439–41; ibid., fols 8v and 39v [palace for the King of Naples] (Hülsen 1910, 1, pp. 16 and 56; Borsi 1985, pp. 395–404; S. Frommel 2019, p. 84; [Giuliano da Sangallo] Florence, GDSU, 7 Ar (Borsi 1985, pp. 435–38)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 19r/Ashby 31; Fol. 43r/Ashby 71. For the Tegurio in St Peter’s, see also Fol. 47r/Ashby 79 and Fol. 68r/Ashby 116)
The design, however, has various inconsistencies, especially at the external junctions of the nave, transepts and chancel. Each of these four corners is handled differently, with the left side of the building being considerably less elaborate than the right. To the rear of the left transept is a square space almost certainly conceived as a bell tower, since it resembles in both wall thickness and articulation the pair of presumed towers attached to the nave in front; and to the front of this transept, there is nothing in the equivalent position apart from a door in the wall. To the rear of the right transept is an additional corner bay giving access to a vast rectangular room behind, almost certainly intended as a sacristy; and to the front of this transept there is an additional square bay that was probably conceived as a further tower. Given all the differences between the drawing’s two halves, it is possible that the two were developed as two different projects.
These variations, moreover, are accompanied by several pentimenti and other changes of mind that can be listed as follows. (1) An isolated fragment of a cruciform pier, just to the left of the chancel, and two cruciform piers embedded in the chancel’s left wall suggest that an outer ambulatory running around the chancel was being considered. (2) The junctions at the fronts of the transepts indicate similar changes of intention, the presumed tower to the right being originally drawn as closed off from the church’s interior (lines now partly erased), and only accessible via an external door. (3) Two short parallel lines cutting through the nave wall on the left, just in front of the crossing piers, suggest a tower was being considered here to match the others around the crossing. (4) The two towers attached to the nave were clearly added after the nave walls were drawn. (5) The plan is incomplete at the front, where the end wall of the nave is not fully inked in, and the portico is partly missing, while the perimeter steps at the bottom are also left unfinished.
It might be concluded that the drawing, considering its unfinished state and the sheer number of alterations, was an actual project drawing, but this is highly unlikely given the absence of project drawings elsewhere in the codex. Instead, it is more likely to be a tidied, or semi-tidied, version of a project drawing by someone connected with the rebuilding of St Peter’s, which was itself sketchy, difficult to read, and unresolved in many areas, and also showing multiple, perhaps even superimposed, variations in design. The identity of this figure has been a matter of controversy. Ashby, basing his opinion on remarks supplied to him by Heinrich von Geymüller, had regarded the project represented by this drawing as being linked unambiguously with Bramante, and had rejected the possibility of Giuliano da Sangallo’s authorship. Frommel, instead, saw it as having far greater affinities with schemes devised by Giuliano (Frommel 1994). The reality, however, is that these two positions are not actually incompatible with each other, and that the Coner plan could well record a scheme developed in Giuliano’s circle which was based on a previous design drawn up by Bramante. The plan is, in fact, easily related to designs for St Peter’s produced by Bramante himself, in particular his ideas for a longitudinal scheme (see Cat. Fol. 19r/Ashby 31). This is recorded in an autograph drawing (Florence, GDSU, 20 A), probably dating from c.1510 rather than earlier as sometimes claimed (Thoenes 2013–14), since it is conceptually consistent with Bramante’s other late works (Hemsoll 2019b, pp. 138–40), and it imagines away the now-mostly-built choir that had been begun during the pontificate of Nicholas V (1447–55). Like the Coner drawing, it has crossing piers that are very much more massive than in earlier projects, and these are fronted on their angled faces – as in the Coner drawing – by pairs of enormous, engaged columns; it shows the beginnings of a nave, again with double aisles separated by piers; and it depicts arms that similarly end in apses encircled by ambulatories, which also have pilaster-framed niches on their inside faces. However, just as it has elements that can be seen as originating with a St Peter’s design produced by Bramante, it also has features that have close parallels in earlier schemes by Giuliano da Sangallo. For example, the presumed sacristy with its internal columns recalls the vestibule to the sacristy attached to the church of Santo Spirito in Florence that was built to Sangallo’s design (1489), while the six-bay column-fronted portico is virtually identical to the one he envisaged for his Palace of the King of Naples in 1488 and recorded in his Codex Barberini, and the one he conceived for the facade of San Lorenzo in Florence and recorded his Taccuino Senese. Certain other features, moreover, have close counterparts in three known schemes by Sangallo for St Peter’s from c.1514/15. For instance, they all follow the same general pattern of a Latin-cross layout of a nave and apsidal arms with ambulatories, and, in the cases of the two schemes shown with porticoes (Codex Barberini, fol. 64v and Florence, GDSU, 7 Ar), these are set out with frontal columns, even though they are more elaborate in design than the one shown on the Coner sheet. All of them also have exteriors faced, as in the Coner plan, with a giant order of pilasters overlaid onto wider strips; and one of them (Florence, GDSU, 7 Ar) features sacristies with column-lined vestibules and presents the building, just like in the Coner plan, as raised on a stepped platform. These later Sangallo drawings, therefore, appear closely related to the Coner plan, which would thus record an earlier moment, or experimental intervention, in what was a rapidly evolving project.
Since the Coner plan seems closely connected with Giuliano da Sangallo, it needs to be asked when the drawing on which it was based was actually produced. There is no reason to suppose that the Coner drawing dates from any later than the other drawings in the original compilation, which means that it must likewise have been made in 1513/14 and before Bramante’s death in April 1514, with the prototype already being in existence, although produced probably not so very long before. A likely scenario, therefore, is that this original plan was executed some time after the accession of Leo X (March 1513), and probably around January 1514 which was when Giuliano da Sangallo was appointed as an assistant to Bramante on St Peter’s (Von Pastor 1891–1953, 8, pp. 360–64), although it is possible that Giuliano had already been approached owing to Bramante’s failing health shortly before that time.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Bramante] Florence, GDSU, 20 Ar (Bruschi 1969, p. 576); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Siena, BCS, Ms. S.IV.8 (Taccuino Senese), fol. 21v [façade of S. Lorenzo] (Borsi 1985, p. 258); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 64v (Hülsen 1910, p. 68; Borsi 1985, pp. 439–41; ibid., fols 8v and 39v [palace for the King of Naples] (Hülsen 1910, 1, pp. 16 and 56; Borsi 1985, pp. 395–404; S. Frommel 2019, p. 84; [Giuliano da Sangallo] Florence, GDSU, 7 Ar (Borsi 1985, pp. 435–38)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 19r/Ashby 31; Fol. 43r/Ashby 71. For the Tegurio in St Peter’s, see also Fol. 47r/Ashby 79 and Fol. 68r/Ashby 116)
Literature
Ashby 1904, pp. 17–18
Günther 1988, p. 336
Frommel 1994a, p. 605
Günther 1988, p. 336
Frommel 1994a, p. 605
Level
Drawing
Digitisation of the Codex Coner has been made possible through the generosity of the Census of Antique Works of Art and Architecture Known in the Renaissance, Berlin.
If you have any further information about this object, please contact us: drawings@soane.org.uk