Eighteenth-century architecture in Piedmont: the open structures of Juvarra, Alfieri & Vittone vd66w014z

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
List of Illustrations (page ix)
Foreword and Acknowledgements (page xv)
Abbreviations (page xvii)
CHAPTER I. Introduction (page 1)
CHAPTER II. The Background (page 4)
CHAPTER III. Filippo Juvarra and the Chapel at Venaria Reale (page 23)
CHAPTER IV.The Genesis of Sant'Andrea in Chieri (page 36)
CHAPTER V. The Duomo Nuovo in Turin (page 47)
CHAPTER VI. The Palazzina di Stupinigi (page 61)
CHAPTER VII. San Filippo Neri and the Carmine (page 79)
CHAPTER VIII. Benedetto Alfieri's SS. Giovanni e Remigio in Carignano (page 97)
CHAPTER IX. On Bernardo Antonio Vittone (page 107)
CHAPTER X. Postscript (page 135)
APPENDIX I. Juvarra's Sketchbooks (page 139)
APPENDIX II. Juvarra's Projects of 1714-1715 for the Sacristy of St. Peter's (page 141)
APPENDIX III. Venaria Reale (page 144)
APPENDIX IV. The Parish Church of Murisengo (page 165)
APPENDIX V. Sant'Andrea in Chieri (page 167)
APPENDIX VI. The Duomo Nuovo (page 172)
APPENDIX VII. Stupinigi (page 188)
APPENDIX VIII. San Filippo Neri (page 219)
APPENDIX IX. The Carmine (page 235)
APPENDIX X. Sant'Antonio in Chieri (page 239)
APPENDIX XI. SS. Giovanni e Remigio in Carignano and Benedetto Alfieri (page 246)
APPENDIX XII. Documents for Vittone's Life and Career (page 259)
APPENDIX XIII. Miscellaneous Churches by Vittone (page 263)
Selected Bibliography (page 286)
Index (page 293)

Citation preview

Fig hteenth-Century

Architecture in Piedmont

Kighteenth-Century Architecture in Piedmont The Open Struétures of Juvarra, Alfieri, &5 Vittone

by Richard Pommer

, New York | New York University Press London | University of London Press Limited

19 67

© 1967 by New York University Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67—10331

Manufactured in the United States of America Design by Albert Burkhardt

Fine Arts ‘ed

t ot - ,

CK OWL ~72O

TO RICHARD KRAUTHEIMER

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ix

Foreword and Acknowledgements xv

Abbreviations xvii

CHAPTER I. Introduction 1 II. The Background 4 1. The Seventeenth Century 4 2. Guarino Guarini 7

3. Piedmont 12

III. Filippo Juvarra and the Chapel at Venaria Reale 23

IV. The Genesis of Sant’Andrea in Chieri 36

V. The Duomo Nuovo in Turin 47 VI. The Palazzina di Stupinigi 61

VII. San Filippo Neri and the Carmine 79 VIII. Benedetto Alfieri’s SS. Giovanni e Remigio in Carignano 97 page vii

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT contents / page viit

IX. On Bernardo Antonio Vittone 107

1. Vittone’s Early Career 107

2. Vittone’s Churches 110

X. Postscript 135

APPENDIX I. Juvarra’s Sketchbooks 139

III. Venaria Reale 144 II. Juvarra’s Projects of 1714-1715 for the Sacristy of St. Peter’s 141

IV. The Parish Church of Murisengo 165

V. Sant’Andrea in Chieri 167

VI. The Duomo Nuovo 172 VII. Stupinigi 188 VIII. San Filippo Neri 219

IX. The Carmine 235 X. Sant’Antonio in Chieri 239 XI. SS. Giovanni e Remigio in Carignano and Benedetto Alfieri 246

XII. Documents for Vittone’s Life and Career 259

XIII. Miscellaneous Churches by Vittone 263 The Parish Church of Pecetto, Santa Maria della Neve 263

The Chapel of the Visitation at Vallinotto 265

San Bernardino in Chieri 266 SS. Marco e Leonardo in Turin 267

San Gaetano in Nice 267 Santa Chiara in Bra 268 Santa Chiara in Turin 271 Santa Maria dell’Assunta in Grignasco 272 SS. Giovanni e Vincenzo in

Sant’Ambrogio di Torino: Résumé of Documents 277

Index 993

San Michele in Rivarolo 278

Selected Bibliography 286

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures in Text othéque Nationale, Cabinet des Esstampes

_ _. . VA 448b III, f. 29.

l. The northern quarter of Turin in the early 8. St. Paul’s, the Warrant design. Oxford,

eighteenth century, P- 46. All Souls College Library, Wren Draw-

2. Palazzina di Stupinigi, plan, facing p. 66. ings, II, 14. 9. Waldsassen, the Cistercian church.

The Background 10. Paris, Sainte-Anne-la-Royale. G. Guarini, Architettura Civile, Turin, 1737, pl. 11.

1. Chateau of Blois, staircase vault. 11. Paris, Sainte-Anne-la-Royale. Plan. G. 2. Rome, Oratorio of San Filippo Neri. Guarini, op. cit., pl. 9. 3. Rome, Church of the Propaganda Fide. 12. Sainte-Anne-la-Royale, plan as executed.

4, Paris, Collége des Quatre-Nations, project J.-F. Blondel, Architecture Francoise, by Louis Le Vau. Archives Nationales, Paris, 1752, pl. xxx, 1.

M 176, no. 9. 13. Turin, San Lorenzo. Guarini, op. cit.,

5. Louvre, project for the staircase attributed pl. 6.

to Claude Perrault. Stockholm, National- 14. San Lorenzo. Guarini, op. cit., pl. 4.

museum, Tessin-Harleman Collection, 15. San Lorenzo.

2204. 16. San Lorenzo. Vault as restored after

6. Chapel of Versailles, engraving after a World War u.

project by Jules-Hardouin Mansart. Cross- 17. San Lorenzo. Cupola. section. Bibliothéque Nationale, Cabinet 18. Turin, Santissima Sindone.

des Estampes, Topographie, France, 19. Vicenza, San Gaetano, project. Guarini,

Seine-et-Oise, Versailles, VA 448c IV. op. cit., pl. 26. 7. Chapel of Versailles, engraving after a 20. Oropa, church project. Guarini, op. cit.,

project by Jules-Hardouin Mansart. Bibli- pl. 8. page ix

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT illustrations / pagex

Filippo Juvarra and the Chapel at Venaria 40. Chapel, facade sketch by Juvarra for the

Reale second project. Cat. 9.

41. Plan by Juvarra for a hospital church, 21. Sacristy of St. Peter’s, project of 1715 by dated 1706. Collection Conte Adriano Juvarra. Appendix u, Variant E, f. 10, Tournon, Turin, Juvarra volume I, no. 61.

no. 16. 42. Sketches by Juvarra of 1706 after Sant’-

22. Chapel at Venaria Reale, plan in 1719. Andrea al Quirinale, and a variation on it

Appendix 1, Cat. 12. (below). Collection Conte Adriano Tour-

23. Chapel, facade. non, Turin, Juvarra volume 1, nos. 99 and 24. Chapel, view from the western corner 100.

chapel across the front of the church. 43. Chapel, approved project. Cat. 11C, f. 17.

25. Chapel, view of the western arm. 44, Murisengo, Sant’Antonio Abbate.

, 26. Chapel, detail of a rear chapel, above the a altar. The Genesis of Sant'Andrea in Chiert

27. Chapel, view of the choir. 45. Juvarra’s church project of 1707 for the 28. Venaria Reale, view based on the project Accademia di San Luca. Berlin, Kunstbiof Amedeo di Castellamonte. 7’heatrum bliothek, Hdz. 1157.

Statuum Regiae Crelsitudinis Sabaudiae 46. Capriccio by Juvarra showing the Ducis . . . , Amsterdam, J. Blaeu, 1682, Monte dei Cappuccini and the Soperga.

I. Biblioteca Nazionale, Turin, Riserva 59-

29. Venaria Reale, project of Enrico Duparc 1, f. 16.

showing the buildings planned by Michel- 47, The Soperga, preliminary sketch by Juangelo Garove. Bibliothéque Nationale, varra. Museo Civico, Turin, vol. 11, no. 56. Cabinet des Estampes, Topographie, Vb 48. ‘The Soperga, view into the dome.

132 aj, no. 37. 49. Plan by Juvarra for San Raffaele. Museo

30. Venaria Reale, Palazzo di Diana, plan by Civico, Turin, vol. 1, no. 97. Michelangelo Garove. Bibliothéque Na- 50. Section by Juvarra for San Raffaele. tionale, Cabinet des Estampes, ‘Topogra- Museo Civico, Turin, vol. 1, no. 96.

phie, Vb 132 aj, no. 10. 51. Sant’Andrea, preliminary facade design 31. Venaria Reale, sketch by Juvarra for the by Juvarra. Appendix v, Cat. 3. first project. Appendix 11, Cat. 1. 52. Sant’Andrea, preliminary section by Ju-

32. Chapel, sketch by Juvarra for the first varra. Cat. 4.

project. Cat. 2. 53. Sant’Andrea, sketch by Juvarra for the

33. Chapel, first project. Cat. 3B. upper windows. Cat. 5.

34. Chapel, first project. Cat. 3A, f. 22. 54. Sant’Andrea, plan. Cat. 7A. 35. Chapel, first project. Cat. 3A, f. 23. 55. Sant’Andrea, longitudinal section. Cat.

36. Chapel, preliminary plan by Juvarra for 7B. the second project. Cat. 5.

37. Chapel, plan by Juvarra for the second I'he Duomo Nuovo in Turin

project. Cat. 6. 56. The earliest central project. Appendix

38. Chapel, view towards the interior of the vi-A, Cat. 1.

facade, drawn by Juvarra for the second 57. Plan for the “Secondo Progetto.” Cat. 2.

project. Cat. 7. 58. Longitudinal section for the “Secondo

39. Chapel, facade design for the second proj- Progetto.” Cat. 3.

ect. Cat. 8. 59. Plan for the “Primo Progetto.” Cat. 8.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS illustrations / page xt

60. Capriccio similar to the “Primo Pro- 82. View of the interior of the salon of the first

getto.” Cat. 10. project. Cat. 6.

61. Exterior for the “Primo Progetto.” Cat. 9. 83. Juvarra, stage design for the Teatro Ot-

62. Preliminary plan for the third central toboni. London, Victoria and Albert Mu-

project. Cat. 13. seum, Juvarra volume, f. 35. 63. Preliminary section for the third central 84. Longitudinal section of the salon for the project. Cat. 14. second project. Cat. 7. 64. Last plan for the third central project. 85. Sketch for the exterior of the salon of the

Cat. 15. second project. Cat. 9.

65. Section of the last design for the third 86. View from the main court.

central project. Cat. 16. 87. The main stable, saddlery, and kennels of 66. Sacristy of St. Peter’s, model attributed to the west side of the small court seen from

Juvarra as a work of 1732. Destroyed; the salon. formerly in the Museo Petriano, the Vati- 88. The salon, viewed towards the garden.

can. 89. The salon, viewed towards a lateral gal-

67. First plan for the longitudinal projects. lery.

Cat. 17. 90. Project for the enlargement of Stupinigi,

68. Plan for the “Terzo Progetto.” Cat. 20. probably by Benedetto Alfieri. Formerly

69. Capriccio similar to the “Terzo Pro- Archivio Mauriziano, Turin. From G.

getto.” Cat. 28. Chevalley, Gli architetti, architettura e

70. Capriccio similar to the “Terzo Pro- la decorazione delle ville piemontesi del

getto.” Cat. 22. xvul secolo, Turin, 1912.

71. Capriccio similar to the “Terzo Pro- 91. The gardens of the Karlsaue, early eight-

getto.” Cat. 26. eenth century project. Staatsarchiv, Mar-

72. Plan for the “Quarto Progetto.” Cat. 32. burg, C 216.

73. Plan for the “Quarto Progetto.” Cat. 34. 92. Casino project of 1689 by Carlo Fontana,

74, Piacenza, Sant’Agostino, half plan by ground floor plan. Windsor Castle, FonJuvarra. Collection Ing. Vincenzo Fon- tana Drawings, vol. 176, 9707. tana, Turin, Juvarra—Vittone volume, 93. Casino project of 1689 by Carlo Fontana,

f. 77v. section. Windsor Castle, Fontana Draw75. Plan by Benedetto Alfieri. Appendix v1-C, ings, vol. 176, no. 9709.

Cat. 2, f. 2. 94. Country palace of Count Althan on the

76. Section by Alfieri. Cat. 3, f. 4. Rossau, near Vienna, ground floor plan, |

3, pl. 84. Stadt Wien.

77. Plan by Bernardo Antonio Vittone. Cat. drawn in 1869. Historischen Museum der 95. Country palace of Count Althan on the

The Palazzina di Stupinigi Rossau, near Vienna, entrance side.

1. Paris, 1745.

96. Malgrange, second project by Germain

78. Juvarra’s first plans. Appendix vu-C, Cat. Boffrand, Livre d’Architecture ... , 79. Sketch of the casino and wings for the first 97. Malgrange, second project by Boffrand,

project. Cat. 2. main facade. G. Boffrand, op. cit.

80. View of the first project. Cat. 3. 98. Malgrange, second project by Boffrand, 81. Sketches for the interior of the salon of the cross-section. G. Boffrand, op. cit.

first project. Cat. 4. 99. Juvarra’s elevation of a royal palace for

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT illustrations / page xii

three persons, variant of a design awarded Juvarra’s Gesi-type project with a confirst prize in the Concorso Clementino of cave facade. Cat. 15. 1705. Berlin, Kunstbibliothek, no. 1151. 119. San Filippo Neri, concave facade for 100. Royal palace for three persons, plan. Juvarra’s Gesii-type project, with the ruins Rome, Accademia di San Luca, no. 509. of the old dome in the street on the left. Cat. 16.

San Filippo Neri and the Carmine 120. San Filippo Neri, copy of the plan of the

101. Milan, San Fedele. model project. Cat. 27.

102. San Filippo Neri, copy of the plan by 121. San Filippo Neri, longitudinal section of

Antonio Bettino. Appendix vii. Cat. 1. the model project. G. Baroni di Tavig103. San Filippo Neri, copy of the plan by liano, Modello della Chiesa di S. Filippo

Guarini. Cat. 2. ... 5 Turin, 1758, pl. vu.

104. San Filippo Neri, longitudinal section of 122. Carmine, Juvarra’s centrally domed proGuarini’s project. G. Guarini, Architettura ject, cross-section looking towards the al-

Civile, Turin, 1737, pl. 16. tar. Appendix Ix, Cat. 4.

105. Lisbon, Nossa Senhora da Devina Prov- 123. Carmine, preliminary sketch for Juvarra’s

cit., pl. 17. Cat. 9.

idencia, plan by Guarini. Guarini, op. project with large chapels in the nave.

106. Lisbon, Nossa Senhora da Devina Prov- 124. Carmine, longitudinal section of the proidencia, longitudinal section by Guarini. ject with large chapels in the nave. Cat. 12.

Guarini, op. cit., pl. 16. 125. Carmine, Juvarra’s first plan of the ac-

107. Project by Guarini for a longitudinal cepted project. Cat. 16. church. Guarini, op. cit., f. 80. 126. Carmine, sketches by Juvarra of the chap108. Turin, Immacolata Concezione (Cappella els and pseudo galleries. Cat. 18.

dell’Arcivescovado ). 127. Carmine, section of the accepted project.

109. Immacolata Concezione, plan. From G. Cat. 21. Rigotti, Boll. SPABA, xvi, 1932. 128. Carmine, plan. V. Mesturino, 1915. So110. Prague, St. Mary of Alt-Otting pro- printendenza ai Monumenti del Piemonte. ject by Guarini. Guarini, op. cit., pl. 21. 129. Carmine, view from the organ loft. 111. San Filippo Neri, copy of a plan possibly 130. Carmine, view of a chapel. by Michelangelo Garove. Appendix viur, 131. San Filippo Neri, plan of the provisional

Cat. 3. church. Appendix vim, Cat. 32.

112. San Filippo Neri, copy of the executed 132. San Filippo Neri, longitudinal section and

plan, possibly designed by Garove. Cat. 7. inner fagade of the provisional church.

113. San Filippo Neri, drawing of the main Cat. 30. altar as planned ca. 1701 Cat. 8. 133. San Filippo Neri, preliminary sections for

114. San Filippo Neri, campanile. the project of 1730-1732. Cat. 33.

115. San Filippo Neri, copy of the centrally 134, San Filippo Neri, preliminary elevation

domed plan by Juvarra. Cat. 10. for the project of 1730-1732. Cat. 34. 116. San Filippo Neri, longitudinal section of 135. San Filippo Neri, copy of the plan of the

Juvarra’s centrally domed project. Cat. 11. executed project. Cat. 35. 117. San Filippo Neri, copy of the plan of 136. San Filippo Neri. Juvarra’s Gesi-type project, with a por- 137. San Filippo Neri, facade, and flank on the

tico. Cat. 12. Via Accademia delle Scienze.

118. San Filippo Neri, copy of the plan of 138. Longitudinal church project by Juvarra,

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS illustrations / page xii

perhaps for the Jesuit church in Vercelli. 160. Nice, San Gaetano, longitudinal section.

Museo Civico, Turin, vol. 11, no. 6. Vittone, op. cit., pl. L. 139. Vercelli, Jesuit church, longitudinal sec- 161. Nice, San Gaetano. tion by Juvarra. Museo Civico, Turin. 162. Turin, Santa Chiara, executed project,

140. Chierl, Sant’Antonio, plan probably by and alternative plan (left). Vittone, op. Giuseppe Giacinto Bays. Archivio Mauri- cit., pl. LXIx. ziano, ‘Turin, Libri e Manoscritti, Cas- 163. Turin, Santa Chiara.

setto 10, “Gesuiti di Chieri,” f. 5. 164. Turin, Santa Chiara.

f. 8. cit., pl. LXXIII.

141. Sant’Antonio, longitudinal section, ibid., 165. Bra, Santa Chiara, project. Vittone, op. 142, Sant’Antonio, view from the organ loft 166. Bra, Santa Chiara, modern section. Arch.

towards the choir. Bartolomeo Gallo, Turin.

. . side.

167. Bra, Santa Chiara, modern plan. Arch.

Benedetto Alfieri’s SS. Giovanni e Remigio in Bartolomeo Gallo, Turin.

Carignano 168. Bra, Santa Chiara, chapel on the right 143. Site of the church. Appendix x1-B, Cat. 1. 169. Bra, Santa Chiara, the arches of a chapel

144. Plan, from the a blueprint by Alessandro ; ; . and gallery above it. Druetti, 1883, Archivio Comunale, , ; 170. Bra, Santa Chiara, wide-angle, overly Carignano. 145. Plan for heightened the chapelsview and towards tower onthe thealtar 5. th ‘de. Cat. 2 171. Bra, Santa Chiara, vault.

SOULDEET S1GG. Bhs 172. Parma, Sant’Antonio Abbate, vault.

146.; View the lateral ; . 173.intoBra, Santachapels. Chiara.

147. View from the vestibule towards the choir. 174. Project for a parish church. Vittone. o

148. View from the choir towards the facade. aN] 1 P » OP.

149. View from the nave towards the choir Ctl-y Pls LXXXI.

1£0, Facad 175. Chieri, San Bernardino. Vittone, op. cit., 151, Stage design for the Teatro Ottoboni b pl. EXVE

» STARE MESISN TOF ene at eon ey 176. Chieri, San Bernardino.

Juvarra. London, Victoria and Albert ; ae . 177. Turin, Santa Maria di Piazza. Vittone, Museum, Juvarra volume,oP.f. Cul.» 40. +lpl iat Piova Massaia, San Giorgio

152. rove .° TOrgt0- 178. Turin, Santa Maria di Piazza, vault of the 153. Piova Massaia, San Giorgio, vault. presbytery.

179. Cari Alb di Carita On Bernardo Antonio Vittone arignano, Albergo di Carita, vault of the church. 154. Pecetto, Santa Maria della Neve. 180. Villanova Mondovi, Santa Croce. Vittone,

155. Collegio delle Provincie, Turin, main op. cit., pl. Lxv.

facade. 181. Mondovi, Pian della Valle, Santa Maria

156. Vallinotto, chapel of the Visitation. Vit- Maggiore. Modern section, draftsman and

tone, Istruzioni diverse ... , Lugano, location unknown.

1766, pl. LXxvil. 182. Grignasco, Santa Maria dell’Assunta, pre-

157. Vallinotto, wide-angle, distorted view liminary plan. Appendix xu-H, Cat. 5.

towards the sanctuary. 183. Santa Maria dell’Assunta, executed plan.

158. Vallinotto, vaults. Cat. 6A.

159. Turin, Santa Chiara, rejected project. Vit- 184. Santa Maria dell’Assunta.

tone, op. cit., pl. Lxx. 185. Santa Maria dell’Assunta, vault.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT illustrations / page xiv

186. Santa Maria dell’Assunta, chapels. 192. Turin, SS. Marco e Leonardo. Vittone, 187. Rivarolo, San Michele, section by Vittone. op. cit., pl. LxIr.

Cat. 3. 193. Borgo d’Ale, San Michele.

188. San Michele, view of a pier.

189. San Michele, vaults. Postscript. 190. San Michele, facade. 194. Osterhofen, Premonstratensian church. 191. Riva di Chieri, Santa Maria dell’Assunta. 195. Olomouc, Jesuit church, view towards the

Drawing by Vittone of 1761 showing the entrance. church left by Plantery (right), and Vit- 196. Steinhausen, pilgrimage church.

archives. stroyed).

tone’s project for its completion. Church 197. Ingolstadt, Franciscan church (de-

FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research for this book was begun in 1958— sions, but even so I have depended on their in-

1959 on a Fulbright scholarship and continued sight. :

in the summer of 1961 on a grant from the I am equally thankful for the many courtesies 1900 Fund of Williams College. The substance received in Turin from Drs. Vittorio Viale, of it was presented in 1961 as a doctoral thesis former director, and Luigi Mallé, director of the to the Institute of Fine Arts, New York Univer- Museo Civico; Drs. Gaetano Garretti di Ferrere, sity. Since then there has been an outpouring of director, and Augusto Jocteau, Luigi Caviglia, literature on the subject in connection with the and Paolo Tournon of the Archivio di Stato; Dr.

exhibition of Piedmontese baroque art held in Umberto Chierici, Soprintendente ai MonuTurin during the summer of 1963. I have in- menti del Piemonte; Msgr. L. Grossi, director corporated many of the new findings, but usu- of the Archivio Arcivescovile; Dr. Anna Tamagally have not curtailed my presentation when it none of the Biblioteca Reale; Dr. Gian Luigi

covered the same ground. Barravalle of the Archivio Mauriziano; and the A generous subsidy from the Graham Foun- staff of the manuscript room of the Biblioteca dation of Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts Nazionale. I am also grateful to Conte Adriano made possible the publication of these studies. Tournon, Ing. Vincenzo Fontana, and Avv. Appropriately, the Graham Foundation was Giacinto Simeom for allowing me to study their informed of my work by Philip Johnson, one of collections of drawings. Elsewhere in Piedmont

the latest masters of “open structure.” I was helped by Padre Giulio of the Capuchin My intellectual debts are chiefly to Arch. monastery in Bra; the Clarisse in Bra; ProfesPaolo Portoghesi for his studies of Guarini; to sor Giacomo Rodolfo in Carignano; Don Professor Augusto Cavallari-Murat for his ideas Mario Bosio in Rivarolo Canavese; and Don about Vittone; and, above all, to Professor Genestroni in Grignasco. For my introduction to Rudolph Wittkower and Arch. Mario Passanti. Piedmont, and for many favors, I owe much to Sometimes I have been led to different conclu- Professors Stuart Woolf and Henry Millon. In page xv

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT foreword and acknowledgements / page xvi

England, Miss Aydua Scott-Elliot of the Royal Mrs. Bertha Hatvary and Mr. John Hammond Library at Windsor Castle assisted me in ob- for their meticulous editing. The two text figtaining films of the Carlo Fontana drawings. ures were prepared by Miss Maryls Hann. Professor Craig Smyth read the manuscript and The two people who helped me most in these made some most helpful suggestions; Professor years were M.K. Pommer and my teacher, Irving Lavin helped me obtain photographs in Richard Krautheimer. To him this book is dediRome; and Dr. A.A. Tait brought some impor- cated in gratitude. tant points to my attention. I am also grateful to RICHARD POMMER, July 1966

ABBREVIATIONS

Art. Articolo, Articoli A.S.T.-I, etc. Archivio di Stato, Torino, Sezion I, etc.

Brinckmann, Theatrum A. E. Brinckmann, Theatrum Novum Pedemoniiti, Diisseldorf, 1931.

Cat. Catalog, Catalogs (in Appendix). Doc. Document, Documents (in Appendix). Fig. Figure, Figures (illustrations in this book). Mostra del Barocco Piemontese, 1, 1 Mostra del Barocco Piemontese, Catalogo, ed. V. Viale, I, 1, Turin, 1963, paginated according to subject.

Museo Civico, Vol. I, II, II, IV Turin, Museo Civico, volumes of drawings by Juvarra. Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra L. Rovere, V. Viale, A. E. Brinckmann, Filippo Juvarra, Milan, 1937.

SIAT Societa degli Ingegneri e degli Architetti di Torino. SPABA Societa Piemontese di Archeologiae di Belle Arti. Telluccini, L’arte A. Telluccini, L’arte dell architetto Filippo Juvara in Piemonte, Turin, 1926. tr. Trabucco or trabucchi. The Piedmontese measure, equal to 3.086 meters. It was divided into six piedi liprandi, equal to .5144 meters, and each piede into 12 oncie.

Vittone, [struzioni diverse B. A. Vittone, Istruzioni diverse concernenti lofficio dellarchitetto civile . . . Lugano, 1766. Vittone, [struzioni elementari B. A. Vittone, [struzioni elementari per indirizzo dei giovani allo studio dellarchitettura civile . . . Lugano, 1760. page xvii

Kighteenth-Century Architecture in Piedmont

CHAPTER I

Introduction

EN ce 35 years ago A. E. Brinckmann in- openness. This could assume strikingly differitiated modern studies into Piedmontese ent forms, as illustrated by two of Juvarra’s architecture of the late seventeenth and early churches. In his royal chapel at Venaria Reale eighteenth centuries.* Since then scholars have (Fig. 22-27) the piers are bored through on documented the activity of some of the major all sides, the corner domes are perforated, architects, notably Filippo Juvarra, while ana- and the choir opens past a ring of columns. lyzing the difficult or subtle styles of the two From every standpoint the spectator looks other masters, Guarino Guarini and Bernardo through the walls as much as at them; his views Antonio Vittone. But few buildings have been seldom stop short at a decisive boundary, but studied in detail, and little attempt has been continue into still another opening. The other

made to set Piedmontese architecture into its building is Juvarra’s destroyed church of

European context.’ Sant’Andrea in Chieri (Fig. 52-55). In elevaIn this last respect the trouble comes from the tion it amounted to an armature of four thin confusion of styles in the years 1650-1750. shafts, as in a great tent, with only a webbing of Late Baroque is the broadest term for the arches and window frames to join them. Where period, but this wrongly implies that it merely Venaria is heavy and perforated, Sant’Andrea continued what came before. Furthermore, the was fragile and unified. term must be supplemented by others, by High But both departed from one of the architecBaroque, Rococo, Barochetto, French Classi- tural ideals of the late sixteenth and seventeenth cism, Neo-Classicism, and even by neologisms centuries, an appearance of strict enclosure, a such as Academic Late Baroque and Early, severe limitation of the spectator’s views. The

High, and Late Rococo.’ new buildings cannot be understood in the same Despite their different styles, however, many way as the Roman churches of the preceding buildings of the time are distinguished by a new time. In SS. Martina e Luca in Rome, for exam-

- and sometimes revolutionary appearance of ple, the spectator must read the columns against page 1

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1 / page2

the wall, for the wall is the decisive element in manifestations more broadly than has_ been the closed interior. When this is tried with done.* It is the general effect that matters, not Guarini’s San Lorenzo in Turin, however, the the means for achieving it, nor the subtler qualichurch becomes incomprehensible.* But if the ties. Usually these buildings had a double strucinterior is seen as an aerial cage, and the wall is ture, an inner frame of piers or columns that measured against the now decisive open frame- opened to an outer zone, rather than a single,

work of columns, then—as will be demon- mural boundary. Usually they had great strated—the architecture falls into place. windows, galleries, coretti, or other apertures as Such qualities were rarely mentioned in the well. But neither the one nor the other was literature of the times. But toward the end of essential; there were still other means for evokthis period, in the late eighteenth century, they ing the desired effect.

were perfectly described by Vittone. He These developments were at once remarkably conceived of interiors in which the apertures left international and yet local in character. From “the eye full liberty to range down the church at the mid-seventeenth to the mid-eighteenth

its pleasure and so fully enjoy its various centuries they appeared in many European aspects.”” He designed vaults and pendentives centers; but nowhere more vigorously or that “remain open so that light can diffuse from distinctively than in Piedmont. There open the cupola down through them and illuminate architecture began with Guarini in the seventhe church more vividly.” His ideal was a struc- teenth century, but became a consistent trend ture that, as he wrote of the vaults of his chapel only in the eighteenth with Juvarra and his

at Vallinotto (Fig. 158), was “perforated, and followers, such as Benedetto Alfieri and

open.” Vittone. For that reason the three eighteenth

For the sake of convenience I shall speak of century architects are the main figures in these these buildings as “open structures” or “open essays, particularly Juvarra as the founder of architecture.” ‘The terms have been deliberately the line, and Vittone as the last and most left as vague as possible in order to see the explicit practitioner.

NOTES 1. A. E. Brinckmann, Theatrum Novum Pede- German architecture has often been

montii, Diisseldorf, 1931. discussed, although never adequately. 2. The main exceptions are P. Portoghesi’s 3. For mention of the various phases of Rococo, remarks on the French sources of Guarini’s including “proto-Rococo,” see P. Thornton’s structure (Guarino Guarini, Milan, 1956) remarks in Burlington Magazine, cv1, 1964,

and R. Wittkower’s on the German and p. 557.

Austrian influences on Juvarra’s design (Art 4. Wittkower, op. cit., p. 272: “... It is and Architecture in Italy 1600 to 1750, difficult or even impossible to perceive the ocBaltimore, 1958 [2nd ed., 1965], pp. tagon as the constituent shape of the congre275-82. The texts of the two editions have gational room. The eye is led past the arches the same pagination and the same material to the real boundary of the church. . . . So in my citations; references to page numbers many different units and so many similar for footnotes are given for each edition). motifs are found side by side and at odd Guarini’s influence on eighteenth-century angles that no coherent vision is possible.”

INTRODUCTION chapter1 / page3

5. B. A. Vittone, [struzioni diverse, Lugano, Berlin, 1951) was used by Wittkower to 1766, pp. 188-89, on his project for the describe the openwork vaults of Guarini and Duomo Nuovo in Turin. See below, pp. Vittone (op. cit., pp. 274, 283). But while

56, 186. the term’s connotations of the gossamer and

6. [bid., p. 182, on San Bernardino in Chieri. veil-like are marvelously apt to describe the

See below, pp. 265-66. membranous walls of Gothic churches, they

7. [bid., p. 186, on the chapel of the Visitation are inadequate for the perforated appearance

in Vallinotto. See below, pp. 264-65. of heavier structures such as Venaria, and 8. The concept of “diaphanous structure” not quite satisfactory for the seemingly open which Hans Jantzen applied to Gothic archi- and imprecisely bounded rather than veiltecture (“Uber den gotischen Kirchenraum,” like or membranous quality of buildings Freiburger Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft, such as Sant’Andrea. Nothing equivalent to xv, 1928, reprinted in idem., Uber den gotis- the effects of a Gothic nave wall is to be chen Kirchenraum und andere Aufsdtze, found in Piedmont.

CHAPTER I

The Background A. The Seventeenth Century

WO developments preceded the open ar- ing of these innovations were the open vaults

“LD chitecoun of the eighteenth century, the = that Francois Mansart designed for the first of the mid-sixteenth century and the second Chateau at Blois in the mid-1630’s. To suit the _

of the 1630’s. fashion for monumental entrance structures, he

In the sixteenth century the increasingly imagined a gate pavilion with a truncated dome massive and shut-in architecture came to a surmounted by a great lantern, or rather by a climax in the fortress walls of Michelangelo’s second dome on a drum, and for the staircase he St. Peter’s and the blinkered view down the built a coved ceiling cut out in the center (Fig.

nave of Vignola’s Gest. (But at the same time 1). The latter serves both as a dramatic Michelangelo’s scaffolding of giant pilasters skylight and as a passageway for the upper and ribs in St. Peter’s and Vignola’s thin piers rooms; it also magnifies the visitor’s physical in Sant’Andrea in Via Flaminia became sources movement by visual ascent to create the illusion of some later skeletal structures; in short, both of a great palace within a narrow compass. For

developments have origins in this period.) these reasons it was in staircases that open These closed boundaries were repeated in many vaults had their widest and most enduring Roman churches of the seventeenth century, for vogue.”

example Borromini’s San Carlino, with its As brilliant displays of skill in cut stone columns crowding the interior; and in these masonry, the vaults were reverberations of the

years the mode also spread to France, for work of Philibert de ’Orme, who, almost a instance to Lemercier’s Sorbonne and Francois century earlier, had transferred late Gothic

Mansart’s nave of the Val-de-Grace.* mastery of cut stone work to the reshaping of But in the 1630’s new approaches arose classical vaults. But for decades his legacy simultaneously and independently in Paris and appears to have been somewhat neglected until Rome, appearing alongside the older one, and in in Mansart’s time there was a swift resurgence.

the work of the same architects. The most strik- Three treatises on the geometry of cutting page 4

THE BACKGROUND

chapter11 / pages

stones were published in the early 1640's, first The Oratorio also introduces a process that by the mathematician Girard Desargues, and was to be repeated in this kind of open architec-

then by the architects Mathurin Jousse and ture: the ornamental structure was partly Francois Derand.*? These works were written converted to a real one of maximum efficiency. for geometers or craftsmen, but at the same The bands of the vault, for instance, appear to time Mansart gave new emphasis to the tech- serve as ribs to make possible the large lunettes,

nique in monumental architecture. The so large that some architects thought them curved-back, or what might from their impossible to build;> and the window frames, geometrical derivation be called the cylindrical which in earlier Italian architecture were pure arches of his Church of the Visitation, begun in decoration, become braces to stiffen the piers. the 1630's, recall de !’Orme’s chapel at Anet, But the side pilasters do no work, and the bands and the pavilion vault at Blois was inspired by are largely decorative. The later course was to an unexecuted project of de lOrme’s, first move away from a fictive towards a true skeletal published in 1626.* This technical mastery of system.

stone and this perforation of weighty structure Twenty years later, in the church of the were to remain major French contributions to Propaganda Fide, Borromini came closer to it

open architecture. (Fig. 3). The open screen of piers now

Another and very different approach was surrounds the church, carrying a glazed gallery initated by Borromini. In the Oratorio of San with it on the sides, and the piers and entabla-

Filippo Neri in Rome, of the 1630's, he tures seem to stand free in space because the expanded the small room beyond its apparent chapels are cut in sharply behind them—a boundaries by opening loggias and galleries technique much used by the Piedmontese in the behind the slim piers at either end; he also made eighteenth century. Then the lines of the piers

it seem taller by continuing the lines of the rise through broken entablatures into the pilasters in the rib-like bands of the vault (Fig. cat’s-cradle of pseudo-ribs, forming a criss2). Although there were practical advantages crossing pattern that forces one to see the room to the system, Borromini must also have had the aerlally, across the space instead of around the

optical effects in mind, as is suggested by a walls. small but notable detail: the two tiny vestibules The contrasting ways of Mansart and on the street and court open to the light of Borromini remained the categories (though concealed windows through oval perforations in very often not the direct sources) for much later false ceilings—perhaps the first such open ceil- work.® In the former the buildings are massive

ings or vaults in Italy. and mural and often grand and academic; their His sources were Girolamo Rainaldi’s Santa walls are pierced or bored out, and their spaces Teresa in Caprarola for the screens of thin piers are fragmented. In the latter the structure is and Michelangelo’s St. Peter’s for the continu- delicate, often a scaffolding with large openity of pilasters and ribs. But the galleries and ings, and the space therefore is often more the large windows in the base of the vault make homogeneous. Venaria and Sant’Andrea in the Oratorio appear far more open than earlier Chieri carry on the same contrast in the eightRoman buildings, and so it announces one of eenth century. the distinctive functions of the lighter kind of A second and decisive phase began in the late open architecture. Here was a structure and seventeenth century. What had been lesser dearticulation appropriate to such lesser chambers tails in the 1630’s now became the dominant as sacristies and small churches, delicate in themes of major buildings, and of entire oeuvres.

scale, yet spacious in effect. In a period of more international exchanges,

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT

chaptert1 / page6é | architects brought together the isolated experi- Therefore, he concluded, we have invented

ments of the previous decades, and with the coupled columns, as in the facade of the rising prestige of modern technology, gave eng!- Louvre.” neering a more explicit role in open structures. Besides their openness, these had the advanLastly, one architect saw the analogy between tage, in Perrault’s eyes, of greater strength than

the new architecture and the Gothic and so normal colonnades. To the academic criticism

found words to describe the new ideals. of Francois Blondel that the colonnade was In France, the center of these developments, Gothic,” Perrault replied by agreeing with the the open vaults were enlarged to monumental charge, and finding it a virtue; and to Blondel’s scale in the early 1660's.’ In 1663 Louis Le Vau further criticism that the coupled columns broke prepared a grandiose design for the vestibule of with antiquity, Perrault, the physician and the Louvre with its vault open to the sky as if it scientist, answered that modern improvements were a Roman atrium.* Guarini, who had come in agriculture, medicine, and navigation had to Paris in 1662, transformed the open vault shown the way to depart from the past in archi-

into a great dome for the church of Sainte- tecture as well.” Anne-la-Royale (Fig. 10). Taking this as a cue, Obviously this architecture stood in direct Francois Mansart designed his project of circa opposition to Francois Mansart’s, with its heavy

1665 for the Bourbon chapel at Saint Denis walls and its piers and arches. In Mansart’s with two levels of apertures in the piers, and a works the open vaults created an illusion of vast oculus in the lower shell of the dome.” crandeur; for Perrault openness was a virtue About the same time Le Vau used an adaptation itself, without illusion. Small wonder that writ_ of the vault with a large lantern in a project for ers In the wake of Perrault, such as the Abbé de

the Collége des Quatre-Nations” (Fig. 4). Cordemoy, found nothing in the Mansartesque But the great departure came with Claude works to soften their criticism of the ponderous Perrault’s vision of a columnar architecture. structures of the seventeenth century. Free-standing columns bearing entablatures Yet both types of architecture sometimes had appeared in projects for the Louvre colon- made a display of structure, whether in the bold nade of the early 1660’s, and Bernini, after span of lintels or in the hollowing out of vaults setting this fashion in Rome, had designed the and piers, and in both there were open double chapel of the Louvre with a ring of giant boundaries, however different the forms. Consecolumns in 1665." Then in 1667 Perrault and quently it is not surprising that at least three Le Vau developed the deep and widely-spaced architects played roles in the development of the colonnade of the Louvre, and the next year they two types: Le Vau, Pierre Cottard,’ and, most made projects for the palace of a staircase set important, Jules-Hardouin Mansart. He looked within a columnar cage” (Fig. 5). This marked to his uncle’s Bourbon chapel to serve as the

the new phase. For Bernini the value of the model for the church of the Invalides of

columns lay, as his remarks make clear, in their 1676-79, and then for a | 1

material splendor, In Perrault’s commentaries 1684, for the chapel at Versailles” (Fie. 6 r ), of 1673 on Vitruvius, however, they are given where the piers were further perforated for a

quite another meaning: royal gallery and the domes were opened above The taste of our century [he wrote], or at least the corner chapels. Then in the final version of

of our nation, differs from that of the Greeks, the chapel, of 1688-99, Mansart turned to and perhaps in this respect retains a bit of the Perrault’s post-and-lintel cage for his gallery. Gothic, for we love airiness and light and open In its evenly spaced columns and its lintels it

spacing [dégagemens]. was Vitruvian; but in its shape and brilliant

THE BACKGROUND

chaptertt / page7

illumination it looked Gothic. This combina- narrowed the gap between real and painted tion, augured by Perrault, was the direction of architecture until the dividing line was no

things to come in France. longer clear, a development not unrelated to the In the same years the new architecture efforts of Bernini and his followers to make illuspread to England, Austria, and Germany, and sions palpable by turning frescoes partly into there often mingled with the surviving Gothic. stucco sculpture. In the University church in For St. Paul’s, Sir Christopher Wren adopted Vienna, Andrea Pozzo broke through the main the Mansartesque vaults that he had seen in vaults with his frescoes and let oval apertures Paris in 1665, and he modeled the coupled into the chapel ceilings like those at Waldsascolumns of the facade after the Louvre.” Like sen or the oratory of San Filippo Neri. For reliPerrault, and still more like Guarini, Wren was gious plays in Rome, he painted columnar a scientist given to daring construction, and he buildings that look like cages set within cages, a

raised the great dome on slender piers and theme of theater scenery in the eighteenth pendentives with gaping tribunes. Although, in century and one that approximates the double contrast to these two, he had only contempt for cage of so much open architecture.” A great the Gothic, the towering lantern of his Warrant tour de force, perhaps inspired by quadratura design recalls the crossing of Ely Cathedral as paintings, was achieved by the lesser-known well as the vault of Le Vau’s project for the Antonio Gherardi in the Avila Chapel in Santa

Collége des Quatre-Nations (Fig. 8); and the Maria in Trastevere, which is turned into a conical vaults of his later projects were perhaps collection of miniature cage-like buildings, considered Gothic by Wren himself even culminating in the columnar lantern borne aloft though they probably owed something to by angels. ‘This association of illusionistic paintmid-seventeenth-century French studies by ing and open architecture was to have some Desargues and others.” Without intending consequences for the Piedmontese architects. it—so it would seem—he had achieved a fusion of Gothic and modern.

That fusion had still another history in Bava- B. Guarino Guarini (1624-1683 )” ria, where by the late sixteenth or early seven-

teenth century the development of wall From these French and Italian ideas came piers—short walls turned at right angles to the Guarini’s central churches. But they are so nave—allowed the incorporation of galleries daringly open—in this they hardly have their and high windows into barrel-vaulted churches. equal in masonry architecture—that they can But now these structures were more deliber- no longer be comprehended in normal terms. ately exploited for the visual delight of open They must be seen in aerial ways of their own. architecture, for example in the Cistercian In part they owe their originality to Guarini’s church in Waldsassen, begun in 1685, where unusual training. He apparently had no signifithe chapels between the wall piers were bored cant master and followed no specific architecthrough to the gallery by means of oval perfora- tural tradition. Like some other priest-architects

tions (Fig. 9). In Austria, on the other hand, from the major orders, such as Derand, he was Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, with his first of all an intellectual—a mathematician and more academic mind, looked to the massive philosopher—and for him architecture was a architecture of Jules-Hardouin Mansart for the form of erudition. Thus his real masters, to open piers and chapels of his Kollegienkirche in judge from his treatise and buildings, were

Salzburg of.the 1690’s. books and what he saw throughout Europe. In In the same years, two painters in Rome Rome from 1639 to 1647 for his studies as a

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptert1 / page 8

Theatine novice, he saw the early works of stupefy the mind and terrify the spectator. And

Borromini still in construction. Then he to decide which of these opposing aims is the returned to his native Modena to superintend more glorious would be a problem worthy of an the building of the Theatine church and there ingenious academician. Finally, he concludes, it became versed in North Italian architecture. was from these Gothic examples that architects After 1657 he wandered about Europe, stop- in the Roman line took courage and dared to ping in Messina and possibly in Spain;™ in 1662 raise cupolas above four piers, as in the Cathehe arrived in Paris to begin the church of his dral of Florence and St. Peter’s in Rome. order, Sainte-Anne-la-Royale™ (Fig. 10, 11). It was not in the first design for. Sainte-Anne, It was the most conventional, solid-looking, but only during its construction, that this ideal and Roman of his central churches, the only one was fully achieved. As shown by the plan of with approximately normal piers and penden- J.-F. Blondel, the original design was changed tives; therefore it probably was the first of the by bending the crossing arches inwards under series. But the upper reaches are more original: the dome” (Fig. 12). The French architects the dome has become a basket of interlacing who revised the church after Guarini’s deparbands, and the smaller vault above it begins to ture cannot have been responsible for this: their transform the superstructure into a tower-like changes were meant to curtail and simplify the sequence. Here, then, are the first signs of the structure, and in churches the French almost central theme in Guarini’s architecture—the always bent their cylindrical arches outward to combination of a dome and crossing tower be buttressed by the walls, rather than inward

reduced to an openwork lattice and borne too to hang in air. It must have been Guarini high in the air on too frail an armature, as if by himself who took this step, for it was these

a miracle. arches that suggested the structural miracle in

That theme was summed up in his own Sainte-Anne. description of Gothic architecture.” The Clearly, then, the sources of Guarini’s ideas

Romans, he wrote, wanted their buildings to be were in good measure French and current, and strong, and look it. The Goths, on the other they rapidly changed his whole outlook. Speakhand, admired extreme height and slenderness: ing of the technique of geometric projections, they wanted their churches to appear weak, so Guarini claimed that “it is absolutely necesthat it seemed a miracle that they could stand sary to the architect, even though it is little up. Therefore, he continues, one will see a known in Italian architecture, and is conspicu-

gigantic bell tower set on extremely frail ously adopted on many occasions only by the columns; arches that bend back over the spring- French.”” By this he meant the writers on the

ing, which itself hangs in air without resting on art of stone-cutting, such as de Orme and the column below; little towers, completely Derand, some of whose illustrations he adapted perforated, that terminate in steep pyramids; for his treatise.”* Although primarily intended windows extremely tall (or high up); and for stone-cutting, this geometry probably was vaults without flanks. The Goths even had the also useful for calculating the intersecting daring to set the corners of high towers above edges of his complex vaults and for the design the crossing arches, or on the crossing columns, of his cylindrical arches.” or on the crown of the vault, or else to build a For the psychological effects of Gothic architall cupola on four columns, as in the cathedrals tecture, Guarini was indebted to another line of

of Rheims, Paris, London, and Milan. From French thought, to those theorists and /iterati this ambition came that of erecting leaning who were long accustomed to describe the towers which, even if they do not please the eye, Gothic in terms of its seeming precariousness.

THE BACKGROUND

chaptertr / page9

Although this tradition goes back to the medieval Spanish vaults where the cat’s-cradle mid-sixteenth century,” it was Perrault who of ribs was applied to spherical surfaces in first gave such comments an explicitness and star-like patterns, for instance in San Miguel in historical vision comparable to Guarini’s. He Almazan, or in the cathedrals of Burgos and wrote in 1684, for instance, that “in contrast to Zaragoza, where the vaults were set into crossthe taste of Greek architects, who could find no ing towers that had open drums and stepped

beauty in a structure that didn’t look solid, exteriors. Gothic architects loved the appearance of the Nothing in his churches, it is clear, was taken miraculous, and built extremely long and slen- directly from the Gothic. Guarini was almost der columns to sustain great vaults, which always critical of Gothic forms and proportions, actually rest on brackets suspended in air”"—a and never imitated them in his buildings.” It

passage curiously like Guarini’s. was only the effects of Gothic structure that But Perrault, like most French architects, intrigued him, provided that they were dressed could not accept this seeming insecurity in his in more acceptable guise. One might say that

own work, whereas Guarini was freed to his ingenious derivation of St. Peter’s from welcome it by his Italian taste for the illusory medieval precedent was the reverse of his own and bizarre. His tower-like churches and cupo- procedure in returning to the Gothic through

las go back through a North Italian line from the Renaissance and Baroque. Rather than Borromini’s project of the 1650’s for the cross- direct influence from medieval architecture or ing of Sant’Andrea delle Fratte,” to the fan- even its seventeenth-century survivals in North

tastic reconstructions of antique temples by Italy and France, it was a catalytic reaction the Lombard architect Giovanni Battista between French structure and mathematics, Montano,” and thence to Renaissance churches French notions of the Gothic, and Italian forms

such as San Satiro in Milan with its oversized and illusions that opened his eyes to earlier Jantern. The idea of diminishing the tiers had its architecture and produced his own.

justification in perspective theory. In his trea- Guarini arrived in Turin in 1666. Not long tise, Guarini advocated the Vitruvian doctrine afterwards he began work on the church of San of enlarging the upper details of buildings in Lorenzo for the Theatines,* and with his newly order to correct their apparent size. Since he won ideas produced a great work of hallucinaoften did the opposite in practice, he must have tory engineering (Fig. 13-17). The body of the deliberately constructed these telescoping or church now appears to be nothing but a cross“foreshortened” elevations to create effects of ing of four great piers with their pendentives extreme height.* The trellis vaults have fore- and arches. But cavernous chapels cut into the runners in the ceiling frescoes of the quadratur- footing of the piers and leave them to teeter on

isti, such as Pellegrino Tibaldi’s in Bolo- fragile columns; the pendentives seem to be gna—an association of painting and architec- hollows sheathed in a brickwork bent like cardture made more feasible by the taste of the board and punctured with small holes; and the Theatines, especially in Paris, for religious arches swing inward to juggle the dome in dramas with quadratura scenery.” The pattern mid-air. Now the flanks of the vault give way to of the ribs which seems to open the vault of enormous windows, the membrane of the dome Sainte-Anne comes partly from the Oratorio or shrinks to reveal ribs that hang partly free in the Propaganda Fide,” so that the dome air, and a colossal lantern perches on the crown becomes a combination of Mansart’s structure of the ribs: the vault is truly a tower rather than and Borromini’s illusion. Borromini’s design in a dome. turn awakened Guarini to those Moorish and Half of this was violent deception, half new

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptert1 / page 10

techniques of structure. Completely forsaking preserve these flat patterns in plan (Fig. 13, the conventional system of Sainte-Anne, 14). In San Lorenzo the octagon of the plan 1s Guarini reduced the church to a double arma- restated by the pendentives and arches, the star ture—a fake one of the visible piers and penden- of the ribs, the opening to the lantern, and the tives carried by the real one of hidden supports ribs of the lantern. The crucial opening of the and arches that rises over the outer square of lantern is turned at 45 degrees to all the other

the plan.® For the more efficient devices that octagons. ° would lighten the armature and intensify the His new sense of flat design, in conjunction illusion, Guarini looked to medieval forms but with his mastery of lightweight structure, now interpreted them through his studies of conic led Guarini to an extraordinary imitation of sections. In this way he could derive from Moorish vaults and their later derivatives in Romanesque or Gothic crossings the conical Spain. In Sainte-Anne he had reliéd on Borromsquinches of the hidden armature; from medl- ini’s flat and doubled bands pasted on a closed eval splayed windows the flaring that stiffened surface. Here he drew an eight*pointed star the main arches of the visible framework so that with true arches across an open shell, very they could be thinned out and swung inward; much like (though much vaster and more and from pointed arches the parabolic curve hazardous than) the vault in San Miguel in that reduced the thrust of the ribs, allowing the Almazan. One curious point in this connection: flanks of the vault to be opened, while also Guarini was perfectly willing to copy Moorish correcting what Guarini believed was the decep- vaults, but never mentions them in his treatively low and squat appearance of hemispheri- tise—a handling just the opposite of his treat-

cal cupolas. Guarini boasted that conical ment of the Gothic. Although Islamic and vaults “have not been adopted except by me, Gothic architecture were closely associated in and I have made excellent use of them, and with the minds of writers from the late seventeenth most beautiful effect, particularly because they and early eighteenth centuries,” the distinction

are extremely strong.” But it is likely that suggests that Guarini did not simply think of he, like Wren, was influenced by the French them as one and the same. writers, especially since for Guarini, as for In the context of open architecture the major Desargues, there was a close association be- change is that, as noted before, the church tween geometric projection, conic sections, and cannot be clearly read along its walls and

stone-cutting. surfaces as a Roman church could be.*” Only By a similar process, out of his fascination when it is viewed as an open framework of with geometrical projections and medieval columns and ribs to be seen across or around the

towers came a new kind of elevation. As central space—as indeed is demanded by the Wittkower has shown, each tier differs abruptly pattern of the ribs—does it assume a logic of its

from the next in structure and_ three- own. The resulting visual system is defined by dimensional form.” Yet this was more than an one armature or shell within the other: even the expression of Guarini’s love of shock and frag- lower windows have frames doubled in depth. mented or atomized designs. It meant that in At ground level, the red columns stake out an plan the tiers could be nestled within each other octagonal cage with concave sides against the in brilliant kaleidoscopic patterns and then— darker periphery, while the walls telescope in

precisely because they did not have to be and out, collapsing in three sections in the stacked in conventional sequences—could be lateral chapels, expanding halfway in the diagoprojected or telescoped into place, like the nal ones in the piers, and extending completely sections of a tower, in the way that would best in the choir (Fig. 15). Above the pendentives

THE BACKGROUND

chaptertt / page ll

the ribs weave a clearly defined basket against secondly, to the fragmentation of the vault, the light, while the vaulting webs fly away from which once again is done for more than its own them at odd angles (Fig. 16). In both cases the sake. “The place or object that is better illumi-

Inner boundary is open but fixed, while the nated,” Guarini wrote, “seems larger than that outer one is closed but indefinite and changing. which is dark, because the more the shadows of For the first time the church appears open for the objects bring out their projections, the more

most of its height. the view extends itself. And when the small The exterior, too, becomes an aerial struc- parts are more visible, the imagination, seeing ture, the first equivalent of the new interiors, many things, persuades itself that the area is despite the echoes of monumental Roman very capacious.””° drums, domes, and lanterns (Fig. 17): it looks Hardly a trace of Roman influence remains in like a hollow container because the flush the form and structure of the vault. The conical surfaces seem egg-shell thin or are eaten away shape had a special appropriateness in a chapel

by windows. for the Holy Shroud—it followed that of the

By 1667 Guarini began work on the Santis- covering of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem as sima Sindone in Turin“* (Fig. 18). From his shown in seventeenth-century engravings.” The predecessors he inherited part of the lower openwork is reminiscent of, though not directly

rotunda in black marble, a little Pantheon inspired by, late Gothic crossing towers, “tutte

which he continued with the lower part of a traforate.” And the idea of a tall lantern hemispherical dome. But on the surface of this mounted on a truncated dome comes, as did shell he drew an illusory crossing in thin lines Wren’s Warrant design, from Le Vau’s project of marble, a scaffolding of three piers and for the Collége des Quatre-Nations (Fig. 4).

pendentives that gives seeming support to the After this period Guarini’s work calmed conical vault, which actually rises from the down. In the Sindone as in San Lorenzo, he had truncated dome like a lantern. The structure of carried Borromini’s juxtaposition of real and this vault is far more original than that of San fictive structures to dramatic extremes—had Lorenzo. The ribs do not, as they would in most masked the supporting piers or walls while

Gothic and Moorish vaults, spring from a fully exposing the superstructure. Now his common base and then cross at or near the structures became more audacious in fact, but center. Instead they move catty-cornered around less so in illusion, his patterns more original but

the perimeter, each one spanning an angle of clearer and simpler. the polygon below, and each tier resting on the To the late 1660’s and early 1670's belong other, as in a house of cards. By this means the the central churches of San Filippo in Casale visual, geometric, and structural themes of Monferrato, San Gaetano in Vicenza,” and (in Guarini’s architecture become one and the all probability) the Somaschi in Messina. In same. The structural principle of short-cutting each case Guarini reduced the tall and complex corners, as in medieval squinches, is united with vault in order to concentrate on lightening the the geometric one of stacking rotated polygons; supporting structure and expanding the space the vault now opens directly to the sky rather of the lower zone. Thus the vault of San Filippo than to a surrounding drum; and the lantern is low and unpretentious; that of San Gaetano is approximates both a cone and a model of over- __—srather conventional and Mansartesque, perhaps foreshortened perspective.” This illusion of because it was to have been frescoed (Fig. 19); height is far more effective than the tower-like and that for the Somaschi is a smaller and more sequence of San Lorenzo; but it owes its force open version of San Lorenzo’s, which would

less to geometry than to the lighting and, suggest a date after Guarini’s stay in Messina

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptert1 / page 12

during the early 1660's.” But in compensation tects and architectural themes were imported, the churches open to spacious ambulatories and and imported rather indiscriminately.

are carried on groups of columns derived from Yet it is probably not a coincidence that

Gothic bundle piers” (Fig. 19). Guarini’s work flowered so magnificently in Another central church, the design for San Piedmont, that the Dukes of Savoy were so keen Gaetano in Nice, can probably be dated in the for his services, and that open architecture, in late 1670s. This dating and its small size would most other regions a sporadic concern, was here explain why it is the most smoothly integrated to become an obsession.

of Guarini’s works, with a clean and simple From the time that Emanuele Filiberto exterior. One would have entered the church moved his capital to Turin in the mid-sixteenth through a pier, as in the Sindone; but now the century, the Dukes of Savoy had a passion for piers are real supports, are revealed as such, building. No art ever flourished there except and rise directly into the ribs, on which perches architecture. It was almost as if the dukes a vault like San Filippo’s. The result 1s a new wished to establish their precarious state not

comprehensibility. only politically but architecturally as well; and The end point of Guarini’s maturing thought many of Piedmont’s greatest monuments, from

is also his last work, the masterful project, prob- the Tempio della Pace in Mondovi, to the ably of 1680 (the date on one of the engrav- Santissima Sindone, to the Soperga, were ings), for the church at Oropa (Fig. 20). The primarily dynastic in their implications. Partly open outer zone is incorporated into the struc- from this outlook came another Piedmontese ture in the chain of chapels below and in the phenomenon: the courtier-architect, often of deep arches above. From the floor to the top the noble lineage, such as the Conti Carlo and church diminishes regularly, and the upper Amedeo di Castellamonte in the seventeenth tiers of squinches and conical vaults trace out century and a host of them in the eighteenth, octagons with their sides parallel, rather than at the majority of whom were far from dilettantes. angles, to the plan below. Geometry and struc- Besides these architectural endeavors there ture are one, and everything is shown for what were the unending ducal programs of fortifica-

it is; the whole church is a gigantic cone-like tion to defend the buffer state. The first tower, and at every level one can visualize a construction in Turin was the great Cittadella,

building—a tiburio—thrust in air. built by Francesco Pacciotti of Urbino in 1563 Few later architects were as bold as Guarini; as one of the most advanced fortresses of its but there were some who were soon to follow time. Later ducal architects, such as Ascanio him in creating a large group of buildings in Vitozzi, the Conte Ercole Negro di San Front, open architecture. And among Italian centers it the Castellamonti, Michelangelo Garove, or was again in Piedmont that this took place. Antonio Bertola, were also military engineers, and Guarini published a Trattato di Fortificazione in 1676.” It is therefore not surprising that the Piedmontese (like the French) had a

C. Piedmont taste for feats of engineering and complex geometry in civil as well as in military architecture.

Piedmont was barren of its own fully defined Given the geographical position and the polit-

artistic customs until well into the eighteenth ical ties of the state, the ambitions of the century. From Pellegrino Tibaldi and Ascanio upstart dukes, and the backwardness of their Vitozzi in the late sixteenth century to Juvarra realm, Piedmont was opened to a hodgepodge in the early eighteenth, most of its major archi- of influences from France, Rome, and Northern

THE BACKGROUND chaptertr / page 13

Italy. Secular architecture, particularly country Benedetto Alfieri, whose most famous accomresidences, usually followed the French mode, plishment was the construction of the Teatro with jutting pavilions, high wooden roofs, and Regio in Turin.

large windows, while church architecture was Many of these patterns emerge during the more often Roman or North Italian in character. reign of Carlo Emanuele 1 and his chief archiWith their nouveau-riche tastes, the Dukes of tect from 1584 to 1615, Ascanio Vitozzi. As a Savoy and the religious orders that they favored Vignolesque architect, he had a considerable

haphazardly imported the latest fashions to range; but Piedmont extended it. The central stand alongside the provincial remnants of church that he constructed for the Capuchins on long-discarded styles, and insignificant masons the hill overlooking Turin in the 1580’s could to work as the architects of major commissions almost have been built by Bramante a century

next to artists of international renown. earlier. His great ducal sanctuary of the The Dukes of Savoy and the orders also Madonna di Vico in Mondovi of the 1590's, helped to force another and more noticeable with a dome set within four towers, is somewhat split in Piedmontese architecture. The urban reminiscent of Bramante’s St. Peter’s; but the scene was left plain and monotonous, a vast dome is an oval, one of the largest vaults of this series of tan barracks constructed by an auto- shape, 119 feet long by 80 wide, and only a cratic policy that demanded the rapid enlarge- mind of the greatest technical daring could have ment of Turin with uniform rows of palace conceived of it at that time. A few years later he facades fencing in long, straight streets. This designed the church of Santa Trinita in Turin was in conformity with the almost undisturbed with a “bizarre” triangular arrangement of the Roman castrum, the city planning of the Paris chapels, one of the earliest executed plans of a of Henry tv, and North Italian cities such as type that was to appeal to Baroque architects. Bologna. But against this reticent background, But he also planned the extension of the city, a few churches, palaces, and country residences and built the Piazza Castello, on the first of the were set off by their showy grandeur, over- sternly regular French designs.

richness, or flagrant “bizzarria.” In many ways During the next half-century under the the Dukes of Savoy were militant, austere, and Castellamonti, Piedmontese architecture, like

even puritanical; in architecture they often the Piedmontese court during the regency of sported a taste for the strange or flashy. Cristina of France, became more provincial, That taste was reinforced by another: a French, and decorative. But the major work of mania for the theatrical. The Turinese court the period, the royal palace at Venaria Reale, and the religious orders put on innumerable was one of the most elaborate and theatrical dance performances, dramas, festivals, and fantasies in Europe, combining as it did the sacred plays. The drab city was splendidly latest word from Rome and Paris with others costumed for royal marriages and triumphal from the preceding century, and the design of entries; the churches were richly decked out for grand piazzas with that of festival decoration funerals and the Quarant’ore. Soon the taste (Fig. 28). The provincial bravado, the desire to was felt in real architecture. Guarini’s vaults of be the equal of the great centers, manifests San Lorenzo and the Santissima Sindone can itself rather amusingly in Amedeo di Castellahardly have appealed to eyes unaccustomed to monte’s description of 1674, in which he the spectacular machinery of religious dramas. purports to take Bernini on a tour of his masterThe theatrical quality of Juvarra’s churches piece, and wrings adulation from the Roman and salons has long been remarked; and it was architect at every step.” But Amedeo seems to present, too, in some work of his successor, have been unable to satisfy the court or the

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterit / page 14

religious orders” in their growing desire for became masters of engineering—Gallo vaulted novelty and international prestige, and Guarin1 the Sanctuary church at Mondovi, Plantery was called in to take over San Lorenzo and the specialized in elaborately vaulted atria—but

Sindone from him. otherwise they plodded along in retardataire

It is therefore evident that the eclecticism, paths until they awoke belatedly to Juvarra’s technical skill, and dizzarria of Guarini’s open influence.

architecture—and that of Juvarra and The return to an architecture of international Vittone—would find easy acceptance, if few stature, but this time in a sustained resurgence

secure traditions, in Piedmont. that gave rise to the first Piedmontese school of After Guarini’s death in 1683 there was architecture, began in 1713 with the Peace of another relapse; his influence was almost exclu- Utrecht. Piedmont was then granted a long sively decorative, and short-lived at that.*° The period of wealth and security, and a new status only significant follower, Michelangelo Ga- and independence as a kingdom. Immediately rove,” was the major Piedmontese architect this released and magnified the ambitions of the from the later 1680’s to his death in 1713. His ablest and most far-sighted of Piedmontese atrium of the Palazzo Asinari of 1684 had monarchs, Vittorio Amedeo u. Earlier he had Guarinesque columns and a vaguely Guarines- commissioned Garove to work on Venaria and que vault (these atria were a major locus in the University, but his advisors had sent the Piedmont for complex vaults), but it was of no projects to Paris for approval: the dream of a great structural ingenuity. After that he dabbled modern capitol on a par with Paris or Vienna in several styles: vaguely Roman in San Gio- was there, but provincial tastes and architects vanni in Sommariva Bosco of the mid-1680’s; were not quite to be trusted. Now, looking Genoese or Milanese in the University of Turin about for an architect to succeed Garove who of 1712-13; French in the rebuilding of Venaria had died in 1713, he found none to accept from Reale in 1699. Francesco Gallo” in Mondovi and the many in Piedmont,” but rather, on a trip to Gian Giacomo Plantery” in Turin began to his new Sicilian domain in 1714, chose the most work in the early eighteenth century and soon sophisticated architect in Italy: Filippo Juvarra.

NOTES 1. J. L. de Cordemoy, Nouveau Traité de toute sargues] Lyonnais] touchant la pra-

Parchitecture ... , Paris, 1706, pp. tique du trait a preuves pour la coupe des 170-75, was therefore not far wrong in pierres en Varchitecture ..., ed. by blaming Michelangelo for the superfluous Poudra, Paris, 1864, 1, pp. 305ff; illustra-

massiveness of these Parisian churches. tions in W. Ivins, Jr. in Bulletin of the 2. For instance, in the palace at Caserta, Metropolitan Museum of Art, N.S. 1, 1942, Schloss Pommersfelden, Schloss Brihl, pp. 33-45; A. Bosse, La Pratique du Trait Carrington House at Whitehall, and Juvar- a preuves de Mr. Desargues pour la Coupe

ra’s unexecuted projects for the royal des pierres en Varchitecture, Paris, 1643.

palace in Rivoli. Mathurin Jousse, Le secret de Parchitecture

3. Brouillon project d’exemple d’une maniére ... , La Fléche, 1642, p. 2, and Francois

universelle du S(ieur) Girard) Df[e- Derand, L’architecture des voutes ... ,

THE BACKGROUND

chaptert1 / pagels

Paris, 1643, f. 3, both noted that de l’Orme p. 374 (2nd ed., p. 386), n. 11. P. Smith had been the last to treat of the subject. (“Mansart Studies 1: The Val-de-Grace,”

4, Philibert de ?Orme, Le premier téme de Burlington Magazine, cvi, 1964, pp. P Architecture, Paris, 1626, section of a 110-12, fig. 20) has suggested that a bath, following Chap. vir. Mansart’s reli- drawing of a church with an open dome in ance on the project for some of his domes the Bibliothéque Nationale may represent a

was first noted by A. Blunt, Francois project by Mansart of the Val-de-Grace; Mansart (Studies of the Warburg Insti- but as he says, if this is so, “it is extraordi-

tute, xIv), London, 1941, p. 26. narily advanced for its time.” The

5. F. Borromini, Opus Architectonicum Equi- awkward design may well be a late seven-

tis Francisci Borromini . .. , Rome, teenth-century pastiche. 1725, pp. 9f., letter of May 10, 1656. E. 10. A. Gutton, “La Chapelle du Collége des Hempel attributes the text to Borromini’s Quatre-Nations,” Les Monuments Histomentor, Cardinal Virgilio Spada (Fran- riques de la France, N.S. 1x, 1, 1963, figs. cesco Borromini, Vienna, 1924, p. 62). 21—25. The projects can be dated between 6. A third source of later open architecture 1662 and 1665. Also H. Lemonnier, Le was Baldassare Longhena’s Santa Maria Collége Mazarin et le Palais de l'Institut, della Salute in Venice, begun in 1630. This Paris, 1921, p. 18. created radial, framed views of the altars 11. Léonor Houdin’s project of 1661 is through the arches of the ambulatory, as discussed by L. Hautecoeur, Histoire de shown by Wittkower in the Journal of the Parchitecture classique en France, Ul, p. Society of Architectural Historians, xvi, 273. For Bernini’s chapel, see the descrip1957, pp. 3ff. But the emphasis was not on tions of Chantelou, Journal du voyage du openness as such; rather it was on the regu- Cavalier Bernini en France, ed. L. Lalanne, lated system of views. It therefore appealed Paris, 1885, pp. 243ff., 248ff. (October 18 primarily to rather conservative architects, and 19, 1665) and the plan, Recueil du and was of little importance in Piedmont. Louvre, f. 11, published by L. Hautecoeur,

7. Earlier the vaults had been adapted to Histoire du Louvre, Paris, 1928, fig. 75. salons, by Antoine Lepautre in a project of 12. The date of 1668 is given by L. Haute1652 (A. Lepautre, Desseins de plusieurs coeur, Le Louvre et les Tuileries de Louis

Palais . . . , Paris, [1652], pl. 7) and by XIV, Paris, 1927, pp. 186-87. The Pierre Cottard a few years later for the projects of Perrault were described and Hotel Amelot de Bizeuil (P. Cottard, illustrated by J.-F. Blondel, Architecture Recueil des Oeuvres du Sieur Cottard archi- francoise, Paris, 1756, rv, pl. 1 and 2, and

tecte, Paris, 1686). The filiation of the p. 26, and drawings related to them were open vault has been recently studied by H. published by R. Josephson in Gazette des Junecke, Montmorency, Der Landsitz Beaux-Arts, LXIx, 2, 1927, pp. 171-92. A Charles Le Bruns, Berlin, 1960, p. 63. plan for a square staircase similar to one of 8. A. Laprade, Frangois d’Orbay, Paris, n. d., Perrault’s designs was made by Francois

pl. vi-2. d’Orbay, Le Vau’s assistant, according to

9, L. Hautecoeur, “L’origine du déme des Hautecoeur (Joc. cit.). A. Braham and M. Invalides,” L’Architecture, xxxvu, 1924, Whiteley, (“Louis Le Vau’s Projects for pp. 353-66. The relationship between the Louvre and the Colonnade,” Gazette Guarini and Mansart was pointed out by R. des Beaux-Arts, Lx1v, 1964, pp. 354-56, Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy, fig. 7), note that a staircase with a colum-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptertr / page 16

nar gallery appears in a plan by the Le Vau qu’on met souvent les colonnes deux 4 deux, afin

shop. They date this part of the sketch in d’avoir des entrecolonnemens plus grands. Les

1665. dégagemens sont peut-étre un rest de gout & de

13. Claude Perrault, Les dix livres d’architec- la maniére Gothique.

ture de Vitruve ... , Paris, 1673, p. 76, 14. Francois Blondel, Cours d’Architecture

n. 3: ... , UW, Paris, 1683, pp. 233ff. How-

; ever, Blondel does not stress Le, ore goust; 15. de+notre siécle, ou de moins ded’architecture notre -the pe point. , . de Perrault, Les dix livres nation, est différent de celui des Anciens, et 4 wequ’en Vitruve .tient .. Paris, 1684, p. 78, n.in 16. peut-étre cela il un peu de Gothique: ; les. th y car nous almons l’air, le jour et les dégagemens. Like his brother Charles, in the Querelle Cela nous a fait inventer un sixiéme maniére de des Anc rens M ode rnes Claude was clearly disposer les colonnes, qui est de les accoupler & on the side of the innovators. de les joindre deux 4 deux, et de mettre aussi 16. Le Vau in the court facade of the Hotel

Yespace de deux entre colonnemens en Lambert and, possibly, in the facade of the un .. . car outre la beauté de Paspreté & du Louvre (Braham and Whiteley, op. cit., pp. serrement de colonnes que les Anciens aimoient 285-96, 347-62, have attributed the tant, elle a le dégagement que les Modernes Louvre colonnade to Le Vau); Cottard in recherchent, sans que la solidité y manque; car the Hotel Amelot de Bizeuil and a design

- Architraves que les eens " Raisoren que for the staircase of the Louvre (Pierre

une pierre qui portolt HE MOONE a autre, Cottard, op. cit., “Plan du premier Estage n’estolent pas grand si bien affermis, ne posant que surle . ; Louvre en a , : du Escalier fait pour la moitié de la Colonne, que Porsqu’ils portent Pannée 1670”

sur toute la Colonne; & les Poutres estant doub- ANNeC ). dys .

lées de mesmes que les Colonnes, elles ont beau- 17. L. Hautecoeur ’ Lorigine du déme des

coup de force pour soustenir les Planchers. Invalides”; Fiske Kimball, The Chapels of Cette maniére a esté pratiquée avec beaucoup the Chateau of Versailles,” Gazette des de magnificence aux deux grandes Portiques qui Beaux-Arts, xxvi, 1944, pp. 315-39;

sont 4 la face du Louvre. . . . Laprade, op. cit., pl. 1x, 8, D. The projects

Throush hy hy are attributed by Kimball to Jean le Blond

ak nous oor ha A ” Pon ; " Sdevane. and dated by him in 1684. There are copies

makes it Clear that tor rerrauit “degage- in the Bibliothéque Nationale, Cabinet des

ment” refers to the wide spacing of the ; ; d not primarily to th a q Estampes, Topographie, France, Seine et

“° ot - nit P “Hie . an the independ: Oise, Versailles, VA 448c Iv, two sections,

laste I uae: +e Co the he diet to use and VA 448b 1, ff. 28-32, plans. The plan

P - , i aus ene . i i. hi Ponce, of the gallery level shows that the chapels Or ine Clements Was NOL MIS © mer COnCETD. had open domes (VA 448b 11, f. 32). Kim-

v,;,

In this he—differs from the Abbéthat de Cordeball dwas . the all demonstrates the project

moy and Laugier in the eighteenth dh ; oO 7 accepted one century. through

1687. is , Perrault’s meaning of “dégagement” a 18. Perrault made a project repeated in the Dictionnaire Universel ;for redecorating

rancois e nm... - ,; . ;

F et Latj 1 Dice the chapel of Louis xm (see J.-F. Blondel, ine Je Tre ve N he . 1 c Sas op. cit., Vu, p. 139); but this was entirely My ewaneys » Hy P , different in structure from Mansart’s

Dégagement . . . une disposition de bati- designs. Mansart’s work may have derived ments & de ses parties qui donne plus de jour, from a project for Sainte-Geneviéve in plus d’espace, plus de vuide. Aujourd’hui on Paris; M. Petzet, “Un projet des Perrault aime en France les dégagemens, c’est pour cela pour Péglise Sainte-Geneviéve A Paris”

THE BACKGROUND chapteri1 / page 17

(Bulletin Monumental, cxv, 1957, 2, pp. Oblique positions are a discord to the eye, unless

81-96), attributed drawings for the church answered in pairs. . .. Therefore Gothic to Claude Perrault and dated it in the buttresses are all ill-favored, and were avoided 1670’s. Laprade has less convincingly by the Ancients, and no Roofs almost but the given it to Charles Perrault as a work of the spherick raised to be visible except in the front

1690’s (op. cit., p. 334). P. Reutersward, where the lines answer. . . . Cones and MultiThe Two Churches of the Hotel des Inva- lateral prisms want neither Beauty nor Firm-

lides, Stockholm, 1965, pp. 30ff., has ness, Dut are not ancient. published several projects for columnar 21. A. Pozzo, Perspectiva Pictorum et Archichurches as designs for St. Louis des Inva- tectorum, Rome, 1700, u, pl. 49. Open lides of the 1670's, and has suggested an vaults also appear in one of Pozzo’s projects attribution to Libéral Bruand. The oval of 1699 for the facade of San Giovanni in one, fig. 3, and the circular or (more proba- Laterano (idid., pl. 84). bly) the oval one, fig. 7, were in all likeli- 292. In the literature on Guarini, I have relied

hood based on Bernini’s Louvre chapel chiefly upon the following works: M.

design. Passanti, Architettura in Piemonte, Turin,

19. It is perhaps significant that the editor of 1945, and idem., Nel mondo magico dt Wren’s papers defended his facade with Guarino Guarini, Turin, 1963, for his the words of the Perrault-Blondel contro- stress on the role of illusion in Guarini’s versy on the Louvre: see Parentalia, or architecture and Guarini’s admiration of

memoirs of the Family of _ the the Gothic. P. Portoghesi, Guarino Wrens ... , ed. Stephen Wren, London, Guarini, Milan, 1956, for his discussion of

1750, pp. 288-89. Guarini’s borrowings from French treatises

20. On the French antecedents of the geometry on stone-cutting. W. Hager, “Guarini: of conical vaults see (Girard Desargues) Zur Kennzeichnung seiner Architektur,” Brouillon project d’une atteinte aux événe- Miscellanea Bibliothecae Hertzianae, mens des rencontres du Cone avec un plan. Vienna, 1961, pp. 418-28 for his emphaL.S.G.D.L., Paris, 1639, republished by R. sis on the “Lichtturm,” as he calls it, and its

Taton, L’Oeuvre mathématique de G. derivation, in part, from North Italian Desargues, Paris, 1951, pp. 99-184; A. towers. See also my review of the Guarini Bosse, op. cit., pp. 78ff., and Derand, op. literature in the Art Bulletin, x-vm, 19696

cit., pp. 207f., in their discussions of pp. 259-60. trompes; Francois Blondel, Résolution des 23. Guarini’s facade of the Annunziata in Quatre Principaux Problémes d’Architec- Messina is patterned on Spanish “retablos” ture, Paris, 1673, pp. 17-54 (“L’Appo- facades of the seventeenth century, such as lonius Francois des Tactions, ou décrire San Miguel de los Reyes in Valencia; simieéométriquement les arcs rampans . . .”). lar fagades became common in Sicily in the The same topic was discussed by Bosse, late seventeenth century, but it remains to "a disciple of Desargues, in a paper of 1672 be determined whether there were exam(collated at the end of some editions of his ples on the island before Guarini’s arrival. Représentations géométrales de plusieurs 24, David Coffin, “Padre Guarino Guarini in parties de Bastimens . . . , Paris, 1664). Paris,” Journal of the Society of Architec-

That Wren may have considered these tural Historians, xv, 2, 1956, pp. 3-11. vaults Gothic is suggested by the following 25. Guarini, Architettura Civile, Turin, 1737,

passage in Parentalia, p. 351: pp. 133-34:

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptertt / page 18

Ed oltre questa tanto ammirata sveltezza parve century, a Parisian architect by the name of

anche che [the Goths] affettassero un altro fine Lievain lopped off two of the arms to totalmente opposto all’Architettura Romana. convert the church to a longitudinal church Perché 1a, ove questa ebbe per principale intento that did not have an external dome; the la fortezza, € ne fece pompa anche nella soda change was recorded in Parisian maps, disposizione degli edifict, quella ebbe per iscopo which up to 1713 show a central project, ai ner’ molti Forti Shy me che sembrassero and afterwards the executed version, which

deboli, e che di miracolo, - eae , x servissero . appears in the Louis come Bretez. .(Turgot) map

stessero Laonde and si vedra grossis. : re . :; in ofpiedi. the 1730's, in auna better view sima Guglia di un Campanile appoggiata stabil- ; ? . _

mente sopra sottilissime Colonne; Archi che si published by Y. Christ, £ glises Parisiripiegano sopra il lor piede, che pende in aria, ennes, n. p., 194%, fig. 58. This would

né s’appoggia a Colonna che lo sostenti; explain why only two of the crossing

Torrette tutte traforate, che finiscono in acutis- arches, those on the short axis of the new sime piramidi; finestre estremamente elevate; church, appear in Blondel’s plan, but not volte senza fianchi. Ed ebbero fino ardimento di why he drew in the plan of a dome. collocare un angolo d’una altissima Torre sopra 27. Guarini, op. cit., p. 191, “Dell’Ortografia

d’un arco, come nella Chiesa maggiore di Rens Gettata.” si vede, 0 sopra una Colonna, come al ‘T'empio di 28. Compare Guarini, op. cit., Trat. rv, Lastra

nostra Dama “ Parigi, or pure romero sulla u, fig. 1, with de Orme, Le Premier

_ 74,could 77, 78; orknown Guarini, op. cit., Trat. .Iv, Guarini have from W. Dugdale, The History of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, Lastr a xu, fig. 6, with Derand, op. cit., fig. mana rl, sopra qty clone come Tome de Paroitecture, Pars 1567, Ph

London, 1658] o un altissima Cupola sopra opposite p. 360. Desargues’ complex expoQuattro colonne, come nel Duomo di Milano. Da sition was not used by Guarini. Claude questa ambizione anche nacque di far le Torri Francois Miulliet de Chales, Cursus seu pendenti, come la Torre degli Asinelli di Bolo- Mundus Mathematicus, Lyon, 1674, u,

gna, e la Torre del Duomo di Pisa, le quali Tractatus xu, also treats of the subject. sebbene non sono di aggradimento alla vista, This writer, a Jesuit mathematician from fanno pero stupire gli intelletti, e rendono gli Lyons, worked for the Duke of Savoy in spettatori atterriti: onde di questi due opposti Turin while Guarini was there. fini qual sia pit glorioso, sarebbe degno problema 29. N. Pevsner (“The Three-Dimensional di un accademico ingegno, ¢ da queste Gotici Arch from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth

esempi, credo, che resa pitt ardimentosa Century.” Jo l of the Societ Archi-

lArchitettura Romana abbi finalmente osato di Yo VOUING of the Society of Archi sollevare le Cupole sopra Quattro Pilastri, come tectural Historians, xvi, 4, 1958, pp. gla se ne veggono, oltra la prima di Firenze, e poi 22-24) has P ointed out that Mader no used

S. Pietro da Roma, torreggiare molte altre ed in the semicylindrical penetrations for the

Roma, e per molte Citta d'Italia. windows in the barrel vault of St. Peter’s, and that the “line of intersection between

The significance of this passage was first these two tunnel vaults of different diamediscussed by M. Passanti, Architettura in ter 1s bound to take the shape of a three-

Piemonte, pp. 176-78. dimensional arch.” He then concluded that 26. J.-F. Blondel, Architecture francoise, u, “they imply for the first time [since the pp. 290f. and pl. xxx, 1. According to Middle Ages] an appreciation of curvature Blondel, the crossing was executed on in space.” Thus Maderno’s nave is for Guarini’s project. In the early eighteenth Pevsner the ultimate source of Guarini’s

THE BACKGROUND chaptert1 / page 19

inward-curving arches. But the outward- 35. See Coffin, op. cit., p. 4. In the late seven-

curving arches of de l’Orme’s chapel at teenth-century controversy over the imitaAnet or the tower in his treatise (op. cit., tion of architecture by painting, Guarini

1567, p. 77) suggest a similar apprecia- believed that “larchitettura pero [in tion. Moreover, de l’Orme, in his cryptopor- contrast to painting] non puo conseguire il tico at Anet, constructed semidomes that suo fine di piacere all’occhio, se non colle

cut into barrel vaults to produce curves vere simmitrie, essendo questo l’ultimo suo like Maderno’s (A. Blunt, Philibert de scopo, non ingannare l’occhio. La ProspetPOrme, London, 1958, pl. 33). But more tiva dapoi non ha da riguardare alla soliimportant, the appearance, the psychologi- dita e fermezza dell’opera, ma solamente a cal effect, and quite possibly the structural dilettare l’occhio” (Guarini, op. cit., p. 7). problems of a cylindrical arch, particularly I would explain this by the assumption that

one that curves out over air as in de it represents the view of his late years, POrme’s tower or the choir of Francois when he all but eliminated illusion from his

Mansart’s Ste. Marie de la Visitation, are architecture. quite different from the intersection of two 36. It is not certain whether Guarini knew of barrel vaults to leave a curving Jine. Arches the vaults of the Propaganda Fide, which of this kind were surely the main sources of may not have been designed when he

Guarin1’s. passed through Rome in 1662 (c.f.

30. R. D. Middleton, “The Abbé de Cordemoy Hempel, pp. 160-61; H. Thelen, 70 and the Graeco-Gothic Ideal,” Journal of Disegni di Francesco Borromini, Rome,

the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1958, p. 28).

xxv, 1962, p. 295. 37. Guarini, op. cit., p. 87: 31. Perrault, op. cit., 1684 ed., p. 42:

L’Architettura Gotica non piace, perché in Le gotit de l’Architecture Grecque, qui ne s¢au- somma per quanto siano grosse le Colonne, la roit trouver de la beauté dans une Structure qui lunghezza eccedente le fa parere sottili, per paroist n’avoir pas de solidité, au contraire du quanto siano larghe le sue Chiese, Paltezza goust gothique qui aime l’apparence du merveil- smisurata le fa parer anguste, per quanto siano leux, faisant des colonnes trés-longues et trés ampie le sue finestre, l’elevazione soverchia le fa menués pour soustenir de grandes voutes, qui parer troppo strette;

retombent sur des impostes en cul de lampe ,

suspendués en Pair. or, “le arcate sopra le colonne - + + Sono

pero dannabili, e presi da Goti, che in 32. This point was made by H. Sedlmayr, Die questo furono oltre modo licenziosi” (Jbid., Architektur Borrominis, Munich, 1930, p. 146). In his own works, Guarini always

pp. 104—105. interposed an entablature between a

33. G. B. Montano, Scielta di varii tempietti column and the arch or rib above, even

antichi, Rome, 1624. though he noted that the Goths directly

34. Guarini, op. cit., pp. 161-68: the passages connected them (/did., p. 135). refer to the facades of buildings seen close 38. The date of Guarini’s intervention is by. The same type of diminishing elevation variously given as 1666, 1667, and 1668. was used by Guarini in the Annunziata 39. As shown in L. Denina and A. Proto, “La

facade, though its sources were entirely Real Chiesa di San Lorenzo,” Architettura

different, of course, from those of his cupo- Italiana, xv, 1920, pp. 34ff., and

las. Portoghesi, op. cit., p. 12; see now also G.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptert1 / page 20

Brotto and V. Tedesco in L’architettura, 42. R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in

cronache e storia, vil, 70, 1961, pp. Italy, . . . pp. 268ff. The autonomy of 274. Henry Millon in Art Bulletin, xLvu, Guarini’s elements is also noted by 1965, p. 531, has called attention to an Passanti, Nel .magico mondo... , Pp.

important engraving in the Archivio di 202. Stato, Turin, Sezione Riunite, Intendenze e 43. Interest in Moorish architecture seems to

finanze, Tipi e desegni No. 16, entitled have arisen in the very late seventeenth “chiave della Cupola di S. Lorenzo di century. The subject is discussed, for Torino,” which shows the large hidden instance, by J. F. Felibien des Avaux,

arches and their complex braces. He Recueil Historique de la Vie et des suggests that the engraving was done Ouvrages des plus Célébres Architectes,

before 1679. It is not clear what, if Paris, 1687, preface; by C. A. Daviler, anything, was done to this structure in later Cours d’ Architecture, Paris, 1693, 11, p. 72; alterations. The foundation stone was laid and by Wren and Evelyn in the early eightin 1634 (G. M. Crepaldi, La real chiesa di eenth century, as noted by P. Frankl, The

San Lorenzo in Torino, Turin, 1963, pp. Gothic: Literary Sources and Interpreta-

43-44); Millon has pointed out that tions through Eight Centuries, Princeton,

the entablature of the facade was in 1960, pp. 359ff. Daviler, Wren, and construction in 1661 (Joc cit.). If much of Evelyn associated Gothic and Moorish the body of the church had been built architecture visually or historically, as did before Guarini, this would help to explain many later authors. why he set an octagonal system within 44, On the early history of the Sindone see N. a square: his insertion of an illusory Carboneri, “Vicenda delle cappelle per la scaffolding within the true structure in San Santa Sindone,” Boll. SPABA, N.S. xvu, Lorenzo, as in the Santissima Sindone, may 1964, pp. 95-109. Carboneri now rightly

have been due to earlier work on both dates the plan in the Biblioteca Reale,

churches. U-I-91 (ibid., fig. 3) in the years before

39a. M. Anderegg-Tille, Die Schule Guarinis, Guarini, contrary to his earlier suggestion Winterthur, 1962, pp. 90-92, discusses (Mostra del Barocco Piemontese, 1, Archithe “Raumerweiterung” of San Lorenzo, tettura, p. 32); but the pentimenti in the but believes it was the “allgemeinste front opening of the chapel are still proble-

Prinzip der barocken Baukunst.” matic.

40. Guarini, op. cit., p. 168: 45. As demonstrated by M. Passanti’s funda-

. . mental paper, “La Real Cappella della S.

Il sole, che é tondo, par plano, ed le Volte paiono Sindone in Torino,” Torino, xxi, 1941,

sempre meno svelte di quello [che] sono, e 10, pp. 5-15; 12, pp. 5-7; see now also massime le Cupole di mezzo tondo, le quale dal his Nel mondo magico di Guarino Guarini

terzo in su paiono plane, occupando una luce S 1 BATT NZ UATT, men chiaro il loro curvita, che in quel sito @ poco. PP. 163-94.

Perd chi vorra far volte svelte bisognera non 46. Guarini, Architettura civile, p. 160:

servirsi del semicircolo. . . . Il luogo, ovvero oggetto pit illuminato sembra

. ; magegiore di quello, che sia Voscuro. Perché

Al. Guarini, op. cit., pp. 184df.; he discusses Pombra degli egett magegiormente fa distingthe subject from the mathematician’s view- uere le prominenze, e tutti i loro risalti, percid la point in his Euclides Adauctus. . . , Turin, vista maggiormente si stende. Cosi le parti

1671, pp. 390-435. minute maggiormente si veggono, onde

THE BACKGROUND chapter1t / page 21

Pimmaginazione nel veder molte cose si 50. As proposed by James Morgenstern in persuade, che il luogo sia molto capace. a master’s thesis at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, Guarino Gua-

A. B. Amico, Lrattato delle Piante et Imagini rini: The Church of the Padri Somaschi for

de'Sacri Edifici di Terra Santa, Rome, Messina, 1964. The fact that the ambula1609. Other sources and relationships to tory is derived from Longhena’s Santa the church of the Holy Sepulchre are Maria della Salute suggests that the design suggested by E. Battisti, “Note sul signif- may date from the 1670’s, when Guarini icato della Cappella della Santa Sindone made his project for Vicenza. Wittkower

del Duomo di Torino,” Atti del x (Art and Architecture in Italy... , Pp. Gongresso di Storia dell’Architettura, 269) believes that “the superimposition of

Rome, 1959, pp. 359-67. three unrelated tiers as well as the carpen48. Hieronymo de Bosio, De Casalensis Ec- try-like detail are reminiscent—at least in

clesiae orgine, atque Progressu... , the engraving—of Late Mannerist taber-

Turin, 1724, p. 138: “spcLxx.... nacles rather than of a church.” But the Hoc eodem Anno Presbiteri Philippini external articulation shows the simplifiSacram eorum Aedem prope antiquum cation of Guarini’s later works, and is oratorlum excitare contedunt”; p. 148: similar to the project for Oropa of 1680. “MDCCXXII. Ultimis etiam hujus Praesulis 51. Guarini, Architettura civile, p. 134: temporibus insignis Philipinorum Ecclesia

instaurata, aucta, atque absoluta est, “[The Goths] fecero eziandio le colonne di quinimmo dicata, et consecrata. .. .” somma sveltezza e quando la necessita porto pel This account, being earlier, is perhaps peso eccessivo di farle pit grosse per non perdere more reliable than A. S. T.-1, Manoscritti, la loro amata sottilezza n’unirono molte insieme,

H. V. 35, Memorie istoriche della Citta, e ne fecero cme SN SOP Osto, Come St _puo e della Chiesa di Casale raccolte.. . dal vedere dalla pianta segnata 20 nella Lastra XI

; ; ; ; [Trattato 111], clascuna delle quali portava un

Ganonico Giuseppe Antonio de Morani. piede de’quattro, che formano la volta a

.. . Dedicato... 1795, u, p. 216, crociera. . . .”Seealsop. 135. |

which claims that it was begun in

1667 on the design of Sebastiano Guala, Among the French examples of a similar

that in 1672, when “non fosse la detta transformation is a church in MareilChiesa ridotta al suo compimento ma en-France, reproduced in L. Hautecoeur, soltanto coperto il Presbiterio,” a pontifical L’architecture classique en France, 1, 1, pp.

mass was celebrated in the church, and that 423, 449, it was consecrated on October 19, 1721. 52. The importance of military engineering in

The author adds that the church was Piedmont was noted by G. C. Argan in “terminata . . . con un obelisco della pit Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte, 1, 1932,

curlosa architettura che non é da alcuna p. 234. colonna sostenuto ... ,” a rather Guari- 53. The House of Savoy was, of course, closely

nesque idea (see n. 25), though not shown allied by marriage to the French royal

in his project for San Filippo. family. Maria Cristina, the regent from 49. E. Arslan, Catalogo delle cose d’arte e di 1637 to 1648, was the sister of Louis x11; antichitad d'Italia, Vicenza, Rome, 1951, 1, Carlo Emanuele tm married Francesca p. 161. The church, built on other designs, d’Orléans-Bourbon in 1663; and Vittorio

is dedicated to St. Stephen. Amedeo 11 married Anna Maria d’Orléans,

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptert1 / page 22

daughter of a brother of Louis xiv, in nesque dome of the model for the parish

1684. church of Campertogno in the Valsesia,

54. Venaria Reale Palazzo di Piacere e di which may be as early as 1697, and Caccia ... disegnato et descritto dal certainly no later than 1719: L. Benevolo, Conte Amedeo di Castellamonte Tlanno “La chiesa parrocchiale di Campertogno,” 1672, Turin, 1674. It is quite likely that Palladio, N. S. 1, 1951, pp. 165-73; and

Bernini was in Turin during 1665 on his idem., Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia way to Paris (D. Bernini, Vita del Cavaliere dell Architettura, 1957, 22-24, pp. 27-34.

Gio. Lorenzo Bernini, Rome, 1713, p. In plan this is similar to the work which I 125), but not so likely that even his tact have attributed to Garove for San Filippo

ria. p. 82.

could have managed such praise of Vena- Neri in Turin during the 1680's; see below,

55. The religious orders were particularly 57. On Garove see now Mostra del Barocco active in building during the reigns of Piemontese, 1, Architettura, pp. 37-38. Carlo Emanuele 1 and then of his widow, 58. N. Carboneri, L’architetto Francesco Gallo

Maria Giovanna Battista di Nemours. It (Atti SPABA 11), Turin, 1954. was then that, besides the construction of 59. A. Cavallari-Murat, “Gian Giacomo PlanSan Lorenzo by the Theatines, the Filippini tery, architetto barocco,” Attz e Rassegna

began their church, the largest in Turin; tecnica SIAT., N.S., x1, 1957, pp. 313-46. that the Jesuits built the Collegio dei 60. Antonio Bertola was named Primo ArchiNobili; and that the Missionari constructed tetto Civile e Militare in 1708, but he is not the Immacolata Concezione (Chap. VII). known to have made any significant royal

Guarini supplied designs for all of these projects except those for the Soperga,

works. which were superseded by Juvarra’s (see

56. The one exception is the somewhat Guari- below, p. 41, n. 4).

CHAPTER III

Filippo Juvarra and the Chapel at Venaria Reale

13 ARLY inand the aerial eighteenth century, views,being.ment, Fromanitalmost he learned a rich and facileofornalights, qualities sometimes tropical overgrowth leafy came, in effect, the true substance of architec- curlicues not unlike some of the architectural ture. Juvarra was one of the first to make this decoration in Messina, which was studded with change, and one of the most original. | small scenes and occasional putti.° Something of His originality came partly from his method— the silversmith remained in his architecture—in curiously, a rather academic method. Ordinarily the flowing and exuberant curl of his ornament he would improvise on the surface appearances and his readiness to supplement structural lines

of reasonably hallowed buildings. He did little with spots of it, in the variety of embedded to alter the underlying pattern, but precisely for fragments willfully borrowed from many that reason was freer to play with the outer sources, and in the dispersion of small accents aspects. By a process of accretion he enriched competing on a surface. academic plans and structures with theatrical At the age of 25 (in 1703 or 1704), Juvarra views, dazzling lights, and luxuriant decoration. came to Rome. While still a boy in Sicily, he In temperament Juvarra was exactly suited to had begun to teach himself architectural draftsthis technique of easy improvisation. “He was manship and composition from the great treanaturally high-spirited, a good conversationalist, tises of the post-Renaissance.* That long procand much given to amusements,” Scipione ess of self-education helps to explain his great

Maffei wrote not long after Juvarra’s death. range of sources and his love for the calmer “Whoever wanted a drawing from him received planning, centralized and additive, of the it immediately.”* He was even more fortunate sixteenth-century books. Now, in Rome, his in his training, which went into the three fields early ideas were confirmed and enlarged by his exemplified in his individual buildings: the studies with Carlo Fontana and for the Accadedecorative arts, academic design, and the thea- mia di San Luca. Fontana, in his desire for

ter. guaranteed order, had also turned to composi-

Born in 1678 in Messina, Juvarra was tions like those of the sixteenth century; in addiapprenticed in the family trade of silversmith- tion he passed on to Juvarra the heritage of

page 23

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterit1r / page 24

Bernini and an occasional design similar to The union of these achievements was

French architecture.” brought off by Juvarra’s draftsmanship. He was

But about this time architects in Fontana’s more the painterly renderer than the archicircle were experimenting with much lighter tect—it is typical that in 1709 he sought

styles. Carlo Bizzacheri arranged stucco appointment as chief draftsman to Louis window frames as if they were festival drapery xiv’—and he conceived his buildings for their in the Palazzo San Luigi dei Francesi; Alessan- appearance on paper, in pen and liberal wash. dro Specchi plotted the Porto di Ripetta on For two decades he did little else but draw. The bow-shaped lines; and Fontana himself, though autodidactic years in Sicily bore their chief fruit demanding simplicity in grand compositions, in a mastery of “piante, elevazioni, spaccati,” could be freer in his lesser ornaments. That and the rules of Pozzo and Vignola;* the sem1-

two-sided approach was a source of Juvarra’s idle ones in Rome resulted in_ theoretical

still more tolerant attitude. projects for the academy and sketches for the The third phase of Juvarra’s training was in theater. From Carlo Fontana he discovered the theater design, and in this, where views and concern for the spectator’s view that went back

ornaments were the essentials, his art was to Bernini; and the rapprochement of painter always liveliest. On a trip to Naples in 1706, he and architect that was hinted at in the work of became one of the first to imitate the “scena per Pozzo had its consummation in Juvarra’s angolo” invented by Ferdinando Bibiena a few designs. Perspective drawings were of much years earlier.” Then in a long series of scenes for greater relevance to his preparations than they

Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, beginning in 1708 had been to architects of the century before. and continuing for several years (Fig. 151), Often it is impossible to say whether a drawing

Juvarra departed from Bibiena’s_ rigid is a theater scene, a capriccio, or a real project: 45-degree angles and even illumination’ to set sometimes it can be more than one. By viewing his scenes on circular, semicircular, or octago- his architecture through the means of depicting nal plans, sometimes to be viewed from indeter- it, Juvarra contributed the final touch to the minate angles and often filled, at least in his extraordinary streak of the picturesque in his drawings, with a changing, forest lhght— work, with its distraction of strewn accents and

columnar jungles with innumerable openings slightly ragged outlines, and its charm of where nothing came to a halt. By accident off-beat viewpoints and unexpected illuminaJuvarra’s experience with Sicilian ornament tions. had equipped him to meet the taste for the During this period-in-waiting, when most of broken and unfocused that now was finding its Juvarra’s ideas were formed, he had done fullest expression behind the proscenium. scarcely anything with open structures. Yet Only Juvarra’s lighting, the most original soon after his arrival in Turin, he created two and sensitive aspect of his architecture, has no major works in this vein: the projects for the ready explanation in his training. Fontana could sacristy of St. Peter’s in Rome, drawn there in not have taught him much about Berninr’s art of late 1714 or early 1715, a few months after his lighting, and in any case Bernini’s sharp focus coming to Piedmont (Appendix 1), and the

was the opposite of Juvarra’s shimmering royal chapel at Venaria Reale, begun in diffusion. Juvarra had a painter’s eye for light, 1716—the former being in the _ lighterand he introduced it into architecture as structured manner of Borromini, the latter in suddenly as it flooded the paintings of Luca the heavier one of the French. Neither the Giordano a few years before, and of Tiepolo a patrons nor the shift of his locale had much to

few years after. do with this change. Rather it came about

FILIPPO JUVARRA AND THE CHAPEL AT VENARIA REALE chapter itl / page 25

through his concentration on the theater in his the piers and the standard galleries of a royal last Roman years, and his sudden confrontation chapel running behind the arms and into the with real demands for light and spaciousness. piers. But if one walks into the building on a

Specifically, both projects invited the use of reasonably bright day, it takes on another galleries and ambulatories, and vast windows or aspect, for then the conventional plan and forms

drums and lanterns—in the sacristy for the begin to lose themselves in the views and lights. continual traffic through it, and because of the Entering from the palace side on the west, as long shadows from St. Peter’s; in the chapel for the king and courtiers would usually have done, the separation of royalty from the courtiers, and the visitor steps into a corner chapel from which

perhaps to offset the Po Valley fogs in the he glances through an open dome into the

lowlands. gallery above, and through the passageways in Juvarra conceived the sacristy room in some the piers to the corresponding openings across projects as an oval or elongated octagon with an the church (Fig. 24). Moving towards the ambulatory of thin piers, an idea that may go center, he can see past the ring of columns and back directly to sixteenth-century drawings by the perforated tabernacle in the choir, and into Ottaviano Mascherino in the Accademia di San the tribunes that open in the diagonal faces of Luca,’ and in others as a tall chamber similar to the piers, or to the galleries behind the tall the Oratorio di San Filippo Neri, with a coved altars and the vaults that curve down to frame vault that produces a ballooning or swelling the ends of the lateral arms (Fig. 25, 27). The effect—two systems that were to be taken up by boundaries are destroyed, and even the distinchim in more striking fashion at the end of his tion between inside and out becomes uncertain, career. But the most important project, in the for the spectator always stands outside a cagelight of his later buildings, was a three-tiered like structure that is almost a building in itself, main room with a mezzanine gallery at either and looks through it, an effect summed up in

end and a full upper gallery along each side the open tabernacle of the altar. (Fig. 21). It was the first Italian building to Sunlight joins in the assault on the solids, follow the structural arrangement of the Church and is caught and intensified by what is left of of the Propaganda Fide.” But where Borromi- the creamy tan and yellow colors of the church. ni’s galleries are narrow, glazed, and confined to Since the chapel is oriented to the south, the the long sides, Juvarra’s are deep and open light breaks for most of the day against the ring around the room; and where light is secondary of columns and the open tabernacle in the choir, to structure in Borromini’s design, the enor- and its brilliant glare washes out the walls and mous apertures of the sacristy reverse the rela- the ornaments in the neighboring chapels. Here tionship. In the thinness of the supports and the it becomes almost tangible, condensed in a depth of spaces, in the fragmented views and slowing volume; and falling from the windows surplus of openings, the similarities to Juvarra’s in the galleries, it seems to push out apertures stage designs for Cardinal Ottoboni are unmis- behind the entablatures to reach the altars (Fig.

takable. Borromini supplied the theme, the 26).

theater the variation. To be sure, the crossing is marked out by The chapel at Venaria Reale is the richest of four large statues, the church is oriented to the

Juvarra’s early works in open structure, but it sanctuary by a ring of columns and by the hardly seems noteworthy at first sight (Fig. elaborate altar, and the small lateral altars in 99-97). The building, unfinished and the rear are picked out by the light from domes damaged, is as academic as could be in form opened more widely than those in front. But and plan, a Greek Cross with large chapels in these features, some of them the result of last-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptertil / page 26

minute alterations, are not enough to restore a western end of town the avenue debouched into traditional organization to the chapel. Views a semicircular piazza in front of the palace foreemerge suddenly in the narrow passageways, court, and on the left (or southern) side of this and in them depth cannot be accurately gauged. stood the ancestor of Juvarra’s chapel, a small

As the light gathers in the chapels and turns to rectangular room (smaller than the chapel shadow in the passageways, it pulls the eye shown in Fig. 28) dedicated to the Virgin and from the choir and diffuses the focus. From the San Rocco, but containing relics of the patron of

galleries and chapels, where the royal family the hunt, St. Hubert. Behind this court came usually stood, the views are longer, more elabo- the cour d’honneur; it was closed by stables on rate, more intriguing than from the center. Criss- the south but opened on the other ,side to the crossed by these low-angled views from the Seronda River, and at the end was the Palazzo outer zone, the Greek Cross fades from one’s di Diana. Beyond it the main axis continued awareness, and the unfinished cupola is scarcely through the grotto fountain of Hercules along a missed. A central church without its dome is canal and allée until, at last, it came to a stop at almost a contradiction, but in Venaria a drum the island temple of Diana.

with a painting of a cupola was more than The whole was a curious hash of French enough. No eighteenth-century visitor men- ideas of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, tioned its absence, and in 1729 the fairly with some spicing from contemporary Rome. In

observant German traveler, Johann Georg spirit it was one with the utopian plans and Keyssler, even asserted that “the cupola is quite niggling elevations of the century before, such high” (Appendix m1, Doc. 15B). Where it was as Jacques Androuet du Cerceau’s engravings not necessary to pay attention to the dome, it of Charleval.” Its incorporation of a new rectan-

oT was easy to be deceived. cular town took after the more recent work at In short, the chapel is the perfect result of Richelieu, but brought about the alignment of Juvarra’s method, academic in form, freer in town and palace (apparently before Versailles). appearances. Like many of his works, however, Novel and thoroughly Piedmontese, however, it was put together after many shifts and was the air of a permanent setting for a triumcompromises; but in compensation for its long phal procession: the theatrical was preeminent history, it yields the clearest record in Juvarra’s at Venaria from its early stages. oeuvre of his procedure in the creation of open These discrepant sources made themselves

structure. evident in the self-contradictory planning.

That history begins in the late 1650’s when Despite the long seventeenth-century axis, Carlo Emanuele 11 and his architect, Amedeo di visual progress was, in earlier fashion, Castellamonte, started construction of a vast constantly interrupted. The town was the most and fantastic layout which included a new town unusual part of the complex; and the focus was for the nobles in front of a royal hunting lodge not the palace but the central piazza in town

set in flatland gardens (Appendix i1-A; Fig. (Fig. 28). At the critical juncture with the 28). From a triumphal arch at the eastern end, palace, the system disintegrated into picayune a broad avenue proceeded through the long buildings and spaces—into the little chapel, the

town until it came to the center. There it asymmetrical cour @honneur, and the timid swelled into a wide piazza with semicircular clock-tower that was unsuited either to stop arcades at either end to serve, in the original the eye or to lead it on to the (by now) anticliplan, as facades for two central churches dedi- max of the salon and belvedere. cated to St. Eusebius and the Virgin, so that the In construction, what little logic remained square had the appearance of Piazza Navona was confused by the failure to erect the central

and Sant’Agnese after a reshuffling. At the churches as originally planned. Their facades

FILIPPO JUVARRA AND THE CHAPEL AT VENARIA REALE chapter itl / page 27

were completed, but the northern church was the pavilion, thus dividing two spaces that soon changed to a small rectangular design ought to have conjoined. To put an end to these invisible from the piazza, and the southern one confusions, the drawings were sent to Mansart was probably little more than a small, tempo- for corrections, a practice not unknown among rary, or preexisting structure which in any smaller European courts at a time when French

century. follow.”

event was destroyed before the mid-eighteenth architecture was becoming the model to Precisely these weak spots were attacked by Although a French engineer was dispatched Vittorio Amedeo 11 and his architect, Michelan- in 1700 to start work on the buildings, it does

gelo Garove, beginning in 1699 (Appendix not seem that great changes were made by w-B ). The excuse for the work may have been Mansart or his shop. From 1700 to 1703 the damages wrought by French armies a few Garove built most of the southern wing in a years earlier; but the real reasons were to slightly shorter version, and apparently without enlarge the palace and bring it up to date by the chapel. Since Castellamonte’s chapel was French standards. Garove planned to sweep still standing in 1705, after work came to a halt, away the old hodgepodge of a forecourt by driv- It 1s conceivable that Garove’s plans were ing a long piazza, flanked by stables, deep into altered to relocate the chapel before the pavilion

the town, past Castellamonte’s semicircular in place of the stables of the forecourt. In the entrance, which was to be rebuilt in variant garden, meanwhile, the main allée was widened form closer to the central piazza of Venaria and the Tempio di Diana was razed, but the (Fig. 29). From the Palazzo di Diana to this Fontana d’Ercole was not touched. Thus it may piazza he thought to extend two new wings, be that, whether for lack of funds or by delibereach with a gallery between two large pavilions, ate design, emphasis was to be placed neither on

the terminal pavilion on the south enclosing a the gardens nor on the grand entrance courts, chapel, the one on the north a theater (Fig. 30). but on the southern buildings, as Juvarra was As in Castellamonte’s palace, the southern wing soon to do. was the more important one (though no longer Except for some minor damage by French the larger unit), for to the south of it spread a armies in 1705 and 1706 (Appendix m1-B), flower garden. Lastly the Fontana d’Ercole and Juvarra probably inherited the palace a decade the Tempio di Diana were both to be demol- later in much the condition in which Garove ished that the view might be freed along the had left it. His first sketch (Appendix m1, Cat. canal. In short, Garove cleared the central axis 1; Fig. 31) is the only one that shows what he

from beginning to end. had in mind for the layout as a whole. He

The arrangement of the cour @honneur and altered the massing of the Palazzo di Diana, wider forecourt leading to the edge of the town, kept the wings much as Garove had intended and perhaps the free axis in the garden, may them, with gardens opening off the southern have been inspired by an appropriate source, the gallery, and took over the plan to extend a long

chateau of Versailles. But Garove and the piazza into town. But he enlarged the chapel, king’s advisors were quite uncertain about the set it before the southern pavilion in place of latest in French tastes; Garove even criticized Garove’s stables, connected it to the palace by drawings in his own hand, possibly because some colonnades, and turned it to face across the elements were disapproved by more French- piazza towards a gate leading to the Seronda ified members of the court. Perhaps It was a River and a road to Caselle.

measure of Garove’s confusion that he placed an Juvarra thereby broke the symmetrical Italianate oval chapel within the rectangular advance on the salon of the Palazzo and turned corridors and tribunes or galleries defined by it at right angles towards the chapel instead.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter 111 / page 28

The chapel became the nexus of the long stretch Mansart as shown in the engravings of 1684. of buildings: it diverted attention from Castella- But he radically altered the scheme by a process monte’s unbuilt or modified churches in town that revealed his true concerns: from Mansart’s and the unimposing palace, and acted as the ponderous design he abstracted the views, aerial visual link between palace and village by reiter- qualities, and system of circulation. He thinned ating the cross axis of Castellamonte’s piazza. down the massive piers and sacrificed the dome Functionally, the chapel was split in two: the to a low, ribbed cross-vault, and at the same interior was for royal use only, since the towns- time made the apertures proportionately much people had their parish church, while the exte- larger and the peripheral zone more extensive rior was for public display, belonging as much than that of Mansart, whose gallery did not to the town as to the hunting palace. Partly in continue into the choir.

deference to this division, the facade was But apparently this project wasn’t large or always treated by Juvarra in his several projects grand enough. So Juvarra widened the galleries as a composition that was independent of the again, thickened and niched the piers, and with

church behind it, reflecting instead its position penciled corrections toyed with the idea of in the larger setting. Here in the first project substituting a dome for the cross-vault (Cat. (Fig. 31, 32), the interior is small and intimate, 4). It must have proved awkward, however, to its vault barely peeking over the pediment, transform this slight and rather shapeless early while the facade is on a much grander scale, scheme into a more imposing one, for Juvarra being modeled on nothing less than the facade abruptly abandoned the attempt and started of St. Peter’s, complete with its Benediction over again.

loggia. As in the first project, Juvarra began with

The interior began as a small oblong room, the core of the church (Cat. 5; Fig. 36), and vaguely shaped like a Greek Cross, with a low then step by step developed the surrounding vault on groups of narrow pillars that formed area: the very process of design exhibited that

open piers, and a gallery running within the contrast between the traditional pattern of facade and along the sides. (Cat. 2; Fig. 32). solids and the newer variations on open bounda-

In the presentation drawings (Cat. 3; Fig. ries which is to be seen in the church as it 33-35), Juvarra enlarged the piers to house stands. First he drew a schematic Greek Cross circular chapels with open domes, deepened the in which the piers defined an octagon and bore a

lateral arms so that the chapels could open to dome wider than in the earlier projects. But them, and brought wide galleries around the there were no galleries or corner chapels, and choir on arcades, as in San Lorenzo in Milan. although Juvarra left passageways in the piers Still, it was not nearly so open as the later and arms, he then fitted the exterior of the

projects: the galleries were barely visible church with steps that were concave in the behind the altars in the side arms; the chapels corners between the arms, thus precluding did not have as much light, since the galleries chapels there and making the passageways moved around them; and there were no passage- superfluous. In later pentimenti on the same

ways from the chapels to the center of the sheet, he broke away from the stiff and boxy

church, cast of his earlier designs and converted the If the exterior is Roman in its sources, the passageways in the piers to deep niches,

interior is French. As Garove may have done rounded the ends of the arms, and curved the before him, Juvarra looked to Versailles for a steps to either side of the facade, presumably model, and found it in the unexecuted Greek- with the idea of erecting bow-shaped wings for Cross chapel projects of Jules-Hardouin the piazza. Finally, he turned again to the idea

FILIPPO JUVARRA AND THE CHAPEL AT VENARIA REALE chapteril / page 29

of an outer zone and added two chapels in front, sanctioned examples for his form. No longer but without being able to integrate them with was the interior a thin abstraction of Mansart’s the church, since it had not been conceived for chapel: it imitated its substance as well. But at

them. the same time his mixture of sources became From this transitional sketch, Juvarra more complex, and his efforts to overlay them proceeded, perhaps through a series of lost with his own ornaments and theatrical views drawings, to the project he wished to execute, grew bolder. The piers owed their two levels of the lightest, most open, and least focused of his openings to Mansart’s chapel, but their diago-

designs (Cat. 6-10; Fig. 37-40). nal passageways were copied from the InvaIn the front entrance, a spindly singer’s loft lides,* while Palladio’s Il Redentore supplied and its crowning baldacchino set the theme of the model for the choir colonnade. To disguise

an airy, fanciful cage for the entire church the heaviness of his models, Juvarra now (Cat. 7) and competed for attention on almost devised the thin skin of articulation that partly

equal terms with the main altar. The galleries obscures the bulk of the masonry. And in were once again brought around the arms, but suppressing the dome while emphasizing the now revealed themselves behind the altars and periphery, Juvarra must have taken new did not cut off light from the chapels in the rear. encouragement from his theater studies.

The choir was ringed with giant columns that In 1706, at exactly the time that he began to no longer carried a gallery as the arcades had imitate Bibiena’s “scena per angolo” in Naples, done—the visual rather than the practical func- Juvarra had applied these views to a design for tion of the outer zone took precedence. Most a hospital church that was a direct forerunner of

important, the piers opened both to the center the chapel at Venaria Reale (Fig. 41). His and to the arms, at floor level and in the gallery, sketch plan shows a central church with numerwith windows behind all the passageways (Fig. ous piers, domed spaces, and deep chapels.* ‘To 37, 38). Though the structure was far grander judge the views of the windows in the periphery, than before, it was also more subservient to the he then drew in sight lines which originate not views and light. And to sum up the openness of from dead center or from the aisles, as might be

the scheme, the structure was perforated at a expected, but from the edge of the crossing. crucial point, the pendentives (Fig. 38). From that point, the beholder would have seen As the outer zone became more and more a Bibienesque disarray of piers, domes, chapels, effective, the center was not played up corre- and windows. This is one of the first definite spondingly. On the contrary, the dome was records of the angular viewpoint in architecture. settled directly on the pendentives. The great At Venaria Reale, design and usage enforced

piers, created with such difficulty, were similar viewpoints. deprived of their traditional function, the By this process of accretion Juvarra elimisupport of a great dome: their thickness was nated the unbroken wall areas, transformed the merely an excuse to make room for larger chap- outer zone into the dominant one, and awakened

els and diagonal passageways to the center. Mansart’s more perfunctory views to life.

Here is the surest proof of the irrelevance of the At this stage of the design, the facade dome in Juvarra’s mind, and of the contradic- became still more closely integrated with its tion between the traditional form of the walls larger setting, for the curving wings echoed the and their subservience to the views that traverse semicircular arcades of the piazza in town. But

them. its connection with the church remained so Characteristically, the larger and heavier the superficial that Juvarra could compose two very

church became, the more Juvarra relied on different alternatives for the central section on

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter 111 / page 80

the same plan (Cat. 6). On both sides the facade and its connection to the chapels (Cat. facade rose as a giant aedicula, but the one on 10). He enlarged the vestibule with niches at the right moved in sinuous undulations and either end to shorten the passageways through included an arabesquing singers’ loft in a curv- the piers, and replaced the giant Berninesque ing vestibule (Cat. 6, 7, 8; Fig. 37, 39), while aedicula with two tiers of smaller orders. ‘The the one on the left came forward in rigid steps exterior as a whole, with its curving wings, to a semicircular portico and enclosed a rectan- came to resemble Louis Le Vau’s Collége des cular vestibule. (Cat. 69; Fig. 37, 40). One Quatre-Nations.** But this was still before was blithe and elegant, the other sober and Juvarra had drawn up the cupola to the height pompous; only the ornamental mood of the of Le Vau’s. Consequently, the church would piazza and entrance was of consequence. In the have looked then (as it does today) like an stepped design the disjuncture between facade irregular heap of lanterns, roofs, and stubby and church was such as to require a long tunnel dome which do not cohere to the facade and through the pier from the vestibule to the wings—a caricature of Juvarra’s “picturesque” chapel; and even though Juvarra seems to have style (Fig. 23).

left an awkward connection between the Just before work began in the spring of passageway and vestibule, he asked his superin- 1716, three major alterations were made: the

tendent to put this version into execution cupola was raised on a drum, the pendentives

(perhaps as a model or presentation draw- were closed (Fig. 43), and the diagonal ing—see Cat. 6). The resolution of such details passageways were filled with niches, presumain plan was not Juvarra’s strong point, and bly to strengthen the piers for the support of the

besides, it was the general appearance that heavier superstructure, and perhaps to house

mattered. the statues that were added later.” In short,

For both variations Juvarra fell back on stud- the openings were dampered, and the center ies he had made, again in 1706, of Bernini’s was restored to its traditional dominance. Again Sant’Andrea al Quirinale in Rome” (Fig. 42). and again, Juvarra backed away at the last In Bernini’s facade the plain and straight aed1- moment from the more aerial, theatrical and cula is a foil for the countering arcs of piazza personal dreams of his sketches for a sturdier and church; in Juvarra’s it bends in an easy and more academic reality. curve while breaking into slender columns and But more than Juvarra’s hesitations may a pediment as curly as an eighteenth-century have played a part. Vittorio Amedeo m1, like wig. It absorbs the movement into itself, steals Louis xIv at the same time, had become a the scene from the piazza and church, and devout, puritanical, even dour man in his last becomes an ornamental gateway isolated on a years.” ‘Theatrical performances, the center of stage. Perhaps for similar reasons, Juvarra court life in the seventeenth century, became barely sketched the body of the church behind rare and sporadic in the early eighteenth.” the facade in two other variations, and elimi- Wars and mourning periods were ostensibly the nated it entirely from his elevation of the step- reasons, but Vittorio seems to have given them ped facade for Venaria, as did his assistant in a more than their due. Very few of Juvarra’s theadrawing of the sinuous version (Cat. 8, 9; Fig. ter drawings date from his years in Piedmont, 39, 40). The special circumstances of Venaria and none can be associated with a specific merely confirmed Juvarra’s habit of splitting performance.” In Garove’s time there was to elevations into independent accents loosely have been a grand theater at Venaria, but not in arrayed in depth, like the wings of a stage set. Juvarra’s. Now the chapel was to be the cynoIn a slightly later variant Juvarra simplified the sure. It follows that the theatrical mood of the

FILIPPO JUVARRA AND THE CHAPEL AT VENARIA REALE chapteri11 / page 31

chapel was due to Juvarra’s own inclinations, window behind the tabernacle was derived from even if he found some confirmation in the tradi- Bernini’s work on the apse. The dedication took tions of the court of Savoy. The opposing spirit place on June 7, 1732, at which time the chapel

may have come in part from the king. received the relics of St. Hubert, probably those Between 1716 and 1719 (Doc. 2-5) the once in Castellamonte’s chapel, and of St. Eusechurch was erected to the height of the drum. bius, perhaps those intended for CastellaThen suddenly, in 1720, construction came to a monte’s church of St. Eusebius in the town halt (Doc. 6). When it resumed the following (Doc. 16). year, the intention was only to put the chapel Why, then, the mutilation of the church? It into shape for services, largely a matter of deco- isn’t likely that the piers were thought to be too ration (Doc. 7). The dome was abandoned and weak, because the dome that Juvarra designed

the drum was covered with a painting of a was not heavy, and a generation later under cupola (Doc. 7B). The musicians’ loft was Carlo Emanuele m1 there apparently was deprived of its columns and canopy, and thought of erecting it without any structural reduced to a small wooden platform on brackets alterations (Cat. 19). In part the change was

(Doc. 7E; Cat. 14). Altar paintings were due to a general shortage of building funds commissioned from some of the most famous coupled with the king’s desire to get on with painters in Rome (Doc. 8): Francesco Trevi- other work at Venaria. When construction of sani, Giuseppe Chiari, Sebastiano Conca (who the chapel stopped in 1720, the pavilion next to also executed the work originally given to it was brought to completion (Doc. 6), and in Chiari), and Benedetto Luti (who died in 1724 mid-1722 contracts were let for the large stables and was replaced by Sebastiano Ricci from and orangery behind the church (Doc. 9). But Venice). The main altar was redesigned more more than 50,000 lire were spent on the paintelaborately, with a tabernacle in the form of an Ings, statues, and altars, almost as much as was open tempietto (Cat. 15), and, together with needed to complete the basic fabric of the build-

the four other altars, was temporarily ing through 1718. Surely, then, there was constructed in wood (Doc. 7). Probably at this enough to build the moderate-sized dome and time, too, the oculi of the chapels in the rear still leave money for the necessary furnishings were enlarged to bring more light to the altars.” and ornaments. Perhaps the answer is an An even stronger orientation towards the sanc- aesthetic one—that the dome had never been tuary was in these ways asserted, and the musi- deemed essential. cians’ loft no longer competed with it, no longer No doubt for the same reasons that curtailed

was a keynote of the church. work on the dome, the facade remained A few years later there was money for the unfinished, without its stucco or columns, and chapel once again; in 1724-25 the lateral altars _—stthe old buildings at the edge of town were left

were remade in marble to receive the paintings, jutting out in front of it. Towards 1750, the as was the main altar, which grew ever more above-mentioned project was drawn up, almost exuberant and impressive; and in 1728 the four certainly by Benedetto Alfieri, then the chief statues of the fathers of the church—the work architect to Carlo Emanuele m1 (Cat. 19). of Giovanni Baratta of Genoa—were placed in Besides the dome, it called for the construction the pier niches to complete the decoration (Doc. of two towers flanking the facade, a square 14). The arrangement was an obvious variation extending into town, and a curving gate dupli-

on themes from St. Peter’s: the four statues cating the church facade across the piazza. imitated its crossing sculpture in placement and Alfieri despised the least untidiness, and the bell

the Cathedra in subject matter; and the oval towers would have pulled together the exterior,

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapteri11 / page 32

while bringing it into closer relation to the Piedmontese architecture. As a royal church church in town, which Alfieri now intended to with deep galleries, it was not a likely model for

reconstruct with a dome and two towers the smaller parish churches which were the (Appendix m1-A). But since only the western usual commissions of Juvarra’s followers. But campanile of the chapel was built, matters were even the few churches that derive from it, such made worse. T’o quote Claude-Nicolas Cochin: as the parish church of Murisengo (Appendix

“The exterior of this church has not been Iv; Fig. 44), fail to capture its visual qualifinished; but it looks as if 1t will be a confusing ties—the sense of looking through a massive medley of buildings of different heights and in structure, the expansion into an indeterminate

different styles” (Doc. 17). If that was not surrounding zone, the dispersion of views and quite what Juvarra intended, it was not entirely viewpoints. That richness and freedom, in

opposed to it. combination with a Roman grandeur and order, The chapel at Venaria had little influence on were uniquely Juvarra’s.

NOTES 1. Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. 21: 5. Turin, Collection Adriano Tournon, Ju“Fu di naturale allegro, di buona conversa- varra volume 1 (Rovere-Viale-Brinck-

zione, e molto amico de’ divertimenti. mann, Juvarra, p. 158), f. 61, no. 87, Chiunque volea da lui un disegno, n’era 27 x 20 cm., inscribed “Atrio Real nel servito immantinente, ma se gli dava tempo, medemo teatro di Napoli Vano 1706,”

difficilmente gliel cavava pit dalle which refers to a drawing on f. 60, no. 85, mani”—undoubtedly meaning that he kept 27x 20 cm., “Sala Reggia nel Teatro di

the drawings for himself, not that he Napoli nel afio 1706.” The importance of

labored over them. the first drawing is pointed out by M. Viale

2, [lustrations of the silver work and some Ferrero in Mostra del Barocco Piemontese, similar architectural decoration in M. I, Scenografia, p. 22, pl. 12. Accascina, “Argentieri di Messina: Sebas- 6. As demonstrated in a brilliant discussion tiano Juvara, Giuseppe d’Angelo, Filippo by M. Viale Ferrero in Tempi e aspetti Juvara,” Bollettino d’Arte, xxxiv, 1949, della scenografia, ed. M. Bernardi, Turin, pp. 240-48; zdem, “La formazione artistica 1954, pp. 76ff. Unfortunately, the freedom di Filippo Juvara,” Bollettino d’Arte, x11, of Juvarra’s draftsmanship in his stage 1956, pp. 38-52, xLu, 1957, pp. 50-62, scenes has sometimes led critics to overlook

150-62. their firm underlying design: see my dis-

3. See the anonymous eighteenth-century cussion of a drawing attributed to him in biography, “Vita del cavaliere don Filippo the collection of the Royal Institute of Juvara” in Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, British Architects, Burlington Magazine,

Juvarra, p. 22. cIx, 1967, pp. 51-52.

4. For example, the rather French Casino 7. “Vita del cavaliere don Filippo Juvara,” Vaini in Rome, illustrated in E. Couden- Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. 25;

hove-Erthal, Carlo Fontana und _ die Correspondance des directeurs de

Architektur des Rémischen Spatbarock, Pacadémie de France &@ Rome, ed. A. De

Vienna, 1930, pp. 1O9ff. Montaiglon, Paris, 1889, m1, p. 307. The

FILIPPO JUVARRA AND THE CHAPEL AT VENARIA REALE chaptert11 / page 33

importance that Juvarra attached to his “Questa, € una piccola idea, dell disegio drawings is indicated by his practice of (sic), che deve farssi in quest’afio 1706: collecting and labeling them much more secondo il quesito, dato dalla medema carefully than did many architects of the Accademia, cioé, Un foro, nel prospetto seventeenth and _ eighteenth centuries principale; una Chiesa con ospidale con il

(Appendix 1). servitio di Uomini, e Donne, diviso, e

8. Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. 22, distinto nel fiancho. . . .” Three related

from the anonymous biography of the designs are f. 43, no. 60, 21x19 cm.,

eighteenth century. showing a central design at the end of an

9. W. Lotz, “Die ovalen Kirchenraume des octagonal court; f. 47, no. 66, 20 x 26 cm.,

Cinquecento,” Rédmisches Jahrbuch fiir inscribed by Juvarra, “Questa pianta fu Kunstgeschichte, vu, 1955, fig. 45, pp. fatta in Napoli per il quesito della prima 71-72, and p. 72, n. 5. Lotz suggests that classe del Architettura Jlanho 1706,” this project may have influenced eighteenth- (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. 35

century architects in the North. and p. 48) which has a central church at 10. Juvarra thus antedated the main period of the end of a court with semicircular ends; interest in Borromini among Roman archi- and f. 22, no. 30, 20x25 cm. (idid., pl.

tects, the 1720’s through the 1740’s, and 34), with a longitudinal church. The his project was much more open and skele- theatrical quality of Venaria can be tal than the later Roman churches derived compared with that of San Giorgio in from the Oratorio di San Filippo Neri or Modena, built in the mid-seventeenth the Propaganda Fide, such as Giuseppe century as a Greek Cross with open piers, Sardi’s SS. Quaranta Martiri of the 1740's. which was described by Lalande as having Conceivably, it was based on a project “plutét Pair d’une salle de bal, que d’un lieu which Passeri says Borromini made for the saint” (Voyage d’un francois en Italie fait sacristy (G. Passeri, Vite de’Pittort . . . , dans l'années 1765 & 1766, Venice—Paris,

Rome, 1722, p. 388. ) 1769, 1, p. 552). When Juvarra traveled

11. J. A. du Cerceau, Les plus excellents basti- through Italy in 1716, he drew a plan of

ments de France ... , Paris, 1579, 1. these piers (Collection Ing. Vincenzo 12. For example, see the work of Robert de Fontana, Turin, Juvarra-Vittone volume,

Cotte for the Elector of Cologne: P. f. 80; A. Griseri, “Itinerari juvarriani,” Marcel, Inventaire des Papiers Manuscrits Paragone, vit, 93, 1957, p. 53).

du Cabinet de Robert de Cotte..., 15. Turin, Collection Adriano Tournon,

Paris, 1906, pp. 166ff. Juvarra volume 1, f. 68, no. 98, 26 x 20 13. Illustrations of the Invalides were available cm., dated “a 2[1?] Aprile 1706 in Roma” to Juvarra in J. Marot, Description géné- (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pil.

rale de hostel royale des Invalides, Paris, 64); f. 69, nos. 99 (above) and 100

1683. (below) (Fig. 42), 26.5 x 19 cm. A fourth

14. Turin, Collection of Adriano Tournon, version is in Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale,

Juvarra, volume 1, f. 43v, no. 61, 21x 19 Riserva 59-4, a volume of Juvarra’s cm., pen and_ pencil; Rovere-Viale- sketches, most of them prior to 1715 (see Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. 33 and p. Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. 48. The reproduction does not show the 156), f. 126, 9 x 13 cm.; it resembles nos. completion of the church as a central 98 and 100 of the Tournon volume. design in pencil. Inscribed by Juvarra: 16. In the seventeenth century Le Vau’s facade

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapteri11 / page 34

! assiqu 1, fig. “ bap) ° ° ° -

was reproduced in an engraving by Israel Kifer fiir seine Religion verfalle, auch davon Silvestre (L. Hautecoeur, Histoire de offenbare Proben in Drucke an den Tag lege.

mo classique en Brance, 1 1, ig G. Claretta, La corte e la societa Torinese 7 Althoush construction started in April della meta del secolo xvu al principio del at the latest. the wooden model wasn’t xvi, Florence, 1891, pp. 62-63, published paid for until November (Doc. 2D, E) the diary of a Frenchman at the court of Nevertheless, it is clear that a detailed Turin, who “P orts that after a rakish project existed when Juvarra gave his youth, the king “faisait alors [after 1700] ceneral instructions on March 8, 1716, sa principale occupation des affairs de son because he describes the socles quite speci- consell ae laissant que peu de temps 4

,.;.:

fically (Doc. 2B). Moreover, this design Pamour.” Claretta adds that he now dressed was surely close to the executed work— simply, and became quite religious. Again, i.e., was probably not the small project— the rather disgruntled John Breval, who because he 50 “le are described nearly visited Turin in 1726, reports (Remarks on

identical terms, in a contract of Febru- the Several P arts of Europe .. . collected ary 1717 (Doc. 3C). Finally, the altera- upon the Spot in several Tours since the tions mentioned in the text were almost Year 1723, London, 1738, p. 286): certainly made before the work began, The lustre of his [Vittorio Amedeo 11’s] Court, since the drum, which implies the closed indeed, (which was distinguished above all those pendentives and the stronger piers, with on the other side of the Alps, in Madame Royale niches, is mentioned in the main contract of his Mother’s Time) was quite in its Decadence;

March 31, 1716 (Doc. 2C). and as the King, on his side, did not care for the

18. (Etienne de Silhouette), Voyage de Pomp of Levies, so the Queen his Consort lived

France, d’Espagne, de Portugal, et d’Italie on hers, rather as the Superior of a Monastery,

par M. S.*** Du 22 Avril 1729 au 6 than the Partner of a Kingdom. As for the Cour-

ar ,; ; tiers, the reserve enjoined them by their Sover-

Février 1730, Paris, 1770, 1, pp. 54-55: eign was carried to that Degree of Cautiousness, La Cour de Turin n’est pas, dit-on, si brillante from a Diffidence habitual enough to the Piedqu’elle étoit autrefois. Le Roi a été fort galant montese, that a Stranger had scarce any oppordans sa jeunesse, aujourd’hui qu'il a soixante- tunities of contracting an Acquaintance with, or quatre ans, il a pris le parti de Ja devotion, & getting any information fromthem. . . .

cest agir en homme sage & prudent qui ne veut

jamais que ce qu’il peut. Le Prince & la Prin- 19. No plays at all were given in 1697-98 and

cesse de Piémont sont dune _ dévétion 1704-1714 on account of war, and in

exemplaire; il y a chez la Princesse un cercle; 172425 and 1729 because of deaths in the

mais toute cette Cour n’est point animée. royal family (G. Sacerdote, I] Teatro

Kevssl N Re; Regio di Torino, Turin, 1892). S. Cordero

circh Ten tee Réhme, Us sen. die di Pamparato, /] Teatro Regio dal 1678 al Schweitz, Italien und Lothrin on : 1814, Turin, 1930, pp. 78-79, reports that

iy 751. Ond ed . 1 7? the Teatro Ducale remained closed from Octoh, 3 " , ed., 1, p. 176, letter 1704 to 1722, and that the “teatrino di of Uctober 28, 1729: corte” was closed in this period except for Der Konig von Sardinien, nach dem Exempel 1718. Ludwigs der Vierzehnten, bey zunehmenden 20. M. Ferrero Viale, in Mostra del Barocco Alter mehr auf eine ausserliche Strenge und Piemontese, 1, Scenografia, no. 47, and La

FILIPPO JUVARRA AND THE CHAPEL AT VENARIA REALE chaptert1r / page 35

scenografia del Settecento e i fratelli The figures, for which no model is Galliari, Turin, 1963, p. 9 attempts to date mentioned, were subcontracted to Giovanni several stage drawings by Juvarra (Museo Baratta, who was to make two bishop saints

Civico, vol. 1, ff. 19-30) in his Turinese for the retable (undoubtedly Sts. Hubert

period on grounds of style. and Eusebius: Doc. 16), two putti for the 21. The openings were the same size in 1719 crown of the ciborium, four large angels,

(Cat. 12A). and 12 cherub heads. Except for the

22. The main altar and the figural sculpture angels, the statues were to be completed by raise several problems. In the first project Oct. 1, 1725. In the executed version, the the altar was rectangular in plan, with four large angels are above the main lateral

rectangular steps, a design maintained altars and the two putti on the ciborium. through 1719 (Cat. 11A, 12A, 13A). Its But the two saints apparently were not ciborium was simpler than the executed carved: they are not shown in a careful one, without projecting columns, and was mid-eighteenth-century drawing of the

set fairly low over the retable (Cat. altar (Cat. 19, f. 17r). Instead, they were 13A-C). The next drawings, carefully replaced by two angels which raise the made for presentation (Cat. 15A—C), show tabernacle considerably higher than in the the ciborium and concave altar in their earlier projects. In addition, the chapel has

executed form. These drawings must have many more cherub heads than in the been made for the elaborate painted wood contract. These changes could well have altars built in 1721, for which the steps been made along with the decision to have were curved (Doc. 7A,D; Cat. 15D). In Baratta carve the four large statues of the 1723, seven large and four small statues doctors of the church (Sts. Ambrose, were gilded and bronzed apparently for Augustine, Athanasius, and John Chrysosdelivery to the chapel (Doc. 11); if that tom) —if they had been planned as early was their destination, the sculptural as 1725 (Doc. 14). They overshadowed the program differed from the later ones. In the bishop saints and may have suggested a agreements of 1724-25 (Doc. 12B, 13), richer program and a more prominent cibothe altars were to be redone in marble on rium. Lastly, in 1728 Baratta delivered the the design of the wooden ones, and the four large statues and the four small angels

stone steps were also to be remade, no or putti that go with them (Doc. 14B). doubt in their present form. In a section One document mentions eight small figures drawing from this phase (Cat. 15D), the (Doc. 14A); Iam unable to account for the

ciborium was still set on a low pedestal. extra four.

CHAPTER IV

’‘;°

The Genesis

of Sant’ Andrea in Chier1

MALL and unimposing, the church of lower entablature, and then were linked by

S Sant’Andrea in Chieri was nevertheless an cartouches to huge windows; these dipped down

important building in the history of Pied- into the upper entablature and moved high into montese architecture. It marked a considerable the vault, eliminating most of the connective change in Juvarra’s style, was a source for masonry. Thus the periphery was open, and yet many of Vittone’s churches, and paralleled the the church was compact and unified. Since the last widespread change in open structures, that shafts rose unbroken to the lantern, the vault

of the Rococo. became the continuation of the body of the

As shown by newly-discovered drawings, it church, rather than an enclosing lid; and the was a small Greek Cross with shallow, rounded traditional hemispherical dome was_ transarms, a domed sanctuary, and a long choir for formed into a billowing cross-vault, with only a the nuns concealed behind the altar wall (Cat. suggestion of the dome remaining as coffering 7TA,B; Fig. 54, 55). Externally, it was stripped on the ribs. Then the vertical movement contindown to a hull that reflected the stress on the ued beyond the church into a huge lantern, as interior (Cat. 3; Fig. 51). A small facade was tall as the vault. pasted onto the entrance arm, but above this the For the structure, the real and ornamental

church apparently had little articulation, and frameworks were fused and clearly exthe vault was roofed in simple North Italian posed to view. The orders were welded to the fashion. Internally, the cylindrical core rose piers, the window frames helped to stiffen the

within a skeleton of four piers and ribs. vaults, and the ribs were not the thin bands of Several details made it seem that the shafts many earlier vaults, but rather true armatures. stood detached from the outer walls: large niches It was a cooperative system in which the vault

pushed behind them, the piers were curved in was buttressed by the lunettes, and the piers plan in contrast to the adjacent arches, and the were stiffened by the extension of the arms bevaults swelled away from the ribs. Between the hind them. The masonry could therefore be shafts, the arches over the arms severed the made extremely thin; and the appearance of page 36

THE GENESIS OF SANT’ ANDREA IN CHIERI chaptertv / page 37

weight was reduced still more by illusion—the Next came the Soperga, designed in 1716.* arches of the arms, for example, appear to sup- It was conceived by Vittorio Amedeo as a votive

port little more than the window frames. and burial church raised, with an attendant monOne detail sums up the structural design. On astery, on the hill overlooking Turin. As illusthe piers there are pilasters below, and three- trated by two of Juvarra’s capricci,’ the Soperga quarter columns above. Had there been two was seen as the resplendent counterpart of tiers of semicolumns, they would have seemed Vitozzi’s Capucin church and monastery farther

more like an independent scaffolding, not one down towards the city (Fig. 46). At first bonded to the piers. If both had been pilasters, Juvarra followed Vitozzi and planned a nearly

they would have seemed mere decoration, free-standing church with the monastery whereas in Sant’Andrea the structural function farther down on the far side of the hill (Fig. of the orders is made evident where the columns 47). The church was a Greek Cross with four carry the ribs. By reversing the traditional corner chapels and a shallow portico; its dome superposition of pilasters on columns, Juvarra was low and drumless, but in compensation defied the normal sense of load and support. four (or, less probably, two) towers rose from The church seems not only permeable but the corner chapels like minarets. As yet Juvarra

weightless. was uncertain whether the core was to be octagThis type of church, with a tall octagonal onal or cylindrical, whether there were to be cylindrical core rising straight up into the columns in front of the piers to carry a narrower dome, was one of the few recurrent themes in dome, and how he was to integrate the corner the diversity of Juvarra’s ideas. In a series of chapels with the central area. such projects extending throughout his career, The answers came with a radical change in the

Juvarra slowly evolved the system of design. Perched on the slope, the monastery

Sant’Andrea.* demanded huge and costly embankments. To The first design was submitted to the Acca- avoid them, Juvarra brought the convent to the demia di San Luca in 1707’ (Fig. 45). It con- summit and partly embedded the church in its sisted of an octagonal church flanked by two facade, an arrangement used by Fontana in the campanili and set within a semicircular piazza late seventeenth century for the church of St. bordered in French style by row palaces. The Ignatius in Loyola.® Therefore he raised up the

curved setting, the two lateral towers, and the dome to soar over the monastery, and body and drum were inspired by a church that contracted the arms and chapels into the Carlo Fontana had proposed to erect in the Colos- compact body of the church.

seum.’ But Juvarra brought light ito the Now the scaffolding of columns becomes the church and forced up its true and, still more, its heart of the design (Fig. 48). No longer merely apparent height. He cut many large openings decorative in appearance, it gives the illusion of into its thick shell, piled up tier upon tier to give helping to support the drum and dome. That

the effect of height, and, more important for impression is the more effective because the later developments, erected pronounced lines of piers behind the columns have been opened columns, ornaments, and ribs in the corners. considerably to incorporate the chapels and tribBut the great apertures contest the thickness of unes. Against the light yellow stone of the piers the walls, the tier-on-tier arrangement inter- the columns are set off by their dark marble— rupts the vertical drive, and the columnar their splendor was one of the chief attractions scaffoldings are independent decorations that for the eighteenth-century observer’—and the fail to bring out the consolidation of the two structures are further differentiated in plan.

masonry into piers. On the exterior, the Soperga is essentially a

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapteriv / page 38

cylinder; inside, the beveled piers delimit an order and located on an open site, quite possibly octagon; and in the center, the columns reassert on the hill as a lesser, more feminine Soperga.

the cylinder as the resolution of the geometrical In the Soperga, Juvarra had split apart a system. Where the columns meet the main heavy structure in accordance with his early entablature, the disjunction between octagon style. Now he began to consolidate it into a light and cylinder becomes most pronounced.* But and skeletal system. No longer was the support-

above that all is healed: the drum is cylindrical, ing structure largely hidden in the walls; the upper columns are pressed into it, and their instead the masonry in the diagonal axes lines are continued by the ribs of the dome. protruded slightly to form narrow piers. In Thus the framework determines the strong front of them free-standing columns were verticality of the interior, the more so because paired more closely than in the Soperga, and it bypasses the constriction of pendentives both the columns and the piers were curved in expected in a Greek Cross church. In short, it plan. Therefore they had to be seen together as suggests a cooperative structure and becomes complex shafts; and they rose unhindered

essential to the spatial effect. through two broken entablatures. Between This was the model project. But Juvarra soon these shafts the voids were lined up and joined realized that the short portico would not show by ornament: the arches of the choir and of the clearly in the frontal view from Turin, and elon- lower windows were linked to the oval windows gated it to emulate the Pantheon’s. The church in the attic and these in turn to the larger open-

now presented a noble face to the city, but a ings in the vault. Externally the cooperative distorted one to the spectator on the hill: from structure became a real one, with large volutes the small piazza, the porch appears severely to buttress the piers, and lunette vaults to stiffen foreshortened, and its pediment cuts into the the main one. The lunettes also broke up the view of the church.” To the eye of a topographi- hemispherical silhouette—the exterior was now cal and theatrical draftsman, the distant and subordinate to the interior.

pictorial view was preferable to the nearer, A few years later, Sant’Andrea was built for

more sculptural one. the Cistercian nuns of Chieri, just over the hill The turning point towards the new style of from Turin (Appendix v). According to G. B. Sant’Andrea came with the designs for San Sacchetti, Juvarra’s assistant, the designs were

Raffaele in Turin.” The projects, never prepared in 1728. That would make neat executed, were prepared for Maria Giovanna history if true, for then Sant’Andrea would be Battista de Nemours, the mother of Vittorio the first building in Juvarra’s later style, as well Amedeo. She died in 1724, and the style of the as the archetype for many to come. In any drawings suggests a date after the Soperga. event, Sacchetti wasn’t far wrong, because the Perhaps they were made about 1718 when church was ready for consecration in 1733. In Juvarra began the reconstruction of the Palazzo the 1760's the king enlarged the convent for one

Madama for the Queen Mother. of his daughters—possibly the nuns had One project, known only in plan, was for a previously held royal favor, which would circular church with a dome on pendentives: explain how Juvarra became their architect. In the other and more pertinent one was tall and the early nineteenth century, French armies nearly cylindrical (Fig. 49, 50). Both had three destroyed the church, but the convent still exists entrances and a deep choir, and the first project as a school. Across the street from the weedwas surrounded by a colonnaded porch, which grown site of the church lies a semicircular suggests that the church was intended as a piazza of low houses decorated in a crude eightpilgrimage shrine to be served by a religious eenth-century manner; Juvarra or his followers

THE GENESIS OF SANT’ ANDREA IN CHIERI chapteriv / page 89

may have planned it as a piazza, a “teatro,” for completely grouped into narrow supports and

the church.” open areas, and superfluities such as the attic In the words of an early nineteenth-century were eliminated. The piers were detached from historian, Sant’Andrea looked like a “more deli- the arms by niches, the orders were incorpo-

cate version of the Soperga” (Doc. 2; Fig. rated into the piers, and the bands of the vault 51-55). But Juvarra began his designs with a were converted to ribs resting on the columns; low vault and small windows, and then, in a in short, true shafts were forged as distinct and progression common in his work, raised and continuous structures. At the same time, the enlarged them. In Venaria Reale and the remaining ligaments between the shafts were Soperga, this was primarily for external gran- cut away by the large niches, by the lower deur. But in the later projects, for the salon of arches, and by the great windows of the vault Stupinigi, the Carmine, the Duomo Nuovo, and —now a domical cross-vault and not a dome.

Sant’Andrea, it was due more to the desire for The result was the first church in the series

light and for spaciousness. with a lithe, unitary framework and an unmisIn a facade sketch of an early project, the takable double boundary, and so the first to be roof of the vault barely peeked over the drum in harmony with the flow of light and air that and arms, and no windows opened below the had prevailed from the start. vault (Cat. 3; Fig. 51). Then, in a cross-section Sant’Andrea was, however, much smaller

for the second project (Cat. 4; Fig. 52), than the other churches, 27 meters high to the Juvarra raised the church as high as the final top of the vault as compared with 53 meters for version, though the core was still somewhat the Accademia project and 51 for the Soperga.

wider, and drew small oval windows in the It was also a secluded church for cloistered vault, which he then changed to larger rectan- nuns, whereas the others were public monugles. At the same time, he experimented with ments. Obviously it belongs with those interiarches that curved back along the circumfer- ors, such as Borromini’s Oratorio, in which ence of the core. Structural ingenuity of this smallness invited a skeletal system. Yet such sort had been the rarest thing in Juvarra’s conditions were hardly essential to its innovaoeuvre; but for the moment he responded to the tions—certainly they did not hold for one of aesthetic demand for an integral framework by Juvarra’s similar and almost contemporary ' smoothing the connection between the piers and designs for the Duomo Nuovo in Turin, which

the arches. When he enlarged the windows still soared to three times the height of further, however, he backed down (as usual) Sant'Andrea” (Fig. 65). from the more uncommon solution. In a detail The differences were therefore a matter of sketch of the upper windows (Cat. 5; Fig. 53), style. As proof, one need only compare that area which was crucial to the entire Sant’Andrea with Juvarra’s Borrominesque scheme, Juvarra straightened the arches, project of 1714-15 for the sacristy of St. Peter’s restored the full entablature to the arms, and (Fig. 21). Its piers were equally slim, its outer inserted the semicircular “Roman _ bath” boundary even more open: the skeletal system windows. Finally, he narrowed the core again, per se was not new.” If the changes were subtle, brought the windows down into the entablature they were nonetheless revolutionary. The piers

(Cat. 6), and combined some details of the in the sacristy, like those in the Oratorio dei sanctuary and arms from his early cross- Filippini and the church of the Propaganda sections to establish the definitive project (Cat. Fide, were tightly woven by straight entabla-

7A, B; Fig. 54,55). tures, with no arches to cut them. One would In contrast to San Raffaele, the structure was have been conscious of the bars of the cage; in

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapteriv / page 40

Sant'Andrea of the interstices. The full struc- of overlaying an accepted model with theatrical

ture and interior of the Sacristy could never views and lights, as in Venaria Reale and the have been clearly seen; and any unity of detail Sacristy project, Juvarra altered the structure

was dispersed by Juvarra’s early style. itself. Sant’Andrea is therefore the first of This suave integration of frail structure was, Juvarra’s buildings that is original in its bones,

of course, a characteristic of the Rococo. not just its appearances. Juvarra might have found a parallel in the Undoubtedly the format of the church had smoothly knitted ornaments of France, where some bearing on its evolution, for the tall, he had been in 1718-19 and in early 1721; and straight body called attention to the vertical he would have found an even greater deflation framework and the zone of light and air above. of the monumental style in the works of Filippo Given the advantages of the format, it 1s more

Raguzzini in Rome, which he had visited in understandable why Piedmontese churches of 1725.” But neither contributed any details to the eighteenth century in the lighter kind of Sant’Andrea, and neither alone could have open structure were rarely oval or longitudinal,

helped him much with its structure. and still more rarely Greek Crosses with That structure came partly from the essential pendentives: the former were, in Italy, rather process in the long evolution: the transforma- low, and the latter were constricted by the tion of the ornamental to the functional, notably pendentives. Sant’Andrea offered the most the change of the columns, ribs, and window systematic rendering of the tall format, and so frames into active supports. It was a process became the major prototype of Vittone’s inherent in the ambiguity between real and churches. Juvarra’s later interiors were somesymbolic structure in Italian architecture, and times more daring and unusual, but precisely foreshadowed by Borromini’s Oratorio. Instead for that reason they were less often followed.

NOTES 1. Brinckmann was the first to study this se- reported that he would bring in his accept-

ries but his conclusions were limited be- ance project within eight days, but he cause of his failure to identify Sant’Andrea didn’t oblige until April 3; see A. Tellucin Chierl (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Ju- cini, “Contributo alla Biografia di Filippo

varra, pp. 119ff.) Juvara, Architetto Messinese,” Archivio 2. Inthe Tournon collection in Turin, Juvarra Storico Messinese, vi11, 1907, pp. 19ff. The

volume 1, there are two preparatory final drawings, which show part of the sketches for the Accademia design, f. 8, no. background buildings in faint outline, are 8, a frontal elevation of the church and the known in several versions, with slight variright half of the adjacent buildings, and f. ations. They are in the Accademia di San 8v, no. 9, a bird’s-eye view of the same in Luca, Cartella Y 253¢, elevation and halfpencil, partly finished in ink, both sheets plan (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, 39 x 27 cm. The volume is dated 1706 and pl. 31); Berlin, Kunstbibliothek, no. 1157,

contains several drawings inscribed by plan and section (Fig. 45; ibid., pl. 32) Juvarra in that year. He was formally and no. 1156, elevation and half-plan with nominated to the Accademia on December the coat of arms of Clement x1 (Mostra del 31, 1706, and on January 30, 1707, it was Barocco Piemontese, 1, Architettura, pl.

THE GENESIS OF SANT’ ANDREA IN CHIERI chapteriv / page 41

72). Other drawings are in Stockholm, progetti dell’architetto Antonio Bertola per Nationalmuseum, Tessin collection, no. la Chiesa di Superga,” Boll. SPABA, N.S., 8240, mentioned by Rovere-Viale-Brinck- XVI-xviIl, 1962-63, pp. 104-120. It was mann, Juvarra, p. 163. The elevation in built in fulfillment of a vow made during Berlin bears the Albani arms, but with- the siege of Turin by the French in 1706,

out the papal tiara, according to F. as recorded not first in the nineteenth Weilbach, “Filippo JIuvara und die century but as early as 1726 by John

Marmorkirche in Kopenhagen,” Architec- Breval, Remarks on the Several Parts of

tura, Jahrbuch fiir Geschichte der Europe ..., p. 289, and in 1729 by

Baukunst, 1, 1933, pp. 17-21, and so was Etienne de Silhouette, Voyage de

probably made by Juvarra as a copy for France ... , 1, p. 56, and J. G. Keyssler, Cardinal Alessandro Albani. Weilbach also Neueste Reisen... , p. 200. Lange has observes that the drawing in the Accade- shown that before Juvarra met the king, mia is larger (70x 100 cm.) than the Bertola made two projects for the complex, description of it in the archives of the a large one probably similar to plans of the Accademia (“Incorniciata con cornice negra Trappist order, with a T-shaped church di grandezza di Palmi Quattro,” i.e., about flanked by a cloister, and a smaller one with 89 cm.). He therefore assumes that all the two variants of the church, the first a richly drawings were copies of an original kept by decorated oval with a gallery, the other Juvarra; but it seems more likely that the plain and simple. She maintains that the

measurements given by the Accademia projects originated before the Peace of

were only approximate. Utrecht (April 11, 1713), and perhaps as

3. The project was published by Fontana in early as 1710; but her evidence suggests L’anfiteatro Flavio, The Hague, 1725, pp. that the projects were begun shortly before 163v-170. The “Proemio,” p. 2, is dated the king and Bertola left for Sicily in Octo-

1707; but in his Trattato dell’acqua of ber 1713. The author also demonstrates 1696, Fontana mentioned that the book was that the king had chosen a site below the

in preparation, as noted by E. Couden- summit, where the old and the present hove-Erthal, Carlo Fontana, p. 84. M. church were built. At that time Vittorio Rosci, “Filippo Juvarra e il ‘nuovo’ gusto Amedeo wanted an inexpensive church, but classico alla meta del Settecento,” Atti dell’ later he decided upon a costly and therefore

vil Convegno Nazionale di _ Storia more prominent design, and this must have dell Architettura, Rome, 1956, overesti- led Juvarra to raise the building to its more

mates the originality of the “centralita natural site. G. B. Sacchetti says that rinascimentale” in Juvarra’s design Juvarra’s designs were prepared in 1715 because he overlooks Fontana’s precedent. (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Jwuvarra, p. In both Fontana’s and Juvarra’s designs, 30), which is probable enough, considering the centrality was significantly modified by that the first notice of the king’s intention to

the flanking towers. build on the present site 1s from Jan. 10,

4, For the history of the Soperga, see A. 1716 (Telluccini, op. cit. [1912], p. 39). Telluccini, La Real Chiesa di Superga, Juvarra’s instructions for the excavation Turin, 1912 (also published in the Miscel- date from April 17 (A. S. T.-1, Benefizi di

lanea di Storia Italiana, xLv1, 1913, pp. Qua di Monte, Mazzo da Inventariare, 13-150); Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Ju- Soperga, busta 6, f. 1); the model together

varra, pp. 63-65; and A. Lange, “I with the one of Venaria was paid for in

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapteriv / page 42

November, 1716, not in May, 1717 (see crated to the Virgin on October 31, 1731. Appendix 1, Doc. 2E.); and the foundation Juvarra’s preparatory sketches, exceptstone was laid on July 20, 1717. In the fall ing those for ornament and details, include of 1717, there are records for the construc- Museo Civico, vol. 11, f. 29, no. 56, the early

tion of two sepulchres, probably below the plan and elevation (Fig. 47; Roverechurch (A. S. T.-1., Benefizi di Qua di Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. 36); vol. Monte, Mazzi da Inventariare, Soperga, u, f. 82, no. 165, angle view from the left Mazzo unico, “1717 Misura gle,” dated side of the facade of the model project, October 29, 1717, ff. 2, 3, 5). Etienne de with its short portico (ibid., pl. 38); vol. u, Silhouette reported in the spring of 1729 f. 64, no. 129, frontal elevation of the same that “au dessous de I’Eglise est une chapelle stage (A. Telluccini, L’arte, p. 39, left) ; souterraine ot l’on dit que le Roi a dessein vol. 1, f. 5, no. 12, possibly an early state of de faire transporter les corps de ses ancé- the interior of the sanctuary dome, and an tres” (op. cit., p. 57); and in November of exterior of the drum and attic of the main 1730 Agostino Cornacchini was commis- cupola; vol. 1, f. 59, no. 87, two sketches of sioned to carve the Pieta for the altar of the a pier, with oval openings to the tribunes, crypt (Telluccini, op. cit., p. 93, and A. S. and lower pedestals than the executed ones;

T.-1v, Contratti-Fortificazioni, 1730, p. and vol. u, f. 50, no. 102, interior of the 297). Perhaps this was in preparation for drum and part of the cupola (Roverethe tomb of the aging Vittorio Amedeo, Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. 50, where who was buried on November 5, 1732, ina it is incorrectly identified as the facade of chapel near the altar. The crypt was not Santa Croce, although there are no doors completed until the 1770’s. From 1714, the below, only windows, and the rear of the king had sought advice on the organization sketch is inscribed, “Coperto Superga

of the convent (Lange, op. cit.); he ...”).The wooden model, without its decided on August 26, 1730, to make it cupola, has been kept in the convent of a “congregation of 12 priests” (Telluccini, the Soperga. In A. S. T.-1, Palazzi Reali,

op. cit., pp. 47-48, and below, Appendix there are five carefully drawn working vi, Doc. 8, 9). There was also a building drawings from Juvarra’s period, three of for the king “lorsqwil voudra faire des exer- the model project, that is a plan of the base-

cices de dévition” (E. de Silhouette, Joc. ment, 99 x 63 cm.; a plan at ground level, cit.); probably it was the wing in the rear 102 x 64 cm.; an incomplete plan of the

of the monastery. John Breval, loc. cit., church, 92x63 cm.; and two of the reported that the king was building the executed design, namely, a combined Soperga “in the view of spending the latter section and frontal elevation, 86 x 70 cm., part of his days in it en retraite, as at that signed “Audifredi f.,” and a plan at ground

time of Day (1726) most people level, 76 x 137 cm. (Rovere-Viale-Brincksupposed,” and Keyssler (op. cit., p. 201) mann, Juvarra, pl. 37, with wrong dl-

said in 1729 that the convent “zu den mensions). In the same folder there

Wohnungen der Kénigen Herrschaft, are also numerous late eighteenth-century wenn solche ihren geistlichen Uebungen in drawings of the crypt. The inventory der Einsamkeit obliegen will, aufgefiihret of the royal archives made in 1764, wird. Der Kénig hat zu verschiedenen Biblioteca Reale, Turin, Storia Patria 733, malen schon einige Wochen in der Fasten ff. 306-307 (Appendix 1) lists thirty-nine allhier zugebracht.” The church was conse- drawings by Juvarra. The chief question of

THE GENESIS OF SANT’ ANDREA IN CHIERI chapteriv / page 43

the church’s history is when the model of Juvarra (Stupinigi, see below, pp. project was altered to the final one. The 69-70, and possibly the staircase of the changes included lengthening the portico Palazzo Madama, which resembles Fisch-

from one to three bays; eliminating the er’s Schloss Klesheim near Salzburg, flanking columns on the facade; shifting begun ca. 1700-02, Sedlmayr, op. cit., the altar to the rear of the apse; dividing pls. 118, 210), the two churches rather the courtyard into nine instead of seven may owe their resemblances to the two bays; and rearranging the rooms in the back architects’ common background in the shop

of the court which were probably set aside of Fontana, to their admiration for the

for Vittorio Amedeo. Invalides, Sant’Agnese and St. Peter’s, and 5. Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, Riserva 59-1, to their shared, even “international” f. 16; Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, style—heavy, static, broken, and combina-

pl. 278 (detail), Fig. 46; Riserva 59-6, tory.

f. 29. The relationship to Vitozzi’s church 7. See, for instance, the descriptions of has now been pointed out also by N. Car- Etienne de Silhouette, op. cit., p. 68, “Huit boneri, Mostra del Barocco Piemontese, 1, magnifiques colonnes de marbre d’une

Architettura, p. 2. grandeur & d’une beauté singuliere soutien-

6. Wittkower suggests that the combination nent la votite du déme” (italics added); of church and monastery is not Italian and Keyssler, loc. cit.; J. J. Lalande, Voyage reflects the influence of South German, d’un francois en Italie fait dans les années Swiss, and Austrian complexes such as 1765 & 1766, Venice-Paris, 1769, 1, p.

Weingarten, Einsiedeln, and Melk (Art 234.

and Architecture in Italy, p. 281). In 8. This arrangement, with a circle of columns support of this notion, it may be noted that placed against the octagon of the piers to the Soperga commemorated a victory support the ring of a drum or dome, is rare

achieved with the help of the Austrian in Italian architecture. But it has a long general Prince Eugene of Savoy. But most history, going back to early sixteenthof the transalpine monuments of this time century projects for St. Peter’s (H. von differ in two important respects from Geymiiller, Die Ursprunglichen Entwiirfe Juvarra’s: the churches are longitudinal, fiir St. Peter in Rom, Vienna-Paris, 1875, and are set within the monastery. Not so pls. 7 and 8). Consequently there may well

those of Loyola and the Monte dei have been several examples that Juvarra Cappuccini which were, in addition, far could have seen. The only one I recall is

better known to Juvarra. Bertola’s oval San Domenico in Modena, rebuilt in church may also have been a precedent for 1708-31 by Gtuseppe Antonio ‘Torri, Juvarra’s organization (see above, n. 4). where the octagon is changed to an oval by H. Sedlmayr, Johann Bernhard Fischer this means. In the Invalides, which Juvarra von Erlach, Vienna-Munich, 1956, p. 57, knew from engravings (see above, p. 33,

has pointed out that Juvarra could have n. 13), the columns of the crossing are been among the many unnamed entrants to arranged on a circular plan against beveled

the competition of 1715 for the Karls- piers but do not support the ring of the kirche, which Fischer won with a design drum, while those of the chapels carry the vaguely similar in its frontal massing to the dome but are set against circular walls. Soperga. Despite the undeniable evidence Nevertheless, this great church, which of Fischer’s direct influence on other works resembles the Soperga in several ways, was

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapteriv / page 44

probably the most important source for the and endowment in the SS. Sindone motif. In the Soperga it may be original in (Benefizi di Qua di Monte, Mazzo 32, one respect only—the erection of a second Torino, buste 1 and 2). Had she then tier of columns on the lower one to form a already abandoned the idea of erecting a

continuous scaffolding. church with this dedication?

9, The effect is illustrated in most photo- 11. Photographs of the monastery and the graphs and in a mid-eighteenth-century semicircle of buildings in front of the site of painting of the Soperga in the Palazzo the church appear in G. Cappelletto, ArchiReale, ‘Turin, reproduced in A. Telluccini, tettura di Chieri, n.p., n.d. unpaged.

L’arte, pls. 1 and 2. 12. See Appendix v1, Cat. 12-16. The diameter

10. Juvarra’s drawings for the church are of the dome in this project was 15-16 Museo Civico vol. 1, f. 52, no. 74 (Rovere- trabucchi, or 45—48 meters: the height was

Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. 43), the at least twice this. plan with a circular portico, which is not 13. The contrary is implied by Wittkower

inscribed but is to be associated with San (Art and Architecture in Italy ... p. Raffaele on the grounds given in the text 281). He therefore suggested that the vol. 1, f. 66, no. 97 (ibid., pl. 44; designs for San Raffaele were not as early our Fig. 49), the plan for the nearly as 1718, but closer in time to the projects of cylindrical church, inscribed “Pianta the late 1720’s for the Duomo Nuovo (ibid. duna chiesa a forma di Tempio obligato p. 377 [2nd. ed., p. 389], n. 48). This

a 3.e porte principale da erigersi ad onor is correct for the two drawings of di Iddio e del Arcangelo Rafaele fatti Sant’Andrea (Cat. 4, Fig. 52; Cat. 6) p. ordine di M.a. R.e.,” vol. 1. f. 65, no. which Brinckmann erroneously linked with 96 (zbid., pl. 45; our Fig. 50) section of the the project for San Raffaele. But the real

above-mentioned plan, with a similar drawings for San Raffaele belong with inscription. ‘he Madama Reale died on Juvarra’s earlier works. Their skeletal March 13, 1724. In a contemporary history aspect does not per se group them with his

of her life by her confessor, Pantaleone late designs. (a8 Tn Sunk jolla a Cost Cate 14. Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pp. 68,

goria 3, Mazzo 20, no. 2). But it is perhaps 70. tus oe

relevant that on March 11, 1723, she 15. The “Gabinetto Cinese designed by endowed a benefice in Santa Cristina in Juvarra for the Palazzo Reale in 1732 is Turin “sotto il Titolo del Arcangelo proof that he could work in good French Raffaele, e S. Giuseppe,” with a fund of Rococo style in his later years. Raguzzini’s 20,000 lire, and on October 1, 1723, Ospedale di San Gallicano, with its church, established another one of the same kind was begun late in 1724 or early in 1725.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapteriv / page 46

eg ]

BASTIONE VERDE

TO ¢

PIAZZA $19. 9

b oe A VITTORIA

C7 | 1, GIARDINO REALE

a mete]

wee

[| | es PALAZZO REALE

PIAZZA

| REALE

Ww, 3 en The Northern Quarter of Turin | L CJ [| of in the Early Eighteenth Century. ryt] [ PIAZZA f | The map is based on A. S. T.—1, Carte

Sik DORA CEOSSA 18 CASTELLOF 17 Topografici di Torino, Sala 19, signed and

| dated by Filippo Baretti, February 27, {4 1740; Archivio Municipale Torino, ui | | | Tipi e Disegni, Cartella 64,diFasc. 2,

: | _ Disegno 13,| “Pianta Geometrica della Reale Citta,. . . del 1790,” and C.

| | , . A xi, 1908.

= Ce || P| | | ¥ Boggio’s end map in the Atti della SIAT. 1. Site of the Duomo Nuovo indicated in 10. Santa Croce, the Basilica Magistrate dotted lines, including within it part of the of the Ordine Mauriziano. Bastione Verde, Palazzo di San Giovanni, 11. The Via Porta Susina, the present Via and the Quartieri Svizzeri. The dimensions Corte d’Appello, leading to the Palazzo del are based on the largest project (Appendix Senato, the Carmine, and the Porta Susina. vi—A, Cat. 23), which was 41:4 x 57 12. The Palazzo di Citta (the piazza in trabucchi, or about 128 x 176 meters, but front appears as it was ca. 1740).

the scale is not exact. 13. San Pietro del Gallo, also known as

2. The Porta Palatina San Pietro Curtis Ducis. 3. The “Campanile vecchio.” 14. SS. Simone e Giuda.

4. The old cathedral. 15. Via Dora Grossa, the present Via

5. The Santissima Sindone. Garibaldi (after being straightened as 6. The Palazzo di San Giovanni. planned in 1736). 7. The Palazzo Chiablese. 16. The Contrada Nuova, the present

8. The Porta Vittoria. Via Roma, leading to the Piazza San

9. The Contrada Porta Palazzo, or Strada Carlo.

d'Italia, the present Via Milano. 17. Palazzo Madama.

CHAPTER V

The Duomo Nuovo in ‘Turin

IKE most Italian architects, Juvarra was cu- the church (as indicated by the dated capricci,

L riously uncertain about the proper form Cat. 10, 22, 26, 28, and Doc. 2ff.), which were for a cathedral. In the Middle Ages, the Pisans then submitted (in plan only) to the various seem to have enlarged their basilica with a groups and authorities for their choice and centralized crossing; the Sienese wanted to comments. In May of 1729 the city council was convert their Duomo into the mere transept of a asked to deliberate on them (Doc. 3), and in new one; and the Florentines may have made June a report was received from Conte Carlo equally radical changes in Santa Maria del Fiore. Odoardo Filippo d’Ussol, a Turinese mathema-

Then came the history of St. Peter’s to give tician, historian, occasional diplomat, and, as authority, successively, to the central plan and his opinions suggest, a sophisticated judge of the longitudinal; the multicellular church and architecture (Doc. 4).* The next came in Januthe unified one; the facade with towers or a ary of 1730 from the official lobbyist of the classical portico, and the facade without them. court of Savoy at the Vatican, Cardinal AlessanJuvarra’s five or six major projects, their several dro Albani (Doc. 6A);” it is the first record of variants, and the more than thirty sketches that the architectural tastes of a man already known he prepared for the Duomo Nuovo in Turin are as a great antiquarian and collector of ancient

last testimony to this variability. art, but still twenty years from his fame as the The first notice of Juvarra’s project dates builder and perhaps the designer of the Villa from the fall of 1728, when his assistant, Albani, as the patron of Raphael Mengs and Giovanni Battista Sacchetti, measured a site for Johann Winckelmann, and as a connoisseur of

it on the grounds of the old cathedral of San international importance in the rise of Giovanni, the cathedral piazza, and the Santis- Neo-Classicism. Possibly accompanying it was a sima Sindone next to the royal palace (Text critique from an anonymous Roman “professore Fig. 1, Appendix v1, Doc. 1). That year and d’architettura,” a man who knew architecture as the following one, Juvarra made his designs for Polonius knew love (Doc. 6B). Yet still Vittopage 47

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterv / page 48

rio Amedeo hesitated, and in April his minister 75). That made room for a larger church and in Rome, the Marchese Ferrero d’Ormea, was forepiazza, which in some projects was to be urgently trying to round up more opinions framed by colonnades (Fig. 61); and it enabled (Doc. 7-9). Probably he was seeking advice on Juvarra to join the new facade to the old bellthe financial and ecclesiastical aspects of the tower, thus preserving what he had embellished cathedral, for in the same letters he was asking in 1720-—23.° Lest the Sindone open directly to

about these topics with reference to the the street, it was necessary to add an antechamSoperga. It was supplied by an advisor of long ber (on the site of the old cathedral) of such a standing to the king, Pére Clément Presset, a scale that d’Ussol could compare it with several Savoyard resident in Turin * (Doc. 10B), and great Roman churches, describing one version by two anonymous experts from Rome and else- as an oval like Bernini’s Sant’Andrea, another

where in Italy (Doc. 10A, C). as a Greek Cross like SS. Martina e Luca, and But on September 3, 1730, the king abdi- a third as a copy of the nave of Sant’Ignazio cated* and took with him the initiative for the (Doc. 4C). project. The last heard of it in Juvarra’s lifetime In their origins, the ideas for the cathedral go

was Sacchetti’s petition of May 1731 for the back (even if rather vaguely) to a loosely money owed him as surveyor in 1728 (Doc. connected series of events which began in 1727 1B), proof that by then the idea had petered when Vittorio Amedeo and Pope Benedict x11

out. signed a concordat that ended 30 years of feud-

That the cathedral was so intimately bound ing between Rome and Turin.’ to royal policy was due in part to its position It gave the king more control over the Pied(Text Fig. 1, p. 46). The old church, built in montese clergy, bringing his authority and presthe later fifteenth century, ran in orthodox fash- tige more in line with those of the older ion from west to east, where it abutted on the monarchies of Spain, Portugal, and especially king’s palace; between its choir and the palace, France, which had asserted such rights in strugand open to both, rose the Santissima Sindone, gles with the Papacy that had become particuwhich served as a chapel for the court; and in larly harsh in the later seventeenth century. One this was kept the relic of the Holy Shroud, reli- article gave Vittorio Amedeo the right to nomigious symbol of the House of Savoy’s claim to nate his bishops, and he immediately appointed

power. Francesco Arborio di Gattinara, member of a But Juvarra’s design was so large that he noble Piedmontese family, as archbishop of chose to raze the old church in order to align the Turin, and his mouthpiece.

new one on the longer axis of the shallow A year later the king and his bishop rearpiazza. First he placed the cathedral athwart the ranged the parishes of Turin, a step announced old foundations, connecting its eastern side to on April 7, 1728, and carried out on March 4,

the Sindone, in some designs through a small 1729 (Doc. 11-13). It carved out two new antechamber (Fig. 56). But after a few parishes, one covering the recent enlargement sketches, he pushed the church a little north of of the city to the west, around the Porta Susina, the old cathedral and onto the Bastione Verde the other extending into sparsely populated

on the northern wall of the city. The shift ground beyond the northern gate, the Porta required the destruction of several minor build- Vittoria. Both areas had previously been under ings of the royal compound,’ as shown in a later the jurisdiction of the cathedral; in compensaproject by Alfieri that reproduces the position of tion for their loss the Duomo was given three Juvarra’s (Appendix vi-B, Cat. 2, f. 2; Fig. smaller but more populous districts in the adja-

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN chapterv / page 49

cent region to the west of it and the palace. As rebuilding of Turin. Only the northern quarter,

implied by Pére Presset, this must have had a which had included the cathedral, the royal bearing on the cathedral project, if only because palace, the city hall, and the Senate building it increased the number of parishioners (Doc. that Juvarra had begun in 1720—and to the de-

10B). sign of which he may have returned in 1727°—

About the same time, and with the stated remained to be put in order. Very shortly after intention of raising his status to a level with that the redistricting of the parishes and the prepaof the monarchies of Spain and Portugal, Vitto- rations for the Duomo, on April 29, 1729, Vitrio Amedeo took advantage of the new amity torio Amedeo announced the construction of a with the pope to seek his permission for the new piazza in front of the Porta Vittoria, and appointment of a royal chaplain (Doc. 14-15). the widening and straightening of a street, now Judging from later events, the creation of this known as the Via Milano, from there to the city post was associated with, or led to, the idea of hall; these were to serve as a main entrance to enlarging the royal chapel (Doc. 17). The pope the governmental area (Doc. 23-28).

approved the chaplaincy on July 22, 1728 Glimmerings of the idea may have arisen in (Doc. 14); in the fall of that year and early in 1727, when the Ordine Mauriziano, a semireli-

1729, Juvarra planned the addition to the gious association of nobles led by the king, Sindone as part of his cathedral designs; sought to obtain the church of Santa Croce on Arborio di Gattinara was appointed the royal Via Milano for use as its “Basilica Magistrale”

chaplain in February of 1730 (Doc. 16); and in (Doc. 19). By 1728, when the king was April Juvarra began work on a small chapel in actively maneuvering to procure this major the royal palace, probably as a temporary church for the order (Doc. 19, 20) and to bring substitute for the enlargement of the Sindone the parishes of the area under the control of the

(Doc. 18). Duomo (Doc. 11, 12), the thought of conferAt first the plan for an enlarged chapel had ring new splendor on the whole quarter must

no bearing on the Duomo Nuovo, as proven by have been close at hand. On February 15, 1729, Juvarra’s early drawings with the cathedral Vittorio Amedeo gave possession of the church attached to the Sindone (Cat. 1, 17; Fig. 56, to the Ordine (Doc. 22) and a month later its 57). But with the transferral of the cathedral to old parish was absorbed by the cathedral as part the Bastione Verde, the two projects became of the general redistricting (Doc. 11, 13). In associated, and now the Sindone was to be the official announcement of the new piazza and enlarged. In the completed designs the disjunc- street on April 29, which includes the first ture between the church and palace was so mention of Juvarra’s designs for them, the king pronounced that d’Ussol could complain of asked the Ordine and the city council to particiJuvarra’s neglect of the customary entrances pate in the work by purchasing some of the from one to the other; obviously, the royal and houses that had to be demolished (Doc. 24). cathedral parishes were to be completely sepa- The main contract for construction was let by rated. And by 1730 the well-informed Pére Pres- June (Doc. 27).

set was hinting that the enlargement of the This project, along with the Duomo and the royal chapel—to the point of making the old Palazzina di Stupinigi, initiated the abrupt and cathedral part of it—was the king’s chief excuse vigorous resumption of royal building activity

for wanting anew Duomo (Doc. 10B). in 1729 after a decade in which such great Meanwhile, the old and ailing king, now in works as Venaria, the Castello di Rivoli, and the

his sixties, undertook the last stages in the Palazzo del Senato had been left unfinished

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterv / page 50

while funds were diverted to the Soperga.® But Juvarra’s siting of the cathedral, he can hardly

now the Soperga was nearing completion and, have failed to see in its martial regularity better, the king had found the way to build another and aptly Turinese confirmation of his without slimming his purse—by inducing the plan. Ordine Mauriziano to pay for the piazza and the To sum up, the Duomo Nuovo was to be a villa at Stupinigi in exchange for ownership of reflection of the king’s new ecclesiastical power;

the property. Apparently he hoped to find an the chief monument in the central and royal equally pleasant arrangement for the Duomo; quarter of Turin; and the crowning memorial to

but his advisors were cool to such notions. Vittorio’s reign and the reconstruction of the The new street from the north met another capitol. one, the Via Corte d’Apello, which moved west But except for these broad political and from the Palazzo di Citta past the Palazzo del urban motives, the documents are quiet; of Senato to a street leading to the Porta Susina other practical, symbolic, or more purely relithrough the new western quarters begun in the gious functions there is hardly a trace. The old previous decade.” Just when the new street was cathedral was in good shape, as Presset noted announced, rumors spread of a project to extend (Doc. 10B), and was more than large enough a thoroughfare west from the Piazza Castello to for the new parishioners and future growth.

that gate, probably by way of these streets The question of consecrated grounds never (Doc. 5).% (Though this was not carried out, entered into consideration—the site was shifted the present Via Garibaldi, which parallels such without hesitation. There was no need of a crypt a street a block farther south, was widened by for the royal tombs: Vittorio had planned the

order of Carlo Emanuele 1 in 1736.) Thus it Soperga with this intention, and even while seems that by 1729 there were plans to conjoin seeking advice on the Duomo was at work to the northern, western, and central regions of the organize the priests at the convent there (see city by their major arteries, with the Duomo to Doc. 8 and p. 41, n. 4). Nor was there need

preside over the area of juncture. of a public shrine for relics sacred to the king; Between the new piazza and cathedral a on the contrary, the shrine of the major one in special passageway was to be provided. D’Ussol Guarini’s chapel would no longer have been tells us that one project had an ornamental arch readily visible to the people.

and another a portico, presumably on the left Although it was desired that the chosen (or western) side of the cathedral, through project be, among other standards listed in the which one found the street leading to what he report to the city council, “the most suited to the

called the Porta @’Italia, probably meaning the populace both for the holy ritual and for ancient Roman Porta Palatina just west of the the majesty and decorum of the public funcnew cathedral (Doc. 4C, n. 4.). From that gate a tions” (Doc. 3), Juvarra paid little heed to such street, lined with shops recently built by the requirements, as the comments of d’Ussol make city, moved west to empty into the new piazza clear. The only practical or religious considera-

(Doc. 4B, C, n. 4). tion common to most of his designs was the

There was also, however, a grander relation- circulation of worshippers around the church ship: the new cathedral, piazza, and street through ambulatories, porticoes, galleries, extra would have run parallel to each other and to the aisles, or special entrances. The rest was left nearby chain of streets and squares that moved open. Some designs show the altar at the far on the east towards the royal palaces. The end, others in the center; some have a flock of whole area would have been arrayed in north- little spaces, others a few large ones; and some south files. Although this did not determine projects are nearly twice as large as others.

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN chapterv / page 5l

What really mattered was that the design be, the central designs, as always the simple and in other words of the report, “the most grandi- conventional scheme, had arms shaped as oval ose, the most extraordinary in concept . . . and chambers, and large chapels in the piers that the best adapted to the visible magnificence and could be opened either to the center or to the ornamentation of the city,” or, as it was put by chambers (Cat. 1; Fig. 56). the anonymous Italian ecclesiastical advisor, In his next designs Juvarra closed the open“the entire usefulness boils down to nothing ings to the center but enlarged the lateral ones more than the greater luster of the Duomo” and to the oval chambers to make an ambulatory of the “greater splendor and magnificence of this chapels and arms circling the center (Cat. 2, 3; august city” (Doc. 10C). It was an old refrain Fig. 57, 58). This was the “Secondo Progetto,” in the history of Italian cathedrals, which were as it was described by d’Ussol, that is to say, the spoken of primarily as civic ornaments, both to second in order on the final list, though actually

state ambitions and the urban scene. the first to have been drawn up. It was most Given such vague standards, Juvarra was notable for its curious piers, their outer faces free to dream of many large domes and towers hollowed out by the enormous chapels behind for the city skyline; of a proliferation of them, their inner ones shaped in imitation of the columns and cornices for sheer décor; and of an piers plus the counter piers of St. Peter’s. They abundance of spaces for cumulative novelty and thus had the appearance of Michelangelo’s St. grandiosity. In turn these offered him more lati- Peter’s enveloped by a ring of domed comparttude to indulge his love of views, lights, and ments, or, in d’Ussol’s words, “of the first state

openness for their own sake. Only in this nega- of the Greek Cross [crociera Greca] of St. tive sense did the history of the Duomo Nuovo Peter’s, except for the hiding places.”

come to bear on its forms. Among the central projects, this one had the

From Juvarra’s five or six projects, four were smallest dome, 27 meters in diameter, and the selected. Two were central, two longitudinal: most independent periphery, with chambers in by the eighteenth century the cathedral tradi- the arms nearly as large as the dome, and chaption was not merely uncertain on this count, els completely blocked off from the center. As a

but an insoluble dilemma. Nevertheless, result, the church would have been seen best Juvarra listed the central ones first, which from the entrances in the arms. Standing there, suggests that he preferred them (as had the the spectator would have been confronted by

architects of St. Peter’s before him). forking views 4 Ja Bibiena and, far more literFor both types, Juvarra first outlined a ally than in the chapel at Venaria, would have simple and conventional scheme, then developed stood within one building looking out at it in more complex and spacious ways, and at another, namely, a copy of St. Peter’s.

the last moment transformed it into a light, The next project was more conventional, and airy, and less typical structure. As in the chapel perhaps for that reason was listed as the “Primo

at Venaria, the key to this process was the rela- Progetto” (Cat. 4-11; Fig. 59-61). It was a tionship between center and periphery. The clarification of San Marco in Venice, which was

satellite areas began as self-sufficient spaces, likewise a Greek Cross with domed Greek

then were compounded, enlarged, and Crosses for arms, and great thicknesses of reshaped, and finally were subordinated and masonry, but obscured by columnar screens. 'To

opened to the center. develop it, Juvarra returned to his initial

For the central designs, Juvarra chose the scheme (Cat. 1, Fig. 56), cut passageways from most flexible scheme: the Greek Cross with the pier chapels towards the center rather than large corner chapels. The first sketch among towards the arms, and remade the oval cham-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterv / page 52

bers into domed trefoils or Greek Crosses. As he of the center by shrinking the Greek Crosses opened the chapels and arms to the center, he into colonnaded semicircles like the choir of gave more and more command to the dome. Venaria (Cat. 13, 14; Fig. 62, 63); and correStep by step he increased its diameter until it spondingly enlarged the chapels into domed spanned 45 meters, approximately the size of Greek Crosses that compensated for the arms the domes of St. Peter’s and the Pantheon; and both spatially and structurally, stiffening the

after hesitating (as he had in the Soperga) piers from behind. Now Juvarra placed the between beveled piers with pendentives and altar in the center: the crossing had become curving ones rising directly to the dome (Cat. the overweening heart of the system.

47), he may have chosen the latter and more In the last sketches (Cat. 15, 16; Fig. spacious system (Cat. 8-10). Thus the arms 64, 65), Juvarra reduced the arms still further began to lose their independence to the center. and withdrew the chapels into the piers. Below But Juvarra was still given to pristine units: this left but four hollow piers, with columnar the arms did not connect with one another to screens between them. No longer was there a form an ambulatory, and the church was too ring of domed and separate compartments; they

purely central to be integrated with a facade. were so shrunken that Juvarra ran a crossHe even tacked a straight portico to a rounded vaulted corridor around the church in place of entrance arm, and conducted the most awkward an ambulatory and narthex. Above, he suddenly corridors outside the church to long passage- discarded the normal drum and dome, pushing ways tunnelled through the piers (Cat. 8; Fig. out from the drum great niches that bit into the 59). Later he seems to have flattened the ends base of the dome and absorbed some of its of the trefoils to smooth the joint with the thrust. For the first time in his work the outer portico, and strung colonnades from the portico zone was extended to the upper reaches of the to free-standing campanili and thence around a church. As the cylinder of the drum was broken

rectangular piazza, setting up a screen that into piers that continued the ones from the disguised the break between facade and church ground, so, too, the entablatures between them (Cat. 9; Fig. 61). Above the screen, again as in were ruptured to let the lines of the pilasters

San Marco, appeared only the huge central rise to the vault. The church had become a dome with its court of four lesser cupolas. towering pavilion. Both of these projects belong to that phase of This is the most revealing sequence in the Juvarra’s design which was, as noted above, creation of Piedmontese open architecture. developed in more complex and spacious ways, Going through these sketches, one sees the with satellite areas that were compounded, elements of massive Roman building undergo enlarged, and reshaped. Yet from the conven- metamorphosis into a church that combines the tional “Primo Progretto” he soon derived the themes of Venaria with those of Sant’Andrea. most daring one in the third phase of the proc- ~ Before one’s eyes the masonry subdivides, the

ess. outer walls buttress the inner ones, and the

First he changed the crossing from a cylinder double structure and open boundaries come into to an octagon, doubling the number of piers but being. More than that, the perforated walls and

halving their size. As the piers were split and fragmentary views of Venaria are proven the masonry quarried away, the chapels were compatible with the integrated ones of extended behind them, and the arms were Sant’Andrea: the former belong to the arms and diminished to distribute the spaces more evenly chapels, the latter to the vertical core.

around the center (Cat. 12). Perhaps because it was the most radical (and Then Juvarra brought the arms under sway the least spacious) of the central designs, this

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN chapterv / page 53

project was discarded. But it was revived by Peter’s, as Albani noted, but it was graced with Juvarra in 1732 when he submitted another some details that reminded d’Ussol of the simimodel for the sacristy of St. Peter’s” (Fig. 66), lar and equally conservative designs of the no doubt because it looked like the antique Gesti, Sant’Ignazio, and the Chiesa Nuova in structure of Santa Maria delle Febbre, which Rome; therefore it was the only design to win then served as the sacristy and was to be torn some favor from these two critics. But the down for a new one. Yet of course what was too facade was unusual for its time: it had a semi-

bold for Turin was unthinkable for Rome circular entrance, squared on the outside and (especially for a pope whose ideal was the work flanked by two towers (Cat. 20; Fig. 68). As

of Alessandro Galilei). Rather than pare down Albani again perceived, this derived from the wall as much as possible, Juvarra therefore Bramante’s model for St. Peter’s. At one widened the piers and reinstated the entabla- point, moreover, Juvarra considered a ribbed tures; and instead of swelling niches from the and conical dome which would have brought drum, he returned to small windows below the the church into better accord with the Sindone entablature and blind, ornamental lunettes in (Cat. 28; Fig. 69). And his views of the inte-

the base of the vault. Everywhere thick rior (Cat. 22, 26; Fig. 70, 71) make it look far masonry killed the sense of an open interior. By less like its Roman models than its plan would a few minor alterations, in short, the character suggest. Huge windows, numerous columns of the design was returned to one that was more and ornaments strewn about, open piers in one in keeping with Michelangelo’s St. Peter’s. The variant and galleries in the other, all gave it a

cinematic sequence was reversed. far lighter and happier appearance. In the longitudinal projects (which were The variant with solid piers and, in some probably contemporary with the central ones, sketches, with galleries, was much larger in all since some of the first and last sketches in both of its dimensions (Cat. 23-26). To increase the

categories are back to back: see Cat. 1, 17, space again, Juvarra switched to a five-aisled 15 and 32), Juvarra took the opportunity system; and to bind the aisles to the nave, he afforded by the long, low views to focus upon marked off a strong cross axis by widening the the outer zone—just the opposite of what he central bay of the nave and arranging a chain of had done in the central designs, where he used domes from side to side (Cat. 29-33).

the great dome to bring the periphery under its But this project, though carefully thought

command. out, was apparently rejected in favor of a more They start with a small sketch of a church open version, the “Quarto Progetto.” Space now much like St. Peter’s—a wide nave, two domed flowed through ubiquitous screens of columns; aisles, semicircular transepts, and a large dome through the three sets of coupled columns that (Cat. 17, 18; Fig. 67). But the piers are perfo- replaced the piers on either side of the nave, a rated to yield lateral views, and the Sindone on feature singled out by d’Ussol; and through the one flank is balanced by a large chapel on the columns between the choir and the ambulatory, other, the two establishing a cross axis at the which continued the main aisle around the sanc-

center of the nave. In one form or the other, tuary” (Cat. 32, 33; Fig. 72). Then, in a last the open piers and the cross axis turn up in variant, Juvarra dispelled the focus on the

most of the later designs. crossing by shattering the large cupola into a Out of this came the “Terzo Progetto,” a constellation of smaller ones strewn about the composite of all that was correct in academic rear, and by widening the church until the outer models (Cat. 20-28; Fig. 68-71). For the most aisles were as broad as the nave and the plan

part it was a reincarnation of Maderno’s St. was nearly a square (Cat. 34; Fig. 73). The

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterv / page 54

church had become a forest of columns. That and venerable authority, of course, but also by such a free, undirected space was chosen as the their heavy walls that limited the spectator’s

“Quarto Progetto” does not seem likely: view to force it undeviatingly to the crossing Juvarra probably returned to the earlier variant. and ruling dome. But even that much freedom and dispersion Their critiques, and especially Albani’s, were provoked the censure of Albani, the Roman notably similar to Michelangelo’s comments on “professore,” and in a somewhat milder vein, of Antonio da Sangallo’s projects for St. Peter’s, d’Ussol. “Three of the projects,” wrote Albani, the first explicit clash between the two ideals “don’t please me at all because they are true and the major turning point in their history. In reliquaries, which, if executed, would be very a letter first published in 1696, Michelangelo much like labyrinths with a hundred nooks and attacked Sangallo’s ambulatories and galleries crannies and hiding places.” The “professore” because they created “so many hiding places demanded a church where the spectator could above and below that they offer great opportun“see all the parts, without there remaining any ity for endless carousing, secreting thieves, hidden pockets, or superfluities,” and d’Ussol in counterfeiting money, impregnating nuns, and turn insisted that one had to avoid “every kind other deviltry,”* and in a less criminological of passageway and hiding place,” criticized the vein, recorded by Vasari, he derided the exterior “Secondo Progetto” for having too many of of Sangallo’s model for abounding in so many

them, and even attacked the conservative excrescences, spires, minutiae, and tiers of “Primo Progetto” for the trefoil arms that columns that it had more of the Gothic than of “oblige one to turn one’s back on the main the antique. His own project, he said, would

altar.” save fifty years in execution, and more than

In those remarks Juvarra’s critics held to the three hundred thousand lire in expenses. In ancient Italian criterion of full visibility,“ short, both the chief model of unitary architec-

whereas his own ideal was visibility of another ture and the words for defending the ideal had kind—of many different views. The division come directly from Michelangelo. between them was the old one between the advo- Michelangelo’s approach remained the standcates of variety and simplicity. On the one side ard one in Rome, and shortly after the time of were those who, like Albani, demanded that a the Duomo Nuovo was being pressed by stricter

building reveal all at a glance, on the other adherents than ever. Their great (if tempothose who, like Juvarra and Vittone (see below rary) victory came in 1732 when Alessandro p. 56), sought to prolong the delight of the eye Galilei won the competition for the facade of through unfolding spaces. The conflict was San Giovanni in Laterano. His design returned chiefly aesthetic, but the proponents of simplic- as closely as possible to the starkness of the ity, as always, the moralists, implied that what free-standing portico of the Pantheon and Miwas beautiful on paper or even for the eye was chelangelo’s St. Peter’s by weaving the Benedicbad for the liturgy, bad for the structure, and tion loggia behind its giant orders.” At the very

disastrous for the treasury, fit only for the opposite extreme was a plan by Juvarra for vanity of the artist. Most of the churches cited the facade of a large church, perhaps San by Albani and d’Ussol in their praise of the Giovanni, which danced in a line of columns “Terzo Progetto,” and the paragons listed by and curves wilder than any other surviving the “professore’—Maderno’s St. Peter’s, the project for the church.” Gest, Sant’Ignazio, the Chiesa Nuova, San Few were as rigorous as Galilei, but Albani Carlo al Corso, Sant’Andrea delle Valle—were and the “professore” obviously wished to therefore distinguished by their traditional plan preserve and clarify the Roman tradition. In

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN chapterv / page 55

Piedmont, standards were naturally somewhat it: “In my opinion, a very beautiful church, wider: the city council was asked to select the which I have seen several times; and this mornplan that was most novel or extraordinary ing, the third of June, I have examined it and (“pelegrino”), and d’Ussol, though an advocate find it is very beautiful because it is composed of conservative standards, was less critical of according to this plan and is sustained by thirty-

the unusual than his co-critics were. Yet seven monolithic and superbly finished Juvarra was as much in love with tradition as columns. There are thirty-eight altars.” What his commentators: the difference was that caught his eye was the division of the church his notion of tradition included much that into many small and uniform components, espeMichelangelo’s ideals had overshadowed— cially the many ornamental columns and numerparticularly the Early and High Renaissance, ous altars, just the features of his own designs. and some North Italian residues of those Still another record of the return, however, is

epochs. the “Primo Progetto.” D’Ussol shrewdly

Albani had himself pointed out—and disap- observed that the completed version resembled proved of—the derivation of the facade of the Michelangelo’s project for San Giovanni dei “Terzo Progetto” from Bramante’s project for Fiorentini in Rome, which had a cylindrical St. Peter’s. Had he seen them, he would also core with chapels on the diagonal axes and have disapproved of the galleries in Juvarra’s rectangular vestibules comparable to the trun-

project, which were unheard of in a large cated arms of Juvarra’s final project. But MiRoman church, but which were very similar to chelangelo had triumphantly brought together the galleries in the Renaissance church of San the Renaissance ideal of isolating the spaces Maurizio in Milan. The return to early tradition with his own of assimilating them. He had en-

was even more notable in the “Quarto cased the outer compartments within the masProgetto.” One of its antecedents was sive walls, like air bubbles in concrete. Juvarra, Sant’Agostino in Piacenza, which also had five in contrast, gave them more independence than aisles, pairs of columns down the nave, and an even the Early Renaissance had been prepared

ambulatory around the choir (Fig. 74). to grant. He turned them into subsidiary Though built in the 1570’s, Sant’Agostino was churches by shaping the arms as trefoils, and by

anachronistic in its forest-like plan, which raising their domes on the exterior.” As if this

harked back to two important Early Renais- were not enough, he brought in light to sance churches in the city, Alessio Tramello’s dismember the units, leaving an armature of San Sepolcro and San Sisto.” In 1716, Juvarra piers, columns and arches (Cat. 10; Fig. 60). had drawn the plan of Sant’Agostino (Fig. 74) The bright airiness and many views within

and a transverse view into a bay of the nave, Early Renaissance churches came in large with the main arcade framing the smaller one measure from this fragmentation of space. But in the aisle and then the chapel,” forming for Renaissance architects the subdivision had a exactly the kind of lateral views he was to set more important purpose: it made possible an

up in the last projects for the Duomo. elaborate net of rigorous proportions. For Two years earlier, Juvarra had visited one of Juvarra, proportion was far less imperative. In the ultimate sources for both the Piacentine one of the variants of the “Terzo Progetto,” for churches and his own, Brunelleschi’s Santo instance, he laid out a ratio of six to four for the Spirito in Florence, and in a period when few length of nave to transept; but in the accomItalians paid attention to Early Renaissance panying plan the ratio is 57 to 41% trabucchi, architecture, expressed unpatronizing admira- or about 7 to 5. If the earlier architects may tion in these words on a plan he had drawn of have worshipped purity, Juvarra did not. It was

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterv / page 56

in visual matters that he shared their preoccupa- Both derived from the most integrated of the

tions, Italian cathedral plans, as last set forth in the

The project for the Duomo Nuovo seems to fifteenth-century cathedrals of Loreto and have been half-heartedly revived for a brief Pavia. Among its advantages, the system spell under Carlo Emanuele m1 and Benedetto permitted views and movement from the aisles Alfieri (see Appendix vi-C, Cat. 2). Probably through the double piers of the octagon. Alfieri, it came up In the 1750’s, when Alfieri rebuilt who did not share Juvarra’s love of free vistas, the royal Palazzo Chiablese on the southern end deliberately dammed up this opening, leaving of the cathedral piazza (see p. 185), and when, only a small passage, in order to enforce a rigid too, he was attempting to enlarge Juvarra’s pattern of views in the nave—on which there is work at Venaria Reale and Stupinigi. This time more in a later chapter. Vittone, on the other only a few drawings testify to the scheme: for hand, deemed this the outstanding feature of his the king, if not for the architects, it may have own design. “It seems to me,” he wrote, “that

been nothing but a daydream. Whatever eccle- worthy of consideration in this idea is the siastical motives there once had been for dis- succession of the apertures of the aisles, which joining the church and chapel were forgotten by continue directly through the length of the Alfieri’s time: the smaller of his two projects church, leaving the eye full liberty to range was to have taken the place of the old cathedral, down the church at its pleasure and so fully

directly joined to the Sindone. enjoy in this manner its various aspects.” The larger project, located on the Bastione But these projects, though neat, were Verde, had a nave and aisles dovetailed into a completely unoriginal. Their great domes and large octagon with the arms of a Greek Cross centralized crossings, those distinguishing

(Fig. 75, 76). Later, Bernardo Vittone features of the Italian cathedral, were dull published a very similar plan (Fig. 77; Appen- clichés. By contrast, for Juvarra and the archidix vi-C, Cat. 3) undoubtedly for the Duomo tects of medieval Tuscany or St. Peter’s, these Nuovo, and not, as has been suggested, for the components had been the major foci of originalparish church of Carignano (see below, p. 98). ity, and therefore of indecision.

NOTES 1. Born in 1669, d’Ussol was a doctor in math- Vatican for his part in the concordat of

ematics and history and the author of 1727 (D. Carutti, Storia della diplomazia Euclide Prima Elementa, Turin, 1691 (A. della Corte di Savoia, 11, p. 610; L. Lewis, Manno, // Patriziato Subalpino, x, n.d., p. Connoisseurs and Secret Agents in Eight329, typescript in A. S. T.-1). In 1718 he eenth Century Rome, London, 1961, p. was sent to Vienna by the king on a diplo- 83). For Albani, his associations with matic mission (D. Carutti, Storia della artists, and his villa in Rome, see C. Justi, diplomazia della Corte di Savoia, Turin, “Der Cardinal Alexander Albani,” Preus-

1879, 1, p. 525). sische Jahrbuch, xxviu, 1871, pp. 248-64

2. Albani began to assist the court of Savoy as and 337-53; idem., Winckelmann und early as 1720 (A. S. T.-1, Lettere Ministri, seine Zeitgenossen, 5th ed., Cologne, 1956,

Mazzo 159, no. 4) and in 1730 was Il, pp. 352-61; F. Noack, “Des Kardinals appointed “Protettore” of the court at the Albani Beziehungen zu Kiinstlern,” Der

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN chapterv / page 57

, Cicerone, Xvi, 1924, pp. 402-13, 451-59; zone del Palazzo Reale di Torino, Turin, R. Berliner, “Zeichnungen von Carlo und 1858, pp. 5, 11, and M. Bernardi, J Filippo Marchionni,” Miinchner Jahrbuch Palazzo Reale di Torino, Turin, 1959, pp. der bildende Kunst, tx—x, 1958-59, p. 283; 144f.). The distance from the old campa-

and Lewis, op. cit. nile to the city wall was about 45 trabucchi,

3. On Presset, a Barnabite theologian, see A. and to the end of Bastione Verde, approxiLange in Boll. SPABA, N.S., xvi-xvu, mately 70 trabucchi (Archivio Municipale,

1962-63, p. 108, n. 7, and F. Venturi, Tipi e Disegni, Cartella 64, fasc. 2, disegno

Saggi sull’Europa illuminista, 1, Alberto 13, “Pianta Geometrica della Real Radicati di Passerano, Turin, 1954 p. Citta. . . del 1790”). The longest of

103, n. 2 and passim. Vittorio Amedeo Juvarra’s designs, Cat. 23, was 57 trabucoften called upon him for ecclesiastical chi and would have extended well past the advice in the first third of the eighteenth city wall onto the bastion.

century. 6. On the bell tower see N. Carboneri, “II

4, The king became ill in 1728, and Domen- Duomo di Torino dal 1694 al 1729,” Atti ico Carutti has suggested that this was a del x Congresso di Storia dell’ Architettura, first cause of his abdication. He ordered a Rome, 1959, pp. 381ff. report on abdications in December, 1729. 7. D. Carutti, [7 Primo re di Casa Savoia, pp. D. Carutti, J] Primo Re di Casa Savoia: A77H., 545ff.; and idem, Storia della diploStoria di Vittorio Amedeo u, 3rd ed., mazia della Corte di Savoia, 11, pp. 583ff.;

Turin, 1897, pp. 225, 532ff. Iv, pp. 21ff. Pier Carlo Boggio, La chiesa e 5. In the Theatrum Sabaudiae, 1682, pl. lo stato in Piemonte, Turin, 1854, 1, pp. following p. 19, the Bastione Verde is 111-33; J. Hergenréther, Piemonts Untershown as the one opening off the garden of handlung mit dem heiligen Stuhle im 18. the royal palace, and this nomenclature has Jahrhundert, Wirzburg, 1877. been followed by several modern authors. 8. Sacchetti gives the date of Juvarra’s design But Alfieri’s first project, situated in the as 1727, though work on it began in 1720 same position as Juvarra’s (Appendix vi-C, (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. Cat. 2, f. 1), proves beyond doubt that in 70). His hitherto unidentified drawings for Juvarra’s time the Bastione Verde must the completion of the Palazzo del Senato, have been the one due north of the piazza in including one of the seventeenth-century front of the old cathedral, and west of the project, are in the Biblioteca Nazionale, above-mentioned bastion. The large map in Turin, Riserva 59-3, ff. 39-40. A preparathe Theatrum Sabaudiae, pl. following p. tory sketch is in the Museo Civico, vol. 1, f. 16, shows that there was a garden on this 82, no. 166 (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann,

bastion, too, which would account for the Juvarra, pl. 163). name. L. Cibrario, Storia di Torino, Turin, 9. This is suggested by Keyssler as the cause

1846, 1, end map, also calls this the Bast- of the curtailment of work at Rivoli and ione Verde. Between the Bastione Verde - Venaria Reale (Johann Georg Keysslers and the cathedral piazza lay the western Neueste Reisen, p. 200, letter no. 27, writpart of the “Palazzo San Giovanni,” then ten sometime between December 1, 1729,

housing the ambassadors, offices, and and January 17,1730). shops, as well as the “Quartieri degli 10. Juvarra’s work on the enlargement of the Svizzeri,” a warren of insignificant build- quarter and on the buildings of the Quarings and some stables (C. Rovere, Descriz- — tieri Militari at Porta Susina began in

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterv / page 58

1715-16, was interrupted in 1722, and is founded only on style, and his letters of resumed in 1728. The Via Corte d’Appello 1732 that mention the project always imply

is the old Via delle Patte and was not that there was little hope for his ideas, and altered. This street led to the new Via del never refer to the model (Biblioteca Civica, Carmine, where the Palazzo Paesana, one Turin, Raccolta Autografici, Mazzo 20, and of the greatest palaces in Turin, was begun A. S. T.-1, Lettere Particolari; a résumé in 1715; Juvarra’s barracks at Porta Susina was published by A. Telluccini, “Nuovo

in 1716; the convent of the Carmine in contributo alla biografia di D. Filippo 1719; and the church of the Carmine Juvara, architetto messinese,” Archivio in 1732. See Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Storico Siciliano, xxxiv, 1909, pp. 357ff.). Juvarra, p. 62; O. Barbera, “Le caserme di Two sketches were published as prepara-

S. Celso e S. Daniele in Torino,” Boll. tory designs for the model in RovereSPABA, x, 1926, pp. 6-13; A. Lange, Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pls. 96 and 97; “Tre disegni inediti di opere del Juvarra,” but the latter is measured in trabucchi and Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino, piedi, not in palmi as would be expected.

xLIv, (Bollettino del Centro di Studi 13. Juvarra’s sources for the arrangement of Archeologici ed Artistici del Piemonte, 11) the aisles and ambulatory may have been 1942, pp. 100-110; and P. Viotto, “La the Roman churches of San Carlo al Corso Contrada di Dora Grossa,” Atti e Rassegna and San Giovanni in Laterano. tecnica SIAT, N.S. vu, 1953, pp. 108-120. 14, The desire for full external visibility was 11. Viotto, op. cit., without knowing Keyssler’s often and forcefully expressed in the thir-

diary, suggested that the project for Via teenth and fourteenth centuries in central Milano created the desire for a_ better Italy, sometimes in connection with central connection with the Piazza Castello, and free-standing churches (W. Braunfels,

thus led to the plan for the present Via Mittelalterliche Stadtbaukunst in der Garibaldi, or Via Dora Grossa, as it was Toskana, Berlin, 1953, pp. 127-29). then called. Doc. 24 suggests a relationship Alberti restates this latter ideal in the between the project for the Via Milano and mid-fifteenth century (Larchitettura, the streets to Porta Susina, the Via Corte Venice, 1565, vu, 3). For interior spaces, d’Appello, and the Via del Carmine. the documentary evidence is sparser. But it 12. The model was discovered by Brinckmann was stated by Pius 1 in his description of in the Museo Petriano in Rome (Model E) his cathedral in Pienza: “As you enter the and published in Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, middle door the entire church with its chapJuvarra, pp. 129-30 and pls. 98-99; it was els and altar is visible and is remarkable for burned during the last World War. The the clarity of the light and the brilliance of date of the model can be ascertained from the whole edifice” (Memoirs of a Renaisthe coat of arms of Pope Clement xm on it, sance Pope, ed. L. C. Gabel, New York, and from documents of 1732 that refer to 1959, Book rx, p. 287). Although the Pope Galilei’s having inspected some models (R. wanted a copy of Austrian Late Gothic hall

Wittkower, Boll. SPABA, 11, 1949, p. churches, his ideal was obviously not far 161). (A not too significant drawing by from that implied by Brunelleschian Galilei for the sacristy is in the Corsini churches. See also Michelangelo’s criticism Library, as noted in L. von Pastor, The of Sangallo’s plan, below, n. 15. In JuvarHistory of the Popes, St. Louis, 1941, xrv, ra’s time, the ideal was asserted in criticism p. 509, n. 5). But the attribution to Juvarra of projects for the Spanish Steps in Rome

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN chapterv / page 59

(M. Loret, “La Scalinata della Trinita de’ f. 35; Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra,

Monti vista dal suo autore,” Atti del v pl. 74. It is not certain whether the design

Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani is for San Giovanni, as suggested by [Istituto di Studi Romani] 11, 1952, pp. Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, and whether it

456-62 ). dates from 1732, or earlier.

15. The letter was first published, in slightly 19. For San Sisto and San Sepolcro, see P.

bowdlerized form, by Filippo Bonanni, Gazzola, Opere di Alessio Tramello (I Numismata summorum pontificum Templi Monumenti Italiani, fasc. 5), Rome, 1935. Vaticani Fabricam indicantia, Rome, 1696, 20. Collection of Vincenzo Fontana, Turin, f.

pp. 75-76. The following text is from the 72, “. . . [2] della Chiesa di S. Agostino

Archivio Buonarotti, Florence: G. di Piacenza,” a view into a chapel, and f. _ Milanesi, Le lettere di Michelangelo Buon- T7v, “S. Agostino di Piacenza,” a plan

arotti, Florence, 1895, pp. 535ff. (Fig. 74). The drawing belongs to a group Lui [Antonio da Sangallo] con quel circolo che of eleven smal | sketches of Lombard and e’ fa di fuori, la prima cosa toglie tutti i lumi Emilian buildings that Juvarra drew on &

alla pianta di Bramante; e non solo questo, ma trip m 1716; see A. Griseri, “Itinerari

per se non a ancora lume nessuno: e tanti juvarriani,” P aragsone, vi, 1957, PPnascondigli fra di sopra e di sotto, scuri, che 40-59. Sant’Agostino was begun by fanno commodita grande ad infinite ribalderie; Bernardino Panizzari in 1570 (11 Palazzo

con tener segretemente sbanditi, far monete Farnese e la Chiesa di S. Agostino di false, impregniar monache e altre ribalderie, in Piacenza, Piacenza, 1960, pp. 67ff, 1O1ff.).

mode che la sera, quando detta chiesa si It is noteworthy that the same church fasciserrassi, bisognerebbe venticinque uomini a nated Jacques-Germain Soufflot, the great cercare chi vi restassi nascosi dentro e con fatica mid-eighteenth-century French exponent of

’ ) »P ote : . .

glitroverebbe . . .” open columnar architecture, who presented

16. G. Vasari, Le vite. . . ed. G. Milanesi, an architect's drawing of it to the Académie

Florence. 1906. vit. v. 218ff. d’Architecture to “faire voir 4 quel point de

délicatesse on avait poussé la construction

Ed uso di dire (Michelangelo) pubblicamente dans cet édifice en y employant les ordres che il Sangallo ’aveva condotta cieca di lumi, e grecs, et prouver qu’en employant ces che aveva fuori troppi ordini di colonne l'un ordres, on peut approcher de la légéreté que sopra l’altro, e che con tanti risalti, aguglie, e la compagnie a admirée dans quelques

tritumi di membre, teneva molto pit dell’opera monuments gothiques” (J. Monval, Tedesca, che del buon modo antico, e della vaga Soufflot .. . , Paris, 1918, pp. 445-46). e bella mantera moderna; ed oltre a questo, che 21. Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, Riserva 59-4,

si poteva risparmiare cinquanta anni ci tempo a f. 101, longitudinal section, “Profilo della

finirla, e pit di trecentomila scudi di spesa, e Chi dj S Spirito di F; — df. 107

condurla con piti maesta e grandezza, e facilita, tesa CTS. OP mn 0 OEE IRENZE, ane he 2 e maggior disegno d’ordine, bellezza e comodita. plan, inscribed: “La Chiesa di S. Spirito, c al mio parere una assai bella architettura

17. See the “Discorso,” probably by Galilei, vista da me piu volte e q.a mane 3 di guinprinted by V. Golzio, “La facciata di 8. gio [sic] ho esaminata e la trova cosa assai Giovanni in Laterano e larchitettura del bella per essere composta 2.0 la d.a pianta Settecento,” Miscellanea Bibliothecae Hert- e retta, da 37 colone tutte a un pezzo e

zianae, Munich, 1961, pp. 450-63. di bonissimo garbo. . . . Sono l’a(1)tare 18. Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, Riserva 59-6, n, 38....a 3 giugno [sic] 1714.”

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT Chapterv / page 60

Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. 5. half-elevation of the same design; also f. 47,

22. In the belief that such exposed satellite no. 66, plan of another project. Finally, domes were rare in Italian architecture, Juvarra had, on January 26 and 27, 1729, Anthony Blunt (in his Francois Mansart examined similar designs for the Duomo [Studies of the Warburg Institute, xiv], Nuovo in Brescia (C. Boselli, “Progetti e London, 1941, pp. 29-30 and p. 30, n. 1) discussioni per la fabbrica del Duomo di has suggested that Juvarra was influenced Brescia nel xvi secolo,” Commentari by Leonardo’s sketches, such as Codice dell Ateneo di Brescia, 1951, pp. 29-82). Atlantico, 265v-a (illustrated in A. Giuseppe Torri, the Bolognese architect, Venturi, Storia dell’arte italiana, Milan, had designed four cupolas on tall drums for

1938, x1, 1, fig. 12), which were then, as the corner chapels; in this case Juvarra now, in the Ambrosiana in Milan. But this recommended that the construction include arrangement was not so rare, and certainly “solamente il cadino nella forma che di

not obscure. It occurs in San Marco in p-nte s’attrova mentre d.te cupolette sarebVenice, which was probably the main bero troppo svelte fuori di proporzione.” It source for both Juvarra and Leonardo; in might be noted that Juvarra had high North Italian churches such as Alessio praise for the plan of the Duomo: “Ho con Tramello’s Madonna di Campagna in esatta diligenza esaminato la Pianta di d.a Piacenza of the early sixteenth century; and magnifica fabrica, e ritrovo nella grandezza

in S. Serlio, Tutte l’opere d’architettura, e distribuzione dei parti una vera armonia, Bk. v, pl. 21, Venice, 1600, p. 214. come anche li ornati.” It is a Greek Cross in Furthermore, Juvarra had drawn similar a square, designed by G. B. Lantana in projects in 1706, before he could have seen 1603. Perhaps because of Brescia’s nearthe Leonardo drawings: Collection Conte ness to Turin, Juvarra carefully avoided Adriano Tournon, Turin, Juvarra volume 1, this type of plan in his projects for the

f. 20v, no. 27, plan, and f. 21, no. 28, Duomo Nuovo.

CHAPTER VI

The Palazzina Di Stupinigi

NE ideal of Juvarra’s eclectic times, to ‘maison de plaisance’ consists of little more than () unite contrasting virtues, was fulfilled in a great salon and several apartments” (Appenhis villa at Stupinigi. It was a miracle of recon- dix vu-B, Doc..40). To the visitor, the central ciliation, “bizarre,” yet rational, grand but inti- casino looked smaller yet, for as noted by J. J. mate, French and Italian in its gardens and Lalande, another eighteenth-century visitor, buildings. But this subtle balance has been “the singular form of the facade sufficiently nearly destroyed by his own and later altera- proves that Filippo Juvarra .. . sacrificed

tions. everything for the central salon” (Doc. 47).

From its inception the villa was hybrid in But on the other hand, Stupinigi required

purpose as well as in form. With good reason, many facilities for the hunt, and from the start the documents speak of it indiscriminately as Juvarra conjoined them to the living quarters,

“Palazzo” and “Palazzina.” On the one hand it arranging the main stables, porticoes, and was a lodge for brief spells of hunting and saddleries (“guard’arnesi”) around a cour festivities, not a grand residence like Venaria @honneur, with lesser stables and kennels where the court could stay in all seasons. Origi- around the forecourt (Text Fig. 2). As a result

nally, it seems that only the king and his Stupinigi seemed to be much larger than it was. immediate family * were to stay there with a few As late as the 1760’s, when it had become much attendants—the courtiers could easily come the grander yet, Lalande could state that “Stupinigi

few kilometers from Turin. Living quarters is a small chateau” and in the next sentence add were therefore limited to a salon for the fétes, that “it is a vast and pleasing ensemble.” two compact wings for the royal couple, two In the first project, the emphasis was on the more for the banqueting halls, and an attic floor intimacy of the design; in the later ones, on its for the servants and perhaps a few courtiers. As vastness. From a small villa that was to be Charles Nicolas Cochin was to write even after completed in a few years there grew a sprawlthe villa had been considerably enlarged: “This ing array as large as a town. Abetting this

page 61 |

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 62

srowth was the way the project was financed. 60-degree angles to allow better views of the The site chosen for it was on grounds owned by court and gardens (Fig. 78, center), while the the Ordine Mauriziano, partly because the staircases and minor rooms were squeezed into erounds had good deer forests, but still more the angles between the arms. In the center the because the Ordine could be made to rermburse galleries were changed to wings, for symmetry, the king, as it was also doing for the construc- and the salon became an oval, the sleekest form,

tion of the Piazza Vittoria. The Ordine was the one best suited to incorporate the diagonals soon to learn that unlimited funds did little to of the wings as well as the broadest openings to restrain a king’s ambitions or the dissembling the front and rear; it was now so large that it of his true intentions. Haste, too, contributed to shouldered aside the vestibule to front directly the fluidity of the project: in the planning of on the garden. The X shape of the casino then Stupinigi, as in that of the Duomo, Vittorio dictated the octagon of the court, and the curve Amedeo acted with an impetuosity that went of the salon suggested the pattern of the garden beyond the impatience of an old but still ambi- (Fig. 78, lower sketch). Juvarra’s late plans tious man to foreshadow his tragi-comic abdica- could be as succinct as his late structures.

tion a year later. The exterior was modesty itself, uniformly Despite all the changes, however, the arrange- plain and simple, porous and freely-breathing, ment of the villa remained a simple one. The low and spread-eagled on the ground (Cat. 2, 3; salon dominated the casino, the casino governed Fig. 79, 80). The skyline of the court buildings the plan and court buildings, and the plan was was one story high, or a little more, since there the chief ornament of the simple elevations. may have been low attics over the large stables Two practical considerations also guided the and the forecourt buildings; but in the corners

design: the salon and wings were to be open to of the main court four pavilions broke the the court and garden, and the wings had to be skyline to announce the theme of the crossed

accessible from the salon. axes. This “parte rustica” ran into and yet was At first Juvarra loosely assembled the compo- kept apart from the “parte civile” by a simple

nents to study the practical requirements device: the conjoining galleries were opened (Appendix vu-C, Cat. 1; Fig. 78. For the prob- in arcades—tenuous ligaments connoting the lems concerning the first project, see Appendix union and divorce of the casino and court vu-A2). The salon was a rectangle with sem1- buildings. ‘Then came the salon, a little taller circular ends, a shape similar to an oval. On its than the wings, with a piano nobile, a small long sides, shallow porticoes and vestibules attic, and a rather low roof. It now had shed opened to the court and gardens; from its ends the portico in front along with the vestibule the two wings with the royal suites diverged at behind to become the sole membrane between 45-degree angles towards the garden; and in the court and the garden. In front of it bow-

front two staircases extended laterally to shaped stairs moved with a flourish to the sickle-shaped galleries that gave the cour ins and outs of the massing. Except for a taller

@honneur a plan similar to the salon’s. salon with a full upper story, this was how But the design had no clear, simple pattern, Juvarra’s first project looked from the exterior.

and the joints between the units were awkward. Next Juvarra formed the interior (Cat. 4, To amend this, Juvarra first straightened the Fig. 81)—this was the sequence even though galleries and brought them directly into the the salon looks like the mere cast of its space. salon (Fig. 78, above). Both the wings and After raising the upper tier—his usual procegalleries were then arranged on an X to face dure—Juvarra produced a shell with many each other across the salon, and turned at windows, an arabesquing balcony on modil-

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chaptervi / page 63

lions, and a frescoed saucer dome. The salon If the four narrow piers are not without had to be no more than an open vessel, tinseled visual analogies to Sant’Andrea in Chieri, their with decoration; its frail walls had no trouble in structure is very different and unusual. They carrying the wide vault—about 21 meters from stand almost free, attached to the outer wall by garden to court—because it was made of plas- arches at the balcony and vault, and connected tered slats half-suspended from the roof, as was under the roof to help suspend the vaults and

common in French and Piedmontese salons. hold the heavy roof beams. This may explain But Juvarra quickly passed up this idea, and why Juvarra could start with the exterior and

on the same sheet (Fig. 81) ringed the salon then take up the independent framework with colonnades, first with two tiers of columns, within. then with a giant order. Colonnades of this kind Two catalysts may have brought about this have precedents in French salons, for instance innovation. The salon was a theater for balls, in Boffrand’s second project for Malgrange, sometimes with auditorium seats (Doc. 55B). which was in other ways a forerunner of Stupi- Small wonder then that of all Juvarra’s build-

nigi (see below p. 70 and n. 31), but they ings it most resembled his stage sets, with their had also been adopted by Juvarra in his oval tall rooms raised on attenuated piers (Fig. 83), projects for the sacristy of St. Peter’s. Besides as well as festival architecture, with its wood, lending more support to the balcony and super- plaster, canvas and paint. Secondly, Juvarra structure, they created an outer aisle for the had just visited the Madonna di Vicoforte in spectator, and a permeable double boundary. Mondovi to discuss with Francesco Gallo the To that end Juvarra soon came up with the construction of its cupola.* Within the tall, oval

most original thought in the sequence of church, six narrow piers had been erected the designs, the reduction of the colonnade to four full height to carry the wooden scaffolding, a piers on the diagonal axes of the oval’ (Fig. 81, technique sufficiently unusual in Piedmont to

upper left). This freed the view along the main warrant special notice in a Turinese book axes and brought back the light that had been published twenty years later.* Little else that obscured by the closely spaced columns. More Juvarra might have seen was so similar to the important, Juvarra unified the inner and outer salon in structure, and in technical function too, zones, even to the point of curving the main for the piers in Stupinigi must have supported arches along the oval, while yet suggesting the the armature as well as the vaults. peripheral “espéce de bas-cétés,” to use the The more daring Juvarra became with lighter

words of Lalande. structures, the further from conventional At either end of the salon he extended short buildings he had to look for sources. Just as galleries, stage wings for the exits and Guarini had turned to the Gothic and Moorish,

entrances in the occasional theater of court festi- and even as Juvarra was turning to the early val and the permanent one of courtly life. Those Renaissance for the Duomo Nuovo, so he may

below were partly screened by false doors and now have looked to the realm of temporary peek-a-boo lunettes which preserved the oval architecture, of armatures and _ festivals. circumference, but those above, which gave Whereas the heavy buildings of the seventeenth access to the balconies, were completely open to and eighteenth centuries were meant to look the salon, serving, as Lalande saw, “to make permanent, the opposite was true of some of the one believe, when perceiving them from below, frailer open structures. The churches of Guarini

that the upper part is much broader than in seem to be on the verge of falling; the salon of reality” (Doc. 47), yielding glimpses, in other Stupinigi has the aura of the occasional, of

words, of still another outer zone. ephemeral afternoons and dances.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 64

Twice Juvarra redrew this version of the him in the act of heightening the villa and salon in greater detail, raising the arches or struggling to readjust the structure of the changing them to brackets and curtailing the salon—one of the very few of his preserved amount of bracing behind the piers (Cat. 5, 6; drawings that expose him floundering with Fig. 82). Both variants embody the main lines technical problems. He must now have added of what surely was Juvarra’s initial project, the the tall attic to the wings, over the original one he wished to execute, for the salon is clear small attic (this does not show in the drawing), and homogeneous, like Juvarra’s other late and therefore a third tier to the lateral galleries

works of lighter structure, and small and of the salon. That attic required the insertion of simple, as the documents and the exterior show a corresponding mezzanine in the salon. But it that it was to have been. But soon came the first would have been precarious to raise the slender steps that were to deform this pristine design. piers as high as the walls of the salon. Conse-

In March of 1729 preparations for building quently Juvarra had to abandon the annular began, and on April 11 Vittorio Amedeo vault, which could not accomodate the third tier formally announced his plan to the Ordine of windows. In turn this meant that he could no (Doc. 4; on the problems of the construction, longer use the oval inner vault. Instead he see Appendix vu-A2). In correspondence with straightened the arches in plan and squared the

the conception of the villa, the building central part of the vault. However, this fragprogram was scheduled in two stages. The mented the whole vault into strange compartbasic shell of the casino was to be completed, ments, which were further distorted to fit the except for its vaults, in 1729, and that of the lunettes of the windows—and even so they cut court buildings in 1730, all at a cost of about diagonally across the lateral windows (Fig. 70,000 lire (Doc. 4). When it is considered 88). Finally the piers had to be twisted at that the basic structure alone of the chapel at mid-height from the oval alignment below to Venaria required more than 50,000 lire and the square format above (Fig. 89). four years of work, it is obvious that Stupinigi Attempting to redeem the design, Juvarra was to be not merely small, but jerry-built. engaged in some of the most daring speculaThe day after the royal decree, however, the tions of his career (Fig. 84). Above the lateral plans were returned by the Ordine to Juvarra compartments he erected lanterns and let light for “those additions and variations ordered by into them from windows above the central the king” (Doc. 6). From a petition by the vault. Thus the suggestion of an outer zone, Ordine of 1732, one learns that “the design, half-destroyed by the twisted piers and the having been varied after the first estimate to chopped-up vault, was restored by the corona of render the building more grandiose, and more light around the central canopy. He then raised of the grounds of this commendum having the central section of the vault and roof, in part therefore been occupied for it, the cost was to dominate the taller wings. Above the lower

determined at much more than 70,000 lire” vault there were windows and a balustraded (Doc. 23A). In fact, it rose at the end of 1732, ledge: was it simply a belvedere, or was it, by when the basic structure was nearly finished, to analogy with the perforated vaults that Juvarra more than three times the initial budget (Doc. was designing for the staircases, an open ceil-

56). ing? A pierced vault directly lighted, with The clue to this aggrandizement, and the lanterns indirectly lighted, above four free-

consequent botch of Juvarra’s early project, is a standing stilts, with walls opened by nine great

small sketch (Cat. 7; Fig. 84) which catches windows—structures of that kind Guarini

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chaptervi / page 65

would have understood, and Vittone would later and set off a preserve of fantasy within the build. The outer zone, which in the third central rational straightaways of the roads in the Pied-

project for the Duomo Nuovo had _ been montese flatlands. extended by Juvarra into the upper tier, would When were these changes formulated? now have included the double vault as well, There seems to be just one answer—the

destroying the last boundary. moment after the first project was shown to the But the loss of clarity remained. It soon Ordine (Appendix vu-A2). The additions to spilled over to the exterior, where the arms with the buildings, though probably not to the the galleries to either side of the salon peeked grounds, in all likelihood constituted the indecisively over the wings, while the central “aggiunte e variazioni” mentioned the day after square stuck up through the oval cap of the roof the king’s decree, but the plan for the gardens with four necessarily large buttresses at the may have been conceived a month later.

corners of this square to break up the skyline Nevertheless the changes were not thought (Cat. 8, 9; Fig. 85). A ziggurat mound sufficient—or were not so reported—to disrupt replaced the once-neat ovoidal roof, and the hull the original schedule. But in no time they put it

of the salon no longer stood out as crisply from six months to a year behind the mark. against the wings. In effect, Juvarra had fallen Despite the hiring of extra men, the roof was back on the waywardness of his earlier style, not begun until the summer of 1730, and the the more easily to assemble the elements of his court buildings were not raised above ground

later one. until 1731 (Doc. 17, 19B, 22A).

The courts, too, may have lost their simple In execution, the design of the salon was lines: Juvarra may now have added the low butchered still more (Fig. 88, 89). By now it attics to the porticoes and saddleries of the main should be obvious that Juvarra would lose his

court, and the second, taller attics to the large courage for the lanterns and open vault. It is stables and the forecourt buildings (Fig. 86, also to be expected that he would continue to 87). Overly weighty and complicated, these heighten the vault. But this heightening was elevations distract from the salon and the light exaggerated both by the never quite resolved simplicity suggested by the thin articulation. ambition for a grander villa, and by the not Whether or not the attics were added to the fully calculable form of the vault, especially of court buildings at this time, the enlargement of its irregular outer segments. Juvarra therefore the wings alone implies a new attitude towards built the walls so that the vault could be raised the villa. New rooms for more servants, perhaps or lowered about a meter, as shown by niches in

also for more guests, indicate that Vittorio the upper tier which project about that distance Amedeo had decided to hold the fétes and hunts above the vault’s present rim. Even so, he on a larger scale, or perhaps to make his annual needed a mess of canvas, stucco, paint, and residence at Stupinigi longer and more formal. woodwork to patch over the meeting of vault The “Palazzina” had become the “Palazzo.” and windows. Such free-hand bandaging of The natural reflex was the enlargement of the structural incongruities with superficial ornagrounds, most probably with the great “rondo” ment was, to be sure, a commonplace of his of the garden (Text Fig. 2). The resulting key- method. It followed from the lushness of his hole shape was the one redeeming change in ornament and the ballooning elasticity of the the series. It amplified the curves of the salon, vaults, as most marvelously exhibited in the

matched rounded site to angular buildings in vaults below the staircase of the Palazzo figures complementary but equally “artificioso,” Madama, which were first sliced in half to

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 66

render the view, and then smoothed along the aerial and soft. Tiepolo was just beginning to cut edges with soft brackets and cornices of win fame outside the Veneto: his frescoes in the stucco. But in Stupinigi there was no such Palazzi Archinto and Casati-Dugnani in Milan rationale: the work was simply last-minute and date from 1731, after the Valeriani had been

makeshift. hired.”

The disintegration of the salon was The salon was therefore born less of Juvar-

completed by the frescoes (Fig. 88, 89). In ra’s intention than of loss of control. Lalande February, 1731, the brothers Giuseppe and called it “a dream of an architect.” The dreamDomenico Valeriani were hired to paint the like insubstantiality of Juvarra’s stage designs center of the vault with the Triumph of Diana, pervaded it from the start, but the phantasmaand the rest of the salon with figures and orna- goric confusion was not willed by him at first. ment (Doc. 20). For this they were “obliged to Only after it proved unavoidable did he aban-

show the designs to the architect in order to don himself deliberately to the clutter of his agree upon the manner and quantity of their early style. ornaments” (Doc. 20B), and Juvarra’s ideas do When it came time to paint the wings, have their match in the illusionary architec- Juvarra had caught up with the new trend. In ture—notably the perforations of the lateral the summer of 1731 he did some work for vaults, which, though a standard trick of quad- Bergamo and so may have seen Tiepolo’s revoratura painting, recall the prior scheme for the lutionary paintings in Milan. For the frescoes of

lanterns. the bedrooms (Doc. 24) two years later, he

Yet one is hard put to know why Juvarra chose the young Carlo Andrea Van Loo, who, should have engaged two painters whose style though trained in Rome and unacquainted with was so much at variance with his own in the the Venetian style, had a lighter touch than the salon.” Every critic since Lalande (Doc. 47) Valeriani. But for the antichambers the choice has objected to the Valerianis’ heavy marble was Giovanni Battista Crosato, who had done forms and airless skies, which are little in keep- little to attract attention up to that time, but ing with Juvarra’s papery surfaces. They are who happened to be, of all the available Venenot known to have done much before Stupinigi, tians, the one whose art most closely approxi-

but it was not to save money that they were mated Tiepolo’s in the afore-mentioned hired—the 9,000 lire paid them was no mean respects.* For the banqueting halls, the painter sum. Perhaps they were chosen because, as of the ornaments was, as new documents prove, Lalande remarked, they were adept in perspec- Girolamo Mengozzi-Colonna, a fellow member tive, which was essential to cope with the of Juvarra’s in the Accademia di San Luca in

careening surfaces of the vault. Rome, and soon to become the greatest guadraMore important, and likely, Juvarra simply turista of the Veneto (Doc. 24C). By the did not know more than one or two painters of mid-1720’s Mengozzi-Colonna had already the time whose style was equivalent to his new begun his long and famous collaboration with manner.® Sebastiano Ricci’s exceptional ceiling Tiepolo.” Had Juvarra been trying to employ in the Palazzo Pitti of Florence had many of the the master himself? requisite qualities, and Juvarra may have hoped During Juvarra’s lifetime, other changes to find them in the Valeriani, who had worked helped seed the overgrowth of the outbuildings for Sebastiano’s nephew and Juvarra’s friend, which after his death came to smother the origiMarco Ricci.’ But it was the new style of nal nucleus. He widened the stables in 1731, Tiepolo and some of his young contemporaries perhaps thickening their external buttresses to in Venice that was best fit for Juvarra’s, truly hold the greater vaults (Doc. 9, 22); and if he

a@)2>

1,

KIS AIAG Oo © . |Oe 22ao a 2 A : ®@ % 4 COR 229800 s, B : =RIC} 2QOAG ® g g LAG § 03 Orr Re TR OQOay © OD QA Q 3 o? ss SO 26 a 2 o ~~ EO SSSI 9 OB ©, a & wv © & 5S OaQ OOD SD Ro oY Co OQ S258 1) BS SO@ Qe kK \Z Z= 9oy re) oo oo ween sana RES OO Oe & Qo Ye g & ES GER BRS SESE fay S Q fo) oO (> O Yi Or EAS VaR SEY SEEPS \ S © rs) TS BOR ots sce rn Sey AS SAAS @ © Ne) co a@9) ©©

aeme&©

oY ©

AOo) ® re) ©,

O

ODI BDO ©Rade Q> &, iN OG aon AS A “o OUBGRN oH SOR BOO 2) TOU 220 \2, & fe) OOH oN d© fe)4 SOSQQ0006 OB 5 OOO aan oN @ \© ‘©

oe coor OQOQE © eA e, A ? Roe GOTOp Qo, ® \O IF GO SOB (0, >O

dG b p& CREAOa, Vi)iasharss een ERSEEES SEES ‘ Q “ee& a NG oy / Gees SY my xX SY cvoaeon & ag b (0) BEES p> R30) SS SATES ES >) 2) ray ©

Cox $ =:CK Cari ato Oo. & © Q3) oH6) Stensey. Rp ae o)O °)0}Q O SSNS ieaesscveessee: SS AD ©) G2) 6°ttsSs & ote TIES psaees sesese, ey LiPo Q SS 6) ED eee Peon ee RED, 9© 65 EPOOEES Opes Chea eS tn SSH a SEES NS R> SEER tS)BRO. 0) 2 @ © 3) ( seat eatBERRERO eR > eewsseas Qa © Y P & OBE hy aw: = ns ERD BESS o 9 ©Roe ©© o pb Pp OES GION |) Basa

\ean “gooae QOD999 PE> ORS Lem © ae | NS |Se ERY BeEyeee | REE 222 © NNWS 0 OO go© aN EY SNS RSH) [|© Bay Hey ERITH Boke A UExr POCO Ne)= ies G0 SGOOH A TOSS (oo: ‘ SSS ORS GEES ecmeseuesur! ¥S

o/ 2 of

oy &

cen)

J&

WJ & oe oe P

ey &

ry 2 gy

of —

wa

io" 3)

whL2

aac acacia

The Palazzina di Stupinigi 1. The “rondo,” The roads were laid out in

1729, but the garden was designed in 1740.

2. Originally the Appartamento del Re, now the Appartamento della Regina. 3. Originally the Appartamento della

Regina, now the Appartamento del Re. 4. Originally one of the “stanze delli buffetti,” or banqueting halls, changed in the late eighteenth century to the Sala degli Scudieri, also known as the Sala dello Stato dei Cavalieri.

5. The other “stanza delli buffetti,” changed in 1767-69 to the Anticappella de Saint Uberto. 6. The wing, begun in 1739, of the Duca di Savoia, now the Appartamento Re Carlo Felice.

_ 7. The wing, begun the same time, of the Duca di Chiablese, now the Appartamento Nuovo.

8. Additions to the wing of the Duca di

Chiablese, begun in 1760. 9. The porticoes, changed to closed

galleries in 1759-61. | 10. The large stables, partly converted into rooms in the nineteenth century. 11. The “guard’arnesi,” of saddleries.

12. The forecourt. 13. The small stables. 14. The small kennels. (5. A low wing built before 1757. 16. Wings built in the nineteenth century. 17. Entrance semicircle, with stables begun in 1755. 18. The church of the Visitation, begun in

1738. |

19. The large kennels, designed in 1772. 20. The farmhouses, begun in 1733.

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chapter vi / page 67

had not already planned the addition of the line of buildings on the garden side—all this is extra attics, this may have been the occasion for quite characteristic of Alfieri, as is shown by his them. In any case, those over the main stables drawings for the area around the Duomo Nuovo were built in his lifetime (Doc. 22H). Then in and by his later model for Stupinigi. 1733, he began to construct the farmhouses in Concurrently all the lower buildings of the

front of the villa along the road to Turin (Doc. court (everything, that is, except the large 25). Small and distinct from the Palazzina, they stables) were raised by an attic on the inner did not affect its appearance, but they were skyline (Appendix vu—A, 5B; Doc. 33; Fig.

sources of the later gigantomania. 86, 87). If this had not already been planned by Both of these alterations were ordered by Juvarra, it was probably meant to bring the Carlo Emanuele 111; it was he, more than anyone buildings up to the height of the ducal wings,

else, who was responsible for the distortion and to provide rooms for the extra servants. of Stupinigi.”” The villa apparently became his Also due to the wings, landscaping for the favorite country residence, and throughout his garden, begun in 1738, had to be done over in long reign he brought more and more members 1740 in order to widen the grounds and “rondo” of the court to live there. He and his chief archi- past the new end pavilions (Doc. 31, 35). tect, Benedetto Alfieri, were “avezza di lavorare The second and most ambitious campaign nel grande.”” ‘They loved a ponderous style, was undertaken by Carlo Emanuele 11 in the and that style, more than the simple multiplica- later 1740’s. An enormous model was built over tion of buildings, was what spoiled Juvarra’s a period of several years on a design undoubtedly

conception. supplied by Alfieri (Doc. 39; Fig. 90). It was

Juvarra’s project was completed in 1736 the opposite of Juvarra’s in spirit, but quite like (Doc. 26A), the year of his death, and shortly Alfieri’s contemporary plans for the surroundafterwards Carlo Emanuele mi began to make ings of the Duomo Nuovo—vast and utopian, some conservative additions, including the interconnected in all its parts, shut in on itself, parish church near the entrance semicircle and dotted with fancy pavilions to stake out the (Doc. 27, 29, 31). But in 1739—the year after corners and distract from the salon. Everything Alfieri entered his service—he undertook a radi- would have been doubled—the ducal pavilions,

cal program. For his sons, the Dukes of the stables, the buildings of the forecourt—in Chiablese and Savoia, the king had two wings order to wrap up the old buildings in the new built from the pavilions between the stables and ones, and this monstrosity was then to be linked

porticoes towards the gardens at an angle paral- to stables around the semicircular entrance

lel to the wings of the casino (Text Fig. 2; piazza and thus to the farm buildings on the Doc. 33, 34). On both stylistic and documen- road towards Turin.

tary grounds (Appendix vir-A4) there can In practice the project had two results: the be little doubt that this was not the work of construction of the stables around the semicirGiovanni Tommaso Prunotto, Juvarra’s direc- cular entrance piazza in the mid-1750’s (Doc. tor of construction and successor as architect to 43), and—almost certainly as a consequence of

Stupinigi, but rather of Alfieri himself. The Alfieri’s project—the disastrous renovation of multiplication of the angles of the buildings the skyline. Beginning in 1749, the roofs of all congruent to the existing ones, the emphasis on the buildings on the court side were loaded elaborate pavilions at the ends and joints (in down with heavy balustrades in terracotta, particular, the complex, bastion-like shape of which were later remade at enormous cost in the end pavilions are beyond the weak curvilin- marble and further piled above the casino with

earities of Prunotto), and the grand, reflexive vases and trophies (Doc. 42). Juvarra had

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 68

intended that the buildings meet the sky in the had been adapted in Germany and Austria. All thinnest of cornices, and his sketches show no of these sources then went into the making of

balustrades at all (Fig. 79, 80). Alfieri’s Stupinigi. pomposities overburden the slight walls of the The shaped garden or site that surrounds the courts, outshine their simple colors and plain villa, rather than extending behind it in a materials, and rupture the linear continuity of normal rectilinear pattern, seems to have won a Juvarra’s cornices to create or emphasize the certain popularity in Tuscany during the later vertical breaks between the units, particularly sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. ‘The at the meeting with the casino and salon. outstanding example is Bernardo Buontalenti’s The destruction of Juvarra’s court elevations Pratolino, with its elongated field leading from was accomplished by a few more strokes. The the villa to a large circle in a keyhole shape.” In galleries were closed in 1759-61 as part of a France, the idea made its appearance in the modernization of the ducal wings (Doc. 45C), 1670’s. It turned up first, and in a form closest

putting an end to that apart-and-together to Stupinigi’s, in the grounds of Charles Le coupling of casino and fore-buildings which had Brun’s “maison de plaisance” at Montmorency,

been so much a guiding theme of Juvarra’s which were largely completed by 1679.” Le project. In 1765-66, the central part of the roof Brun, who had been to Italy and was given to was elevated from Juvarra’s low crown to a an Italianate style, laid out a keyhole-shaped bulkier one interrupted by eight large windows, area in front of his small house and a trapezowhich became an overblown base for Francesco idal canal behind it; between them the “durchLadatte’s finial deer (Doc. 46; Fig. 86). Once sichtige Vestibiil,” as Junecke has aptly called again the salon regained its mastery over the it, was open through loggias to both sides.

court buildings, but at the cost of a somewhat In Austria and Germany, where Italian bloated and complex peak. In the late eighteenth bizzarria mingled with French design, the century a large kennel was erected on the west- shaped gardens or grounds were introduced in ern end of the entrance semicircle (Doc. 52); the early years of the eighteenth century.

with unintended humor, it was given an Johann Lucas von Hildebrandt seems to have X-shaped plan like the casino’s. The latest addi- designed several long trapezoidal or boattions were the semicircular entrance and the shaped designs during the first decade, and long wings on either side of the forecourt build- Juvarra may have known them through engrav-

ings, gifts of the closing decade of the century. ings.” A garden more fanciful than MontAs Alfieri would have liked, they closed the morency, though directly based on it, was last gap in the straggling half-mile of build- planned for the Karlsaue near Cassel in these ings, and gave Stupinigi a properly elephantine years” (Fig. 91). The designer and exact date

introduction. are unknown, but the project was probably reThis, which one sees now, has little place in lated to the Orangerie begun there in 1703.* European history. But Juvarra’s first project The chief architect in that period for the Land-

has a distinguished one. grave Karl of Hesse-Cassel, Giovanni Francesco Both for the gardens and buildings, its histor- Guerniero, was in Rome several times during

ical setting goes back to the late sixteenth Juvarra’s early residence there;” and since century in Italy. A century later these ideas Juvarra prepared a design for one of the Landwere developed through the same Franco- grave’s palaces, probably in the first decade of Italian interchange that produced the open the century,” there can be little doubt that he structures of Guarini, Le Vau, and the two knew of the projects for the garden. Mansarts; by the early eighteenth century they Artfully shaped grounds were also the rage

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chapterv1 / page 69

for villas erected near Palermo in the early revealed it fully on the exterior of these rectilineighteenth century, most strikingly at the Villa ear buildings. French chateaux, on the other Palagonia at Bagheria.”” Here Austrian ideas hand, receded and protruded in a way that lent may have played a role, for, as Wittkower has itself perfectly to this function. Consequently, pointed out, there were political and occasional when two-story Italian salons were introduced artistic ties between Sicily and Vienna in the into France about 1650, the two most Italianate

years 1713-34.” As a Sicilian, Juvarra might architects, Le Vau and Antoine Le Pautre, well have been aware of these developments. could more easily transform the central pavilion Thus he had all the authority he needed to into domed circles or ovals that broke through

envelop the Palazzina in elegantly patterned the facades to open the salon for light and grounds. The keyhole shape is particularly views.” Concurrently they gave the salons a close to the layout of the Karlsaue and to Le grander air and more room for spectators by Brun’s Montmorency, which Juvarra may have ringing them with colonnades that carried seen on his trips to France in 1718-19 and balconies.” Then Bernini, inspired by Le Vau’s 1721 and probably knew from Mariette’s plan for the Louvre, and specifically imitating engraving of 1727.” But his design differs from Le Pautre, took up the idea in his first project its precedents in one significant respect: since for the Louvre. In a short time the salon as a

the building is not a rectilinear block, the belvedere bayed out into the garden and court patterns of the grounds and the Palazzina had become an international cliché.”

complement each other more fully. These two developments, of the centralized The architectural lineage of Stupinigi was villa and the protruding salon, were combined similar, but more intricate. It derived from four by Carlo Fontana in a project of 1689” (Fig. 92,

traditions: the centralized villa with separate 93). It consisted of a small casino with a wings around the core; the round or oval salon cylindrical vestibule and a salon at the nodal exposed on the exterior; the vast palace with point of three wings, and concave loggias and polygonal courts; and the small “maison de plat- staircases between them. Thus the centralized sance” of less than two stories. Most of these villa was broken apart to reveal the salon and developments were interconnected in a Franco- radiating wings, and its rigorous symmetry was

Italian evolution. graced with a touch of fancy by the hexagonal The centralized villa went through its most arrangement. In both respects the little project

notable Italian development around the was a direct forerunner of Stupinigi. mid-sixteenth century in the designs of Serlio Almost contemporaneously, Johann Fischer and Palladio.” Besides its geometrical elegance, von Erlach produced a sheaf of plans for garden

it offered the advantages of small wings or pavilions that had more than a coincidental apartments that were private and yet linked to resemblance to Fontana’s casino.” Fischer had the salon, close together and yet open to the probably mingled with the entourage of Bernini landscape. In the latter half of the seventeenth and Fontana in the 1670’s, and perhaps was century the type returned to prominence acquainted with the as yet unknown sources of through Italianizing buildings in France, such Fontana’s villas. But these capricci of his as Jules-Hardouin Mansart’s royal pavilion at were even more fanciful geometric diversions

Marly.” than Fontana’s. It was by adapting their princiBut most of these buildings, excepting ples to more practical effect that Fischer

Serlio’s, remained compact blocks. Although established the exact pattern of the casino of the Italians had created the two-story central Stupinigi. salon in the sixteenth century, they had seldom This occurred with his design for the small

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 70

villa, or “Lustgebaude,” of Count Althan in the Yet all of these precedents were rather tall, Rossau near Vienna, a building probably heavy, and blocky, rising two or two-and-a-half begun in the late 1680’s” (Fig. 94,95). At its stories. Still another line had to go into the center stood an ovoidal core with its wider sides making of Stupinigi, the chateau or casino of

towards the garden and entrance area one story or of one story plus a low attic.“ Once (although inside this core the vestibule was a again they go back to the sixteenth century, es-

smaller oval with its narrow ends on the pecially to Serlio’s projects® and de l’Orme’s entrance axis), and from this four wings Chateau Neuf at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, but emerged on an X. Serlio had used such a “wind- they were seldom built after that until Louis Le

mill” pattern, as he called it, for the four wings Vau designed the Trianon de Porcelaine at around an octagonal court; but Fischer Versailles in 1670. Then, in the Grand Trianon, arranged them on the axes used by Italianate Jules-Hardouin Mansart used the one-story elearchitects to construct an oval, here at an angle vation for a larger and more formal building,” of about 55 degrees. Therefore he united the and so combined intimacy with a suggestion of advantages of a central plan with those of an grandeur, a low skyline and long horizontals, as

oblong one: that is to say, he created better Juvarra was later to do. views from the salon and wings of the garden During his early, semi-idle years of utopian and entrance sides. The design was in addition dreaming, Juvarra was naturally given to the °* more novel than Fontana’s because it was less a geometrical play expressed in the casini of

normal geometric pattern. Fontana and Fischer von Erlach. In several

Soon a more inposing version of the design drawings probably datable before 1715, he had was drawn up by Germain Boffrand in a unexe- doodled with small casini of cruciform, pentagcuted project for the Chateau of Malgrange onal or hexagonal shape—the last suggesting a

near Nancy” (Fig. 96-98). Although the knowledge of Fontana’s project.’ He had also design was first published in 1745, nothing experimented with geometrical fantasies on a suggests that it was not prepared when work grandiose scale for palaces grouped around began in 1711.” Certainly there is no sign that polygonal courts. Perhaps the first of them was

it derives from Stupinigi—it has a circular his prize-winning design for the Concorso rather than oval salon, no cour d’honneur, and a Clementino of 1705* (Fig. 99, 100). The different arrangement of the stairs, closer to rules called for a huge country palace for three Fischer’s plan. Juvarra, on the other hand, may persons, so Juvarra laid out three palace well have learned of Boffrand’s work on his blocks and three round pavilions about a hexagtrips to France, and perhaps he recalled its onal court. The grand was interspersed with the salon, with two tiers of colonnades carrying the garden-like in the open pavilions to form a balcony and vault, when making his early de- picturesque skyline moving up and down, and

signs for Stupinigi. from the palace the gardens and roads radiated

The chain of influence is less relevant, in a dodecagon which married buildings and however, than the proof that the X-shaped grounds. Stupinigi’s plan was also foreshaschema exercised a special attraction for the dowed in Juvarra’s designs of 1706 for a hospithree continental architects of the early eight- tal church, in one of which he placed a church eenth century who most expertly combined the with pronounced diagonal axes at the end of a bizarre with the rational, an appeal that the long court, and in another a central church in design also had, it is amusing to note, for that the rear of an octagonal court.” eccentric rationalist of the nineteenth century, But the union of a small, essentially inde-

Viollet-le-Duc.” pendent casino with fairly extensive forecourt

: THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chaptervi / page 71

buildings, that distinctive characteristic of the clear mathematics and useful functions. Here early project for Stupinigi, has few precedents. were none of the dizzying asymmetries of

There were the forecourt buildings of French Borromini’s SantIvo, for example, but a chateaux and their Piedmontese derivatives, studious essay on the number three—three but usually the residence was also quite grand. stories, three rooms in each wing, six niches in Only the rather small Palladian villas with their the vestibule, and so on to bizarre rationality.

long porticoes were an equivalent of Juvarra’s That standard of qualified “bizzarria,” of

delicately mixed scale.” proper “capriccio,” was an important one in the But there was still a more profound balance. late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries

Writing of his project for the three-winged in Italy.” The plan of Stupinigi is perhaps the casino, Fontana had boasted that “this idea will greatest example of it.

be unique, and never seen again,” but also From Juvarra’s slow maturing, then, came comfortably perfect in the “symmetry of its the amazing speed with which he drew the first

components ...and the harmony of its project for Stupinigi, and from these many parts.” Its novelty lay in the hexagonal strands its fine mingling of opposite characterissystem, which was disciplined, however, by tics.

NOTES l. That is to say, his mistress, the Contessa di altre cose di tal genere, Turin, 1748, p. San Sebastiano, whom he married late in 283, and Parte 11, pl. 5, fig. 5. Borra was a 1730, after his abdication. The queen had student of Vittone’s in 1733 (G. Rodolfo in died in 1728 (D. Carutti, Storia di Vittorio Atti SPABA, xv, 1933, p. 455, n. 14). Amedeo u, 3rd ed., Turin, 1897, pp. 226, 5. Juvarra may have known of the Valeriant’s 558). No doubt this had a bearing on the beginnings in Rome, or more likely have

decision to build Stupinigi. heard of them through his friend, Marco 2. The four piers rise above the vault to Ricci, in whose Venetian shop they had support four great arches. The vault is been employed (C. Donzelli, J pittori veneti hung from these, and the armature of the del settecento, Florence, 1957, p. 250). roof rests upon them. A section, somewhat Giuseppe was the figure painter; both did simplified, has been published by M. much work for the Venetian theater. Passanti, “La palazzina di caccia di Stupi- 6. F. Haskell, Patrons and Painters, London,

nigi,” L’architettura, cronache e storia, 1963, p. 297, has pointed out that to the

Xx, 22, 1957, p. 269. end of his life Juvarra retained a preference

3. On Juvarra’s visit of 1728 and the scaffold- for Roman painters. But this was true only

ing, see N. Carboneri, L’architetto Fran- for oils, in which, after all, the Romans cesco Gallo, Turin, 1954 (Atti SPABA, were by no means the inferiors of the VeneN.S. 11), fig. 4 and pp. 147-51. The vault tians at the time.

was constructed in 1731-32. 7. On Juvarra’s importance for the early

4. C. B. Borra, Trattato della cognizione arrival of “Rococo” fresco painting in pratica delle resistenze geometricamente Turin, see the superb discussions by A. dimostrato . . . collaggiunta delle arma- Griseri, “I] ‘Rococo’ a Torino e G. B. ture di varie maniere di coperti, volte, ed Crosato,” Paragone, xi, 135, 1961, pp.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterv1 / page 72

42-65, and idem, Mostra del Barocco pavilions within a rhomboidal garden, is Piemontese, 1, Pittura. The only painter variously given as late sixteenth and late who exhibited some of these qualities a seventeenth centuries (J. C. Shepherd and

little earlier in Piedmont was Sebastiano G. A. Jellicoe, Italian Gardens of the Galeotti, who painted an atrium at Rivoli Renaissance, 2nd ed., London, 1953, p. for Juvarra in 1722 in a somewhat flowing vil, fig. 15; L. Dami, The Italian Garden, manner; illustrated in N. Carboneri, Sebas- New York, n. d., p. 44). The elaborately tiano Galeotti, Venice, 1955, figs. 8-14. shaped gardens of the Villa Garzoni at 7a. ‘Tiepolo was still in Venice on April 14, Collodi are generally dated before 1652 1731: A. Morassi, A Complete catalogue of (Shepherd and Jellicoe, op. cit., fig. 49, the Paintings of G. B. Tiepolo, Greenwich, and p. vi; G. Gromort, Jardins d’Italie,

1962, p. 230. Paris, 1931, m1). Juvarra designed an elon-

8. See G. Fiocco, Giambattista Crosato, 2nd. gated garden somewhat similar to Prato-

ed., Padua, 1944, pp. 33-35. lino for the Villa Mansi at Segromigno,

9. On the early collaboration of Mengozzi- near Lucca, in 1725 or 1732 (J. B. Barsa Colonna and Tiepolo from 1725 to 1728 in and E. Crea, Le ville Lucchesi, Rome, n.d.,

the Palazzo Dolfin in Venice, see A. pp. 44, 216). Morassi, “Giambattista Tiepolo—Painter 13. H. Junecke, Montmorency, Der Landsitz

of ‘Machiette,’” Burlington Magazine, cl, Charles Le Bruns. . . , Berlin, 1960, pp. 1959, pp. 227-32. Additional notices on 18, 19, 22. Junecke demonstrates that the Mengozzi-Colonna are in C. Donzelli, op. garden could not have been begun before cit., pp. 159-60. He is said to have painted 1675. He suggests that Le Nétre may have

the now destroyed frescoes of the Cappella helped in the planning, and notes that di Santissima Crocefisso in S. Francesco di eighteenth century sources attribute the Assisi in Turin: E. Olivero, La Chiesa diS. garden variously to Le Brun or Le Nétre

Francesco di Assisiin Torino . . . Chieri, (ibid., n. 28). But nothing else in Le

1935, p. 56. Nétre’s oeuvre is so fanciful in shape, and

10. On Carlo Emanuele’s love for “la chasse, Le Brun must have conceived the general les spectacles, la table, les femmes . . . la format. ‘T'wo other works with this type of magnificence, la représentation, qu’on lui plan which Juvarra could have known from fasse la cour,” and the contrast between his J. Mariette’s Architecture Francoise of personality and the more austere one of his 1727 are Jacques-Francois Blondel’s father, see “Memorie aneddotiche sulla Maison du Grand Charonne, designed in Corte di Sardegna del Conte di Blondel,” the 1720's (zbid., 1, pl. 149; L. Hautecoeur,

Miscellanea di Storia Italiana, xin, Histoire de Tarchitecture classique en

1873, pp. 486-87 and 652. France, 11, p. 103), and the house of a

11. See the contemporary description of Alfieri, Monsieur Paris in Bercy by Francois Le

p. 104, n. 9. Vau and Jacques de la Guépiére (Mariette,

12. W. Smith, “Pratolino,” Journal of the op. cit., 1, pl. 152).

Society of Architectural Historians, xXx, 14. B. Grimschitz, Johann Lucas von Hilde1961, pp. 155-68, shows that the grounds brandt, Vienna-Munich, 1959, figs. 8-10,

for Pratolino were completed in the drawings for the Mansfeld-Fondi (now sixteenth century. The date of the Villa Schwarzenberg) palace in Vienna, a Campi near Ponte a Signa, with its two long trapezoid executed without its garden

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chaptervi / page 73

pavilion, as shown in an engraving by 18. Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, Riserva 59-4, Fischer von Erlach, Anfang Einiger Vor- f. 83 (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, stellungen der Vornehmsten Gebdude pl. 146), inscribed by Juvarra “Pianta d’un

... von Wien, Vienna, 1715, pl. 20; gran Palazzo fatto p. il Sr. Pr.pe d’Asiacaillustrated in T. Zacharias, Joseph Emanuel sell in Germania co’ Pobligo di 8 cortili.” Fischer Von Erlach, Vienna-Munich, 1960, Brinckmann (op. cit., p. 134) says that pl. 108. Also, Grimschitz, op. cit., fig. 60, “circa il 1707 entro Juvarra in rapporto con

engraving of boat-shaped grounds for Carlo.” There is no sound evidence for the Schloss Schénborn near Gdllersdorf. The date, but inclusion of the design with other engraving is supposedly after a drawing by early drawings in Riserva 59-4 would Salomon Kleiner, and therefore cannot be suggest that it dates from Juvarra’s Roman earlier than the 1720’s; thus it is uncertain period. Conceivably, it was a project for

whether it represents Hildebrandt’s or a Schloss Weissenstein (later Wilhelms-

later plan. hohe). The great garden of this palace was

15. The plans are reproduced by A. Holtmeyer, begun in 1701; in 1705 Guerniero Die Bau- und Kunstdenkmdler im Reg- published a book with his projects for the terungsbezirk Cassel, v1, Cassel, 1923, pls. palace; in 1709-1710 Louis-Rémy de la 230, 231; a plan of 1728 in the National- Fosse seems to have prepared other projects museum, Stockholm, is illustrated in E. De for it; the gardens were completed in 1718; Ganay, André Le Nostre, Paris, n.d., pl. but the palace was not begun until the late

CLVII. eighteenth century on the designs of

16. In August, 1700, the garden conservatory Simon-Louis Du Ry and Christophe burned down (H. Kramm, “Die Enste- Hussow (Heidelbach, op. cit.; H. Kramm, hunggeschichte der Kasseler Orangerie “Barock Bauprojekte des hessischen und die hessischen Orangeriebauten,” Hofes,” Festschrift Richard Hamann zum Hessenland, 1940-41, u, pp. 82-107). In sechsigsten Geburtstage, Burg, 1939, pp.

1701 work in the gardens is recorded, 46-65). But Juvarra’s design is not well though whether it was for the plan in ques- suited to Wilhelmshohe, for the object tion is not known (Holtmeyer, op. cit., p. there was to obtain a good view of the 358). The Orangerie was begun in 1703 gardens, a function satisfied by Guerniero’s on a smaller plan which Kramm attributes long rectangular block, but not by Juvar-

to Giovanni Francesco Guerniero, and ra’s enormous octagon. Nor could the enlarged in 1705, most probably by Paul project have been for the Karlsaue, since it Du Ry. In 1783, the grandson of Du Ry, was much too big. Therefore it may have Simon-Louis, reported that he had once been for a third, as yet unidentified project

seen a letter of Le Nétre’s about the of the Landgrave Karl’s. It is similar to gardens (Holtmeyer, op. cit., p. 351). But several other plans, Italian and German, since Le Nétre died in September, 1700, it some with eight courts and all utopian in is unlikely that he made the plans, the more size, that were made for the Landgrave in

so since their style is not at all like his. the early eighteenth century (Holtmeyer, 17. Guerniero was in Rome in 1704, 1705, late op. cit., pl. 198, 199, 1 and 2). Other plans

1710-early 1711, and after 1716 (P. for a smaller unidentified palace also exist Heidelbach, Die Geschichte der Wilhelms- (ibid., pl. 201, signed by George Duper hohe, Leipzig, 1909, pp. 49, 65, 78, 99). and dated 1718).

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 74

19. K. Lohmeyer, Palagonisches Barock, century (ibid., ui, pp. 12, 13); and Frankfurt, 1943; V. Ziino, Contributi allo Boffrand’s hunting lodge at Bouchefort, studio dellarchitettura del °700 in Sicilia, also of the early eighteenth century (zd:d., Palermo, 1950. The Villa Palagonia was in pp. 83, 137, 138). A. Blunt sees Palladian

construction in 1715. influence in this development (Bollettino del

20. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy Centro Internazionale di Studi d’Architet... p. 266. Wittkower notes that Tom- tura, Andrea Palladio, 1, 1960, pp. 14-18). maso Maria Napoli, architect of the Villa 24. Antoine Le Pautre, op. cit., pp. 21-25;

Palagonia, was twice in Vienna. Le Vau’s Le Raincy, which may well have

21. Mariette, op. cit., 1, pl. 345. had a two story salon, was begun in the 22. ‘The centralized villa had appeared with the 1640’s and his Vaux-le-Vicomte in the first Renaissance villas in the late fifteenth 1650’s. The “durchsichtige Vestibiil” decentury, most significantly in the work of scribed by Junecke, op. cit., pp. 58ff., 1s Giuliano da Sangallo. But there were few clearly related to this development in salons constructed or published examples in Italy and at times to the general interest in open until the famous ones of Palladio and those architecture. As he points out, Le Vau was of Serlio’s Settimo libro d’Architettura, first instrumental in establishing this kind of published in 1575. In France, there were vestibule in France. the hunting lodges of La Muette near 25. Such colonnades appear in a project by Le Saint-Germain-en-Laye, begun in 1542 (F. Pautre (op. cit., pp. 12, 13) and a project Gebelin, Les Chateaux de la Renaissance, by Le Vau for Versailles of 1669 (F. Paris, 1927, p. 164), and Challuau, proba- Kimball, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, xXxXxXv,

bly of the 1540’s (A. Bray, in Bulletin 369, 1949, fig. 4). Cordemoy recommends Monumental, cxtv, 1956, pp. 267-74). that salons have two tiers of colonnades, Later the type seems to have lost some of its creating an outer aisle and balcony (Nou-

popularity. Among the few examples after veau Traité de toute Architecture ... , Palladio’s time are the Villa Montalto of Paris, 1706, pp. 157-58). This was done the late sixteenth century and the Villa by Boffrand in his unexecuted project for Doria-Pamphili of the early seventeenth Malgrange (see below, n. 31). I have been century in Rome, but neither is fully unable to find executed examples from the centralized (C. Percier and P. Fontaine, seventeenth or early eighteenth centuries, Choix des plus célébres Maisons de Plai- but plans and views for some building that sance de Rome et de ses Environs, Paris, may have had these colonnades, such as 1809, pls. XXXII-XXXV, XIV—XVIII). Le Vau’s chateau of Le Raincy, are not

23. Other examples include a project by available. Antoine Le Pautre, Desseins de plusieurs 26. For example, Guarini’s Palazzo Carignano

Palais... , Paris, 1652, pp. 16-20; in Turin, Fischer von Erlach’s “LustgePierre Cottard’s partly centralized design baude” of Count Strattmann near Vienna, for “un Prince d’Allemagne,” published in Hildebrandt’s Gartenpalast Mansfeld-Fondi his Receuil des Oeuvres du Sieur Cottart (Schwarzenberg) in Vienna, Jean Car-

Architecte; J. H. Mansart’s Chateau de taud’s Chateau at Montmorency, Carlo Navarre of 1686 (L. Hautecoeur, Histoire Fontana’s Casino Vaini in Rome of circa de larchitecture classique en France, i, 2, 1703, and Juvarra’s projects for the villa of p. 599) ; Jacques de la Guépiére’s menagery Cesare Beneassai in Lucca of 1714 (Rovere-

pavilion at Sceaux of the early eighteenth Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. 149).

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chaptervi / page 75

27. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, Carlo Fon- anno alli Piani, ascendendo continuamente sino

tana Drawings, vol. A/23(no. 176): No. in cima. 9706 (old page nos. 12, 149), inscribed: Dal detto repiano si entrara con la Carozza

; situation

“Non entra con li altri 3 seguenti,” i.e., with nell’entrone circolare C. e si uscira da i Portoni the other drawings, a plan at the level of the D. p. il Commodo delle Pioggie, nel cui entrone

piano nobile. No. 9707 (old page no. 13), V1 serene a cies ne “Meonkertnzs P plan at the ground floor; diameter of the lone delle Carozze, o altrl Commo * con le

. Lo. . . 65 Porte, chewidth dal medemo vestibule palmi, on axis,entraranno 130 palminelli . ; , ,Appar(Fic. 92). No. 9709 ld 17 tamenti Terreni da potervi dormire p. esser "B h » INO. (0 pase no. ), alquanto sollevati da Terra da adattarsi detti

section through one of the loggie (Fig. 93). Appartamenti e stanze a diversi usi, secondo The section does not illustrate the niches of loccorrenze de i costtumi del Paese. the vestibule and salon, and seems to show Sotto detto Pian Terreno vi saranno le officine a hexagonal rather than a cylindrical core. dei Canne, Cuccine, dispense, et altri vasi p. In the plan of the salon, there are spiral Comestibili con la Communicatione da detto

staircases placed, inexplicably, in three of sino in cima con scale a chiocciole p. la the niches. The drawings and inscriptions Communicatione, e trasportatione de viveri, are probably copies, since they lack the volendo Illuminate dette officine e stanze dalle identifying letters mentioned in Fontana’s finestre, che restano supperiore al Terreno come

memorandum. Fontana’s letter (no. 9708, nelDaProfilo si Scors’: oo, detto Piano Terreno si salira alla scala

old page nos. 14, 15) reads as follows: , . ; maestra et anche di quella a chiocciole al Pian

. de p. i mezz[ati] che p.R.do il Corrittore circolare trasCopia M.to e M.o s.r Abb.e P anp. Padrone re mette alleIll.re Stanze p. la Servitti, o pure

Ugolini . . oe ge .; ; - tonsmio - p. liriveritiss.mo tempi rigidi, ilSig.re. qual Corrittore circolare Mi havera per escusato La Sua infinita bonta ~

; nonde ; ; havra il Lume disegni delle finestre, che guardano della gli’acclusi da Lei , . 74: in .impostimi —_ .tardanza ; nell’Antro, essendo detti mezz[ati] disposti p. servire quell’Illmo Cavalliere. , ee Q . modo che si vedranno tutti divisibili e Communi-.

Non 6 stato altro che di procurare d’Incontrar la _ . : ; disfatt; -. f Tdea N cativi un con l’altro, il tutto, come si scorge dal

. , a ay ~ 4: ;

one orn p. Luochi privati. VS. vedra dalli annessi disegni PIdea, et é di Da detto Piano de mezz[ati] colla medema

| “valle Cone Mm far Used Novas © P. uscire Profilo con suoi Commodi de Camini e Gabinetti fare un Casino tutto unito da dividersi in tre scala maestra e scala a chiocciole si salira al Tomi, Volendo, et ogni Tomo in tre Piani, et Piano nobile entrando nel salone circolare,

, . 7 7 1 ’ 1 ® e e ° ° e ry

ogni Piano tre Stanze, parimente divisibili con ornato di Colonne fra le quale vi sono numero sei Gabinetti, solito desiderarsi quest’'Unione, ¢ nicchioni p. uso di Cappella, Libraria, Armaria,

divisione, nei Casini di Villa. speziaria, et Istrumenti da suono, Bottigliaria, e

Havra sei Lati il detto Casino, tre rettl, e tre Credenza con tre Porte, che conducono alle obbliqui, li quali sei lati faranno terminatione Loggie p. ottener ’amenita della vista et anche alli sei stradoni, che si potranno apprire in per [le] medesime dalla Communicatina a tutti faccia al medemo con sue Piazze d’avvanti eli Appartamenti, chiaschedun de quali havra la

Teatrali [ie., semicircular] p. maggior sua Sala, Stanza da dormire, Galleria de quadri,

vaghezza. e Gabinetto privato con sua Scala a chiocciole Il Prospetto dell’Ingresso da porsi verso il segreta per poter sortir di Casa senza passar p. Meridiano p. ottener la traspiratione, che dara il la scala Publica, ed anche andar in sino ai sotter-

sistema de i venti havra l’Ingresso B. [these ani liberamente. letters do not appear on the plans] con due tomi I] salone circolare havra il suo Lume dalle tre di scale tra A. a due branchi, che trasmetter- Porte che vanno alla Loggia e dalle finestre nel

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 76

sesto della volta, la quale sormonta li Tetti delle xvi, 1956, pp. 109-115. Brinckmann was , stanze, conforme si vede dal profilo, e prospetto. the first to note the influence of this work

Questa sala servira p. festini, Conviti e p. col- on Stupinigi (Theatrum, pp. 5 Off. ). locatione di ornati con le memorie delli discend- Juvarra may have known its general form enti et antichi, come meglio parera a chi fara from J. A. Delsenbach’s engraved view of

Pedifficio. . 1715 (Sedlmayr, op. cit., pl. 33).

La proportione, € misura della pnte Idea, e 30. Serlio, Tutte l'opere d’architettura, Book

pensiero fatta con il palmo Romano, che qui C:; tol “Io and do dij accluso si manda, parendo esser questa la Con- VII, ap Ito 0 Xue to an ave pensanco @ veniente grandezza p. Casino di Villa, potendo che Inusitata forma si potesse fare anche ingrandirla a pensiero di chi vorra fabri- umhabitatione alla campagna, la quale care, ma sempre in data proportione del tutto, fosse piacevole a riguardanti da lontano; & accio non si smarisca la semitria de’ tutt’il mi cadde nell’animo che un molino da vento Cuorpo di esso Casino, e Armonia delle parti, par bella cosa da vedere.” Sedlmayr, op. che é la pit difficil cosa da pratticarsi, et ottenersi cit., p. 92, pointed out this source. A. A.

nell’edifici). Tait has called my attention to the Greek Son Certo, che quest’Idea sara unica, e non Cross, triangular, and “windmill” plans in piu vista, e sara di molta vaghezza, e di durabil- Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau’s Livre d’ ita, stante il ristretto del suo Composto, et avvan- architecture of 1559.

ee nel dispendio p 4 che rata Mn aus 31. G. Boffrand, Livre d’Architecture ... ,

perano & Pim Gos © Qu ancse Bon ste Pe pisces Paris, 1745, pp. 55-56, pls. xIx—XxIII, questa novita mi si fara avvisato che si designera 7 .; “+ altra Commune e se Io non ho colpito a de- Second Projet du Palais da La

pit altra Co e e se Io non ho colpito a desiderio di VS. e di cotesto Cav.le compatisca la Malgrange. Work began mn 1711 and

poverta mia, e di chi sa puoco mi consolo pero, continued through 1713; in 1738 the buildche tanto VS., quanto cotesto Cav.le compati- ing was pulled down; see L. Lallement, “Le

ranno la mia debolezza, e resto con farli river- Chateau de Malgrange,” Bulletin de la

enza. Société d’Archéologie Lorraine, 11, 1852,

Roma li 5. Marzo 1689 pp. 210-51. According to M. Morey di VS. M. IlLre M.to R.do (Notice sur la vie et les Oeuvres de Germain Boffrand, Premier Architecte de

Cav.r Carlo Fontana ;: exists a preparatory drawing by Boffrand

Hium.mo, ¢ dev.mo serv.te Léopold, Nancy, 1866, pp. 32ff.), there

28. H. Sedlmayr, Johann Bernhard Fischer for the X-shaped project. On February 22, von Erlach, pp. 103-105, figs. 58-67. 1712, Boffrand submitted drawings to the SedImayr dates these designs, some of Académie d’Architecture, but the record of which were for chapels, about 1694. this does not indicate that he showed both Among non-Italian sources and parallels he projects, as implied by Hautecoeur, op. cit.,

mentions Schloss Stern in Prague, and Il, p. 62. See Procés-verbaux de l Académie

Memhardt’s Lusthaus in Berlin (pp. Royale d’Architecture, ed. H. Lemonnier,

314-15). Paris, 1915, Iv, p. 4: “M. Boffrand et un

29. Ibid., pp. 92-93, 150-51, pls. 23, 24, 198, gentilhomme de la part de Monsieur le duc 199, 304. Sedlmayr dates the building, on de Lorraine ont fait voir 4 la Compagnie rather firm grounds, circa 1688-92. See des plans et des élévations d’un bastiment

also I. W. Gregg, “Der grundriss des qu’on propose de construire proche de ehemaligen Palais Althan in der Rossau,” Nancy. La Compagnie . . . a trouvé que Wiener Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, la composition en est grande et magnifique,

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI chaptervi / page 77

et elle a fait différentes remarques, tant sur 34, The difference between these two types is

les plans que sur les élévations. . . .” negligible to the modern eye, but not to that Recently Hautecoeur has related Malgrange of the French connoisseur in the eighteenth

to the rest of European architecture (Ar- century: see J.-F. Blondel, Architecture chives de Vart francais, N.S. xx, 1959, frangoise, Paris, 1752, 1, pp. 61-65, where

pp. 166-74). buildings are classified “Aa un seul étage,”

32. A. E. Brinckmann, Baukunst des 17. und and “A un seul étage, surmonté d’un 18. Jahrhunderts in den romanischen attique,” and pp. 83ff., where he discusses Léndern (Handbuch der Kunstwissen- the problem of the “Ordre Attique.”

schaft), Berlin, Neubabelsberg, 1919, pp. 35. Serlio, op. cit., Book vu. The small casino,

316-17, assumed that the unexecuted plan whether of one or two stories, was in was “nicht einen Vorentwurf . . . sondern general a development of the mid-sixteenth

eine spatere Phantasie . . . eine franzé- century. Examples include the Casino Pio | sische Nachdichtung Stupinigis . . . ,” on 1v and the Villa Lante in Bagnaia. the grounds that there are Italian precedents 36. In the 1670’s, Mansart had built the for it (though the ones cited by him are not one-story Chateau du Val, and the larger satisfactory evidence) but no French ones. Hé6tel de Noailles at Saint-Germain-en-Laye,

Later, in his Theatrum, p. 61, he again which has an attic (L. Hautecoeur, Histoire claimed that Boffrand imitated Stupinigi de larchitecture classique en France, u, 1,

even though he says, “Die gleiche Idee pp. 530, 590). The Grand Trianon, of taucht in drei verschiedenen Léandern 1687, was the first of the series with a flat

selbstindig auf... ,” Le., in Austria, roofline. Piedmont, and France. 37. For example, a project of 1706 in the collec33. Viollet-le-Duc, Entretiens sur architecture, tion of Count Adriano Tournon, Turin, Paris, 1872, 1, pp. 283ff., a project for a Juvarra volume, I, f. 29, no. 37, plan, and f. “hétel de moyenne importance,” the advan- 30, no. 39, view. The casino is arranged as tage of its X-wing disposition being that a Greek Cross with concave corners around

“quelle que soit Porientation du terrain, le an octagonal salon; it has connecting soleil viendrait ainsi sécher et réchauffer les outbuildings to either side, and is set within

trois quarts au moins des murs. . . .” He circular grounds before a river. Some also points out that “le groupement des Greek-Cross, triangular-hexagonal, pentaglocaux d’habitation autour d’un centre, onal, and octagonal plans by Juvarra are in outre qu’il facilite singuliérement le service, Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, Riserva 59-4,

utilise mieux les surfaces et conduit ainsi ff. 51 and 53 (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, a des économies réelles.” This is not dis- Juvarra, pls. 165 and 166; see also Cat. similar to Fontana’s observation that “tutti 16): the drawings in this volume are for li muri operano a pit cose.” The plan also the most part before 1715. Fontana’s caught the attention of another student of project was also known to Bernardo AntoFontana’s, James Gibbs, who engraved a nio Vittone, who prepared a variant of it in variant of Boffrand’s designs (H. M. 1732 when he studied Fontana’s drawings

Colvin, A Catalogue of Architectural in the collection of Cardinal Alessandro Drawings .. . in the Library of Worces- Albani; see below, p. 122. ter College, Oxford, 1964, pl. 116 and 38. Brinckmann, Theatrum, pls. 134-37. p. xxv, where the design is misleadingly Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pls.

compared to Stupinigi). 144, 145, “Pianta Generale del Regio

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervi / page 78

Palazzo in Villa per il diporto di tre Person- French chateau as a source for the galleries

agel, egualmente diviso e distinto per se of Stupinigi, as was done also by stessi, e loro Corte con tutti gl’annessi e L. Dussieux, Les Artistes Francais a connessi nella conformita, si dichiara nel PEtranger, Paris, 1856, p. 797. But it Soggetto dato in questa Prima Classe.” would seem more likely that Juvarra had The project has recently been discussed by an architectural source in mind, such as the

H. and K. Arndt, “Ein ‘Chateau Triangu- porticoes of Palladio. laire’ des Maurizio Pedetti,” Beitraége zur 41. See note 29 above. Kunstgeschichte, Eine Festgabe fiir Heinz 42, For example, the Abbate Elpidio Benedetti

Rudolph Rosemann, Munich, [1960], pp. in 1664 wrote of the “nobile bizzarria” of 257-60. The authors cite as precedents a Bernini’s first project for the Louvre (L. triangular design by J. A. Du Cerceau (op. Mirot, Mémoires de la Société de Phistoire

cit., pl. xxvi1) and some insignificant de Paris et de lisle de France, xxx, 1904, German buildings. On Juvarra’s even p. 175). In 1683 a priest of San Marcello al grander project for Landgrave Karl of Corso evaluated Carlo Fontana’s newly

PP ; ;

Hesse-Cassel, see above, n. 18. completed facade as “Bizzarra ma insieme 39. Collection of Count Adriano Tournon, soda e maestosa,” cited in L. MunozTurin, Juvarra volume 1, f. 47, no. 66 Gasparini, San Marcello al Corso, Rome, (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pl. n.d., p. 24. Again, L. Pascoli, in his Vite

f. 43,“French no. 60. Influence de? Pittorion Rome, 1730-36, 40.35); W. and Collier, the Archioo ?u,797 tecture of Filippo Juvarra,” Architectural speaks of the development in sculpture of History (Journal of the Society of Archi- “le scuole de’ Buonarotti, degli Algardi, e tectural Historians of Great Britain), v1, de’ Bernini, e dove campeggiar la venerabi1963, pp. 41-53, who rather surprisingly lita, e sodezza degli Antichi, dove la vivezza

believes Marly to have been the chief e bizzarria de’ Moderni, e dove un ben source for Stupinigi, cites the “portiques de inteso misto, ed una perfetta armonia

verdure” between the pavilions of the d’ambidue.”

CHAPTER VII

San Filippo Ner1

and the Carmine

HE Italian longitudinal church was vaults, and larger central bays to emphasize the “Dinos original than is generally thought, main cross axis.” Another had a large dome over and seldom more so than in the work of Guarini the center of the nave,’ thus combining the and Juvarra. They were especially fascinated longitudinal and central formats and marking by one innovation: the formation of the nave as the observer’s standpoint in a static viewing a center for the spectator that rivaled the hall. ‘The third joined this type to a domed sancemphasis on the sanctuary. But this inevitably tuary or crossing so that the domed nave counaborted the axial drive towards the altar that terbalanced the climax at the end.* The oval had always been the visual raison d’étre of a church was also conceived at this time because longitudinal church. In Piedmont, the resulting It, too, merged the long and central formats.* failures and accomplishments are summed up in All of these possibilities were to remain assothe long history of San Filippo Neri in Turin, ciated in their history.” and then in Juvarra’s related projects for the Churches of these types were not built until Carmine—which was also the only important the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centu-

longitudinal church of open structure in Italy ries, the great period of the longitudinal

after the Middle Ages. church: in this time came Pellegrino Tibaldi’s

This approach to the longitudinal church San Fedele in Milan (Fig. 101), with its three originated in the 1520’s with Baldassare sharply divided bays,’ Rosario Rosati’s San Peruzzi and Antonio da Sangallo. It came Carlo ai Catinari, with its impressive central largely from attempts to create a self-sufficient dome, and Giovanni Magenta’s San Salvatore in and imposing nave for St. Peter’s, and led to Bologna, with its wide central bay in the nave three variants that were to be used for several played off against the sanctuary. But this was

centuries. One was a close imitation of the primarily the era of the conventional LatinBasilica of Maxentius, with three large bays Cross church, of the Gest. and Sant’Ignazio, defined by free-standing columns and cross with their concentrated drive towards the sancpage 79

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervit / page 80

tuary. ‘The period of greatest interest in empha- largest church in Turin suggests that architecsizing the layman’s space came in the later tural tastes in Piedmont were completely fluid, seventeenth century, when the projects for San that a man like Bettino was considered almost

Filippo were being prepared. on a par with Guarini. The history of San Filippo began in June, The switch to Guarini in 1679 was probably

1675, when the regent of Savoy, Maria due not to a triumph of his style, but to his Giovanna Battista di Nemours, granted the having begun work the same year on the neigh-

Filippini a site for a church, a convent and boring Palazzo Carignano and Collegio dei oratory which were to form the grandest eccle- Nobili (now the Accademia delle Scienze), siastical complex in the brand-new enlargement both commissioned by or associated with the of ‘Turin to the east (Appendix vim, Doc. 1). royal family or its branches.” In his design of According to the fairly reliable Turinese histo- San Filippo, Guarini was limited by the founda-

rian, Luigi Cibrario, the Filippini examined tions that Bettino apparently managed to several projects and chose that of Antonio complete, for these walls determined the outer Bettino of Lugano’ (Fig. 102). By October dimensions of the subsequent projects, a little 1676, the convent and oratory are documented more than 10 by 22 trabucchi, as well as the as being “already well advanced,” though the pattern of the walls around the presbytery. church itself had not been started; and in 1678 Guarini intended to set his bearing walls on the oratory was opened for services (Doc. 2). Bettino’s substructure, with a narrow passage-

But in 1679, Cibrario relates, Bettino’s way around them, and to lengthen the main “project”—which can only mean the project for space of the church by doing away with the rear the church—was abandoned in favor of Guari- chambers (Fig. 103, 104). But Guarini died in

ni’s (Doc. 3). 1683, and it is safe to say that nothing what-

Bettino, a “misuratore generale” from the soever was done with his project—none of the 1650’s through the early 1670’s and an assist- walls or foundations peculiar to his design reapant on the Santissima Sindone, is known to have pear in later ones, and Bettino’s rear foundadone one other work of consequence, also for tions were left untouched. the Filippini: their church in Chieri, begun in Guarini’s project for San Filippo was the end 1664 and completed in 1673.° This North Ital- point in his development of the longitudinal ian commonplace is a barrel-vaulted hall with a church with the emphasis on the nave.” His small sanctuary, and shallow chapels framed by main sources were North Italian churches such paired half-columns, a type fully developed in as Tibaldi’s San Fedele in Milan” (Fig. 101)

the sixteenth century.° The Turinese church and the similar interior of the SS. Martiri in being much larger, Bettino used a Latin-Cross Turin.” Their three separated bays became the plan with two aisles accompanying the nave, pattern for all of Guarini’s longitudinal but did all he could to rob it of grandeur. ‘The churches. But in contrast to his sources, Guarini chapels are again flat, shallow and joined by elongated the bays laterally and converted the narrow tunnels; the nave has small, paired ornamental dividers of columns into the struccolumns that could not have carried much of a tural ones of jutting piers, thereby enforcing the vault; and the crossing piers are too slim to have separation of the bays. Then he overcame these supported a large dome. No other architect asso- divisions by a movement towards the altar, or ciated with San Filippo in Turin can be accused else used them to create a space like a theater’s, of having drawn such a slight, wooden, and with its separation of stage and auditorium.

old-fashioned plan. That such a design could In his project for Nossa Senhora da Devina have been chosen under royal auspices for the Providencia in Lisbon (Fig. 105, 106), the

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chaptervit / page 8&1

plan was almost a conventional Latin Cross, viewing the altars, as was probably true of with a strong drive to a climax. The nave undu- Guarini’s other longitudinal churches of the lated towards the crossing with peristaltic force, time. Like the altar of the Immacolata Conce-

because its piers were rounded, and the ribs zione, or even more that of San Nicolé in moved from them at 60-degree angles into the Verona,” those in the other churches would

bays instead of running across the nave to probably have been gigantic facades rising divide them. This was the only one of Guarini’s almost to the vaults within a bristling of longitudinal churches to retain the dynamic columns that held the spectator’s attention with fluidity of the mid-seventeenth century, and had some of the magnetism of Bernini’s Baldacchino the most complicated structure; therefore it is and some of the forms of Spanish retables. The comparable to San Lorenzo and datable in the dominance of the altars perhaps best explains

mid-1660’s as the first of the series.“ the suppression of the competing accents of the A second of Guarini’s projects, also a Latin dome and crossing and the elongation of the Cross and intended for a site outside Piedmont, bays towards the lateral chapels and their can be dated about 1670 by its similarity to San altars. Even the method of financing and buildFilippo in Casale Monferrato” (Fig. 107). Like ing these churches was sometimes associated that church, its piers are moulded around circu- with their segmented form and the importance lar cells of space that form the aisles.” ‘The of the altars: San Filippo, for example, was to transverse arches have again been left out, but have been built chapel by chapel, each with the piers have taken on a nearly triangular funds from different patrons and organizations. shape that more clearly divides the compart- In his project for St. Mary of Alt-Otting, the ments. Behind the nave comes a crossing which Theatine church in Prague” (Fig. 110), is smaller in area than the three bays before it: Guarini enlarged the central bay. But, characthe whole system is becoming increasingly teristically, he made it only slightly greater than static, and the nave increasingly important. the other bays and distracted from it by expandIn 1673, work began on Guarini’s church of ing the altar room through an elaborate gate of the Immacolata Concezione for the Missionari columns which matched the entrance aedicula in Turin” (Fig. 108, 109). It is his only extant —a detail that echoed the reciprocal relationlongitudinal church, and probably the only one ships of the Immacolata Concezione. The that was built. Even though altered in minor church probably dates from 1679—the date on details when work was resumed in the 1690’s, it the engravings—and its angular compartments is substantially Guarini’s in structure and plan. clearly show the ossification of Guarini’s late

Now the crossing is omitted, leaving only a style. three-bay nave; in it two circular bays are On these same stylistic grounds, San Filippo divided by angular piers and an elongated is probably the last church in the series” (Fig. octagonal bay in the center. By contrast to all 103, 104). All the major curves and contrasts previous longitudinal churches, this central bay have been eliminated.” Three identical elonis smaller and lower than the ones at either end. gated octagons follow each other down the From the first bay the spectator thus looks nave, like scientific diagrams for a chain molethrough this “proscenium” to the identical bay cule. Each is kept from the other by grooved

in front of the sanctuary, as in a theater. transverse arches. And most astonishing, the The unprecedented equality between the vestibule is identical to the sanctuary. Between

priest’s and layman’s space is offset, however, spectator and altar there is the greatest by the enormous altar that fills the sanctuary. distance, and yet an absolute identity of Indeed the church has become simply a hall for surroundings. ‘The church has _ become

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervit / page 82

completely static. In this harsh reduction of one the church by six great twisted columns of

of Guarini’s old themes, San Filippo is the alabaster (Doc. 7, Fig. 112). Perhaps as a equivalent of his contemporary project for consequence, and seemingly as a change in the

Oropa. design, a cupola was built over the presbytery

Along with most of Guarini’s innovations, (Doc. 7, 10). After a delay of several years, a this type of church was completely ignored in campaign was organized in 1711 to restore and Piedmont until well into the eighteenth century. finish the structure (Doc. 8). Thus in 1712

The unknown architect who followed him at repairs were begun on the cupola, and plans San Filippo began and ended with entirely were made to add four large columns to the

different plans. church (Doc. 9), while in 1713 the presbytery

This architect’s first effort was an adaptation cupola was altered, the drum was given its ornaof the Sanctuary of the Madonna di Vicoforte in ment, and some work was done on the campaMondovi (Cat. 3; Fig. 111), with the oval nave nile towards the Collegio dei Nobili (Doc. 10). frozen into an elongated octagon to fit it into the Since much of the work was concentrated on rectangle of the extant foundations. ‘The design fixing the main cupola, it is likely that the four

must have been made after Bettino started columns were meant to strengthen its supports work, since the foundations forced the inclusion (Doc. 11; Cat. 7; Fig. 112); but as late as of useless, rhomboidal spaces behind the chap- March, 1714, they had not arrived (Doc. 11). els; but Bettino could hardly have been the On October 26, 1714, the dome collapsed (Doc. author of the project’s molded space, grand 11). A contemporary thought that this was

vault, and deep chapels. caused by a long rainy spell; later the large size After this rather theoretical design, in which of the cupola was blamed; and still others have so much space was sacrificed for the great octa- assumed there was damage from the bombardgon, the architect progressively shrank the octa- ment of Turin in 1706 (Doc. 11). Whatever gon (Cat. 4,5) until it became a crossing with the reason, the project was abandoned in 1715

beveled piers in the center of the nave (Cat. 7; when Juvarra was called in to make new Fig. 112). Two chapels came before and after designs. it, and a series of passageways connected the The architect of these projects cannot have chapels around the crossing. ‘That this was the been Guarini. None of the plans have the axial project which went into execution 1s demon- tensions inherent in his work. In all but one of

strated both by the documents (which also his churches, Guarini placed the elongated establish that the piers carried the dome on a bays, whether oval or octagonal, crosswise to tall drum [Doc. 12]), and by the remains of the the long axis of the church: his project for San walls as shown in Juvarra’s drawings (Cat. 9, Filippo is the best case in point. Only in Santa

10; Fig. 115). Maria d’Araceli in Vicenza did he allow the

Construction seems to have begun in 1685 or spectator to enter on the main axis of the oval; 1686, and the foundations were nearing comple- but here the oval was split up by a domed center tion by 1687 (Doc. 4, 5). In the late 1690's, the that counteracted the axial direction towards Prince of Carignano donated large sums for the the altar.” main altar. The first project for this, of 1696, On the other hand, some contemporary Piedwas a small affair harmonious with the rest of montese architects who were vaguely under the church, its columns being of black marble Guarini’s influence preferred to bring these and, probably, of simple design, like those of elongated octagons in tensionless alignment the nave (Doc. 7). Then, in 1699, the altar was with the main axis of the church. Such is the enlarged and made to stand out from the rest of case, for example, in the Madonna di Loreto in

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chapter vit / page &3

Montanaro. It was begun in 1677 by a capomas- limited to the planning of atria and staircases; it tro and perhaps renovated by Guarini a few vanished in his design of 1684 for the Santuario years later, but certainly was not designed by di Santa Maria del Pilone in Moretta, a domehim, because the absence of contrasts in the less, boxy affair with the scarcely modeled walls planning is matched by the absence of seeming typical of Baroncelli. Carlo Emanuele Lanfran-

precariousness in the structure.” chi’* was the architect, perhaps with his father, In a similar way the centrally domed project of the Basilica Magistrale in Turin which was

has some details like Guarini’s but does not built in 1679. With its elongated octagon, imitate his style. That is to say, the disposition free-standing columns and impressive mass, it of the full columns along the walls and the is undeniably close to the work of the architect system of passageways outside the chapels may of San Filippo. In fact the octagon of the have been inspired by Guarini’s project for San intermediate designs for San Filippo may well Filippo. But neither the peaceful arrangement have been influenced by the Basilica. But Carlo of the rectangular bays and chapels parallel to Emanuele Lanfranchi did little else of conseone another, nor the strong central accent of the quence, and his work is rather schematic, with-

tall drum and cupola, has anything to do with out that concern for detail—the shaping of Guarini’s thought. The architect of San Filippo piers, small chambers, and passageways, the has in these respects returned to the original sophisticated placement of columns—that is so early seventeenth-century model for a longitudi- marked in the designs for San Filippo.

nal church with a central dome, San Carlo ai Most probably, therefore, the architect was Catinari. But just this makes it the outstanding Michelangelo Garove.” His name is mentioned church project of the last decades of the seven- in the documents of San Filippo for 1712 (Doc. teenth century in Piedmont—its Roman gran- 9); he directed the construction of the Collegio

deur, great dome, and sculptural articulation dei Nobili for Guarini from 1680 onwards; he

were rarities in that timid era. began the Palazzo Asinari (now Carpano) in Four architects might conceivably have 1684” across the street from the facade of San designed this work: Antonio Bertola, Gian Filippo; and he had the most monumental style Francesco Baroncelli, Carlo Emanuele Lanfran- among those architects who came after Guarin1. chi and Michelangelo Garove. Bertola was the His Cappella del Beato Amedeo in the Duomo engineer who rebuilt the altar (Doc. 7), but of Vercelli, begun in 1682, has similar beveled Bertola did little if anything before the 1690’s, piers with columns; the church of San Giovanni and his work from that time on is picayune, in Sommariva Bosco, designed in 1685, is an without relief or grandeur.” Even the second oval with massive walls and large three-quarter altar is suspect (Fig. 113): its boldly curving columns that is not unlike the octagonal plans

plan and large, twisting columns make it, as for San Filippo; some details of the Millon points out (Doc 7), one of the most pre-Juvarresque work in San Filippo, such as dynamic in Piedmont, whereas Bertola’s design the windows on the campanile (Fig. 114), are for the altar of the SS. Sindone is lean of orna- like those of the Collegio dei Nobili; and, lastly, ment and stiff in plan. Other evidence suggests the octagonal plan derived from Mondovi is that the designer of the altar was a little-known quite similar to the model project for the parish dilettante, a “Cavaliere Gallean di Nizza” (Doc. church of Campertogno of the late 1690’s or

7). Baroncelli was the heir of Guarini in the early eighteenth century, which is the one execution of the Palazzo Carignano and one of Guarinesque structure of the period and therethe strongest architects in Piedmont during the fore the most readily attributable to Garove.” 1680’s and 1690's.” But that strength was The first altar also may have been Garove’s: he

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervit / page 84

was then the architect of the Prince of Carig- Juvarra’s (Cat. 11; Fig. 116), the project was nano, and the design was in accord with the rest almost perfectly centralized—only the old of the church (Doc. 7). To be sure, Garove’s cupola over the presbytery differentiated one work was far from consistent: at the time that end from the other. Presumably this was the he designed San Filippo he constructed both the first project. Though inspired by the ruined facade of the parish church at La Morra,” which church, this type of plan clearly suited Juvarra,

is a provincial manifestation of early seven- for he was to revert to it on at least two other teenth-century style, and the atrium of the occasions. Palazzo Asinari, in style the most Guarinesque For the next project, Juvarra pushed the work of the late seventeenth century in Turin. dome farther back to leave a short nave with But precisely that eclecticism permits the attri- two chapels, creating a Latin-Cross church bution of such a Roman work as San Filippo to (Cat. 12-21; Fig. 117-19). In later variants, him and not to his narrower contemporaries. he gradually enlarged the chapels to eliminate The abandonment of Guarini’s project may the outer passageways inherited from Garove have been occasioned simply by the desire—and and Guarini, but his main interest was the the prospect of funds—to erect a grander facade and towers and their relationship to the church. Nevertheless, it remains the most dome. First he set a straight portico between flagrant example of the abrupt renunciation of two towers in front of Garove’s facade (Cat. 12; his influence in Piedmont, except in lesser orna- Fig. 117), but then depressed the portico in an ments, during the half-century after his death. ovoidal curve (Cat. 13-16; Fig. 118, 119). His The more traditional centrally domed project overriding concern, demonstrated in one of his

proved, however, to be quite close to the tastes sketches (Cat. 16, Fig. 119), was with the

of Juvarra.” distant views that would show the dome to-

Sacchetti reports that Juvarra prepared three gether with the towers. For that he sacrificed designs for San Filippo in 1715 (Doc. 13), and the close-up effects even more harshly than he both the date and the number of projects are was to do the year after in the Soperga. The tall fully confirmed by Juvarra’s sketches as well as and protruding towers would have been difficult by the copies after his drawings. One of the to see from the shallow piazza in front of the

sketches even shows a new project with the church, and the dome would scarcely have ruins of the cupola still blocking the adjacent appeared to view. Only from the hill above street (Cat. 16; Fig. 119). Clearing of the Turin would the dome and towers have been debris began early in 1715, and according to visible together, as monuments to the skyline Sacchetti foundations were laid in 1716. But it and not to the church.

was not until 1718 that the rubble had been In pushing back the center of the facade, entirely removed, that payments were made for Juvarra reluctantly admitted to some of these the model, and that the foundations are difficulties but refused to give up his daydream. mentioned in the documents: therefore, work Later he flattened the facade and moved the may have started a little later than claimed by towers to the rear (Cat. 17, 18), but only to

Sacchetti. revert in what seems like pique rather than

Juvarra’s initial thought was to preserve the reason to a strange compromise, one tower in old church and merely reconstruct the dome front and one in back (Cat. 19-21). (Cat. 9). But he then enlarged the dome, His indecision over the towers and his desire moved it back a bit, and opened chapels in the to give more prominence to the nave and its presbytery to balance those in front (Cat. 10; chapels carried over into the third and last Fig. 115). As shown in a section drawing of project, the model design (Cat. 22-29; Fig.

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chaptervit / page 85

120, 121). Halfway down the nave he placed which made heavy walls and grandiose vaults two enormous chapels that were only slightly less feasible, in part because of the changes in smaller versions of those under the dome.” Juvarra’s style. In the course of thinning the Once again he set the towers in the rear, but structure, the various accents naturally became

finally brought them up front, without, less distinct and emphatic: cupolas, for however, projecting them in front of Garove’s instance, lost their drums, and thin piers or fagade—a last compromise between realities columns let the compartments flow into one

and his ambitions. another. But Juvarra went beyond these struc-

Thus Juvarra had gone through all of the tural consequences in order to merge or equate conventional possibilities for the relation of the major areas. In the centrally domed project” the dome to the nave and the towers. But the (Cat. 1-7; Fig. 122), for example, the drumless designs were the least original of his major cupola must vie with the most elaborate sanc-

works; by this time Italian architects had tuary wall ever designed by Juvarra, a Bernialmost exhausted the spatial permutations of nesque vision in stucco of the Madonna and the longitudinal church, and originality could Child hovering in a backlighted chamber with a come only with new structures. The model cloud of angels rising to them from the altar. As design alone had a touch of freshness, because in Guarini’s design for the church in Prague, here Juvarra clarified the balance between the neither the accent of the dome nor that of the chapels of the nave and the transept. Yet even altar wall is decisive. so he retained the usual emphasis on the cross- But it was again the project with large bays ing by raising an extremely tall dome above it. in the nave that excited Juvarra’s most original The last projects for San Filippo are bound efforts among the domed projects (Cat. 9-15; up with those for the Carmine™ in the radical Fig. 123, 124). The nave bay has become wider transformation of Juvarra’s late style. They than long, almost a little centralized building, were also counterparts in other ways. Both were and has enormous chapels that open wide parish churches administered by religious through columns and rise nearly to the height of

orders and in some measure favored by the the sail vault over the nave. The crossing, on royalty; and both were major churches in the the other hand, is just a vestige of its antecedent

latest enlargements of Turin, the Carmine in in San Filippo—its dome is drumless and the region staked out in 1716 to the west, San pierced by eight large oculi; its chapels are shal-

Filippo in the earlier one to the east. low and without columns. T’o condense the For stylistic reasons, as will be seen, the elevation of the crossing, Juvarra gave the piers

designs for the Carmine seem to be a little concave faces that continue directly into the earlier. The Carmelites had been given permis- pendentives, and in an early sketch decorated

sion to build their church in 1728, but the pendentives with brackets that move into Sacchetti, who worked on the Carmine, says the the dome to frame the oculi® (Cat. 9; Fig. designs were made in 1732, when work began. 123). Having thus balanced the crossing and It was consecrated on April 26, 1736, and nave, Juvarra further interlocked the two areas chosen by Carlo Emanuele II as the royal by repeating the forms of the nave in the preschurch of the Blessed Amedeus of Savoy. bytery, and those of the crossing chapels on the Of Juvarra’s four projects for the Carmine, inside of the facade. three are domed and repeat the schemas of his The church as a series of separately vaulted early designs for San Filippo (Fig. 122, 123, bays, the balancing of accents In front and back, 124). But otherwise they are very different, in and the open columnar structures are parallels part because of the shorter and narrower site to the work of Guarini. Yet, needless to say,

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervit / page 86

Juvarra did not imitate Guarini. He arrived at lower one. And he now let three tall windows this solely by translating his early work into into the larger pseudo galleries instead of a un-Roman spaces and structures. In the same single, smaller one.

manner, he came to the cylindrical arches of his Perhaps because the piers were taller, early projects for Sant’Andrea and Stupinigi. Juvarra reverted to chapel entablatures that Such unintended rapprochements to Guarini were almost as high as the main entablature, prepared the way for the deliberate revival of thereby bracing the structure at the cost of his work by some of the younger architects who blocking the views—but only momentarily. On

now came into contact with Juvarra (see below, the same sheet he trimmed the entablature Appendix x1-C and Chapter tx, p. 111). down to the chapel arches. That was the deciWith his fourth project, Juvarra turned away sive step. In contrast to the straight entablafrom the plans of his early work for San Filippo, tures, the arches seem to hover between the and escaped from the restrictions of the domed piers instead of binding them together, to crossing (Cat. 16-22; Fig. 125-130). Now he conjoin the upper and lower levels instead of

was free to give all his attention to the chapels dividing them (just as in Sant’Andrea in

and galleries. Chieri the arches are linked to the window

His aim was to preserve these as distinct and frames), and to merge the space of the nave continuous hollows while yet opening the nave with the chapels and pseudo-galleries.

boundaries as much as possible. First he With few changes, the presentation drawconcentrated on the structure, a simple system ings were modeled on these last sketches (Cat. of wall piers turned at right angles to the nave 19-21; Fig. 127). But before construction the to buttress the vault and free the spaces between upper level became still more open (Fig. 129,

them (Cat. 16; Fig. 125). On this plan he then 130). It was drawn up even higher, the changed the rectangular chapels to ovals (later windows in the narrow bays of the presentation worked out as rectangles with niches), that is, drawings were almost doubled in size, the choir

to tubular spaces set off from the nave. At the vault was given domical shape and a large same time the chapel ceilings were dropped lantern that partly counteracted the increasing below the main entablature to sever the main attraction of the nave chapels—and, most boundary of the nave, and were opened with important, the pseudo-galleries were crowned oval cut-outs for the light and views. Most intri- with their own lanterns. Juvarra had tried out suing were the false galleries, an invention of this idea for the salon of Stupinigi, but had lost

Juvarra’s. They offer nothing but narrow his nerve. In the Carmine, having mastered the cornices upon which to stand; they exist for the technique of lighter structure, he reversed his

eye alone, to perfect the open structure. usual procedure and brought his conception of In his next designs (Cat. 18; Fig. 126), open architecture to its conclusion. Juvarra proceeded to raise the hollows for more It is the most audaciously skeletal of Juvarlight and spaciousness while still asserting their ra’s buildings; everything in it seems to stand independence of the nave. To contain the oval barely attached or supported. The piers are as if spaces he broadened the pier faces, and for the free-standing, buttressed only by the chapel wider faces he converted the single half- walls which curve around niches behind them. columns of the first design to pairs of thin pilas- The vault, detached along its outer sides by the ters that lightened the appearance of the nave. lanterns, looks like a thin canvas stretched over Above the piers he raised the upper level on a the frame of the transverse arches. And the great attic until it was almost as tall as the chapel arches leap against the light as vestigial

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chaptervit / page 87

reminders of the boundary—such as the entab- sources in Juvarra’s sacristy project of 1714-15 latures of the Sacristy project of 1714-15 (Fig. (Fig. 21) and his studies for Sant’Andrea and

21) —that they have replaced. the Duomo Nuovo,” while the open chapels Yet as a longitudinal church its effect is were known to him from the French examples spoiled by contradictions. The nave, the discussed in the chapter on Venaria Reale. layman’s realm, is the climax of the church. As Therefore it was not the German church that soon as the spectator enters, his attention is made it possible for Juvarra to see the possibilidrawn aside by the chapels instead of being ties of a new approach, but vice versa: having directed towards the altars or even to the vault, developed the structure from French and Italian the more so because the nave is without move- sources, he was able to see what Waldsassen

ment and the vault is a plain barrel of little could offer him. Juvarra probably knew the interest. Without light, the chapels become Bavarian church only from drawings;” the dead and pointless spaces, and so exaggerate visual effects he had to imagine from his own the inevitable contrast of bright and shadowed experience. At best the German church showed sides in a longitudinal church. Worse yet, the him a way to apply his ideas to the longitudinal western side is partly darkened at all times by format, and gave him some ideas for the wall

the adjacent convent. piers. In all other respects Waldsassen, to Clearly, the longitudinal format was inciden- judge from photographs, is quite unlike the

tal to Juvarra’s experiments; in this the Carmine. It is a stolid church, with low gallerCarmine is the opposite of a Gothic church. ies, a heavy cornice, and a clerestory—a three-

Unlike his central churches or the salon of tiered elevation that looks pock-marked and Stupinigi, the Carmine shows that Juvarra disunified. The slimness, the airiness, the contimade no effort to adapt the open structure to the nuity, the lanterns and the chapel arches—in nature of the plan. For this he availed himself of short all that really matters in the Carmine— other churches, and turned his mind instead to came either from Italian sources or from

the details. Juvarra himself.

Wittkower has pointed out that there is A short time later, Juvarra designed his last an extraordinary resemblance between the project for San Filippo. Work on the model Carmine and the late seventeenth century project had gone slowly, and by 1722 the Filip-

Cistercian church in Waldsassen” (Fig. 9). pini had prepared themselves for a long drought The naves are almost identical in plan (Fig. of funds by erecting a fairly elaborate provi128); the chapels have the same oval apertures. sional church, which was ready that year for That Juvarra imitated this church is beyond services (Appendix vit, Doc. 14, Cat 30-32; doubt. But it does not follow that Bavarian Fig. 130, 131). It consisted of a narrow nave architecture was the necessary inspiration for and vestibule within the nave-to-be of the model

his late style. project, and the rear chapels and presbytery of

Far from being a German type alone, the the old church, with plans for a dome above the plan was long domesticated in Italy: in fact, crossing. The next year, in 1723, Juvarra redeWaldsassen undoubtedly derives from the work signed Bettino’s Oratorio, and in 1725 some of Italian architects in Prague.* It is the type of work proceeded on the convent; but the model Bettino’s church in Chieri and, more closely in project never got much beyond the foundations

time and detail to the Carmine, of the parish (Doc. 14). church of Pianezza, constructed about 1727." After the 1720's the Filippini’s patience with The structure, on the other hand, had its grand designs presumably wore as thin as their

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervit / page 88

pocketbook, and they commissioned a simpler rectangular room with rounded corners and a one (Doc. 14). Sacchetti says it included a barrel vault coved at the ends (Fig. 133, 134), portico, a new altar, and a convent (an enlarge- a return to a basic source of Juvarra’s experiment of Bettino’s), and was prepared in 1730 ments, the Oratorio dei Filippini in Rome. But (Doc. 15). But in that year the Filippini were on such a scale as San Filippo’s and with such still procrastinating till a vague “time when it poor lighting for its volume, Borromini’s format may be convenient to build the church,” which lost its point. Neither grand nor intimate,

seems to have been put off until 1732. neither heavy nor airy, San Filippo is the monuAgain Sacchetti’s reliability is put in ques- ment to Juvarra’s failure in dealing with longition, so that it is uncertain whether Juvarra’s tudinal churches. Only in what Passanti aptly new designs date from 1730 or 1732, and, more describes as the swelling vaults (a result of the important, whether they are earlier or later than coved ends) does the church produce the more the similar ones for the Carmine. His first spacious effect of Juvarra’s later works.” surviving sketch (Cat. 33; Fig. 132) resembles For the facade (Fig. 137) Juvarra salvaged

both churches so much that it has been the portico of some of his 1715 designs (Fig. variously identified with one or the other. But it 117) but placed the flanking towers in the rear, can be conclusively linked with San Filippo. and assembled one of his most irrelevant exteriThe drawing shows San Filippo’s low but deep ors. He pasted a rather classical temple front

portico, the wide piers with doorways and onto the far from classical church, and left the coretti that were retained in the later projects, unornamented brick nave showing above the and apparently the old altar and presbytery, low marble pediment. For this crude break which now were to be preserved. Its semicircu- there was the justification of the first longitudl-

lar chapels seem to have openings in their nal church with a temple front, Alberti’s ceilings and are continued above the wide en- Sant’Andrea in Mantua. But the Filippini may tablature by true and ample galleries with semi- have been partly responsible for it. They spent domes capped by lanterns. It has straight entab- most of their money on the portico during the

latures rather than the free arches of the first phase of construction, from 1732 to 1738 Carmine, but these were a necessity in a large (Doc. 17-20), and probably wanted a showchurch with galleries and cannot help in dating piece to distract from their barn of a church.

the project. It is only the lanterns, which were The last of Juvarra’s experiments with the added late in the designing of the Carmine, longitudinal church was his project of 1734 for suggest that this drawing for San Filippo came the Jesuits in Vercelli* (Fig. 138, 139). Here

afterwards. he flattened the tall, narrow hollows of the

No doubt prompted by the reluctance of the Carmine into two wide, shallow chapels on Filippini to get into still another debacle, either side of the nave. This unified the chapels Juvarra abandoned this unusual project. He with the nave and permitted a greater focus on eliminated the galleries, brought the lanterns the choir—Juvarra’s most harmonious adaptadown to the chapels (Cat. 34; Fig. 134), and tion of open structure to the longitudinal changed the vault to a simple barrel with semi- church, but also his dullest. A final echo of the circular “Roman bath” windows. In the work- series, Sant’Antonio in Chieri, has been attribing drawings, he compensated for the galleries uted to Juvarra and Vittone, but is the work of by letting a second tier of coretti into the piers, neither (Appendix x; Fig. 140, 141, 142). It and reduced the lantern to lightless swellings was begun in 1767 for the Jesuits by Giuseppe (Cat. 37) which then were completely sliced off Giacinto Bays, a foreman who had worked on

in the executed work. What remained was a Venaria Reale. Bays may have made use of

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chaptervit / page 89

Juvarra’s studies for the Jesuit church in nal church for open structure. Their work in Vercelli, but he translated the spaces of Juvar- this vein was adapted almost exclusively to the ra’s late style into the heavy columnar struc- central church. Also, most of the Piedmontese tures of his early one, which Bays knew from and all of the other Italian architects avoided Venaria. The longitudinal designs of Vittone the dynamic plan and vaulting introduced by and almost all of the other Piedmontese archi- Guarini in his design for Lisbon. It was this

tects after Juvarra were equally insignificant; which was to give life and coherence to the and the Carmine had no true following. open-structured longitudinal churches of the These failures came about in part because the eighteenth century in Germany. VierzehnheilPiedmontese had never conceived the longitudi- igen was the solution, not the Carmine.

NOTES 1. For Peruzzi’s studies of the Basilica of Peruzzi by Geymiiller, op. cit., pl. 20, fig. 4

Maxentius and the frigidaria of the Ro- (Uffizi 16A). man baths, and his variations on them for 4. Lotz, op. cit., and his “Die ovalen Kirchenthe nave of St. Peter’s, see D. Frey, Braman- réume des Cinquecento,” Rémisches Jahr-

tes St. Peter-Entwurf und seine Apo- buch fiir Kunstgeschichte, v1, 1955, pp. 7. kryphen, Vienna, 1915, figs. 8, 11, 12, 13, Lotz dates the origins of the oval church to and H. von Geymiiller, Die Urspriinglichen the 1530’s, but I would think that they Entwiirfe fiir St. Peter in Rom, Vienna- might go back to the period around 1520 in

Paris, 1875-80, pl. 6, fig. 3 (Uffizil7A).A the projects for San Giacomo. Among more elaborate development of the theme for Peruzzi’s projects halfway between the oval another church, shown in a copy, is illus- and the centrally domed or vaulted types are

trated by A. Venturi, Storia dell’arte Uffizi 452 A (ibid., fig. 12), and the simiItaliana, Milan, 1938, x1, 1, fig. 404. In a lar design in R. Redtenbacher, Baldassare

project for Sant’Agostino in Monte Peruzzi und Seine Werk, Karlsruhe, 1875, Sansovino, Peruzzi substituted three domes pl. x, fig. 3. for the cross vaults of the frigidaria: zbid., 5. The fundamental analysis of these types,

fig. 397. based on Roman late seventeenth-century

2. This first appeared in one of Sangallo’s examples, is R. Wittkower’s “Carlo projects for San Giacomo degli Incurabili Rainaldi and the Roman Architecture of in Rome. W. Lotz, Mitteilungen des the Full Baroque,” Art Bulletin, xix, 1937,

Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz, v, pp. 242ff. 1940, pp. 441-44, fig. 1; J. Ackerman in 6. W. Lotz, “Architecture in the later 16th the Journal of the Society of Architectural century,” College Art Journal, xv, 1957, Historians, x1, 1954, fig. 1, dates the p. 136, has shown that in 1622 San Fedele project about 1519. A project of Peruzzi’s lacked its domed choir. But the documents for a small centrally domed longitudinal prove that Tibaldi planned such a choir, church is illustrated in W. W. Kent, The although it was executed in somewhat Life and Works of Baldassare Peruzzi of different form by Francesco Maria Ricchino Siena, New York, 1925, pl. 38, fig. 2. in 1629-43 (C. Baroni, Documenti per la - 3. See the plan for St. Peter’s attributed to storia dell architettura a Milano nel rinasci-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter vil / page 90

mento e nel barocco, Florence, 1940, 1, pp. 1962, p. 267). Until then, large aerial fres-

127-28). coes had usually been confined to the choir

7. L. Cibrario, Storia di Torino, Turin, 1846, and crossing of Roman churches. In the u, p. 606. On Bettino see G. Chevalley, later seventeenth century, such frescoes in “Vicende costruttive della chiesa di San the nave vaults of Roman churches became Filippo Neri in Turin,” Bollettino Storico- increasingly important. Guarini may have Bibliografico Subalpino, xiv, (Bollettino been in Rome in the summer of 1662 on his del Centro di Studi Archeologici ed artistict way to Modena and was in Paris that fall. del Piemonte, 11) 1942, p. 64, n. 3; C. Since there is no record of his having been Brayda, L. Coli, D. Sesia, Ingegneri e to Rome again, it is uncertain whether he architetti del sei e settecento in Piemonte, knew of these developments.

Turin, 1963, p. 17. 12. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in

8. A. Bosio, Memorie storico-religiose e di Italy . . . , p. 270, noted that the “tradibelle arti del Duomo e delle altri chiese dt tional North Italian type showing a

Chieri, Turin, 1878, p. 275. A plan and sequence of domed units” was the source of interior view of San Filippo are published Guarini’s longitudinal churches. by G. Cappelletto, Architettura di Chieri, 13. The church of the SS. Martiri in Turin 1s

n.p., n.d., unpaged. said to have been begun by Tibaldi in 1577

9. For example, Galeazzo Alessi’s San (G. Claretta, La Chiesa dei SS. Martiri, Barnaba in Milan, which, however, has a Turin, 1928). domed crossing; illustrated by UH. 14, A. Terzaghi, “Origini e sviluppo della

Hoffmann, Wiener Jahrbuch fiir Kunstges- cupola ad arconi intrecciati nell’architettura chichte, 1x, 1934, figs. 29, 31. In Turin an barocca del Piemonte,” Aiti del x Congresso

example of the type is San Francesco di di Storia dell Architettura, Rome, 1959,

Paolo, of the 1630's. p. 378, n. 8, assumes that the church was 10. The documents for the Collegio dei Nobili, designed in 1651-53, when a church was the site for which was donated by Maria founded and consecrated, according to varGiovanna Battista di Nemours, are in A. S. ious Portuguese sources which he cites. But T.—1, Benefizi Vacanti, Fondo Gesuiti, it is inconceivable that Guarini, who had Collegio dei Nobili, Mazzo 10; on the just begun to do minor architectural work in

Palazzo Carignano, see G. Chevalley, “Il Modena, could have designed such a Palazzo Carignano a Torino .. . ,” Boll. complex building at this time, or even have

SPABA, v, 1921, pp. 4-14. won fame enough to warrant a departure 11. In Rome during the early 1660's, this from the usual Theatine procedure of using emphasis on the nave was reflected in two local architects. Other writers date the events. In the fall of 1662 or early in 1663, work in 1680 (Brayda-Coli-Sesia, op. cit., Carlo Rainaldi prepared his final plan for p. 42), perhaps on the strength of a nineSanta Maria in Campitelli, with a small teenth-century report that dates the convent sanctuary and a nave like the Basilica of in 1681 (L. Gonzaga Pereira, Monumentos Maxentius, its center marked by great chap- Sacros de Lisboa em 1833, ed. A. Vieira da

els (Wittkower, “Carlo Rainaldi ... ,” Silva, Lisbon, 1927). But stylistically there p. 289, n. 82). In 1664, Pietro da Cortona is nothing to support this.

began to paint the nave vault of Santa It might be added that the undulating Maria in Vallicella (G. Briganti, Pietro walls and vaults of Guarini’s design may da Cortona o della pittura barocca, Florence, have been suggested by a combination of

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chaptervit / page 9l1

the nave articulation of Sant’Andrea delle rini’s death, probably reflects his ideas in its Valle, the Theatine church in Rome, and size if not its form, as can be judged from

the fan vaults of Spanish late Gothic the main altar of San Lorenzo. churches such as the cathedrals of Seville, 20. G. Guarini, Architettura Civile, pls. 19-21,

Segovia, and Zaragoza. the last two plates inscribed, “Guarini auct.

15. G. Guarini, Architettura civile, unnum- anno 1679.” Little is known about Guabered plate, fol. 80, inscribed “Scala di P. rini’s project, for the church was not built 100,” meaning palmi or piedi. The Mostra on his designs. See H. Schmerber, “Einige

del Barocco Piemontese, 1, Architettura, p. Nachrichten iiber Guarino Guarini,” 35, no. 41, indentifies this as a project for Monatsberichte tiber Kunstwissenschaft Turin, but if it had been intended for Pied- und Kunsthandel, 11, 1902, pp. 286-87. mont, it would have been measured in The extant church was built in 1691.

trabucchi. 21. Another longitudinal church attributed to

16. Much the same is true of his project for San Guarini is Sant’Andrea in Bra (formerly

Gaetano in Vicenza, also of the 1670's. SS. Sacramento), begun in 1672. In the 17. G. Rigotti, “La chiesa dell’Immacolata mid-eighteenth century this had a central Concezione ora Cappella Arcivescovile in dome over a plan rather like San Carlo ai Torino,” Boll. SPABA, xvi, 1932, pp. Catinari’s in Rome (Archivio Municipale, 56-73. The site was donated by Carlo Bra, Topografia del Territorio e Citta di

Emanuele 1 in 1673. After his death in Bra... , Libro Primo, mpcccLx, f. 41). 1675, work was halted until 1695, and then Later it was altered. Late seventeenth and completed by 1697. See also G. Claretta, / early eighteenth-century sources report that

marmi scritti della cittd di Torino e de’ suot the design was by Bernini, and was sobborghi . . . , Turin, 1899, p. 616. The adapted to the site by Guarini (A. Mathis,

rear bay is decorated with late Storia dei monumenti sacri e delle famiglie seventeenth-century stucco work missing di Bra, Alba, 1888, pp. 53ff.; G. Burzio, from the forward bays; the vaults have a Appunti di storia Braidese, Alba, 1924, pp.

strange decoration, perhaps of the nine- 60ff.; photographic copies of the seventeenth century; and the facade, sometimes teenth-century diary by Giambatista

reproduced as Guarini’s, is more likely Bonino are available in the church eighteenth century in its detailing, with archives). Despite this documentation, the restorations of the nineteenth century, as _ stylistic evidence, so far as one can make it

noted by Rigotti. out from the eighteenth-century plan and

18. This was not due merely to the small size of the extant church, gives little reason to the Immacolata Concezione. Guarini did believe that Bernini, and still less Guarini, the same in his project for San Filippo, the were anything but the imaginings of too

largest church in Turin. much campanilismo.

19. On the altar of San Nicolo in Verona and 22. The plan of Guarini’s earliest church, the Spanish sources, see P. Portoghesi, Sainte Anne-la-Royale in Paris, was equally “Schede Guariniane: I] tabernacolo della rigid. But this was designed before he chiesa di S. Nicol6 a Verona,” Quaderni became interested in fluid and dynamic dell’Istituto di Storia dell Architettura, plans; and in it he may have been concen-

17, 1956, pp. 16-20. The altar in the trating on the diamond shape of the piers Immacolata Concezione in Turin, though and the wedge-faced arches that this executed and perhaps designed after Gua- permitted. The fluidity of the design of the

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervit / page 92

Palazzo Carignano, of 1679, can _ be sparse: see primarily the Mostra del explained by the special problems that it Barocco Piemontese, 1, Architettura, pp.

presented. 36-37. His work on the Palazzo Carignano

22a. Illustrated by P. Pertoghesi in Critica is mentioned by Chevalley, “I] Palazzo

d@arte, 1957, no. 20, pp. 108-128; no. 21, Carignano a Torino,” p. 13. In 1682-83,

pp. 214-229. Baroncelli built the palace of Marco Anto-

23. Work on the Madonna di Loreto began, nio Graneri, whose purchase of the old according to a nineteenth-century source, in church and quarters of the Filippini had

1677 under a capomastro, Giovanni been a major source of their early building Battista Zanetto di Pralungo; in 1680 his income (Doc. 2). His church in Moretta is

designs were given to Guarini, who illustrated in the Mostra del Barocco “modificé e rifece a nuovo il disegno presen- Piemontese, 1, Architettura, fig. 42B.

tatogli.” In the mid-eighteenth century, the 26. The major study of Carlo Emanuele cupola was restored and reinforced. See A. Lanfranchi and his father, Francesco, is E. Dondana, Memorie storiche di Montanaro, Olivero’s “I] Palazzo Municipale di Torino

Turin, 1884, pp. 131, 193. This does not ed il suo architetto,” Torino, vu, 12, seem sufficient to support E. Olivero’s attri- 1927, pp. 373-94. For Francesco, see also bution to Guarini (La Madonna di Loreto A. Cavallari-Murat, “I] Lanfranchi ed altri in Montanaro, Turin, 1940). At best the artisti all’Kremo di Lanzo,” Boll. SPABA, plan of the sanctuary was partly influenced N.S. xiv—-xv, 1960-61, pp. 395-414. by Guarini’s design for the sanctuary of the Olivero presents evidence that Francesco Consolata in Turin. Other churches of this died in 1669, and says that the Basilica period with an elongated octagon are San Magistrale was “reconstructed” in 1679. He Salvario in Turin of the mid-seventeenth therefore assumes that Carlo Emanuele century, attributed to Carlo and Amedeo di either continued the work of his father or Castellamonte, and the Basilica Magistrale designed the church himself. The latter

(on which see n. 26). seems more likely, but the church is very

24, On Bertola, see E. Olivero, “L’altare della dependent on Francesco’s San Rocco in SS. Sindone ed il suo autore,” J] Duomo di Turin, begun in 1667. In his one independ-

Torino, u, 7, 1928, pp. 6ff. Olivero ent church, San Giuseppe in Turin of 1683, attributes to him the destroyed church of Carlo Emanuele reveals a style that is much the Crocifisso in Turin, begun in 1677; but less monumental and imaginative than his in 1679 he is still referred to as “Maestro di father’s. This simple Latin Cross, with a aritmetica al Paggi,” and not as “archi- short nave and small dome, has nothing in tetto” or “ingegnere.” On his architectural common with the massive and grandly

work in Cuneo and Savigliano see N. articulated design for San Filippo. Carboneri, “Antonio Bertola e la Confrater- 27. The best presentation of Garove’s work is

nita di S. Croce in Cuneo,” Bollettino della now Mostra del Barocco Piemontese, 1, Societad per gli studi storici, archeologici et Architettura, pp. 37-38; see also Cheval-

artistici nella provincia di Cuneo, N.S. ley, “Vicende costruttive ... ,” n. 8; and xxvil, 1950, pp. 54-70, and Mostra del Brayda-Coli-Sesia, op. cit., p. 39. In a letter Barocco Piemontese, 1, Architettura, pls. of October 23, 1694, Garove speaks of his 52, 53; see also A. Lange in Boll. SPABA, “venti tre anni di servitti resa a questa

N.S. xvi-xvul, 1963, pp. 104ff. Real Casa” (A.S. 'T.—1, Lettere Particolari, 25. The modern literature on Baroncelli is Mazzo 12, which contains many references

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chaptervit / page 93

to his work for the royal military office chitect of the altar of San Filippo in Turin. from 1673 to the end of the seventeenth For this relationship, and illustrations, see century). He is referred to as “Michel N. Carboneri, L’architetto Francesco Gallo Angelo Garove ingegniere di S. A. R.” as (Atti SPABA, N.S. 1), Turin, 1954. early as 1680 (A.S. T.-11, Atti di Insinuaz- 32. Juvarra’s interest in one of the major prece-

ione, 1680, Libro 8, p. 287, August 23). In dents for this type of plan, San Salvatore in 1688 he was prior of the Accademia di San Bologna, is attested by the plan he made of

Luca in Turin (Schede Vesme, u, 515), it during his trip through Northern Italy in and, from 1697 to 1699, engineer of the 1716 (Collection Ing. Vincenzo Fontana,

Prince of Carignano (Doc. 7). Turin, Juvarra-Vittone volume, f. 82v). 28. Land was bought for the palace in that 33. Wittkower has noted the influence of Santa year; G. Claretta, 1 marmi scritti della citta Maria in Campitelli on this project (Art

diTorino ... ,p.546. and Architecture in Italy ..., p. 376,

29. Illustrated in L. Benevolo, “La chiesa [2nd ed. p. 388] n. 39). But Rainaldi’s

parrocchiale di Campertogno,” Palladio, design has large columns dividing the nave, N.S. 1, 1951, pp. 165-73, and Quaderni a much smaller dome and sanctuary, and dell’Istituto di Storia dell architettura, no balance between the nave chapels and

XXII, 22—24, 1957, pp. 27-34. those in the rear. In the relationship be30. It is doubtful that much of the plain and tween the chapels, Juvarra’s design is closer extremely old-fashioned interior can be to San Salvatore in Bologna. attributed to Garove. Work began in 1676 34, On the Carmine see M. Marocco, La real on a project with ten chapels instead of the chiesa parrocchiale di Nostra Signora del present eight. It was constructed almost to Carmine e del Beato Amedeo 1x di Savoia,

the roof by a Luganese capomastro who Turin, 1871; V. Mesturino, “La chiesa was dismissed in 1683 for errors in the juvarriana del Carmine in Torino,” AZti e construction; the next year construction Rassegna tecnica SIAT, N.S. 1, 1947, pp. continued on the design of Garove (E. 76-78, and idem, “Restauro della chiesa Monchieri, La Morra e la sua storia, Bra, del Carmine in Torino,” Bollettino d’Arte,

1922, pp. 35ff.). The dull and simple altar xxxIv, 1949, pp. 71-76. The main was dedicated in 1737, and has nothing to accounts have never been located, and the

do with Garove. documents in the church archives cited by

31. And it also influenced Francesco Gallo. Marocco can no longer be found. The

Several of his churches derive from it, espe- following is from Marocco, unless othercially San Filippo in Mondovi Breo of wise stated. The Carmelitani acquired their 1734, and to a slightly lesser extent, San site on the new road to the Porta Susina in

Giovanni in Racconigi of 1719. His fasci- 1718, and the next year began their nation with the centrally vaulted longitudi- convent on the designs of Gian Giacomo nal church is also evident in the Assunta of Plantery. A decade later, as part of the Carri. of 1703, the Assunta in Busca of reform of the Turinese church parishes in 1717, and San Giovanni Battista in Barge 1728, the Carmelites were given control of of 1717. But it is characteristic of Gallo’s a new parish and permission to build their

lack of monumentality that he eliminates church (cf. Appendix vi, Doc. 11). In “Garove’s” great drum and shaves down March of the next year their convent was the piers. Gallo’s beginnings were asso- finished, and a temporary oratorio was ciated with Antonio Bertola, executing ar- formally opened (G. Craveri, Guida de’

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervit / page 94

forestiert per la Real Citta di Torino, nella Chiesa Superiore oltre la Cappella o sia Turin, 1753, p. 98). Sacchetti dates the altare Maggiore, sei altre Cappelle latterali ora design in 1732 (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, da parte da concedere, cioé i loro siti e vasi, o Juvarra, p. 33), and on May 1 of that year sia nichioni d’alto in basso gia perfettamenti the Carmelitani took the designs to Carlo divisi, stabiliti, stucati, et vitrati, non mancanEmanuele 11, obviously seeking funds from divi altro, che il Corpo Marmore dell’altare him. But the church was supposedly built (main altar) con la sua Ancona, Mensa, Pavisolely with the money of the Carmelites and mento, Balaustra et altri ornamenti. .. . private citizens (G. Claretta, I marmi scritti della citta di Torino... ,p. 36; L. (A.S. T.-1, Benefizi di Qua di Monte, Mazzi

Cibrario, Storia di Torino, i, p. 226). da Inventariare, Parrocchie e Chiese diNevertheless, the foundation stone, laid on verse, Torino, “1737 19 Agosto Vendita

May 13, 1732, was inscribed with the fatta da R.R.P.P. Carmelitani di Torino a king’s name, and drawings of the church favore del D. Gio. Antonio Turinetti di were in his archives (Cat. 23), which Priero di una cappella. . . .”) This would suggests that he had an interest in the suggest that the church was not intended to building from its inception. By 1734 the be frescoed. ‘The main altar was built in tower was completed; in 1744 its four large 1762-63 by the king, presumably on the openings were changed from oval to rectan- designs of Alfieri (A. S. T.-m, Art. 183, cular. After the church was finished, 1762, f. 163). The tabernacle was redone in

according to Craveri, loc. cit., the king 1770 on the designs of Conte Birago di selected the Carmine “per Chiesa Reale del Borgaro. In the late nineteenth century, the Beato Amedeo, Duca di Savoia.” This was church was restored, and the facade built on requested by the Carmelites, and in turn a design differing from Juvarra’s. The vault

the king offered to build the altar and was destroyed in 1943 and restored after facade. The church and the main altar were the war (Mesturino). dedicated on April 26, 1736, to Our Lady 35. Another project of Juvarra’s about this of Mount Carmel and the Blessed Amedeus time for a centrally domed longitudinal (Archivio Arcivescovile, Turin, Provis- church is shown in his sketches for a church sioni, 1736, f. 29). On July 3, 1736, the in Calcinato, near Brescia (Museo Civico, king paid 550 lire for “pittura a fresco vol. 1, f. 8, no. 17, dated, “a 5 Genaro 1729. sovra la porta grande conforme al qui Pensiero della chiesa di Calcinato che si fa

annesso calcolo formato 2 giug.o corr.e al presenti,” and no. 15: Rovereanno dall’architetto Gio. B. Sacchetti,” Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pp. 86-87, pls.

including “ornamenti di architettura a 56 and 57). Here the lateral chapels fresco prospettiva delle spalle quadrone con project from the church, suggesting the arma di S.M. e finim.to .. . figure della plan of an elongated Greek Cross, and the Gloria del Beato Amedeo e due figure di ends of the nave and the large chapels are

virti. . .” (A. S. T.-1v, Discarichi, Regis- rounded, their interrelationship again tro 4.0, 1736, f. 33). For this painting see stressed as in a Greek Cross. also Schede Vesme 11, 699. By August of 36. A similar detail appears in Domenico

1737 Vaccaro’s church of the Concezione in Montecalvario, illustrated in R. Mormone, “Do-

. . . abiano li sud. M.M. R.R. P.P. finalm. menico Antonio Vaccaro Architetto,” Naterminata [the church], et aperta, con avere poli Nobilissima 1, no. 4, 1961, 135-50.

SAN FILIPPO NERI AND THE CARMINE chapter vil / page 95

The church, an elongated octagon with coupled pilasters and chapels with oval open piers and the arms of a Greek Cross, vaults, as in the Carmine, but the choir is dates from 1718-24. Vittone also used shorter and the chapels are joined by wide devices of this nature to unify the crossing openings that almost give the effect of

and its vault. aisles. The detailing of this building makes

37. R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in it most unlikely that the architect was Italy... ,p.376 (2nd ed., p. 388), n. 42. Bernardo Antonio Vittone, even though it Waldsassen consists of a three-bay nave may well have been a source for his similar before a cap-vaulted crossing and an elon- design of the parish church in Pecetto, gated monks’ choir; a cloister runs along begun in 1730 (Fig. 154; see below, p.

the right side as in the Carmine. The nave 108). That Pecetto is a source for the vaults are oval caps not unlike Juvarra’s Carmine, and not vice versa, is suggested initial project for San Filippo in 1730-32 by two points: the structure and ornament

(Appendix vi, Cat. 33). The designs of Vittone’s church do not indicate that were made in 1682 by Abraham Leuthner he had as yet come into close contact with from Prague; his helper in the construction Juvarra, and the Carmine was most probwas George Dientzenhofer; the role of Jean ably designed two years after it. Baptiste Mathey is disputed (J. J. Morper, 40. Wittkower implies (Art and Architecture “Die Stiftskirche von Waldsassen und ihre in Italy . . . , p. 278) that galleries were boéhmische Wurzel,” Das Miinster, 1x—x, not used in Italy after the middle ages, and 1963, pp. 312-14; H. G. Franz, Bauten were new in Juvarra’s work. But there were und Baumeister der Barockzeit in Bohmen, Milanese precedents for the Renaissance in Leipzig, n.d., pp. 48-50). Other northern San Maurizio and in many central buildlongitudinal churches with open chapels, ings, such as Bramante’s sacristy of Santa but not nearly as similar to the Carmine’s, Maria presso San Satiro; Roman ones in

are Andrea Pozzo’s University church in the Propaganda Fide; and a ‘Turinese Vienna of circa 1704-05 (N. Carboneri, example in the Immacolata Concezione. In Andrea Pozzo Architetto, Trent, 1961, pls. Juvarra’s works galleries appear in the 32-38), and the Stiftskirche in Diirnstein, Sacristy project of 1714—15 and in a project Austria, of 1721 (Franz, op. cit., p. 117, pl. for the Duomo Nuovo (Appendix vi-A, Cat.

312). 24, 26; Fig. 71), where the form has noth-

38. As pointed out by J. J. Morper, “Der ing whatsoever in common with German Prager Architekt Jean Baptiste Mathey,” galleries.

Miinchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst, Al. If Juvarra had travelled in Germany and N.F. tv, 1927, p. 177, Waldsassen imitates Austria, there probably would have been the church of St. Ignatius in Prague built some record of it as there was of his trips to

in 1665-71 by Carlo Lurago. France, England, Portugal, Spain, and, 39. Modern inscriptions on the back of the during his Turinese years, to Rome. See altar and on the facade of Pianezza give the Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, passim. date of the foundation as 1727 and of the 42, M. Passanti, Architettura in Piemonte, pp.

dedication as 1729. The plan is shown in C. 208, 215. Brayda, “Notizie e rilievi di alcune chiese 43. V. Viale, “Il progetto per la Chiesa dei barocche piemontesi,” Bollettino Storico- Gesuiti di Vercelli,” Atti del x Congresso di Bibliografico Subalpino, 1941, xLu1, p. 133 Storia dell Architettura, Rome, 1959, pp.

and fig. 196. The church has piers with 426-33. The designs, now in the Museo

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervir / page 96

Civico, are dated December 18, 1734. The choir. There is a curious similarity between

~ church, Santa Maria Maggiore, was begun this design and an engraved plan by in 1741 and opened in 1773. A sketch by Thomas Gobert of the 1690's for the chapel Juvarra, Museo Civico vol. m1, f. 4, no. 6, at Versailles (P. Moisy, “Les projets de 15 x 19.5 cm. (Fig. 138), may be a prelim- Thomas Gobert pour la Chapelle de inary design for it. Here the chapels are Versailles,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, LIx, deep and ringed with colonnades, as is the _ 1962, pp. 227-32, fig. 7).

CHAPTER VIII

°9 ‘ °

Benedetto Alfieri’s SS. Giovanni

e Remigio in Carignano

S. Giovanni e Remigio is a sport, unique in claiming his legacy (it would seem), he set S plan. Vittorio Alfieri, the playwright and about practicing law in Asti. But soon relatives

nephew of the architect, remembered it as that called upon him for minor architectural “bizarre church in Carignano, made in the guise work—from the beginning he worked chiefly of a fan.” From his words, doubtless, came the for family and friends—and by 1730 his second town legend that one evening Benedetto was career began in earnest when he worked for his trying to flatter a lovely woman, who wielded a uncle, the Marchese ‘Tommaso Ghilini, on the

lovelier fan, and so at the drawing board, great family palace in Alessandria.° etc. . . .» More soberly, A. E. Brinckmann This was Alfieri’s contact with Juvarra, and implied that the church was deliberately left a probably his chief indoctrination into architechalf circle to let the visitor complete the other ture. Yet while the facade apparently was built

half in his mind.° according to Juvarra’s drawings, the fine brickBut nothing testifies that Alfieri was half so work and leaping spans of the atrium vaults imaginative as the local gossips or the modern were already characteristic of Alfieri’s own neat historian. On the contrary, hardly anything else and confident engineering.

he did departs so noticeably from the conven- After Juvarra’s death in 1736 there was a tional; and even his masterpiece falls more in hiatus of two years when Carlo Emanuele line with logic and tradition on closer inspec- did without a chief architect, no doubt because

tion. of the War of the Polish Succession, which

Alfieri’s career was the not uncommon one in interrupted building activity (see Appendix vn, Piedmont of the young and poor aristocrat who Doc. 32, and p. 131, n. 75). In 1738 he called found his prestige in architecture and in his Alfieri to his service to build the Teatro Regio,

circle at the court.* Born about 1699 to and the next year appointed him to Juvarra’s old beggared nobility from Asti, he was abandoned position.” It must have already been clear that in Rome to a Jesuit upbringing and from the while none of Juvarra’s other followers came up age of 16 or so continued his studies at the to his grand manner, Alfieri exceeded it.*

Collegio dei Nobili in Turin. Unsuccessful in A Turinese noble, the Marchese Morozzo page 97

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervil / page 98

della Rocca, remarked that he had hesitated to uation and enlargement of the great secular ask Alfieri to reconstruct his palace, one of the buildings begun by Juvarra: the Palazzo del largest in Turin, because the task was not in Senato,* Stupinigi, and Venaria Reale. By keeping with the architect’s “avezza di lavorare 1752, his fame was such that he was chosen to nel grande.”” The Marchese added, however, erect the facade of the major church of Protesthat Alfieri would prepare designs “in order to tant Geneva.” Yet rarely was he called upon to please his friends,” and Vittorio Alfieri noted build a church: the larger ones in Turin had that on such tasks “that excellent man, gratui- already been constructed a hundred years tously, and for friendship’s sake, wasted his before, and the lesser ones sprouting up in the time.””” He acted the ardent and single-minded little towns of Piedmont were left to Vittone and dilettante who, his nephew wrote, “abstained the other smaller fry. Rehabilitating the palaces

from almost everything that did not concern the of noble friends and dreaming up utopian fine arts.” Generous of his services, he hoped for projects for preservation in nicely bound their too geneous fruition, in too “arty” a form, volumes to present to the king were Alfieri’s and these ambitions were to have their full usual employment.” Yet it was in church design aesthetic realization only in the design for SS. that his style revealed itself best. His detailing

Giovanni e Remigio. was too standardized to give much life to his

With the adeptness of a courtier, the Conte palace reconstructions, and his large-scale planAlfieri, to give him his title, soon found the ning too mechanical to bring much interest to somewhat chill but occasionally warmer style, his utopian schemes. In church architecture, the thick-walled and hard-surfaced grandiosity however, there was a chance to experiment with (after the thinner structure of the early Palazzo governed views; by special circumstances he got Ghilini) , and the deft manipulation of large and his one real chance to do that in the parish difficult structures that were made to order for church of Carignano.

the outwardly festive but in truth sedately The decision to construct SS. Giovanni e proper court of Carlo Emanuele 111. Remigio was taken by the city councilmen at a Through the good fortune of his training, meeting of October 30, 1755, after a wealthy

Alfieri’s art acquired a breadth beyond the local businessman, Giuseppe Sebastiano narrowness of his contemporaries in Piedmont. Frichieri, had offered to purchase a site for it For the construction of the Teatro Regio in (Appendix x1, Doc. 1). They chose a long Turin, he was sent to study the theaters of narrow plot running from the piazza of the city Europe. Curiously, no evidence suggests that he hall, which the church was to face, back to the

followed in Juvarra’s steps as a scene (in site of the old parish church (Doc. 1; Cat. 1; distinction to a theater) designer, but he must Fig. 143). have been well acquainted with the art, if only It has been suggested, however, that the city through his chief draftsman, Carlo Filippo had previously thought to locate the church on Aliberti of Asti, a student of Ferdinando Bibie- the larger Piazza del Ballo (now the Piazza na’s. Thus Alfieri gained, as had Juvarra before Albertina), and that Vittone’s project for the him, a dimension to his architecture not equally Duomo Nuovo in Turin (Appendix vr-B, Cat. explored by his Piedmontese contemporaries, 3) was really for SS. Giovanni e Remigio at and an international savoir-faire not in their this location.“ But Vittone specifies that the

provincial ken. project was for a cathedral, not for a parish The most active period in Alfieri’s career church; and it was much too large for a town of came in the late 174.0’s to the end of the 1750's, 6,000 (Doc. 2). Its dimensions were roughly when he was engaged principally in the contin- 102 by 135 meters, nearly the same as Alfieri’s

ALFIERI’S SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO IN CARIGNANO chapter vill / page 99

project for the Duomo Nuovo (Appendix vi-B; hardly have saved anything from the cost of a Fig. 75), but almost twice the size of the site longer but much narrower one. The reasons for chosen in 1755, and three times that of Alfieri’s the change must have been aesthetic. The alterfinal design, which measures 50.5 x 48.5 meters, ation made possible a grander facade, equal in width times length. The only evidence that the length to the city hall, and freed Alfieri to Piazza del Ballo was contemplated suggests indulge in the radial views and ingenious planmost strongly that it was never seriously con- ning for which he was now to make other sidered: it is a letter written by the parish priest sacrifices of the community’s needs. early in 1756 to the Prince of Carignano, asking His design was probably ready by May of him to help switch the site to this piazza (Doc. 1756 (Doc. 2), and late in the year demolition 2A). He claims that Frichieri preferred to buy work was begun (Doc. 7); in March of 1757, Jand there, but since Frichieri was responsible after the community had belatedly agreed to

for the city council’s decision, this makes no erect a campanile, as had originally been sense: the whole tone of the priest’s letter is one intended, Alfieri added it to the design, and of special pleading, obviously to save his old made some last-minute changes in the ornament church, and the Prince’s curt rejection proves of the facade (Doc. 9); the foundation stone

that it carried no weight (Doc. 2B). was laid in April (Doc. 10B), and the substrucNevertheless, this sidelight makes a valuable tures of the choir and sacristy were completed comment on Vittone’s position. In 1738, he had by September (Doc. 11A). At that time Alfieri,

erected a chapel in nearby Vallinotto; in presumably at the behest of the community, 1744-49 he had built the large Albergo di submitted a new design for the rest of the Carita for Carignano with money supplied by church “uniform, however, to the idea already Frichieri; and in 1751-52 he had designed a formed, thereby enlarging the building and at hospital for the township.” Yet he was never the same time saving several hundred trabucchi even considered for the real prize. His style must of masonry, as well as giving the worshippers in

have been deemed insufficient for a work of the church a better view of the functions celeconsequence, especially by comparison with brated at the main altar,” and “making it so that

Alfieri’s. the nave of the church can hold a larger number Ordinarily, Alfieri would not have worked for of people” (Doc. 11A). such a small township. But in this instance his What then did the first plan look like? It had services were readily obtainable through the the same general form or “idea” as it has today, Prince of Carignano, for whom Alfieri had built semicircular with splaying views through the

the Teatro Carignano in Turin a few years vestibule (Fig. 144). It had much the same before. Judging from the community’s overdone extent, too, since the position of the sanctuary thanks to Alfieri for his “charitable” help (Doc. was determined by its foundations, and the 9,23), the inducement was prestige rather than outer dimensions of the nave were fixed by those

money. If that was the arrangement, Alfieri walls and by the streets. According to local could have counted on a free hand, and there tradition, the columnar vestibule was originally

can be no doubt that he took it. intended to go on the outside; but this seems Disregarding the community’s evident inten- most unlikely, because it would have radically tion of building a longitudinal design on the altered the “idea” of the church.” deep plot (Doc. 1, 2,5), Alfieri shrank the site That leaves but one possibility: the nave was

to exclude the old church (Fig. 143). Yet the narrower. This could have resulted from a old church was still to be destroyed (Doc. 5), larger vestibule, which would have blocked the and Alfieri’s wide and elaborate design could view of the altar for the spectators at the ends of

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chaptervill / page 100

the nave. But the shortening of its radius would quence for the visual effects: in projects that not alone have accounted for the considerable date between 1758 and this time, the large savings in masonry. The major difference must chapels in the center of either side were to have therefore have been that the perimetral walls of been crowned by large lanterns (Cat. 2, 4; Fig. the nave were thicker, thus offering the advan- 145), but these were eliminated in execution. tages of deeper chapels and greater buttressing Late the next year, just before the church was for the wide vault. As a consequence the open- consecrated, came the city council’s last fulsome ing to the choir would have been narrower, thanks to Alfieri for his “singular design” (Doc. more nearly of horseshoe shape; indeed, the 23). As in many small Piedmontese villages, foundations have spur walls that constrict the the townspeople had acquired a taste for the opening to the choir by almost a trabucco— unusual by the mid-eighteenth century, and three meters. Perhaps there were to be screen- quickly took to sophisticated designs even ing columns at the sides of the choir entrance, though at first they may have expected some-

as in Bernini’s Sant’Andrea al Quirinale. thing more conventional.

But not much could have been shaved from With his most artificial plan, Alfieri the outer walls. As the church stands today, a established a set of views as controlled and somewhat variable module of 13 to 14 meters graded as the grooves of a seashell. From the (444 to 4% trabucchi) repeats itself in the nexus just within the central doorway, the specwidth of the nave, in the diameters of the choir tator’s views are confined by the piers of the and vestibule, and in several other dimensions.™ vestibules to the openings of the chapels and Had the original nave been more than a meter choir (Fig. 146, 147). Then the views break narrower, the discrepancies in the proportions down into A-B-A patterns with the accent on the would have been all too visible, not just mathe- center. Had the lanterns been erected above the matical. Therefore the “several hundred trabuc- central chapels (Fig. 146), the pattern would chi of masonry” that were recouped must have have been still more insistent, for both they and been measured in the small “trabuccho came- the choir would have been picked out by their rale,””’ and they must have included considera- lighting. And the entire system would have ble parts of the foundations and vaulting. Even been far more striking had the nave been shalso, it is not easy to explain this large figure. Yet lower and the chapels deeper.

the very imprecision of the present module indi- The second major viewpoint is from the cates that it was tampered with; and small center of the choir, looking towards the facade, though the changes may have looked on the the viewpoint of the priest (Fig. 148). From drawing board, their results were enough, in a here the visual angle just embraces the great tightly fitted radial system, where even a few bow of the lateral hemicycles of the entrances inches’ projection of a column can block one’s and the reversing curve of the vestibule. So view, to explain all of the city council’s enthu- persistent is the triadal system that scarcely any siasm. It could hardly be clearer that in pursuit detail escapes it: the pilasters and the semicolof his own convenience Alfieri gave no heed to umns on the interior, the bays of the facade,

the congregation’s. large and small, even the triangular tower pay Afterwards the church proceeded to rise with homage to it.” few alterations. In 1761-62 it was vaulted, and The third and last vantage point, however,

the decoration was begun (Doc. 15, 16); in yields unsystematic views, and extremely 1763 the designs of altars and chapels were asymmetrical ones at that: this is the viewpoint fixed according to Alfieri’s drawings (Doc. 20). of the congregation in the nave, normally the That marked the final change of some conse- most important one of all (Fig. 149).

ALFIERI’S SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO IN CARIGNANO chaptervul / page 101

To maintain control of the views, Alfieri and 51 meters respectively. Alfieri’s design cramped the spectator’s movement and is in effect one of the colonnaded half-circles curtailed the lighting. On the main axis, the opening to a smaller one. The spectator can viewer’s positions are as clearly fixed in the therefore stand in the vestibule and look vestibule and choir as if an X had been carved through a succession of no less than three in the pavement; in the nave the worshippers sit boundaries: it is a paragon of this characteristic in pews designed by Alfieri’s shop as an integral of open architecture. Inside as well as out, the

part of the church (Doc. 21). Windows are church seems even larger than it is. rather small and high up; Carignano is a town But how could Alfieri have imagined such a often grayed by fog; and the church—even detail as a church by itself, isolated as a whole? without curtains—has a somewhat gloomy He had only to look to the stage, where struclook.” With its thick walls and the great entab- tures of this sort were commonplace. Juvarra lature girdling the perimeter, the interior seems had often made sketches of circular or semicir-

completely closed. cular cages of columns or narrow piers, viewed SS. Giovanni e Remigio is therefore the sometimes from their centers, sometimes

record of Alfieri’s narrow devotion to Art. In the head-on from outside, and sometimes at an first project this even led him to deny worship- angle* (Fig. 151) —the three main standpoints pers a sight of the main altar. Above all it led in Carignano. Neither the architectural nor the him to enforce an ideal hierarchy of views, theatrical precedents would have been sufficient grand and formal ones for the priest and the sources for the church: the former was real but

special visitor at the entrance, broken and too much a fragment, the latter whole but too distorted ones for the ordinary worshipper in the much a fiction. Together, one made it possible

nave. to realize the other.

Only with a semicircular plan could Alfieri There may well have been special sanction

have made his radial system do this much. The for the theatricality of Carignano, which is both spectator in a central church is not immediately auditorium and stage set. Only a few years confronted by the splaying vistas, and such a before Alfieri had built one of the famous thea-

church would have had to be twice as large to ters of Europe for the Prince of Carignano. permit views of equal length. But Alfieri did not Moreover, the township had its own little theaarrive at the plan by abstract reasoning. He ter, the proceeds of which went to the construccould have fallen back on one (and only one) tion of the church.” And the custom of seating close architectural source: the colonnaded sem1- the congregation (Doc. 21), ever more impor-

circular vestibules of the kind that were tant in the eighteenth century, lent itself to such outstanding in Juvarra’s sketches for the an association and to these enforced views. Duomo Nuovo. These had just been completed But common sense will not account for in 1730 when Alfieri first came to know Alfieri’s extremism in these years. The wallowJuvarra, and were preserved in the royal ing in theatricality, the disregard for light and archives, where they had been studied again by movement, the contrast between directed views

Alfieri for his own projects for the Duomo on the main axis and violently distorted ones in Nuovo about the time that he was working for the periphery are acuter yet in one of Alfieri’s

Carignano. In one of Juvarra’s sketches rare plans of any originality, the “Primo (Appendix vi-A; Cat. 13; Fig. 62), the vesti- Progretto” for the Duomo Nuovo (cf. Chapter bule resembles Alfieri’s plan not only in form v; Fig. 75, 76). Looking down the nave, the but even in size: the width in the sketch is 16 spectator would have been confronted by a trabucchi, in Carignano about 16:3, or circa 49 normal longitudinal church; glancing towards

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterviil / page 102

the sides, he would have seen forking passage- Juvarra’s designs for San Filippo (Fig. 121). ways in strict imitation of Bibienesque scenes; But Juvarra’s design is much more open,

but standing in the aisles (walking through varied, and dramatic: it has free-standing them being almost out of the question) he columns in the center; round, open towers above would have been lucky to know where he was. the rectangular terminal bays; and no stretches No light at all penetrates the lower zone, and of dead masonry. the chapels are lost in shadows, so that the Moreover, Juvarra never twisted a design so appearance of the church would have remained egregiously to fit theatrical ideas. Perhaps the

unchanging throughout the day. closest he came to it was in the forking passageThat rigid classification of views was almost ways of his “Secondo Progetto” for the Duomo the reverse of Juvarra’s freer and more gregari- Nuovo (Fig. 57). But they were meant chiefly ous organization. One need only compare his as ambulatories, not as mere imitations of Bibie“Quarto” with Alfieri’s “Primo Progretto”: both nesque vistas, and they gave the entering specstressed the lateral views in the nave, but tator a purview of the whole, rather than permaJuvarra made those from the aisles nearly equal nently denying it to him. In Juvarra’s work to those from the nave (Fig. 73, 74), whereas theatricality enhanced the function of a buildAlfieri placed all the emphasis on the latter. ing; it was not worshipped for itself.

Juvarra tended to play down the central and Of the qualities of open architecture, theremore formal views: characteristically the aisles fore, SS. Giovanni e Remigio has only some of of his project are wide and the nave narrow, the tricks and few of the effects. Alfieri took the

just the opposite of Alfieri’s proportions. airy views and imprisoned them; reduced the The same differences turn up in their uses of sense of openness to the much commoner illuternary A-B-A rhythms. Patterns of this sort, sion of vastness; and changed the vaguely or

because they conferred automatic unity and uncertainly theatrical to the conspicuously variety on complicated massings, had become scenic. The purposeful view, not the impression especially pronounced in Italian and French of freedom, was his object.”

architecture of the seventeenth and eighteenth Yet in exchange for what Alfieri had centuries. Juvarra also favored them, for sacrificed of Juvarra’s, he was able to give his instance, in the Soperga, the Palazzo Madama, works, notably at Carignano, a strength, preci-

and the Palazzina di Stupinigi. But he limited sion, and largeness that Juvarra rarely them to volumes and articulations; he did not achieved. His thorough Jesuit training in mathstrain the views through them. Juvarra catered ematics—in which he _ excelled”—perhaps

to spectators: Alfieri subjected them. underlay the exact maneuverings of his brilliant For similar reasons Juvarra always allowed technique, whether in planning, views, brickthe observer the escape and distraction of open work, or vaulting. Already evident in the atrium masonry and ornaments delightful in them- of the Palazzo Ghilini, his talents matured from selves. The stripped-down hull and massive the later 1740’s onwards, when he constructed _ boundaries of Carignano were at the greatest the royal “Cavallerizza” in Turin, noted for the remove from his work. Lighting produced the extraordinary span of its low vaults,” and the

main difference between the master of intangi- iron-strengthened portico of Saint-Pierre in bles and the architect of solids: at the climax of Geneva, admired by Jacques-Germain Soufflot

Venaria, in the choir, the oval is an open in his studies for the construction of the window; in Carignano it is a sculptured medal- Sainte-Geneviéve in Paris.” In Carignano he lion.” The same contrasts extend to the facade matched these feats by the skillful juxtaposition, (Fig. 150). G. C. Argan” has noted that the in a cramped and irregular space, of the tower, exterior of San Giovanni resembles one of sacristy, choir, and neighboring chapels (Fig.

ALFIERI’S SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO IN CARIGNANO chapter vir / page 103

145), bravura work of which Juvarra would cal views: they were latter-day, but stagier, have been incapable—the far simpler task of Fontanas. The church in Carignano has its coordinating facade and chapels at Venaria was nearest counterpart not in Piedmont, but in

enough to faze him. Vanvitelli’s octagon and staircase at Caserta, Among eighteenth-century architects it was begun a few years before.

not Juvarra but Luigi Vanvitelli whom Alfieri What Vittorio Alfieri wrote of his uncle most resembled. Both were born in 1700, a would do almost as well for Vanvitelli: generation after Juvarra; both were raised in Rome, where they acquired their tastes in archi- I learned of his immeasurable passion for tecture; and both probably came in close contact architecture from his talking to me very often

with Juvarra in their formative years. More and with great enthusiasm . . . of the divine conservative than their teacher, they took the Michelangelo Buonarroti, who he never named middle road, Vanvitelli shying from the minu- without bowing his head OF Paising his cap with

. . . e had lived a large part of his life in Rome;

tiae of Fuga and the severity of Galilei, Alfieri He hn ect and humility that J “ : ve torget. spurns the license of Vittone and the marks of he was filled with the beauty of antiquity; but Neo-Classicism, both of them returning to the even so he sometimes deviated in his architecheritage of Fontana and Bernini by sloughing tural work from good taste in order to adapt off most of the embellishments of Juvarra himself to the moderns. And of that the testi( Appendix xI-C). In Naples and Turin, they mony is his bizarre church of Carignano, made

fused a rather academic detail and heavy in the guise of a fan. Michelangesque masonry with patently theatri-

NOTES 1. V. Alfieri, La Vita, Epoca Seconda, Capi- 156. The legend obviously came from Vittolo Terzo (Opere di Vittorio Alfieri, [Pisa] torio’s paragraph (see n. 1).

1809, vul, pp. 35ff.). 3. A. E. Brinckmann, Die Baukunst des 17.

und 18. Jahrhunderts in den romanischen

Tra molte altre cose, io argomento quella sua Ldandern, p. 80: “Nicht nur sind nach passione smisurata per l’architettura, dal par- Vollendung verlangende Nebenrdiume larmi spessissimo, e con entusiasmo . . . del gegeben, sondern sogar der Hauptraum ist divino Michelangelo Buonarroti, ch’egli non nur noch Teil eines su erganzenden nominava mai senza o abbassare il capo, o Ganzen.” This theory is repeated by M. alzarsi la berretta, con un rispetto ed una com- Rosci, “Benedetto Alfieri e Parchitettura

Penne che ee eee della del ’700 in Piemonte,” Palladio, N.S., 11, mente. Egli avea fatta gran parte della vita in 1953, p. 97; by R. Moro, O. Pizautti, A. Roma; era pieno del bello antico; ma pure pol : my eg ; ; , - ;

alle volte nel suo architettare prevarico dal Zille, “La Chiesa di San Giovanni in Carig- buon gusto per adattarsi ai moderni. E di cio nano,” L'Architettura, cronache e storia, fa fede quella sua bizzarra chiesa di Carignano, v1, 57, 1960, pp. 194-201; and by M.

fatta a foggia di ventaglio. Anderegg-Tille, Die Schule Guarinis,

_ Winterthur, 1962, p. 100. 2. G. Rodolfo, “L’architettura barocca in 4, The main sources for Alfieri’s biography are

Carignano,” Atti e memorie del U M. Paroletti, Vite e ritratti di sessanta Congresso della SPABA, Turin, 1937, p. piemontesi illustri, Turin, 1824, unpaged,

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterviit / page 104

supplemented by Vittorio Alfieri’s Vita According to Paroletti, both Alfier1 and (n. 1). Both have been reprinted, along Conte Nicolis di Robilant traveled through with important new documents, in Schede Europe to study the theaters at about the Vesme, Turin, 1963, 1, pp. 12-17). The same time; Alfieri’s trip, therefore, was major study of his architecture is G. Chev- probably made in 1737 and early 1738. To alley, “Un avvocato architetto, il Conte my knowledge, the first payment to Alfieri Benedetto Alfieri,” Atti SIAT, xirx, 1915, isin A. S. T.-11, Art. 183, 1738, p. 133:

pp. 30-72, and Turin, 1916. 1,500 lire “per formazione di disegni, et 5. The date usually given for his birth is 1700, altre spese att. le R.e Fabriche. Rec. 13 but in a document of the spring or early giugno 1738.” He was made primo archisummer of 1721, Alfieri gives his age as 22 tetto on June 10, 1739. It should be added

(Schede Vesme, loc. cit.). that the diaries of the Abate Pasini cited by 6. On Juvarra’s role in the palace, see Rovere- A. Lange, Boll. SPABA, N.S., xvi—xvu, Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pp. 70, 136; 1962-63, p. 122, nn. 4 and 6, do not specify

Sacchetti says that Juvarra made the any work by him before 1738. design in 1720. Its atrium resembles that of 8. The major followers were Giovanni

the Palazzo Martinengo Colleoni di Battista Sacchetti and Bernardo Antonio Pianezza (later the Palazzo Bargnani) in Vittone. Sacchetti was then in Madrid to Brescia (illustrated in Storia di Brescia, construct Juvarra’s design of the royal n.p., 1964, m1, pp. 356-57). Sacchetti palace. Vittone was receiving important reports that Juvarra made a design for the royal commissions, but none that required a palace of “signor Martinengo in Brescia” in grand style: see below, pp. 109, 123. 1728 (Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, 9. D. de Bernardi Ferrero, I] Palazzo Morozzo

p. 32). The unfinished palace in Alessan- della Rocca, n.p., n.d., p. 23. This docudria, on which Alfieri worked from 1730 to ment is not published in the author’s article

1733, is discussed by L. Mina, Del Palazzo in Atti e Rassegna tecnica SIAT, xu, Reale di Alessandria e del suo architetto, 1959, pp. 451-61. Alessandria, 1904. A. Baudi di Vesme, 10. V. Alfieri, loc. cit. Schede Vesme, 1, 12, n. 7, was the first to 11. Alfieri’s work on the Palazzo del Senato

suggest that Juvarra designed the facade, began in 1741: the idea for the semi-

and that the rest was Alfiert’s. columned temple front is entirely his, not

7. Alfier’s coming to Turin in connection Juvarra’s.

with the Teatro Regio is recorded in the 12. Italian scholars have overlooked the Swiss

diary of Cavaliere Orioles, Biblioteca studies of this facade: C. Martin, Saint-

Reale, Turin, Storia Patria 932: Pierre, Ancienne Cathédrale de Genéve, Geneva, n.d., pp. 32ff.; idem, “Les Projets

a . lerre au XvilI.me Siécle,” Bulletin de la de

1738 6 febb. Il Conte di Rubilante [sic] va a oe Reconstruction de la Facade de Saint-

consultare Bibiana [sic] per la costruzione deld’Archéologie Société d'Histo: , . Nuovo Teatro... . ciété wstorre et

1738 22 ma[rlzo. Giunse d’asti il Cav.re Alfieri Genéve, 1, 1906-13, pp. 143-56; and Architetto, e resta al serviggiodiS.M.... G. Germann, Der Protestantische Kirchen9 Aprile. Si comincia la fabbrica delle secreterie, bau in der Schweiz, Ziirich, 1963, Pp. e nuovo Teatro Regio con il Dramma Arsace; 87-93. These studies show that Alfieri’s e 200 doppie date da S. M. al Conte Alfieri classical portico was derived from earlier

Architetto. projects of other architects.

ALFIERI’S SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO IN CARIGNANO chaptervir / page 105

13. His projects for the Palazzo Reale in Turin bule is 12.82 meters or 4:0:11 ér.; of the are dated 1761 but may be earlier (A. S. nave, 13.10 meters or 4:1:6 ¢r.; and of the

T.-1, Palazzi Reali). Another volume sanctuary, 13.94 meters or about 4:3 @r. dated 1763 (also A. S. T.—1, Palazzi Reali) The length from the center of the choir to

includes unexecuted projects for the the retrochoir wall is 13.18 meters, as is the Duomo Nuovo (Appendix vi-B, Cat. 2) distance from the opening of the choir to and the royal castle at Chambéry in addi- the piers of the vestibule (plan by Alessantion to the designs for the Senate building, dro Druetti, Archivio Communale, CarigCavallerizza, and other executed works of nano, made in 1883 to the scale 1/100 Alfieri’s. On the utopian plans for Venaria mm.; Fig. 144).

Reale and Stupinigi, see Chapters u, v. 19. The “trabucco camerale da muro”

14. Rodolfo, op. cit., pp. 145-46. measured a trabucco squared and ten oncie 15. [bid., pp. 137-39. In the Archivio Commu- high (less than a seventh of a trabucco). In nale of Carignano there are five drawings, meters this was 3.086 x 3.086 x .4286 or most of them signed by Vittone and accom- 4.083 cubic meters. panying memoranda of his from March 9, 20. The triangular tower, invented by Borrom1751, to May 18, 1752, for two projects of ini for San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, had

extensive reconstruction in the “fabrica been used by Costanzo Michela in Santa dell’Ospedale delli Infermi della Citta di Marta in Aglié, which was begun in 1738 Carignano.” But the designs are of little or 1739, and in a project for the parish artistic value, and apparently were never church of Borgomasino (illustrated in L.

executed. Barbero, Borgomasino, Vita religiosa e

16. Rodolfo, op. cit., p. 151, reports that “é civile, Turin, 1941, p. 381) which had tradizione che il peristilio interno dovesse been approved by Alfieri in his capacity as

trovarsi esternamente,” and notes that this chief royal architect in 1748 (Archivio would have completely changed the vault- Parrochiale, Borgomasino, Atti Civile delle ing. G. B. Lusso, Carignano, la parrocchia, Diverse Compagnie, copy of a document of Pinerolo, 1964, p. 123, confirms the tradi- October 21, 1749). The upper part of the

tion, and suggests that the “volta cosi tower in Carignano was constructed in ampliata non avrebbe potuto essere gettata 1932, but on a design that reflects Alfieri’s

senza pilastri interni di sostegno; ostacolo ideas (Cat. 8). alla visuale dell’altar maggiore e ‘centinal 21. It is not known what colors Alfieri wished

di trabucchi in muratura’ in pid.” But it is to give the interior. The church was whitedifficult to see how the church could have washed in 1776 (Doc. 25), and its present

been built without an internal semicircle of dark red colors of fake marble were supports to carry an annular vault. And if perhaps added when the vaults were this vestibule were merely continued as a painted in the late nineteenth century circle into the piazza, the elimination of the (L'illustrazione italiana, xvi, 1889, p. external part would in no way have 235). Alfieri’s chapel of Sant’Evasio in the

improved the views inside. cathedral of Casale Monferrato is done in

17. A plan of the basement is reproduced in dark marbles, and one suspects that his Chevalley, op. cit. fig. xx; new plans are preference was for such Berninesque color

published by R. Moro, O. Pizzutti, A. Zille, schemes. I have not seen two other

op. cit. churches attributed to Alfieri (in Mostra

18. The clear width or diameter of the vesti- del Barocco Piemontese, 1, Architettura,

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterviit / page 106

pp. 55-56: Santa Teresa in Cavallermag- 27. Paroletti, op. cit. giore, and SS. Pietro e Paolo in Monastero 28. The “Cavallerizza,” near the Palazzo Reale

Vasco). in Turin, was in construction in 1763 22. Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, pls. according to the inscriptions on the draw204-10, 214, 246. Another precedent may ings in Alfieri’s volume in the Archivio di

have been Juvarra’s theater of 1722 in the Stato, Palazzi Reali, fi. 11-13. Of it Palazzo Reale. As shown in an engraving Lalande remarked (op. cit., p. 152): “La by Aveline, it was semicircular, with semi- votite a une portée immense; c’est le plus

circular or horseshoe-shaped chambers beau morceau qu’on puisse voir en ce

opening off its perimeter (Mostra del genre.” Barocco Piemontese, 1, Scenografia, pl. 29. Soufflot had been invited to submit a design

22), for the facade in 1750 (see above, n. 12).

23. In 1759 the townspeople founded a theater In 1770 “il explique 4 VAcadémie la which late in 1760 was rented out to help construction du portail de Saint-Pierre de pay for the church (Archivio Comunale, Genéve et les tirants de fer qui soutiennent Ordinati, 1760—63, ff. 71 and 112). les plates-bandes” (M. Monval, Souffiot, 24. ‘The sculpture was designed in 1770 by pp. 461, 540). As early as 1768, it was Giovanni Battista Bernero, and the frame noted in France that Alfieri’s portico was a by Luigi Barberis, Alfieri’s assistant (Doc. major precedent for Soufflot’s in Sainte24; Cat. 7). It is not known whether this Geneviéve (M. Petzet, Soufflots Saintefollowed a_ project by Alfieri. Barberis, Genevieve und der franzésische Kirchenwho had worked on the design of the main bau des 18. Jahrhunderts [Neue Miinchner altar under Alfieri (Doc. 19), would cer- Beitrige zur Kunstgeschichte, 1] Munich,

tainly have known of Alfieri’s intentions. 1961, p. 102). In any case, Barberis’ drawing (Cat. 7) 30. The theory that Vanvitelli studied with

shows that; the wall which was closed before the biograae . Juvarra, is founded on.the relief was placed on it. , vs “ays 25. In an article in I] Messagero (Rome) of phies of Milizia and Luigi Vanvitelli, has Feb. 8, 1964. This was brought to my been contested; but the case for it has now

attention by Arch. Mario Passanti. been strengthened by M. Rosci, “Filippo 26. In this Alfieri’s approach resembles Baldas- Juvarra ¢ il ‘nuovo’ gusto classico alla meta

sare Longhena’s in Santa Maria della del Settecento,” Atti dellt vir Convegno Salute, the relation of which to open archi- Nazionale di Storia dell’ Architettura,

tecture is noted above, p. 15, n. 6. Rome, 1956, pp. 250-51.

CHAPTER IX

On Bernardo Antonio Vittone

EITHER as a man nor as an architect was him, for instance, in a lawsuit against a stepN Vittone quite the eccentric he has been sister, entrusted his affairs to him when he went considered. His fusion of the architecture of to study in Rome, and on Matteo’s death Guarini and Juvarra was not a miracle beyond became his sole heir.’ The self-sufficient life was explanation, nor was he truly the obsessed and Vittone’s inheritance. solitary genius.” What seems strange in his art His family was religious—Matteo Fuiliberto came naturally from the repertory of open was a “Canonico, e Teologo” of the Cathedral of

structures, and what seems temperamental in Turin (Doc. 3), three of his four step-sisters his actions was probably normal enough for his were nuns (Doc. 2), and Bernardo himself was

upbringing and position. unquestionably devout. To judge from his library of more than 300 titles, many of which

A. Vittone’s Early Career he may have inherited, his passions were reli-

gion, architecture, law, and business.* Yet for

Born in 1702 (and not, it is now almost all his books, his prose is clumsy and overblown, certain, in 1705 [Appendix xu, Doc. 1]), he even by Italian standards of the eighteenth cenwas the ninth and perhaps the youngest child of tury, and one suspects that he was largely selfan elderly cloth merchant and moneylender, taught. His circle included some rather learned Giuseppe Nicola Vittone* (Doc. 2). The father, or pedantic assistants,’ and he readily passes for a widower who married Vittone’s mother late in one of those provincial savants who, engrossed life, died when Bernardo was still a child (Doc. in his work, comes to live the lay equivalent of 3). In all likelihood, the boy was eventually a priest’s life. raised by a much older step-brother, Matteo Unlike most Italian architects, Vittone was Filiberto Vittone, with whom _ Bernardo not brought into the profession by a father who remained on the closest of terms (he did not was an artist or a craftsman. Neither was he with others of his relatives); he joined with precocious: his free-hand drawing was weak,° page 107

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 108

and his earliest known work, built when he was submitted to the Accademia by Juvarra many in his late twenties, is completely undistingu- years earlier. It is almost certain that Vittone ished. But at a time when architecture was at its began to work for Juvarra about this time; if he most flourishing in Piedmont, the profession had not already done so shortly after designing could offer other attractions to the son of a petit Pecetto, he now met him in Rome (Doc. 5), bourgeois who was himself to become a sharp and must have entered the shop after returning

businessman. to Turin.” In addition, Vittone had the example of his The influence of Guarini also shows up in

uncle, Gian Giacomo Plantery,’ who was second these projects—in the vaulting of the corner only to Juvarra among Turinese architects of chapels.” For more than thirty years no one in

the early eighteenth century. In the 1720's Piedmont, and scarcely anyone in Italy, had Plantery began to assimilate some of Juvarra’s paid the least attention to Guarini’s architeclighter ornament, and at the same time prod- ture. Now, seemingly out of the blue, Vittone uced, in true Piedmontese fashion, a more intr1- had rediscovered him. The presentation of cate type of vaulting, at least in the atria of Guarini’s architecture to an academic Roman palaces. He thus anticipated some of Vittone’s jury can only have been a youthful gesture of interests, but his undistinctive style left little local patriotism; in fact, Vittone’s art was in no

definable mark on his nephew’s. small measure a nationalistic one. No stylistic The young architect’s first known work of rationale can explain the combination of consequence® is bland with an equal lack of elements from Guarini and Juvarra, for it is character (Fig. 154). Long thought to be a clear that Vittone had not as yet learned to fuse work of the 1740’s, Vittone’s parish church at their styles.“ Pecetto was in fact begun in 1730, before he After winning the Concorso, Vittone received had gone to Rome (Appendix xim-A). This money from Carlo Emanuele 11 to continue his explains why it is far stiffer, plainer and more studies,“ and later in 1732 was invited by conventional than any of his later churches, Cardinal Alessandro Albani, the representative even less considerable ones. A longitudinal of the king at the papal court, to examine his church where most of Vittone’s are central, it is collection of architectural books and drawings. a barrel-vaulted hall with three chapels to either Making use of the drawings by Carlo Fontana side and a narrower choir, a layout perhaps in Albanr’s library,” Vittone settled down to his

derived from the parish church in Pianezza of academic studies and filled two voluminous 1727.° The window frames are timid, simple sketchbooks now in Paris. This enthusiastic versions of Juvarra’s; and the structure is with- academicism had a decisive influence on his out the least daring. Any competent mason architectural treatises, which he apparently

could have done as much.” conceived about this time, but hardly any at all The chances are that as yet Vittone had upon his architecture. neither joined Juvarra’s circle, nor studied the In part that difference reflected the common architecture of Guarini. But he must soon have split in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

done both. Late in 1731 he left for Rome between the academic, with its long literary (Appendix x11; Doc. 4.) and the following May tradition, and the bizarre, the technical, or the won first prize in the Concorso Clementino of practical, which had less in Italian treatises to the Accademia di San Luca.” His project support them. Vittone’s Piedmontese leanings included four Greek-Cross churches that towards the latter were little altered by his late incorporate ideas similar to Venaria Reale, the and brief training in Rome, and so his academiSoperga, and understandably, the project cism was even less pure than Juvarra’s. In one

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 109

passage, for example, Vittone advises architects the lighter kind. For that reason he never to pay equal attention to “the most serious archi- mastered Roman massing, articulation, proportects, such as Vitruvius, Alberti, and Serlio, and tions, or external grandeur, preferring to absorb

the most licentious and artful moderns, for what little he did at second hand from Juvarra,

example, Borromini and Guarini.” already lightened and sweetened. One need only In the winter of 1732, Vittone was elected to compare his most disastrous (because the the Accademia di San Luca, and in April of the earliest?) facade, that of the Collegio delle next year, having prepared his acceptance piece Provincie (Fig. 155), with its major source,

for the Accademia and a project for Carlo Juvarra’s Palazzo Birago di Borgaro.” By Emanuele 111,” he left for Turin. He came bear- Roman standards, Juvarra’s window frames are ing recommendations from Albani (Doc. 6J), themselves a bit too flat and numerous, and his but it seems that he received no work from the pilasters a little too short. But Vittone so exagking at the time, probably because the War of gerates these traits that his skimpy frames and the Polish Succession interrupted most building unassertive pilasters, which are not much taller activity in 1733-36 (see Appendix vu, Doc. 32, than their two-storied base, leave uncontrolled and n. 35 below). Instead, he rediscovered his the four tiers of picayune accents. For the disci-

taste for Guarini, and by 1735 prepared an pline of his ornaments and massing, Vittone edition of Guarini’s text that was published two needed the framework and volumes of his years later by the ‘Theatines (Doc. 7). Granted church interiors: then he could achieve a certain

his solitary interest in Guarini a few years monumentality. before, it may have been he who induced the Vittone thus lost out in royal favor to Alfieri, Theatines to undertake the publication, rather who had more liking for Roman architecture

than vice versa. and better blood lines. After the early 1740’s,

In the belief that Vittone was by style and when Carlo Emanuele’s building activities temperament an outsider, it has been thought turned to more magnificent endeavors, Vittone that he did little work for the king.* But in the seldom again received a large royal commission. late 1730’s and early 1740's, shortly after But the very qualities that excluded him from Juvarra’s death, he received some of the largest the rewards of the court won for him an extraorroyal commissions of the eighteenth century: dinary popularity in his own class. In a period the Collegio delle Provincie in Turin (Fig. of little more than 20 years, Vittone built the 155), the Ospizio di Carita in Casale Monfer- whole or a considerable part of about 30 small

rato, and the vast Regio Ricovero dei Cate- churches and was commissioned to design cumeni in Pinerolo.” Yet, there is truth in the another half dozen or so. Only the prolific Frantheory: these buildings were meant more as cesco Gallo was comparably active, but against displays of royal charity than of royal grandeur. much less competition. These churches were Vittone never executed a conspicuously magni- commissioned either by small parishes in Turin ficent church or palace for the king, and very and its surroundings or else by lesser confrater-

few for the nobility. nities and orders. Vittone was especially A glance at these buildings makes this read- favored by the Clarisse, to which his three

ily understandable (Fig. 155). Their facades step-sisters belonged: this order not only are petty and confused. Yet, as Passanti has requested four churches from him, but seems to shown, Vittone’s planning of the complexes was have had a special taste for his more bizarre and

careful and brilliant.” It was not disinterest in joyful creations.” His talents for working on a civil architecture that caused him to fail; rather small and uncostly scale, for efficient planning it was his preoccupation with open structure of and structural soundness, and for presenting

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 110

the amazing in the context of the familiar, were Nothing of Vittone’s darker side shows up, at

perfectly suited to patrons whose new wealth any rate, in the one extant portrait of him, a and sophistication let them prefer something pen-and-ink miniature whose unpretentiousness only a little out of date by courtly standards— argues for its reliability.* He is shown in his that is to say, Juvarra’s later works—but who thirties or perhaps in his early forties: his gaze had to do without superfluous magnificence. is mild and open, his half-smile is quietly genial. The extraordinary vault of Santa Croce in This was a man who, at the end of a long career Villanova Mondovi (Fig. 180), for example, which did not bring him the fame and money was made to satisfy “the desire expressed by the augured by his beginnings in Rome, could confraternity brothers for a church endowed nevertheless write his treatises without any hint with novelty, and the most playful beauty, but of bitterness. without too much cost to them”*’—a statement

that could have introduced half of Vittone’s contracts. In the few cases where a really large B. Vittone’s Churches church was wanted, as in Strambino and Carig-

nano, it is characteristic that Vittone was almost At exactly the time when Vittone’s career

always passed by.™ came into its own, in the late 1730's, he found

But Vittone was paid very little for these his own style. It emerged solely in the lighter churches, roughly 1,000 to 1,500 lire each, kind of open structure. Juvarra had achieved often over a period of many years,” whereas the extreme clarity inherent in its revelation of Juvarra and Alfieri received yearly salaries of structure and flooding by light; Guarini had 3,000 lire, augmented by generous gifts from exploited the fantasy or religious meaning the kings and commissions from the church and implied by its denial of apparent enclosure and nobility. To make his way Vittone had to grub solidity.” Vittone was the only architect to do for innumerable petty commissions, even farm- both.

houses and stables. That he was nevertheless The first work in which he attempted this able to support two servants, lend considerable was the Chapel of the Visitation in Vallinotto sums, and accumulate an impressive library and near Carignano, begun for a Turinese banker in

a collection of paintings and curios” was 1738 (Appendix xu1-B; Fig. 155-58). It is a undoubtedly due, aside from what he inherited small, cheap and rural building, but into it from father and step-brother, to his having Vittone crowded his ideas. From the late work operated with the shrewdness of a good busi- of Juvarra came its intimate scale, smooth artic-

nessman. ulation, and inner framework. Sant’Andrea in Like his father, in fact, he engaged in money- Chieri supplied the model for the armature of

lending and the endless court actions that this pilasters and two tiers of arches that blend with , entailed, often against his own relatives.” But the ribs: this was the system for half of though Vittone was litigious and rather tight Vittone’s churches. The bizzarria of Borromini when it came to paying assistants, it does not and Guarini provided the plan and vault that follow that “like some other great men, he was gave life to this simple schema. As in all of extraordinarily mean.” Vittone was doing Vittone’s churches that were greatly influenced what surely has always been common procedure by these two architects, the plan is a hexagon, among small and hard-pressed businessmen; with, in this case, concave and convex chapels; and the fact that his main assistant, Galletto, and, as always, it derives not from Guarini but

remained with him for twelve supposedly from the simpler and more comprehensible underpaid years” suggests that the master was system of Borromini’s Sant’Ivo.* The basket

not too much of a Scrooge. vault, as usual the only Guarinesque feature of

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page lil

the interior, is an elaboration of San Gaetano in experiments with cylindrical arches, slim arma-

Vicenza’s (Fig. 19): characteristically this was tures and ribs, and apertures in or near the the most conventional and easily decipherable of vault—the gap between him and Guarini Guarini’s open vaults, the more so because it became narrower. Two other architects who was painted.” That decorative splash, sometimes had contact with Juvarra in his later years or

derived from quadratura painting but here who seem to have known his work, Costanzo essentially Bernini’s in its union of painting, Michela and the architect of the lower church of

stucco work, and concealed lighting, was the the Basilica at Varallo, perhaps Giovanni third component of Vittone’s architecture.” Battista Morondi, also participated in the reviFor the spectator, the vaults open to a mystic val of Guarini in the mid- and late 1730's realm of screened views and concealed lights; (though in different ways from Vittone) ;** no but the Juvarresque framework rises directly to doubt they were influenced by Vittone’s prethe vaults to keep this within his purview. To cocious interest in Guarini, but it was probably unite near and far, the spectator’s area with the no accident that they responded so rapidly to it. heavenly regions, was the greatest theme of Special reasons may account for Vittone’s first

Vittone’s art. In Vallinotto it is summed up by attempts to combine Guarini’s vaults with the stucco rays that carry down the light and by Juvarra’s heavier structures in the Concorso the meeting of the body of the church with the projects; but only the underlying compatibility vault: there the superposed arches of the false of Juvarra’s late works with Guarini’s architecgalleries, which double as lanterns, condensing ture can explain their successful integration at the features of the Carmine, set off the vaults in Vallinotto. a halo of lighted openings and yet join with the Yet Vallinotto, being the first and most latticework arches that spring from this zone. Guarinesque of Vittone’s major churches, and The church is more consistently open than one of the few of this kind to be erected, has any before; the chapels seem deeper because of misled some critics to overemphasize the illutheir angled plans and bent-down entablatures, sory and shocking in his architecture.*’ Here he and the vault rises in three shells. But this is not was ambitiously striving after effects foreign to for its own sake; it serves only to conjure up an his simpler and primarily Juvarresque bent and

ethereal, heavenly pavilion. In that setting a training. Never again did he pile up so many hierarchy can rise from the spectator to the motifs in such elaborate vaults; rarely again did unattainable chapel balconies that await imagi- he lose his architecture in so much paint and nary figures, on to the stucco prophets, and stucco, or let his churches deceive with false thence to the images of the angels and the galleries and balconies and unstructural ribs; Virgin. The visual union of body and vault suggestion later became inseparable from use. receives its precise religious analogue and a After Vallinotto, Vittone’s churches fit more new aura is evoked, a mood more human than clearly into the three categories there so overJuvarra’s or Guarini’s. It is neither mere pleas- richly mingled. From now on his development ure in light and airiness, nor the awe of the was always towards the more succint, skillful, miraculous, but, in a child’s way, as if looking and functional. But his development was less into a magical Easter egg, the joy of the marvel- important than his subtle variations on a few

ous. themes.

Marvelous as it appears, the fusion of the art His Borrominesque-Guarinesque churches of Guarini and Juvarra came about rather were the least of his oewvre. Of his twenty-five simply. Both had employed a spindly double churches or so, only about a fifth are in this cage in tall central churches. With the increas- vein, and then not to the degree of Vallinotto. ing daring of Juvarra’s later structure—his Undoubtedly he had to contend with conserva-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterIx / page 112

tive distaste, since only in Vallinotto and Corter- interiors was often subtler and richer, and the anze, two small country chapels for individuals, structure, in Juvarra’s works always secondary, did he succeed in carrying out these churches as was much more varied and prominent.

planned. But his other kinds of churches were One of the first of these churches was San not only more numerous; they were usually of Gaetano in Nice,” which was designed scarcely much greater finesse and often more original. two years after Vallinotto, but, characteristiThe main group of the hexagonal churches cally for the Juvarresque churches, with the seems to date from the early 1740's, when greatest difference in finesse (Appendix x1-E; Vittone’s bizzarria was still near its peak. They Figs. 160, 161). Here Vittone emphasized the include an alternative project for Santa Chiara almost muscular strength and flexibility possiin Alessandria and a project, considerably ble with Juvarra’s framework. He did this by modified in execution, for Santa Chiara in bending it around an oval with six large openVercelli. In the drawings for Vercelli, Vittone ings instead of the usual but smaller eight; from worked his way through the plans of the other the piers sprout two sets of arches, the small two churches as well as the executed version of outer ones framing the gallery openings and Santa Chiara in Bra (with ovoidal chapels) .* supporting the base of the vault, the inner and This would date all of them about 1742-43.” taller ones lining the edges of the lunettes and Vittone could so easily play these variations becoming the ribs of the superstructure, a because of his manner of combining his sources. combination of Juvarra’s paired arches and the

It lent itself to a process like modern prefabrica- lunette ribs of Plantery’s atria.“ The ribs

tion. To the standard Juvarresque cage he belong both to the body and the vault and attached the equally standard units of his chap- condense them into one unit of strength enough els and Guarinesque vaults, and then fused to support a convent floor atop the church while

them with surface decorations in Juvarra’s leaving large apertures for the galleries and manner, or with a few structural details such as chapels. The church brings the utmost unity the succession of arches moving into the vault. and security to the basket-vaulted room like the All of these hexagonal churches clarify the Oratorio di San Filippo Neri,” and an awareness system of Vallinotto by making all sides of the of this was conveyed by making the structure hexagon concave, or by reducing the Guarines- unusually thick and dark with rich marbles. It

que units of the vaults, or by contracting the is almost majestic, the opposite of Juvarra’s frescoes to a few areas. The designs for the usual light weight and color. Clarisse in Turin (Fig. 159) and Vercelli also By contrast, in Santa Chiara in Turin of introduce one of Vittone’s few original motifs. 1742, Vittone explored the delicacy of this kind

Free-standing columns support the galleries or of framework (Appendix xui-G; Fig. coretti and can rise, as in the design for Turin, 162-64.) . It is the most feminine of his churches, to help carry the vault. Unlike Guarini’s colum- and unusual in that it combines elements of nar structures, these form a simple pattern the chapel at Venaria with others from Sant’easily related to the walls and do not appear to Andrea.* The plan is a Greek Cross with open be precariously overloaded. They seem closest piers like Venaria’s, while the elevation is tied to the scaffoldings of salons, as in Stupinigt, together with the framework of Sant’Andrea in

rather than to church structures. Chieri. But Santa Chiara has neither the flash-

In the Juvarresque churches Vittone was ing lights and many spaces of Venaria, nor the naturally more in command of his sources and great vertical thrust of Sant’Andrea.” Instead it soon made Juvarra’s simple vocabulary into a is a unified and passive arena for the display of highly inflected language. The lighting of his an elegant structural feat. The open piers be-

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 113

come a group of free-standing supports, frail apertures at the crowns of the gallery vaults. stilts on which the galleries and vault are Therefore Vittone pushed the arches back on a perched. At the abrupt and crucial juncture be- free-hand curve just far enough to give the illutween the stilts and lid, the piers are straddled by sion that they circumscribed the perimeter, thin cornices that call attention to the perfect though in truth they are more straight than ease with which the superstructure is balanced curved. Thereby he avoided the confusion into in the motionless arena. Then the corona of win- which Juvarra had fallen in Stupinigi. And he dows, now opening in the corners as well as the did it in brick. In that mastery of structure lies a

sides, isolates the vault as a third tier, again chief difference between Vittone and Juvarra.

poised in air rather than built up.” The smooth and spinning curvatures leave The masterpiece of these years, and of stability to be found above. There the church Vittone’s oeuvre, was Santa Chiara in Bra, swells out into extraordinarily tall and spacious begun late in 1741 or early in 1742 (Appendix galleries for the Clarisse (Fig. 170). Then the xu-F; Fig. 165-73). It is also the major proof vault, barely existing in Sant’Andrea, comes as that Vittone was anything but a revolutionary. the true climax of the church (Fig. 171). Its To an extraordinary degree, it is an imitation of perforated double shell completes the open Sant’Andrea in Chieri® (Fig. 51-55). Vittone structure, extending it more uniformly than in copied not only its plan, choir, piers, arches, any other church. upper openings, and large lantern, but also such The only equivalent to this openwork vault is

a detail as the superposition of the paired to be found in some of the Emilian churches columns on pilasters. Even the measurements attributed to the Bibiena family, especially the are alike, 27 trabucchi in height, nine for each partly Guarinesque church of Sant’Antonio tier, with a diameter of four trabucchi for the Abbate in Parma (Fig. 172): it may not be a

core.” coincidence that Giuseppe Bibiena was in Turin

But it was transformed by its details—they, and Mondovi late in 1740.” By contrast to the and not major inventions, were the substance of lattice vaults of Guarini, those of Sant’Antonio Vittone’s art. With a few changes he perfected and Santa Chiara maintain the coherent surface the visual implications of the open structure of the shell and so are much easier to compreand gave them strong religious connotations. hend. But unlike Bibiena’s vault, Vittone’s is

Vittone curved the chapels directly behind integrated with the rest of the church, rather the piers in a cloverleaf pattern (Fig. 165, than being an irrelevant peep-show on high. 167). Thus they appear to stand completely Yet the vault is also set apart from the rest of free, and yet they echo the curves of the core the church: its spaces are not fully visible, and

(Fig. 168). By contrast the chapels of the dormer windows that light it in the original Sant’Andrea are not clearly detached from the project are concealed from view (Fig. 165). piers nor as strongly related to the center.” There the frescoes show Saint Claire and Saint Then the plan is continued into the vaults. T’o Francis ascending towards the dove of the Holy

| eliminate Juvarra’s ungainly disjuncture be- Ghost in the lantern, and so elucidate the tween the chapels and the core, above as well special meaning of the vault: just as it is the as in plan, Vittone had to perfect what Juvarra intermediary between the spectator’s realm and had twice tried in his career but each time aban- that beyond, and the only imperfectly compre-

doned, the curving of the arches along the hensible structure, so the saints are depicted in circumference of the core (Fig. 169). But it the mystical instant of transition. proved difficult to bend the upper arches all the Except for this, the church is pellucid. “To way back because room had to be left for the enjoy the view of the church from every part”

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterix / page 114

was Vittone’s expressed ideal for this church. of structural precariousness. Soon the emphasis Everywhere the spectator can see the plan and was to be placed on light rather than on struc-

the four-pier structure. He can even trace the ture.” path of the saints in the apertures above the The first constructed version presented the galleries and in the base of the lantern, so structural lines of all the later ones, but almost

naively explicit was Vittone. lost them in Vittone’s most dazzling and BerniExternally the church is equally clear (Fig. nesque light and detailing, still rich with his 173). The outside of Sant’Andrea in Chieri is early complexity. In the reconstruction of San shapeless and still cluttered with its vestigial Bernardino in Chieri of 1741, Vittone had to facade; that of the salon of Stupinigi is a hull build a new vault over a plain Greek Cross® which reveals nothing of the internal structure. (Appendix xmi-C; Fig. 175, 176). Above the But Santa Chiara, in part because it stands on a square of the crossing, he erected a drum of street corner and rises above the city skyline, is eight thin piers to carry the octagonal cloister scraped down to its piers and chapels. With its vault. At the corners of the drum, he placed simple, swelling volumes, the church represents additional piers to fill out the square, with trian-

something new in open architecture. Juvarra’s gular vaults that helped to buttress the main

late works in this vein, and even Guarini’s one. That completed the structural skelechurches, had sacrificed external monumental- ton—the lanterns on the sides of the drum

ity: Vittone’s restored it. above the chapels were complications special to The third group of Vittone’s churches is San Bernardino. The structural transition from defined by his most original—his one origi- square to octagon was achieved by the flexible nal—idea, the perforated, pushed-back or pavilion drum, the piers of which were bent to souged-out pendentive, “lo scavo delle vele.” It rest partly on the main square and partly on has structural analogies in the work of Guarini, spur walls.~ Vittone was thus left free to work and a few visual ones in church projects by out the visual resolution of the corners. These Juvarra (Fig. 123); but most of all it recalls he bridged with false pendentives” into which the decorative influences on Vittone’s art, the he let small perforations, an easy task in a

Berninesque fall of light, its rays driving single layer of brick that supported nothing, through the structure, or the apertures and and a necessary one to justify the corners of deformations that quadratura painters liked to space in the drum.

reserve for this crucial area.” In this arrangement, Vittone may have Perhaps the earliest example is a project in recalled some of Plantery’s atria, where octagothe manner of the Concorso designs, and thus to nal vaults span rectangular compartments,” be dated about 1732” (Fig. 174). The body of and some of Guarini’s structural principles, for

the church is a Greek Cross similar to Juvarra’s instance, the reduction of a drum to a pavilion of more Roman style, while the vault is a Guari- slender piers, as in the “lantern” of San Lorenzo, nesque lattice of ribs. At the unhappy meeting and the sheathing of the corners in that church of these two elements, Vittone designed arched with papery and open pendentives that conceal squinches with oval windows, like the round the real transition and suggest the weightlesswindows in the “pendentives” of the Sindone, in ness of the vault.”’ In appearance, however, Vitorder to point out the frailty and openness of the tone’s pendentives have little of Guarini’s style. superstructure. None of Vittone’s later transi- They do not look unstable; do not disjoin the tions are so abrupt and Guarinesque; and none area below from the vault; and are not mere return to the squinch or give such an impression preparations for a towering vault, but are them-

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 115

selves the focal points of the church. That Vit- The last and most integrated of the vaults” tone’s architecture existed for the vital detail was built for Santa Croce in Villanova Mondovi

could hardly be clearer. about 1755 (Fig. 180),“ but it was somewhat The practical advantages of the vault are different from the others. As in his earliest obvious. It was lighter in weight than the usual experiments, he worked with the structure superstructure, and let somewhat more light rather than light, but now in order to express diffuse below, though not as much as Vittone union instead of division. The object was to set claimed.” Its chief function, however, was evoc- the vault directly on the crossing and eliminate ative, to suggest light’s union of the church of all vestiges of the pendentives, drum, and cuthe spectator’s sphere with the realm above, and pola.” For this Vittone made the peaks above light’s easy power over ethereal structure. Light the crossing arches (that commonplace of his reveals the instantaneous transformation of a architecture, derived from Sant’Andrea and the

normal to an open structure before the specta- Carmine) into brackets to support the eight tor’s eyes; and nowhere does it do this more points of the rib-and-lunette vault, wrenching tangibly than in San Bernardino, where the the brackets to fit, in Juvarra’s manner. Then Berninesque rays of stucco mark the path he pushed out the corners between the crossing ripped by light through the pendentives. arches into concave window bays of the type of In the later 1740’s and 1750’s Vittone’s archi- the Albergo di Carita in Carignano. This left a

tecture went through a third phase, the end continuous framework that rises through the of the preceding early climax. Rather than skeletal piers, brackets, and arches of the vault, myriad lights, spaces, and structural elements, so that the visual constriction of the pendentives

he sought their unity. He all but abandoned the was circumvented rather than, as in the double open structure with its broken views and previous examples, conquered by direct assault.

lights; gave up, as Portoghesi has noted, the Outside of these open pendentive churches, false screens of Valinotto and Chieri;” and elim- the major building of this period was the parish

inated most of the reversals and contrasts of church of Grignasco, Santa Maria dell’Assunta Borrominesque planning and the complexities (Appendix xm-H; Fig. 182-86). Paradoxi-

of Guarini’s vaults. The best index of the cally for its smallness and light structure, it change is the new group of open pendentive gives the impression of breadth and grandeur, a

churches. breadth arising from Vittone’s new unification Instead of punching small holes in the of the views, plan, and structure in a single

pendentives, Vittone gouged concave grooves shell. through them to the corner bays that buttress Late in 1749, the city council and parish the drum. This cleared a wide path for the light building committee decided to hold a competiand views, and appeared to fuse the pendentives tion for the church: Vittone won easily against and drum into a single structure. A classic insignificant local contestants (Appendix xi1-H,

example is the vault of the presbytery of Santa Doc. 1, 2, Cat. 1-5). As stated by the city Maria di Piazza in Turin (Fig. 177, 178), council, Vittone’s project was “the best adapted perhaps begun in the 1740’s.® Still more unified and most suitable and capacious for the site”

was the church of the Albergo di Carita in (Doc. 2). This was a rhomboidal plot on a Carignano, of 1744-49 (Fig. 179) ," where the small hill at a street crossing near the edge of triangular corner bays of the drum were made town. Without consideration for its ungainly into semicylindrical ones that continued the shape, Vittone’s competitors had submitted

concavities of the pendentives.” longitudinal or elongated oval projects. By

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 116

contrast, his central project filled more of the Vittone was now far from his ultimate rhomboidal site, and was grander externally, a source, Borromini’s Sant’Ivo. Borromini had monument lifted on its hilly base, its angles been concerned with the geometry and revolvbeing reflected in the staircase (Doc. 10) and ing motion suggested by the hexagonal plan.” then amplified by the streets.” Inside it was not For him as for other seventeenth-century archimerely wider than the other churches, but its tects, movement had been suggested by the taller and spreading vault undoubtedly made it walls; but for Vittone as for Juvarra, it was

look the most spacious of all. more often limited to the views and lights, in Expansiveness was Vittone’s aim, not the Grignasco to the illusion of deepening chapels. usual narrow rise. The vault is asserted in its Neither was geometry of much concern to Vitampleness (17 meters in diameter) and the tone. Borromini had drawn out the chapels on chapels are now the focus (Fig. 185, 186). the angles of the hexagon; but Vittone deepened They are deeper and taller in proportion to the them at wider angles® to create a larger altar core than in any other church by Vittone, vast wall and a less distorted convergence—for him hollows unbroken by a gallery or balcony; and appearances were uppermost. are still deeper in illusion because of their Vittone may have known of one precedent for angled walls, their canted arches and vaults, such angled chapels, the octagonal church of and their bent-down entablatures. This kind of Santa Maria Incoronata in Lodi. Built in the entablature had been used in Vallinotto, but it later fifteenth century, this Lombard church was was now coordinated with both the plan of the a transplantation of Bramante’s perspective

chapel and the shape of the vaults. choir of Santa Maria presso San Satiro to a The desire for breadth also reveals itself in central building. But the resemblance may the differences between Vittone’s projects. One merely have reflected the similarity between the

of them is either an alternative design, or, more aims of the early Renaissance and of likely, an early project of 1750 (Cat. 5; Fig. eighteenth-century Piedmont in the lighter kind 182). It is similar in most respects to the final of open architecture. In both cases the architects project, but has shallow, semicircular chapels as were intent on suggesting a space grander than well as pilasters in the angles of the hexagon. the confines of the buildings, and in both they For the executed design, quite possibly a modi- relied on illusion as well as galleries, pavilion fication of 1751 or 1752 (Doc. 4), Vittone structures, and umbrella vaults. deepened the chapels into angular ones with At Grignasco, Vittone constructed one of the convex rear walls and changed the pilasters to most imposing exteriors of any central church, full columns supporting the ribs of the melon with great shifting facets (Fig. 184). The indedome (Cat. 6A, B; Fig. 183). The pilasters pendent planes that record the internal geomewould have fused the chapels to the core in a try recall churches of Guarini’s, such as the single mural boundary, whereas the columns project for Oropa (Fig. 20). But Guarini’s tiers transformed the core into a separate pavilion or simply repeat their form as they diminish

cage extended by the chapels. towards the lantern; Vittone’s spread out and To complete the effect the broad and seem- down in changing curves and angles, all inter-

ingly low-crowned vault swells from the locking. For Guarini, the system offered a columns like a giant parachute filled with the geometric progression and the illusion of tallsame burgeoning volume that presses against ness; for Vittone, visual play and delight. From the chapels; and since the lunette windows cut the language of spatial volumes came the monuto its very edge, the church is left as nothing but mentality of an exterior.”

a giant cage for viewing the chapels. The next phase of Vittone’s career centers on

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 117

four projects made in the same mold: San straight copy from Juvarra: it repeats his Salvatore in Borgomasino of 1755, San Michele facade for the Jesuit church in Vercelli without

in Rivarolo of 1768 (Fig. 187-190), Santa regard for its inappropriateness to a central Maria dell’Assunta in Riva di Chieri of 1761 project, or its lack of connection with the octa(Fig. 191), and an unexecuted design for gon. In part that was due to the site: the facade Oropa.” All of them return to the heavier and lines up with the porticoed main street of the less smoothly integrated stage of open structure town. Yet Vittone designed an equally discon-

represented by Juvarra’s project for San nected facade—one of his rare columnar Raffaele or even by the Soperga; but this is still porticoes—for the similar church in Borgoma-

controlled by the patterns of Sant’Andrea in sino.” The main reason for these disjunctures is Chieri. The result is Vittone’s first mastery of that the simple octagon straightjackets the something like academic grandeur. That does internal volumes; when they could not model not show in Borgomasino or Riva di Chieri, the exterior, Vittone’s limitations in monumenwhich were largely executed before Vittone tal design became all too evident.

took over their construction or after his death. In its history, San Michele is especially But it does in the beautifully preserved interior revealing of Vittone’s ideas and procedures. of San Michele in Rivarolo (Appendix xu1-J; — Early in 1758, the city council applied to the

Fig. 187-90). office of the Intendenza della Provincia for Like the other churches, San Michele is a permission to build the new church, and the Greek Cross with an octagonal core (similar in Intendenza then appointed Vittone as architect plan to the Soperga) that is weighty enough (Appendix xu, Doc. 1, 2). How much control

because of its fairly thick piers, nearly full the government exerted over the design of columns, and large entablatures, and unusually parish churches is not yet clear, but it may have

spacious because of its tall arms and ribbed been enough to account in part for Vittone’s cloister vault. The tiers are now divided from conservatism in his later years, when he each other except for a few details such as the received a larger proportion of such commiswindow pediments that overlap the vault; the sions.” double structure is reduced to a functional mini- The medieval parish church was a longitudimum—to the pier chapels that open on either nal one which Vittone estimated was capable of side as an ambulatory; and the framework is serving 1,100 parishioners (Doc. 3). His octagessentially a decorative one of columns and ribs. onal design took only a little more ground, but To incorporate the framework into a mural according to Vittone could serve more than four system without losing its lines, Vittone resorted times as many people, and was best suited to let to a most elegant manipulation of relief: the col- the parishioners see the seven altars and the umns appear full, but pressed into sockets; the services in the choir (Doc. 3). Again, as in pilaster strips above are raised from the wall in Grignasco, it was the practical reasons that three levels; and the ribs are built in two levels. justified—if they do not fully account for—the The conversion of a double structure to a mural central design. one in relief is perhaps most neatly illustrated Vittone submitted two projects, apparently by a comparison of the pilasters and frames identical except for the vault; but the commuabove the side chapels of San Michele (Fig. nity deferred its choice of the superstructure for 188) with those, slotted behind and therefore several years (Doc. 9, 10, Cat. 3). By mid-1762 skeletal, of Santa Chiara in Bra or Santa Maria the church had probably risen to about the first

dell’Assunta in Grignasco (Fig. 168, 186). cornice (Doc. 11, 12, 14), and now Vittone The facade of San Michele (Fig. 190) is a explained the advantages of the different vaults

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 118

(Doc. 9). The one chosen for construction and more open design is more strikingly illus-

(Fig. 187) was tall and elliptical in profile, trated by the history of Santa Maria with large kidney-shaped windows _ like dell’Assunta in Riva di Chieri® (Fig. 191). Sant’Andrea’s. Vittone noted that it would be Plantery began it in 1725 or 1726, but in 1733 expensive and require more upkeep of its large the outbreak of war stopped construction at the windows, but in compensation “would turn out, base of the vault. When work resumed in 1761, in my opinion, more beautiful and bizarre.” The the community seems to have lost Plantery’s rejected version was a low, dark cap, less than design for the vault, and Vittone was invited to two-thirds as tall as the other, with smaller prepare a new one, on which construction began windows in the piers, none in the vault, and a in 1766. smaller lantern. It would be, he noted, “more Plantery’s octagon was even more closed and

austere, more solid, and less bizarre.” mural than that of the Soperga. To redo it in When this was written the vault of modern style Vittone (1) broke through the Sant’Andrea had become a commonplace in piers above the chapels to form coretti with Piedmont, and the form that Vittone here gave large windows; (2) erected triangular vaults it was, of course, far from being daring or origi- above the coretti to buttress the main vault, a nal. It can only follow that for Vittone the light structure like the pavilion drums for the false weight and airy structure of the design were pendentive churches; and (3) raised the peaks bizarre as such, without further embellishment. of the chapel arches until they dove-tailed with

And in these alternatives lie one of the most the kidney-shaped windows which he cut into

explicit examples of the variability of the the base of the vault. As so often, the entire system: by altering a few details around the operation focused on the region just below the

vault, almost mechanically, Vittone could vault, opening a wall there, fitting arches change a more open to a more conventional together here.

architecture. No single or simple reason explains Vittone’s

But the city ran low on money, and construc- conservatism in these churches,” not the rise of tion of the vault did not begin until 1768 (Doc. Neo-Classicism, not an exhaustion of his early

14, 15), in which year the council, believing vigor.” Doubtless he felt the chill of that stucco decorations would be more difficult Neo-Classicism, though not so much the true to preserve and clean, decided to have the vault Classicism of Rome and Paris” as the academ-

i

frescoed (Doc. 17). Vittone not only found this ism of the court of Carlo Emanuele i and entirely acceptable (Doc. 17), but went on to Benedetto Alfieri. In part, this may have been suggest that the entire church be frescoed! In directly transmitted by the office of the Intenthis instance he sounds almost as accommodat- denza della Provincia, along with the usual ing as his designs were flexible; and certainly he governmental distaste for untried schemes. was not here—though he was sometimes—the Perhaps still more important was Vittone’s shift zealot imposing a purist will upon unsophisti- from many designs for the smaller orders and

cated provincials.” In fact, he was not always confraternities to a prepoftiderance for the able to keep control of his projects. In San communities. Borgomasino, for instance, was Michele he could not agree about the design for begun about the same time as Santa Croce in the frescoes with his own assistant and former Villanova Mondovi: probably it is the difference student, Giambattista Borra:™ the upshot was in the outlook of the patrons that accounts for that the council postponed and eventually aban- their vast difference in style. That contempora-

doned the idea (Doc. 18). neity is crucial. It proves beyond doubt that The change from a conventional to a taller Vittone had neither succumbed to new stylistic

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 119

trends nor played out his initial store of varia- Vittone; indeed, Vittone lost the commission to tions. Even in the early 1740’s, at the climax of him with one of his most conventional projects.

his bizzarria, he had conceived (along with But Mario Ludovico Quarini, the closest and academic churches, the normal type of ambidex- most important of Vittone’s later followers, terity between “official” and “unofficial” styles) leaned on his master for everything. In the the combination of open and conservative church which he executed and perhaps designed design which distinguishes San Michele: for at Balangero, begun in 1774,” the presbytery instance, SS. Marco e Leonardo in Turin of combines Vittone’s scooped-out pendentives 1740, where the internal structure of free- with brackets supporting a Guarinesque pattern standing piers is set within a shell resembling of ribs, while the nave vault reflects a study of the Pantheon’s”™ (Appendix xm1-D; Fig. 192). Vittone’s structure for the Sacristy of the SS. In his project for the parish church of Villafal- Martiri, which in turn is a derivative of Borromletto, which may date from the late 1740's, he ini’s in the Propaganda Fide.™ And lastly Pietro had developed all the essentials of Rivarolo, but Bonvicino’s San Michele in Turin, begun in if anything in more conservative guise, because 1784, is nearly a copy, though a grand one, of It was again compressed into the form of the San Michele in Borgo d’Ale.* Pantheon.” Therefore the broadest and deepest Was this a last resurgence of the early vigor reason for the change can perhaps be said to lie or, to put it another way, a retreat into Piedin Vittone’s development: in his progression montese mannerisms? Or was it the end of an towards the simplicity and sureness that were unbroken line, never really interrupted by the

always the larger side of his art. sporadic academicism in the work of Vittone? The last work of Vittone’s career, his only The latter seems more likely. Even in Paris, known major church after the early 1760’s, is after all, Fragonard could work with the full San Michele in Borgo d’Ale, apparently youth of the earlier eighteenth century well into designed in 1770." It is a simpler, somewhat its end. heavier and less expansive version of his hexag- It was probably in the late 1750’s that onal churches of the 1750's, with concave chap- Vittone undertook the completion of his treaels and a small gallery—still a double structure, tises, the [struzioni elementari and Istruzioni though the barest minimum. Internally it per- diverse, published respectively in 1760 and haps was merely a reworking of an earlier 1766.° That turn to writing, however, was not design; but the facade is united with the drum a response to a decline in his architectural activby a play of convex and concave that develops ity. Though he received few major commissions the ideas of Grignasco (Fig. 193), suggesting in the last decade of his life, Vittone was still

that Vittone was fully capable of a less quite active through the early 1760’s. And as he academic style to the end of his career. wrote in the preface to the /struzioni elementari, Likewise Vittone’s contemporaries and the book “was conceived in my youth among the followers continued in the 1760’s and 1770's to passions of a spirit ambitious to progress in the build some of the lightest or more bizarre works art [of architecture], was sporadically pursued

in Piedmont. The great church of Santo Rosa- during my career as an architect, and was rio in Strambino,” designed by Carlo Andrea finally completed with the help of a close friend, Rana in 1763 or 1764, is a traditional oval, but a scholarly man whose fertile brain contributed its vault is of an audaciousness scarcely equalled much to this book.” The academic tone of the in Piedmont, vast and soaring, extraordinarily [struzioni elementari in particular and some light in its ribbed structure. Rana,.preeminently projects in both of his books” probably go back an engineer, seems to owe little or nothing to to his studies in Rome; other more practical

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 120

notes reflect Vittone’s long experience in Pied- reasons, the books did not sell too well, mont. The scholar was Giovanni Battista although they were still considered valuable Galletto, an architect from Carignano who property at the time of Vittone’s death (Appen-

assisted Vittone in the 1750’s and 1760’s and dix x11-B). . who appears to have been more the pedant than But, if Vittone was not much of a writer, the architect: he is not known to have built when he came to descriptions of his own buildanything on his own, but he was the author of ings he was marvelously explicit. Referring to the studious tract on acoustics and harmony in one of his church projects, for example, he the [struzioni diverse, and of a Latin manuscript advocated a structure that would avoid making on recondite religious matters. He was just the the building “appear heavier and more massive ghost writer, in short, to give learned weight to to the eye, and an obstacle to the ample diffusion

Vittone’s rhetoric. of the view, thus depriving vision of that satis-

In their close to a thousand pages, the trea- faction which it receives when extending tises therefore offer little that is new or personal through a great space to enjoy the variety of the

on aesthetics or theory of architecture, and objects, with fewer obstructions to impede it.”” much that is undigested compilation. Vittone The pleasure of unhindered vision—that was the had no general terms or principles for the essence of open architecture in Piedmont during bizzarria that he understood, and too many the eighteenth century. for the academicism that he did not: his Own This ideal of clarity was hardly revolutionideas could only be “XP ressed in drawings and ary.” It was the aim of a professional. Vittone descriptions of his buildings. The /struzioni are he businessman-architect. devoted to his

provincial manifestations of the rage for the was the be ,

encyclopedic, textbooks for the young, hand- work more than to his talents. Those talents lay books for the experienced, illustrated brochures m polishing the ideas of his p redecessors. They, for Vittone, an architectural library wrapped up Guarini and Juvarra, were the PlOneers, Vittone in four volumes. Yet apparently this mixture was therefore the first Italian architect with a was not enough to attract the patronage of the whole system of open structures ready to hand. king or his court; Vittone dedicated the books to He did not have to invent or rebel, but rather to

God and the Virgin.” Perhaps for the same perfect.

NOTES 1. The opposing viewpoint was forcefully another view has been presented by P. Porpresented by R. Wittkower, Art and Archi- toghesi in his Bernardo Vittone, Un Archi-

tecture in Italy ..., pp. 282ff. This tetto tra Illuminismo e Rococo, Rome, 1966, conception was restated by H. Millon, which was published when this book was in Baroque and Rococo Architecture, New proof. Portoghesi believes that Vittone was York, 1961, p. 25, and idem., “Vittone,” considerably influenced by the EnlightenThe Architectural Review, cxxxt, 786, ment; in my opinion the evidence does not

1962, pp. 96-104. On the other hand, fully support his position (see also n. 91 A. Cavallari-Murat (“L’architettura sacra below). The theory that Vittone was condel Vittone,” Atti e Rassegna tecnica sclously trying to defend his approach and SIAT, N.S., x, 1956, p. 51) has insisted traditions against the rise of Neo-Classicism that Vittone was not a revolutionary. Still was first advanced by Cavallari-Murat (op.

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE : chapter1x / page 121

cit., p. 52) and is now advocated by Por- 7. Plantery was married to a sister of toghesi (op. cit., pp. 22, 30), but support- Vittone’s mother: E. Olivero, [1 Palazzo ing evidence is not strong, and Vittone’s li- Cavour in Torino, Turin, 1932, p. 25. brary did not contain any of the theoretical 8. The earliest known work with which writings on Neo-Classicism (see nn. 4, 78 Vittone may have been associated is a

below). project in the Paris Sketchbook, vol. 11, no.

2. On Vittone’s father see G. Rodolfo, “Noti- 230: “Pianta et Elevatione di faciata e zie inedite dell’architetto Bernardo Vit- profilo per li novi coretti da construersi né tone,” Atti SPABA, xv, 1933, p. 447. fianchi del Presbiterio dell’Altare Maggiore

3. Loc. cit. di Chiesa del ---.o [?] Oratto.rio della 4, The inventory of Vittone’s books made Decolat.e di S. Gio. Batt.a di Torino 13 shortly after his death in 1770 is in A. S. Aprile 1728.” Neither the drawing style T.—11, Atti di Insinuazione, 1770, Libro 11, nor the handwriting is characteristic of vol. 1, pp. 463ff. This not too legible docu- Vittone, but it is difficult to understand ment has now been transcribed, with some why such an insignificant project would be errors, by P. Portoghesi, op. cit., pp. 237— preserved in this collection unless it had

54. something to do with his juvenilia. Bray-

5. Chiefly Giovanni Galletto, on whom see da-Coli-Sesia, Ingegnieri e architetti below, n. 88. Another such assistant was ..., p. 68, mention Vittone’s “lavori di Tommaso Guerino, author of a Trattato trasformazione” in 1729 on the Ospedale astronomico per le _ costruzione delle della SS. Trinita in Fossano, on which Effemeridi, Milan, 1762; see Rodolfo, Francesco Gallo had worked earlier in the

“Notizie inedite . . . ,” p. 451. 1720's.

6. Free-hand drawings by Vittone are 9. See above, Chapter vu, n. 39, for the extremely rare, no doubt for that reason; church in Pianezza and the arguments for some are preserved in the collection of Ing. the priority of Vittone’s plan over the simi-

Vincenzo Fontana, Turin, for example, lar one of the Carmine. Juvarra-Vittone volume, no. 51, a city gate Qa. Similar conclusions are reached by N.

signed “Bernardo Vitto[cut]”; and also Carboneri in his recent article, “Appunti Bibliothéque des Arts Decoratifs, Paris, sul Vittone,” Quaderni dell’Istituto di Dessins Originaux, Architecture Italienne, Storia dell Architettura, 55-60, 1963, pp. xvi éme Siécle, Nos. 8A and B (hereafter 68-73, which I received after writing this. Paris Sketchbook, vol. 1. and 11), vol. 1, 10. E. Olivero, Brevi cenni sui rapporti tra In no. 3, a wall tabernacle with a statue of the Reale Accademia di San Luca in Roma e Virgin and Child signed “Ing. Bernardo Parte in Piemonte, Turin, 1936, pp. 17-18; Vittone.” This sketchbook will be pub- V. Golzio, “L’architetto Bernardo Antonio lished by Rudolph Wittkower; I am most Vittone urbanista,” Atti del x Congresso di erateful to him for permission to refer to it. Storia dell’Architettura, Rome, 1959, pp. Two drawings from it have been published 101-12; H. Millon, “Alcune osservazioni by Michael Petzet, “Carlo Fontanas Ent- sulle opere giovanili di Bernardo Antonio wurf fiir das Leichtensteinpalais,” Alte und Vittone,” Boll SPABA, N.S. xu-—xuq,

Moderne Kunst, 1, 4-5, 1957, pp. 16-17; 1958-59, pp. 144-53. and “Unbekanntes Projekt Chiaveris fiir die 11. Vittone refers to Juvarra as his master in Dresdener Hofkirche,” Alte und Moderne his [struzioni elementari, p. 285. Proof that

Kunst, 11, 4, 1958, p. 16. he had an intimate knowledge of Juvarra’s

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 122

shop, especially of Juvarra’s late work, can rendered in slightly different form in a be deduced from several facts. Vittone was drawing in the Paris Sketchbook, vol. 1, reported by Scipione Maffei in 1738 to have no. 69, and the Istruzioni diverse, p. 32; the made a drawing of Juvarra’s unfinished projects in the Windsor collection, vols. 174 project for the Palazzo Madama (Rovere- and 176, for an Austrian palace—identified Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. 19). His by H. Tietze as the Schloss Liechtenstein in

Paris Sketchbook includes a project that Vienna (Wiener Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeresembles Juvarra’s Borrominesque proj- schichte, x11, 1919, figs. 5-7), but which ects for the Sacristy of St. Peter’s (vol. Michael Petzet informs me may be for i, no. 149, a longitudinal section, and no. another building—a palace that is shown in 203, a plan); and also a copy of Juvarra’s several drawings in the Paris sketchbook, unexecuted facade for the Carmine (vol. 11, vol. 11, nos. 139, 154, 156, 157, 158, 169, no. 178). From Juvarra’s two-bay project and 215 (the last one has been published for the Carmine, Vittone derived a project by Petzet, “Carlo Fontanas Entwurf fiir

in his Istruzioni diverse, pls. Lxxv and das Liechtensteinpalais,” op. cit.), and, Lxxvul. Juvarra’s influence may not have lastly, Fontana’s designs for the Fontana di

been without bearing on the rare event of Trevi (Windsor Collection, chiefly vol. two Piedmontese students having won first 169), which are related to the drawings in prizes in the Concorso Clementino in the the Paris Sketchbook, vol. 11, nos. 219-24, same year, Vittone in the first class, and 226-28. Since I know the Windsor drawPaolo Antonio Masazza, a much inferior ings only from photographs, I am unable to architect, in the second (Appendix xn, 5). say whether the drawings in Vittone’s 12. Millon, op. cit., was the first to notice these possession were copies by him or originals

vaults. from Fontana’s shop.

13. Several other projects by Vittone with a 16. B. Vittone, Istruziont elementari, p. 412 Roman elevation and Guarinesque vaults (in a discussion of the ornaments of the

can probably be dated in this period, for orders ) : examp le, Istruziont diverse, pl. LXXX1. giova osservare le Opere de’ pit antichi poco

14. KE. Olivero, Le opere . . . ,p. 19. allo scherzo intenti Architetti quali fra gli altri 15. In 1732 Albani wrote that Vittone was furono Vitruvio, Alberti e Serlio, e de’ pia studying the works on architecture in his licenziosi e meno della naturalezza amici molibrary (Doc. 6G). The Cardinal’s collec- derni, quali si dimostrano il Cavalier Borrotion of drawings was sold to King George mino, ed il Padre D. Guarino, quelle confronui in 1762 and is now at Windsor Castle tando colle Opere del Vignola, del Buonaroti, (A. E. Popham, “The Royal Collections: del Cavalier Bernini, di Carlo Fontana, e di The Drawings,” Burlington Magazine, tanti altri valenti Architetti, ch’esatti si refero Lxv1, 1935, pp. 218-28; J. Pope-Hennessy, nell’osservanza di tali Principij: onde facil cosa

The Drawings of Domenichino in the sara il rendersi persuaso esser questi i due Collection of His Majesty the King at cardini su 1 quali nella composizion degli ornaWindsor Castle, London, 1948, p. 10). It menti librar si deono i pensieri dell’Architettura. includes the Carlo Fontana drawings. (For 17. ‘The project was probably a theater or stage the confirmation of this point I am indebted design. (Appendix x1—A, Doc. 6F). to Sir Anthony Blunt.) Among the projects 18. H. Millon, Barogue and Rococo Architec-

that Vittone knew are Fontana’s triwinged ture, p. 25. casino (see above, pp. 69, 75), which is 19. The Collegio delle Provincie was instituted

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 123

by Vittorio Amedeo 1 in 1729. Property main contract was let on August 5, and the

was being acquired in March 1737 (A. S. foundation stone was laid October 6 T.-1, Istruzione Pubblica, Torino, Collegio (Olivero, Le opere ..., p. 109). The delle Provincie, Mazzo Primo da Ordinare: building was not completed. See also P. “Sentimento del Congresso, che si umilia a Tosel, “Un edificio vittoniano a Pinerolo

S. M. sovra il Progetto formatosi pel L’ex-ricovero dei Catecumeni,” Boll. acquisto della Casa Mollineri ad uso SPABA, N.S. u, 1948, pp. 203-205, and del Collegio, Torino li 22 Marzo 1737”). A. Pittavino, Storia di Pinerolo e del PineOn September 27, 1738, “Li Collegiali rolese, Milan, 1963, pp. 261-64.

delle Provincie da S. Filippo passano a In addition, Vittone in these years had Piazza Carlino” (“Memorie del Cavaliere projects engraved of a royal palace that was

Orioles,” Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Storia similar to the Palazzo Madama on a Patria 932). The rear half of Vittone’s commission from “un Invitissimo Real project, with the large church, was never Sovrano,” probably Carlo Emanuele 11 (B.

constructed; but in 1753 G. G. Craveri Vittone, Istruzioni elementari, pl. 76, could report that “IJ Regnante Carlo Eman- “Bernardus Vitonus Arch. Inv. Borra del. uele ’ha decorato, e ridotto a perfezione, ed 1736,” and pl. 77, “Gio. Ant. Belmondo ha fatto costruere il presente bello edifizio” Scolp. in Torino 1738”). He also worked (Guida de’ forestieri per la Real Citta di on the Royal University: A. S. T.-1, Art.

Torino, p. 59). 183, 1741, p. 59, payment of 101.10 lire to

The Ospizio di Carita in Casale was Vittone “per la visita, calcolo, e direzione built with royal funds, as Vittone notes avuta di vari lavori fatto att.o la R.a Uni(Istruzioni diverse, p. 169). These dona- versita di Studi Rec. 13 Marzo 1742.” tions began in 1736 (A. S. T.1, Luoghi Drawings by Vittone for a tower and stairs Pii di Qua di Monte, Mazzo 9, no. 11, in the university are in the collection of Casale Spedale di Carita). Payments in Avv. Giacinto Simeom, Turin. The royal early 1737 included the first of Vittone’s archives contained “Due Disegni fatti three visits. A document of December 23, dall’architetto Vittone: cioé la Pianta 1740 (and an elaboration on it by Vittone dell’Ospedale della Carita, ed altro la

on January 7, 1741) shows that at that facciata di Dora Grossa verso Piazza time the building had risen to the main Castello” (Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Storia cornice but lacked its roof, main stairway, Patria 733, “Inventario delle Carte e vestibule, and the vaults of the court Disegni eistenti nel Particolare Archivio porticoes and upper rooms. Nevertheless, it di S. S. R. M.,” compiled in 1764, f. 302, was predicted that these could be added for no. 11). Vittone may have owed these com19,000 lire by the end of the following missions to the Marchese Ferrero d’Ormea,

year. Given the size of the complex, it is the secretary of internal affairs, who had clear that work must have started by 1739, helped the young architect in 1732, and in

and more probably in 1738 or 1737. whose family palace Vittone later lived The documents for the Ricovero in Pine- (Doc. 6; Olivere, Le opere .. . , p. 28). rolo are in A. S. T.-11, Luoghi Pu di Qua P. Portoghesi, Bernardo Vittone, op. cit., di Monte, Mazzo 15, no. 2. The project was pp. 162, 225, 258-59, and figs. 218-20, conceived in 1739; in the spring of 1740 publishes a project by Vittone of 1754 for Vittone prepared his designs, which were the Piazza d’Armi in Pinerolo, which was to approved by royal decree on July 13; the be built with the aid of royal funds; but Vit-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 124

tone probably received the commission be- brought designs from Rome for Vittone’s cause of his work on the adjacent Ricovero. use. In 1771, Mario Ludovico Quarini be20. M. Passanti, “Ospedali del Sei e Settecento gan construction of a simple, longitudinal in Piemonte,” Atti e Rassegna tecnica project presumably derived from Vittone’s

SIAT,N.S. v, 1951, pp. 121-25. design. See E. Olivero, Le opere ... , Pp. 21. Illustrated in A. Telluccini, L’arte ... , 29; G. Chevalley, “La villa del Cardinale,” pl. 32. The old buildings on the site may Boll. SPABA, N.S. 1, 1948, pp. 91-98; V. have had some bearing on Vittone’s design Moccagatta, “L’architetto Mario Ludovico

(see [struzioni diverse, p. 167). Quarini e le sue opere,” Aiti e Rassegna 22. Santa Chiara in Turin of 1742, Bra of tecnica SIAT, N.S. xu, 1958, pp. 158ff. 1741-42, Vercelli, and the project for 25. ‘Thus for Santa Chiara in Turin, including Santa Chiara in Alessandria (/struzioni his work on the monastery, he was paid a diverse, pl. Lxx1). That all arose from total of 900 lire between 1742 and 1744

interrelated ideas circa 1741-43 is (Appendix xm1-G); for the larger church suggested by the drawings for Vercelli, of San Michele in Rivarolo he received see below, p. 125. In 1761 Vittone made a 1,517.12.6 lire from 1758 to 1769 (Appen-

design for the enlargement of the monas- dix xiu-J, Doc. 24); and for the design tery of the Clarisse in Fossano (A. 8. T.-1, and construction of the vaults of Riva di Monache, Mazzi da Ordinare, Fossano, Chieri he was paid 489.74 lire from 1761 to Clarisse; cf. C. Brayda, “Opere inedite di 1767 (Archivio comunale, Registro dei Bernardo Antonio Vittone,” Boll. SPABA, Conti Esattoriali dell’Anno 1756 al 1771

N.S. 1, 1947, pp. 86-88 ). inclusivamente, ff. 165, 224, 238v, 252,

23. See below, n. 64. 254, 285, 286). The usual payment for the 24. On Vittone’s unexecuted project for Stram- designs and preliminary work was about

bino, see A. Pedrini, “Disegni inediti di 150 lire. Bernardo Vittone per Strambino,” Atti e 26. See the list of work done for Vittone by G.

Rassegna tecnica SIAT, N.S. xu, 1958, M. Contini, published by Rodolfo, “Notizie

pp. 422-23. Projects for the church were inedite ... ,” pp. 451-53. prepared in 1764: C. — Bricarelli, 27. See the inventory of Vittone’s estate in ““Analecta’ darte subalpina,” La Civilta P. Portoghesi, op. cit., pp. 237-54. Cattolica, LXxv, 1924, pp. 492-504; E. 28. Rodolfo, “Notizie inedite . . . ,” p. 448. Rossi Gribaudi, La chiesa di Strambino, 29. R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in

Strambino, 1964. Vittone’s design is a Italy... , p. 378 (2nd ed., p. 390), n. conventional Latin Cross, on the order of 64. the Gesii in Rome, with a low, pedimented 30. Rodolfo, “Notizie inedite ... ,” p. 450. portico like that which he designed for San Galletto’s claim that he was underpaid has Salvatore in Borgomasino in 1755. For a to be taken with some salt: it was made to discussion of his failure to get the commis- Vittone’s executors. sion for SS. Giovanni e Remigio in Carig- 31. Collection of Ing. Vincenzo Fontana,

nano, see above, p. 98. Just before his Turin, Juvarra-Vittone volume, f. 2; illusdeath, Vittone received his only commis- trated in A. Cavallari-Murat, “L’architetsion for a large church, the Abbey of San tura sacra...” p. 35. Benigno Canavese; but this came through 32. From the present rather limited knowledge

the offices of the Cardinale delle Lanze of the minor architects in Rome and Piedwhose villa he had built, and who may have mont during the 1730’s through the 1760s,

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 125

it does not appear that Vittone was much partly inked in, and signed, “Bernardo influenced by his contemporaries except, Vittone”; no. 207, a plan close to the origiperhaps, in minor ornamentation and nal design for Vercelli, with a circular core design of facades. However, his interest in of free-standing columns similar to those in Guarini was paralleled by the popularity of the rejected design for Santa Chiara in Borromini’s style in Rome from circa 1710 Turin ([struzioni diverse, pl. Lxrx); and

through the 1740’s. no. 143, the plan closest to the final design

33. Cavallari-Murat, “L’architettura sacra for Vercelli. According to G. C. Faccio, G. ..., p. 38, noted that the plan of Val- Chicco, F. Vola, Vecchia Vercelli, Vercelli,

linotto derives from Sant’Ivo. 1961, p. 530, Vittone built Santa Chiara in 34. Another of Guarini’s churches that had a Vercelli “verso i] 1750.” I would suggest, special influence on Vittone was the project however, that the design was earlier, and for San Gaetano in Nice, which, as noted that the delayed construction may help to above (p. 12), was unusually small, clear account for Vittone’s simplification of his

and simple. The exterior of Vallinotto in original project in conformity with his

particular was influenced by it. changing taste around 1750. Characteristi35. Portoghesi, “Metodo e poesia nellarchitet- cally, he reduced the double structure to a

tura di Bernardo Antonio Vittone,” Boll. minimum. SPABA, N.S. x1v—xv, 1960-1961, p. 101, 39. H. Millon, “Alcune osservazioni ... ,” discusses these components in Vittone’s has already argued convincingly that Santa

architecture. Chiara in Alessandria and the hexagonal

36. On Michela and Morondi, see Appendix x1- church of San Luigi in Corteranze should

C. be dated with Vallinotto circa 1738-40.

37. But Cavallari-Murat, “L’architettura sa- For San Luigi there are no documents or

cra... ,” pp. 44-45, has pointed out drawings except for the date of 1760, that Vallinotto is not representative of formerly over the main portal, that was

Vittone’s work. recorded in a pastoral visit of 1836

38. The projects for Santa Chiara in Vercelli (Millon, “Alcune osservazioni. . . ,” and show the nuns’ choir to one side of the pres- F. Gamerino, “Architettura barocca nel bytery, rather than behind it as in the Monferrato,” Boll. SPABA, N.S. 1, 1947, executed version. In most of the projects it pp. 86-88). Still another hexagonal deappears on the right side (in the /struzzoni sign that probably dates from these years diverse, pl. Lxxu, this plan is, of course, is the church of San Giuseppe for the Collereversed, with the choir on the left). The gio dei Chierici Regolari (Ministri degli drawings in the Paris Sketchbook, vol. n, Infermi) in Turin (B. A. Vittone, [struare as follows: no. 206, the plan similar to zioni diverse, pls. LI1I-Lv1). A plan is in the the executed form of Santa Chiara in Bra, Paris Sketchbook, vol. m1, no. 160. Docuwith its ovoidal chapels (even the measure- ments in A. S. J’.-1, Regolari, Ministri ments are similar, 4 ¢r. for the diameter of degli Infermi, Torino, Mazzi 661 and 662 the core, 1 ¢r. for the depth of the chapels) ; show that in 1739 the Ministri degli Infermi no. 208, a plan almost identical to the received permission from the Senate to buy project for Santa Chiara in Alessandria land to “formare col tempo la loro casa reli(Istruzioni diverse, pl. Lxx1), with the giosa, e sacristia.” ‘They bought more land

nuns’ choir on the left side; no. 206v, a in 1740, apparently for this purpose, but preparatory drawing for no. 208, in pencil, records of 1764 show that the new build-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 126

ings had not yet been begun; and others of may also have been a source for a project in 1779 and 1782 establish that funds were Vittone’s Paris Sketchbook. See above, n.

still needed for the convent. Most probably, 11. then, Vittone’s design dates from 1739-40 46. Vittone had just been in Chieri to work on

when the Ministri degli Infermi were first San Bernardino. seeking land for their new convent. Neither 47. The total width is different because of the building adds much to Vittone’s repertoire. different design of the chapels. San Luigi is his simplest and most straight- 48. Mathematically, the chapels were also

forward adaptation of Guarinesque compo- fused to the core more completely than in nents; San Gtuseppe is one of the more Sant’Andrea. There the arms were half as

Juvarresque of the hexagonal churches. deep as the radius of the core, a purely 40. C. Ceschi, “Progetti del Guarini e del additive system. In Santa Chiara, the relaVittone per la chiesa di San Gaetano a tionship is both geometric and arithmetic. Nizza,” Palladio, v, 1941, pp. 171-77. That is to say, Vittone probably inscribed a 41. The great vault of the sacristy of the SS. square in the outer circumference of the Martiri in Turin has been ascribed to Pelle- core and used its sides to determine the erino Tibaldi. But it is a combination of radii of the chapels, excluding their lateral Borromini’s design and the structure of segments, which were planned on shorter eighteenth-century Piedmontese atria. In radii in order to hook in more sharply the Museo Civico, Turin, Taibell Collec- behind the piers. (The square may have tion, folder 1, no. 83, there 1s a plan of the been inscribed in a circle halfway between

church and sacristy by Mario Ludovico the inner and outer circumferences of the Quarini inscribed “La Sagrestia ed ornati arches of the core—the engraved plan in di marmi di Bernardo Vittone.” The articu- the [struzioni diverse and the drawing for it lation of the walls of the sacristy looks a bit in the Biblioteca Reale, Turin, Varia 203, stiff and small-scale for Vittone; but the f. 73, are too small and variable to establish vault is surely his. A photograph is repro- the construction exactly, and the executed

duced by A. Cavallari-Murat, “Gian plan is considerably deformed.) Then, Giacomo Plantery, architetto barocco,” Atti with an old technique of Italian architece Rassegna tecnica SIAT, N.S. x1, 1957, ture, he made the main dimensions come

fig. 38. out in whole trabucchi by absorbing the

42, As Vittone may have known, the vault of difference between the geometric and ariththe Oratorio had cracked under the weight metic systems in the thickness of the arches

of the library added above it. and width of the piers. In these plans, the 43. A similar combination was made by the diameter of the core (inner circumference ) Alfieresque architect of the parish church is 4 tr., depth of the chapels (to the outer

of Piova Massaia a decade later; see circumference) 1 ¢r., and the opening of

Appendix xr-C. the chapels, 2 tr.

44. The ratio of width to heightin Santa 49. Giuseppe Bibiena was in Mondovi late in Chiara is four to five; in Sant’Andrea, two 1740 (N. Carboneri, L’architetto Francesco

to three. Gallo, p. 154). He did the decorations for 45. ‘The nuns’ choir, one of the most elegant of the play Arsace in Turin that year. Vittone’s open structures, suggests the Sant’Antonio Abbate is said to have been

influence of Juvarra’s Borrominesque designed by Ferdinando Bibiena in project for the Sacristy of St. Peter’s, which 1712, frescoed by Giuseppe Peroni

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 127

(1710-76), and completed in 1766; but Vittone introduced brackets instead of it is not clear whether Ferdinando designed pendentives to carry the four footings of the

the vault (Emilia e Romagna, Touring vault, which are themselves pendentives, a Club Italiano, Milan, 1957, p. 32). The rather cute idea the main purpose of which, open vault of the parish church of Villa one imagines, was merely to look odd. It is Pasquali near Sabbioneta is supposed to one of two longitudinal churches “le quali have been designed by one of the Bibiena in servire possono per Parrocchiale in luogo di

1734 (Lombardia, ‘Touring Club Italiano, non troppo grande popolazione . . .” (loc.

Milan, 1954, p. 475), and a similar vault in cit.). It was in these designs for the the chapel of the SS. Sacramento in the Carmine that Juvarra experimented with church of Santa Maria Assunta in ornaments that would unite the pendentives Sabbioneta is attributed to Ferdinando with the dome (Fig. 183). Bibiena (A. Puerari, Sabbioneta, Milan, 53. For several reasons most of these structures

n.d., fig. 22). But the last two vaults are had simple or pre-existing crossings: they

lattices: in their form, and still more in were viable only over a normal square their structure—they support nothing but crossing, which Vittone usually avoided; themselves—they resemble the lower vault they distracted from the conventional body of Vallinotto. Wittkower, Art and Archi- of the church, one reason for San Bernardi-

tecture in Italy .. . , p. 377 (2nd ed., p. no’s richness at a time when Vittone was 390), n. 58, has noted that there is a “close already simplifying his other churches; and

connection between the architectural they brought a bit more light than did a conception of S. Chiara at Bra and the normal drum to churches darkened by quadratura frescoes in the dome of the other buildings or too few windows. Consolata, Turin,” executed after designs 54. A. Cavallari-Murat, “L’architettura sacra

of Giuseppe Bibiena in 1740. The frescoes ..., p. 76, thought that the piers rest are illustrated in G. Fiocco, Giambattista on the circular ring at Chieri and on the Crosato, Padua, 1944, pl. 24-29. The outer square in the later examples. Instead, similarity to Sant’Antonio in Parma has they stand on the crossing square and short now been noted in the Mostra del Barocco spur walls.

Piemontese, 1, Architettura, p. 59. 55. Wittkower (Art and Architecture .in 50. For example, the frescoes in the church of Italy . . . , p. 285) describes this type as the Santa Trinita in Fossano by Carlo and a pendentive transformed into “a kind of

Giovanni Pietro Pozzo, executed in inverted squinch.” He therefore concludes 1737-38 (N. Carboneri, L’architetto Fran- that “the medieval squinch, which had been

cesco Gallo, p. 163 and pl. 65). swept away by the Renaissance and was 51. Istruzioni diverse, pl. Lxxxi, p. 187: revived by Borromini in some marginal “. . per la sua forma, e grandezza servir works, found a strange resuscitation just potrebbe di Parrocchiale in qualche luogo before the close of a long epoch.” But these

asSal cospicuo. . . .” structures are spherical triangles. It is true

52. Another project can probably be dated that the scooped-out pendentives belong to in the 1730’s for the same reason (ibid., pl. the class of experiments, including the LXxv, p. 185); it is an unimaginative squinch, by which Borromini and Guarini combination of a plan for the Carmine had sought to free architecture from Roman (Figs. 183, 184) with the uppermost vault conventions; but it 1s the essence of Vittone’s

of Guarini’s San Gaetano in Nice. But innovations that they are true pendentives

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 128

in form, and therefore demonstrate the si pud, e pit liberamente abbasso diffondere, e novelty of his transformations—his triumph meglio cosi rischiarire il detto Presbiterio. over traditional Roman limitations. Because

Wittkower mistakes them for supporting On Sant’Antonio Abbate in Turin, see ibid., structures, he assumes that “as a result of pp. 182-83: after remarking on the lack of the new motif it was possible to arrange the light in the presbytery and nave, and the piers of the ‘drum’ in the form of an octa- thinness of the walls of the old church,

gon and to let the tall windows between Vittone noted that he therefore “pensai

them return to the square of the dovermi, nel disporne la Cupola, valere crossing. . . .” But the procedure was just della maniera, che ivi osservasi, con cul, the reverse: the drum made possible the oltre la bramata luce, conseguire insieme

false pendentives. potessi, e la leggiadria della forma, e la

56. The point was made by P. Portoghesi leggerezza dell’Opera.” Some of these “Método e poesia,” p. 103. See for example, vaults had two windows in their corners

the atrium of the Palazzo del Marchese di (Fig. 178), but it is doubtful that they Agliano, illustrated by Cavallari-Murat, provided more light than a single window “Gian Giacomo Plantery . . . ,” figs. 6, 7. set directly in the octagon, the normal 57. In a design of Guarini’s, corner structures arrangement. Other vaults, such as the one project from the drum over the penden- in the Albergo di Carita in Carignano, had tives; but it is not clear from the plan only a single window above each corner. whether the pendentives were perforated. 59. P. Portoghesi, “Metodo e poesia,” and espe-

See G. Guarini, Architettura Civile, f. 80, cially “La parrocchiale di Grignasco and above, p. 90, n. 15. This antecedent has nell’opera di B. A. Vittone,” Atti e Memo-

also been noted by M. Passanti, Ne/ Mondo rie del Terzo Congresso Piemontese di magico di Guarino Guarini, Turin, 1963, Antichita ed Arte, Congresso di Varallo

p. 72. Sesia, 1960, Turin, n.d., pp. 169-74. But

58. As in his description of San Bernardino, Portoghesi overemphasizes his point. It Appendix xi-C. Or again, of Santa Maria was not only, or primarily, to change the di Piazza he wrote (Istruzioni diverse, pp. lighting from “luce riflessa” to “luce inci180-81) that he designed the presbytery dente” that Vittone all but abandoned the “per accrescere il lume, che troppo era double structure, but also from a desire for scarso nello stato, in cui di prima si trovava a simpler, clearer space and structure.

questa Chiesa,” and that 60. Vittone says the presbytery was done before

_ _ the nave (Istruzioni diverse, pp. 180-81).

non sendovisi, atteso gli impedimenti, che P. F. Guala received the commission for the esterlormente vl erano, potuto altronde procac- main altar’s painting in 1748 (Schede

clare, chedalla ben poca, d’uopo fu > quella 5 49).the Theref h; dere parteladiluce, mezzogiorn i P. -Vesme. i heretore presby

pres ee Pe ye? bee ilOe te have been theSun mid-1740” esso Presbiterio riguarda rimanente corpo di rybegun May haveindeen in the mi S. Chiesa, disponendovi quivi tre grandi Finestre. The remark by O Derossi, Nowva guida per

. . . Rendesi quivi fra il resto principalmente ‘a citta di Torino, Turin, 1781, p. 45, that notabile lo scavo delle vele del Presbiterio a the church was “fatta nel 1751” would then motivo del passagio, o sia apertura, ch’egli da refer to the nave. Portoghesi, “Metodo e al lume, che vi s’intromette per le Finestre della poesia,” p. 106, also suggests that the presCupola; per cui ne segue, che meglio esso lume bytery vault may be the first of the type.

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 129

61. Rodolfo, “L’architettura barocca in Carig- list payments for “i Telari del Cupolino,”

nano,” p. 139; Istruzioni diverse, pls. “per la misura della Fabrica della Chiesa,” XXXIX, XL, and x1. A free-hand drawing “A Mastro Andrea Scala per la Fatura del for a vault of this type, by Vittone or a Cupolino [L.] 1400,” “A li stucatori per 1

follower, is in the collection of Ing. lavori fatti al cupolino e finestre della Vincenzo Fontana, Juvarra-Vittone vol- Chiesa [L.] 570.00,” “Al S. Francesco

ume, f. 69v. Barrelli a conto de’ stucchi,” “per far

62. In 1750, Vittone constructed the vault of inbianchire e colorire i capeloni,” “a

Sant’Antonio Abbate in Turin with square Mastro Andrea a conto della fattura del corner bays (Istruzioni diverse, pl. Lxvi1). Coro [L.] 578.4.4,” “Al Sig. Rossi a conto For the date see Craveri, Guida de’ fores- della Pittura della Chiesa [L.] 152.10,” “al tiert per la Real Citta di Torino, p. 56: Sig. Barelli per saldo de’ Stuchi de’ chor“Questa Chiesa fu nuovamente abbellita nel etti,” and “a Mastro Andrea Scala per saldo

1750 di Cupola, Coro e Campanile.” The della Fatica della Chiesa... [L.] church was destroyed early in the present 610.6.80” (ff. 260-69). On May 1, 1760,

century. It wove Juvarresque ribs in a payments were made for the ceremonies Guarinesque basket pattern, and was one of held for the blessing of the church. It is of the best examples of the interchangeability course possible that the Abbate T'rona and

of such structures. Andrea Scala altered a project submitted

63. The parish church of Pian della Valle in by Vittone. But in the absence of his name Mondovi, Santa Maria Maggiore, which from the voluminous records, and of his was destroyed during the last war, had an style from the building, it is simpler to open pendentive vault over the crossing assume that these men merely imitated his

(Fig. 181). E. Olivero attributed it to work in Turin and Carignano. In either Vittone (Miscellanea di architettura case, it is noteworthy how quickly Vittone’s Piemontese del Settecento, Turin, 1937, motif won acceptance among the provinpp. 14ff.). But the details of this structure cials, further proof, perhaps the best, that and the related ornaments of the church he was responding to the tastes of his have little in common with Vittone’s: they patrons, not just imposing foreign ideas are fussy, minute, and old-fashioned and upon them. the small windows, together with the entab- 64. N. Carboneri, La chiesa parrocchiale di

lature that divides the superstructure into Villanova di S. Caterina, Mondovi, 1945; two tiers, contradict Vittone’s emphasis on idem., Un gioiello architettonico a Villalight and unification. In the “Libro de’ Conti nova-Mondovi . . . , Mondovi, 1950 (I

della Veneranda Conf. del Santiss.mo have not seen the latter). The date is in-

Sacramento e Chiesa Parrocchiale del Pian scribed on the outer wall about six feet valle,” now preserved in Sant’Agostino in above the ground. In 1755, Vittone also Mondovi, the accounts for the reconstruc- built the open pendentive vault in SS. Pietro

tion of the church began in 1748 (f. 219, e Paolo in Mondovi Breo; but this is little “construzione del capellone”—i.e., the more than a copy of the one in the presbytery choir). In 1758, there were payments of Santa Maria di Piazza in Turin. See N.

“al?Abbate Trona per i disegni della Carboneri, “Gallo e Vittone nella Chiesa Chiesa coro ed assistente [L.] 227.11.4” dei Santi Pietro e Paolo in Mondovi Breo,” (ff. 255-58). The next year the records Boll. SPABA, 1948, N.S. 11, pp. 99-111.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 130

65. Istruzioni diverse, p. 181, pl. Lxv: the church was uncomplicated and JuvaIl desiderio, che gli stessi confratelli avevano, TPeSAUes with slim p mers carryms @ low and

che formato venisse loro un Vaso dottato di simp le vault—not unlike Santa Chiara nuovita, e di scherzosa vaghezza, senza per6 che Tur in. ‘The project 18 of interest mainly for fosse per riuscir loro di troppo sensibile dispen- its extremely functional adaptation to the dio, fu il motivo, che m’indusse a lasciar da parte needs of a convent: the church is nearly

ogni sorte di Cupole, e Bacili, ed escogitare balanced across the oval presbytery by the idea, che quivi vedesi espressa. Giovar puo fra wide nuns’ choir. il resto ivi osservare P’interuzione, che fatta si é 70. On Borgomasino, the account of L. delle vele, per formare que’scavi quasi in forma Barbero, Borgomasino, vita religiosa e di Nicchioni mediante P’intramezzo de’ Termini, civile, Turin, 1941, is confused and inaccusormontanti gli arconl, e reggenti glimpeduzzi rate, but fuller than E. Olivero’s “Borgoma-

de’ unettoni, che dando termine a detti Nic- sino, chiesa parrocchiale,” Palladio, vt, chionl, formano tutt'insieme uniti la principal 1942, pp. 120-21. The importance of San

Volta di questa Chiesa... . Michele has now also been emphasized by 66. The idea of a central church with scissors- H. Millon, Baroque and Rococo Architec- ~ like stairs before it first appeared in a ture, and P. Portoghesi, “Metodo e poesia” project by A. Pozzo, Perspectiva Pictorum p. 112. On Riva di Chieri see below, n. 75. et Architectorum, Rome, 1700, u, figs. The project for Oropa is presented in [stru-

88-91. zioni diverse, pl. Lxxix. It probably dates

67. ‘The spinning movement is induced by the from the late 1760’s, when Ignazio Galletti unequal axes of the hexagon, as explained was constructing several buildings in the

by M. Passanti, “La real cappella della S. complex; Galletti’s own project for the Sindone in Torino.” Borromini emphasized church is dated 1774 (see Brinckmann, it by making the chapels alternately convex Theatrum, pp. 44-46, and Mostra del

and concave. Barocco Piemontese, 1, Architettura, p.

68. As noted by P. Portoghesi, “La parroc- 77). E. Olivero mentions that the parish chiale di Grignasco nell’opera di B. A. church of Favria, San Pietro, is internally

Vittone,” p. 171. “quasi un facsimile del S. Michele di Riva-

69. Another hexagonal project of this period rolo e della parrocchia di Borgomasino,”

was for the church of Santa Maria and suggests that it may be by Vittone Maddalena in Mondovi, known only from (“Sopra alcune architetture di Bernardo drawings in the Museo Civico, Turin, Vittone,” Boll. SPABA, vii, 1924, p. 16); Anselma Collection, Yellow Folder, no. 72, I have not seen the building. plan, signed “Mondovi li 4 Giugno 1749 71. Vittone adopted the pedimented portico Ing.re Bernardo Vittone,” and no. 73, an only in the project for Oropa, in his rejected elevation of the facade and convent, with a design for Strambino (see above, n. 24), plan of the rear of the convent (see now and perhaps in his project for San Benigno Mostra del Barocco Piemontese, 1, Archi- Canavese—assuming that Quarini’s vertettura, pp. 59, 60). In A. S. T.-1, Mona- sion echoes his master’s. The portico of che, Mondovi, Monache di S.ta Maria Mad- Borgomasino has no pediment.

dalena, Mazzi da Inventariare, Mazzo I, 72. It may well have been a fairly common there are documents of 1761 regarding a practice—and perhaps a required one—for project for enlargement of the monastery. the Intendente della Provincia to approve It is probable that the internal elevation of the designs of parish churches, as for exam-

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 131

ple, Costanzo Michela’s project of 1734 for uniforme alle nuove Sagomature, con fare San Giacomo in Rivarolo Canavese (Archi- avanti delli quatro Corretti protendere in forma

vio Comunale, Archivio di Deposito, convessa essi Cornicioni dal gocciolatoio all’ in Categoria 7, Classe 6, Scaffale C, vol. 1, su... ben assicurate per reggere li Balconi

testimony of Ing. Ignazio Massone of April dessi Coretti. . a

26, 1736), and Vittone’s project for Riva di Cap. 16. Sovra detti Cornicion! © superior Chieri (Archivio Municipale. Ordinati mente alli quatro Archi delli Nicchioni angolarl, pals, , 4 il muro del Tamburro esistente per

Busta 59, Fascicolo 2, f. 23, meeting of ivi formare quatro grandi Corretti e la di June 28, 1761). In the documents for loro elevazione sara oncie dieci di pit di quello, Borgomasino it is noted that Benedetto che nel Dissegno di elevazione viene stabilito, Alfieri, as chief royal architect, approved per il che tutto il girodi questo vaso principale Michela’s project—see above, Chap. vit, n. dal’imposto di detti Coretti alPinsu, resultera

20. d’oncie dieci di maggiore altezza . . . ed in

73. In contrast to this attitude, however, questa maniera il primo rango delle chiavi, Vittone withdrew from work for the church che cingono la volta di questo vaso, restera inof the SS. Trinita in Valperga in 1750 “per tieramente coperto.

motivo di non aver io voluto aderire alle Cap. 17. Li quatro arconi principali si accrerichieste fattemi di cangiare in qualche sceranno, € regoleranno a piombo delli spigoli parte il mio disegnio, cio® nella figura del delle lesene inferior! alli medesim1, e detth acChoro, il che non ho stimato di buonservi- crescimenti d arconl saranno ben colligati con li

. el . . gla esistenti arconi formando con li detti accre-

2 ° ne ai mis arte, tivo per Cul mi Sono scimenti fascie, che correspondono alle lesene

poonmiato cu on Barocco suddette poste sotto di esso. ... remontese,diI,an Arcnileitura, p. Cap. 18. Superiormente alli suddetti Arconi 74. Borra was Vittone’s student as early as si spriranne li quattro maggiori finestroni .. . 1733; see G. Rodolfo, “Notizie inedite e sovra di questi si potra far un volto, od arcone dell’Architetto Bernardo Vittone,” p. 455, per allegerire gli Arconi gia detti, e per mag-

n. 14. siore fortezza dell’ellevazione da farsi sovra

75. E. Olivero, “La parrocchia di Riva di d’essi Fenes troni. . . .

Chieri,” Boll. SPABA, 1x, 1925, pp. 19-21; Cap. 19. La volta principale di questa vaso A. Cavallari-Murat, “Gian Giacomo Plan- dovra essere ben appoggiata per tutta la di lei tery... .” The work was interrupted by grossezza, sovra degli arconi gia dettl, e sovra the wars in 1733 (Archivio Comunale, Atti di quelli delle Corretti, tormando contempora-

Originali, Busta 59, Fase. 2, 1760-69, fo Ned ester alla medesina. +

6lv), and in 1760 the community was soot

unable to find Plantery’s design for the The change is illustrated in a drawing vault (Joc. cit., meeting of December 13, by Vittone in the church archives, 43 x 56 1760, f. 5, and meeting of June 28, 1761, f. cm., dated “Torino li 20 giugnio 1761”

23). Vittone’s instructions of December 5, (Fig. 190). 1765, which refer to his drawing of 1761, 76. Another conservative church of this period include the following references to the vault is the parish church of Sant’Ambrogio di

(Archivio Comunale, Mazzo 83, Instro- Torino, first attributed to Vittone by E. mento, contract with Capo Mastro Matteo Olivero, Le opere, pp. 95-96, pls. xxxv, Antonio Maffei of Jan. 21, 1766, ff. 14ff.): XxviI. Vittone’s design was made in SepCap. 15. Si riccorreranno pure tutti gli Archi- tember 1757 (Appendix xu-I). A Greek travi, e Cornici per ridurli, ove sia di bisogno, Cross elongated by the entrance and pres-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 132

bytery, with concave piers rising into an cism: A. Desgodets’ Les édifices antiques octagonal vault with concave corners, it has de Rome, first published in Paris in 1682. a single shell structure without perfor- He also owned Colin Campbell’s Vitrovius

ations and is distinguished only by the Britannicus. repetition of the small concave areas in the 79. The similarity between the plans of these

piers, arms, choir, and the facade, which is churches was noted by Cavallari-Murat, one of Vittone’s most elegant. The internal “Tarchitettura sacra... ,” p. 40. design is similar to Santa Pelagia in Turin, 80. A. S. T.-1, Benefizi di Qua di Monte, Maz-

built by Filippo Nicolis di Robilant in zo 38, Villafalletto, “Memoria rimessa in 1770, but conceivably based on a design p-nipio @’Aprile 1747 dal S.r Abb.e Falletti

which Sacchetti reports that Juvarra di Villafalletto, con cui si rammostra la prepared for this church in 1728 (Rovere- necessita di riedificare la Chiesa ParrocViale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. 86). Cer- chiale. . . .” The main body of the church tainly the idea is Juvarresque: the concave was ruined in October 1739 while masons

piers and short, rounded arms appear, were working on “alcune cappelle d’una for instance, in one of Juvarra’s church delle due navi laterali.” The community projects probably for Rome (Museo Civico, therefore petitioned the king to resolve vol. 1, f. 100, no. 161, measured in palmz). legal difficulties over the patronage of the : From the documents, three reasons emerge church so that they could quickly build a for Vittone’s conservatism (Appendix xmI- new one; but these still had not been

I): the community wanted an inexpensive resolved in 1747 when the Abbate but fairly spacious church; the earlier proj- Giuseppe Amedeo Falletti prepared his ect, submitted by one of two minor archi- account of them. Vittone’s project is illustects and approved by Vittone, was also trated in [struzioni diverse, pl. 60; he says a central design with a low and simple of it (p. 179) that “mandato non si € questo vault and a plain facade; and the chances Disegno finor ancora ad_ esecuzione,” are that Vittone was called in by the Avvo- suggesting that the design had been

cato Generale to arbitrate between the prepared considerably before 1766. earlier projects—probably he was again Portoghesi, “Metodoe poesia . . . ,” p. 14, working with some governmental supervi- points out the resemblance of the octagonal

sion. churches to Villafalletto. In his Bernardo

77. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Vittone, op. cit., p. 148, he dates this project Italy ... , p. 289, first noted the more 1758, without explanation. conventional nature of the designs of this 81. E. Olivero, pp. 99-101; P. Portoghesi,

period, and attributed it to the rise of “Metodoe poesia . . . ,” figs. 12-14. Neo-Classicism. Portoghesi, “Metodo e 82. See above, n. 24.

poesia... ,” pp. 111-12, assumes that 83. The history is unclear. Moccagatta, this is a period of new experiments in a “L’architetto Mario Ludovico Quarini e le classicizing vein, but fails to take into full sue opere,” pp. 180ff., reports that the founaccount the early work in a simple or dation stone was laid on July 20, 1774, but

academic manner; thus he could believe that the drawings of Quarini are dated that Pecetto is a work “degli anni della “Torino, li 30 Xmbre 1789, giorno della

maturita.” stipulazione del contratto,” and that the 78. Vittone’s library included only one book presbytery was completed afterwards. remotely pertinent to French Neo-Classi-

ON BERNARDO ANTONIO VITTONE chapter1x / page 133

N. Carboneri (Mostra del Barocco Vittone,” Quaderni dell’ Istituto di Storia Piemontese, 1, Architettura, p. 83) notes dell Architettura, 1963, 55-60, pp. 59that a plan of the church by Michele 68. He attributes them to Mario LodoyBuscaglione is preserved in a copy of May ico Quarini, one of Vittone’s assistants, and

20, 1774, in the Archivio di Stato di suggests that they were made circa Torino, and suggests that Quarini may 1759-60. merely have completed the church. But in 87. For example, Jstruzioni elementari, pl. the Anselma Collection, Museo Civico, LXxIv and p. 443, a project for the facade of Turin, Yellow Folder, there are two draw- S. Giovanni in Laterano, done in 1732; and ings for Balangero signed and dated “al [struzioni diverse, pl. LXxxI, p. 187. See

pmo 8bre 1774 Mario Quarini above, p. 122,n. 15.

Arch.”—no. 12, inscribed “Profilo, e Pros- 88. On Galletto, see Rodolfo, “Notizie petti interiore delle Cappelle minori,” and inedite ... ,” p. 449, and Brayda, Coli,

no. 13, inscribed “Pianta delle Cappelle Sesia, Ingegneri e architetti ... , p. 37. minori della Chiesa Parochiale del luogo di He was born in 1712, became Vittone’s Balangero.” It is thus possible that Quarini assistant in 1750, and in 1758, as noted designed the church. He was one of the few above (n. 86), began 12 years of editorial architects who knew Vittone’s work well work on Vittone’s treatises, published and enough to have made this pastiche of it. But unpublished. His Istruzioni Armoniche his style was usually heavier and more clas- appear in Vittone’s [struzioni diverse, pp.

sicizing, and too little is yet known 219-324. In A. 8. T.-1, Manoscritti, JA x about Buscaglione (see Brayda-Coli-Sesia, 2, there is a bulky volume entitled “Clavis

Ingegnerie architetti . . . , pp. 22-23) to sacra profundiora Davidicae domus penedetermine the architect of the church. tralia recludens seu Codex Vaticanus in

84. See above, n. 41. quo praecipua sacrae arcanae doctrinae 85. A. Lange, “La chiesa di S. Michele dei elementa, quam mystici, atque prophetic Trinitari scalzi e i disegni di Pietro Bon- tradidere Scriptores, juxta sensum eorum vicini” (Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico intimum ordinatim exponuntur, studio, Subalpino xiui [Bollettino del Centro di atque labore digesta Architecti Joannes Studi Archeologici ed Artistici del Pie- Baptistae Galleti Carininiani.” No copy is monte, 1]), 1941, pp. 169-77. Vittonesque to be found in the Vatican Library. features also appear in the work of Filippo 89. For Wittkower (Art and Architecture in

Nicolis di Robilant in the 1770’s; see N. Italy . . . , p. 287), this was done “in the Carboneri in Palladio N.S., x11, 1963, pp. spirit of the Renaissance treatises.” 183-97. Wittkower (Art and Architecture 90. Istruzioni diverse, pp. 187-88, pl. Lxxx1:

in Italy . . . , p. 287) believes that San 7 — Michele and Strambino reflect Vittone’s S50" forse pareranno & Pin duno men «more . » gg de’ quali compostodesigns. va il corpo di: questa Chiesa, conventional ,ne formano . . e€ massimamente quelli,;che la

86. G. B. Galletto began his editorial work for Cupola. D'uopo pertanto me @ qui avvertire esser

Vittone in 1758 (Rodolfo, “Notizie mio pensiere, che vi s’impieghi in parte la pietra inedite . . . ,” p. 449). A volume of draw- viva di taglio, formandone legami di inserirsi ings for many of the engravings (Turin, a’ debiti intervalli, e ne’ luoghi loro opportuni Biblioteca Reale, Varia 203) has a title nella struttura di cotto; e cid per rendere la strut-

page dated 1760. It has now been tura medesima idonea a regger il peso de’ mapublished by N. Carboneri, “Appunti sul teriali, e la spinta degli Archi, che sopra vi

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapter1x / page 134

s’appoggiano, senza averla ad ingrossare indebi- to have been more retrospective than his tamente con pregiudicio inevitabile non tanto practice, and that they are too much a meddelle parti inferiori, che sorregger la debbono, ley of ideas to be characterized as “Renaisatteso il maggior peso, che vi si addossa; che sance” in any but the loosest sense—they dellopera stessa, che a dimostrare venendosi might rather be called “Italian.” To me the allocchio maggiormente massiccia, € pesante, e evidence suggests that Vittone’s concerns

d’ostacolo riuscendogli al potervisi ampiamente ‘marily visual rather than intel-

diffondere, privo lo lasciarebbe di quella sod- were prmamy Visue ; ;

disfazione, che egli prova allorquando maggiore lectual—that he was more interested n trova lo spazio a dilattarsi, e a goder della va- clarity for the eye and the emotions, than rieta degli oggetti, e minori incontra, e menfre- for the mind. That, perhaps, helps to exquenti gli ostacoli, che dar gliene possono impe- plain the predominance of the central

dimento. church in his oeuvre. It does not seem that he was preoccupied with the central church

91. That ideal is relevant to an evaluation of because Renaissance Neo-Platonism still Vittone’s writings and buildings with re- had a hold upon his thinking. Nor does he spect to the Renaissance on one hand, and even express a theoretical preference for the the Enlightenment on the other. Wittkower perfectly centralized church. Instead he has proposed that Vittone was an “almost simply states that “quattro sono le principali anachronistic architectural author and prac- maniere, in cul si formano le Chiese, cioe titioner,” and that his treatises, particularly a semplice Nave, a Tempio, a C'roce Latina. with respect to the musical theory of propor- . . . Chiamansi a Tempio le Chiese, che tion, were in the tradition of the Renais- tengono per piano loro principale un circolo,

sance, despite concessions to Newtonian od un elisse, ovvero un poligono in esse theories and the eighteenth-century empha- figure regolatamente inscrittible” (Jstrusis on delight (loc. cit., and Architectural zioni elementari, pp. 469-70). The advanPrinciples in the Age of Humanism, Lon- tages of the central church for Vittone, don, 1952, p. 130). By contrast, Portoghesi besides the practical ones stressed in the has stressed the influence of the Enlighten- documents, and the opportunity that it proment on Vittone’s theories (Bernardo vided of focussing on its vaults, were probVittone, op. cit., pp. 9-30). My own view is ably that it afforded the most even illumina-

closer to Wittkower’s, though with two tion of all arrangements and the greatest qualifications: that Vittone’s theories seem visual clarity.

CHAPTER xX

Postscript

URING the eighteenth century, the Pied- sively ruptured, and the thin piers are seemD montese developments in open architec- ingly freed. ‘The difference between the two ture seem to have moved independently, for the churches is fairly subtle, but so is it between most part, of other European manifestations. San Raffaele and Sant’Andrea in Chieri. Despite an occasional suggestion of contempo- At the same time, Dominicus Zimmerman rary international influence, the Piedmontese began his small oval church at Steinhausen, innovations came largely from seventeenth- with its ring of slender piers and curved-back

century sources. But if there was little direct arches within a many-windowed wall (Fig. interchange, there were some striking parallels, 196). Although the arrangement can be traced formal and temporal, with Bavarian architec- to projects of about 1700, the extremely wispy

ture. supports and brilliant illumination give rise to a North of the Alps, open structures had new sense of openness.” The difference matches emerged from a much older tradition than in that between Juvarra’s oval project for the

Piedmont; but nevertheless the equivalent of Sacristy of St. Peter’s and his designs for StupiJuvarra’s late style appeared only in the second nigi—except that Juvarra went further than

half of the 1720’s. One of the earliest of these Zimmerman and reducd the piers to four churches, for example, was Johann Michael instead of ten.° Fischer’s in Osterhofen of 1726 (Fig. 194). It In the mid-1730’s, Johann Michael Fischer greatly resembles the Jesuit church in Olomouc began to experiment with octagonal churches, of 1711, and may derive in part from it’ (Fig. such as those in Aufhausen and Ingolstadt* 195). But in Osterhofen the arches are canted (Fig. 197), which were notably similar to to widen their apertures; the upper arches curve Vittone’s in Rivarolo and Riva di Chieri of the out and the chapel bridges bend out more late 1750’s and early 1760’s (Fig. 188, 191). emphatically; and the chapel walls are cut more Although Vittone had some knowledge of deeply behind the piers: the boundary is deci- German developments,’ it is unlikely that he page 135

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT chapterx / page 136

knew these minor churches. In part the resem- ness to other connotations of the post-and-lintel blances can be attributed to common sources, system, for example, to its structural elegance.°

such as Sant’Agnese in Rome. But neither It is therefore apparent that open architecture Vittone nor Fischer went directly back to these was neither a style nor a unified development. models, and nothing can as yet explain their And it had no single purpose. For the Italians it similar transformation of them. The affinities was often an expression of their love of bizzarbetween the Piedmontese and German build- ria, theatrical views, and the illusion of gran-

ings remain a mystery. deur. For the French and Germans it often inIn France, by contrast, the open structures volved a preoccupation with structure and the diverged from those in Piedmont during the Gothic. Sometimes it imitated the effects of ceileighteenth century. Perrault’s ideal of columnar ing frescoes, and sometimes not. The phenomstructure became increasingly important. But enon was larger than any of its causes or meanthe emphasis shifted from his criterion of open- ings.

NOTES 1. H.G. Franz, Die Deutsche Barockbaukunst berg school; this seems to be the case in the Mahrens, Munich, 1943, p. 40 and pls. 21, small section reproduced by Reinle, op. cit., 22. ‘The church was designed by the Mora- (1950) pl. 80a. vian architect, Josef Pirner. Fischer was in 3. W. Lotz, “Die ovalen Kirchenraiime des Moravia before 1722: N. Lieb, “Johann Cinquecento,” p. 72, points out the similarMichael Fischer, Das Leben eines Bayeris- ity between the plans of Moosbrugger and

chen Baumeisters im 18. Jahrhundert,” Ottavio Mascherino’s design for Santo Miinchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst, Spirito dei Napoletani in Rome, a drawing N.F. xu, 1938-39, p. 144. H. G. Franz, preserved in the archives of the Accademia Bauten und Baumeister der Barockzeit in di San Luca, which was probably a source Béohmen, Leipzig, n.d., p. 203, has recently of Juvarra’s Sacristy projects, as noted made the same suggestion of direct influ- above, p. 25.

ence. 4. Illustrated in F. Hagen-Dempf, Der

2. The early projects have been attributed to Zentralbaugedanke bei Johann Michael

Kaspar Moosbrugger, A. Reinle, “Ein Fischer, Munich, 1954. The author Fund barocker Kirchen- und Klosterplane,” describes the buildings in terms similar to Zeitschrift fiir Schweizerische Archaeolo- those used in this book. gie und Kunstgeschichte, x1, 1950, pp. 5. The inventory of Vittone’s possessions in 234ff., pl. 80a, and fig. 3; and xm, 1951, 1770 (A. S. T.—11, 1770, Lib. u, vol. 1, ff. pp. 8-9; H. Schnell, “Kaspar Moosbrugger 463ff.), includes the following books: “[no.] und der Grundriss der Wies,” Das Maiin- 541, Goldman Arch.ra Tom. 2,” presumaster, 111, 1950, pp. 183-86; N. Lieb and bly one of the editions of N. Goldmann’s F. Dieth, Die Vorarlberger Barockbau- works edited by L. Sturm in the late seven-

meister, Munich-Zurich, 1960, p. 46, pl. teenth and early eighteenth centuries; 156. Presumably Moosbrugger’s projects “570 Dizionario Tedesco,” “645 Diesel would have had the heavy entablatures and Disegni, e giuochi d’acqua,” that is, M.

thick arches characteristic of the Vorarl- Diesel, Erlustierende Augenwerde in

POSTSCRIPT chapterx / page 137

Vorstellung Herrlicher Gérten und Lust- the columns as it had for Perrault and even

gebiude ..., Augsburg (1717); and Cordemoy (Nouveau Traité ... , pp. 81, “647, Sturms Arch.ra,” i., L. Sturm, 175). Rather Laugier uses the term to imKurtze Vorstellung der gantzen Civil ply a more abstract and general independBaukunst ..., Augsburg, 1745. His ence of all the parts, as for instance when he Paris Sketchbook, vol. 11, no. 236, includes a expresses his desire to have columns enplan of a German or Austrian convent with gaged to the wall as little as possible “afin inscriptions in German. It seems to be a que dans leur servitude méme elles conserwork of the late seventeenth or very early vent toujours quelque chose de cet air de eighteenth century, and therefore probably liberté & de dégagement qui leur donne tant was not first acquired by the later Pied- de grace” (ibid., p. 18). Laugier valued the montese owners of the sketchbook. (Dr. columnar structures chiefly for their “délicaMichael Petzet has informed me that he tesse” and “légéreté” (2bid., pp. 148, 204, will publish this drawing as a project for 206, and passim.; W. Herrmann, Laugier Kaspar Zucalli’s Kajetanerkirche in Salz- and Eighteenth Century French Theory, burg, a work begun in 1685 ). In vol. 1, no. London, 1962, p. 30). “Légéreté” was also 197, there is a copy, perhaps by Vittone, of a major criterion for Jacques-Germain the plan of Gaetano Chiaveri’s Hofkirche in Soufflot, the architect of the Panthéon (J.

Dresden, probably taken from an engrav- Monval, Soufflot ... , Paris, 1918, pp. ing of 1739-40; vol. 1, no. 218, is a longitu- 423, 445-47; M. Petzet, Soufflots Saintedinal section of this church which Dr. Petzet Genevieve und der Franzésische Kirchen-

has published as a project of Chiaveri’s bau des 18. Jahrhunderts, p. 147). Pierre (“Unbekanntes Projekt Chiaveris fiir die Patte, the great critic of Soufflot’s construcDresdener Hofkirche,” Alte und Moderne tion, also shared this ideal (M. Mathieu,

Kunst, 11, 4, 1958, p. 16). He suggests Pierre Patte . .. , Paris, 1940, p. 232). a date of 1740 or 1748, after Chiaveri’s These were the terms which since the midreturn to Rome; the former seems more seventeenth century in France had been

likely, since the window forms of the applied to the Gothic: R. D. Middleton, design are earlier than Sebastian Wetzel’s “The Abbé de Cordemoy and the Graeco-

perspective view of 1747 (E. Hempel, Gothic Ideal,” 1962, p. 296). Although Gaetano Chiaveri, Dresden, 1956, fig. 66). these ideals were of course associated with I am most grateful to Dr. Petzet for these an open appearance, they were by no means

references to his work. identical with it: the nature of the structure 6. The changes are, as would be expected, more had now become the major consideration.

apparent in the work of M. A. Laugier, It may be noted that the recent studies by Essai sur Architecture, Paris, 1753, than Petzet, Herrmann, and Middleton all fail in the Abbé de Cordemoy’s Nouveau Traité to take into consideration the visual qualities

de toute Tarchitecture ... , Paris, 1706. of open architecture that are stressed by PerFor Laugier the key term, dégagement, no rault, and to a lesser extent by his intelleclonger meant primarily the wide spacing of tual descendant, Cordemoy.

APPENDIX I

Juvarras Sketchbooks 9

The Biblioteca Reale in Turin preserves in Sto- morie Sepolcrali e Disegni di D. Filippo Juvara. ria Patria 733 the unpublished “Inventario delle [Identical to Museo Civico, vol. 111, entitled “Me-

Carte e Disegni Esistenti nel Particolare Archi- morie sepolcrali dell’Homini pit insigne di vio diS. S. R. M.,” with a dedication of May 1, questo secolo conosciuto da me cav.re D. Filippo

1764, by Giambattista Sottis, the royal archi- Juvara Architetto e disegnatore per memoria vist (f.2.v). The following collections of Ju- del loro grande nome alcuni ne larmi, altri nelle

; . lettere, e molti nel disegno di and Pittura e Scultura varra’s sketches are listed on f. in309 312 ; , ,cit.).] ; ; e Architettura Torino nelf.1735” (Joc. CHE. 510 and Sil are blank). (The inventory 63. Libro di diversi pensieri per fabbriche di also includes lists of working drawings for most D. Filippo Juvara.

of his projects; cf. below, Appendix 11, Cat. 64. Libro di diversi abbozzi e pensieri

20.) d’Architettura di D. Filippo Juvara. 65. Altro Libro di Studio d’Architettura 58. Diversi piccoli Disegni consistenti in Sopra gli Ornati di Porte e Finestre di D. FiPiante e alzate e pensieri di D. Filippo Juvara. lippo Juvara. [This is probably vol. 11 of the col59. Libro di Diversi Disegni di Piante ed lection of Conte Adriano Tournon, Turin, which

Alzate e pensiero di D. Filippo Juvara. is entitled “Studio d’architettura sopra gli orna60. Libro di diversi Disegni d’Architettura e menti di Porte e finestre disegniate dal cav. Yu-

pensieri di D. Filippo Juvara. vatra 1725” (ibid., p. 158).]

61. Libro di Disegni diversi fatti da D. Fi- 66. Libro di diversi Disegni di Piante ed allippo Juvara per Ornati di Candelieri e Vasi. zate per le Chiese ed altre Fabbriche. [This is clearly Museo Civico, vol. tv, which is 67. Libro di Pensieri ed Apparenze Teatrali entitled “Libro di disegni fatti dal cav. d. Fi- fatti per ’Eminent.mo Ottoboni in Roma pel suo lippo Juvarra Architetto per ornati di candelabri Teatro nella Cancellaria [sic] di D. Filippo Jue vasi fatti in Torino l’anno 1735 (Rovere- vara. [This is the volume entitled by Juvarra

Viale-Brinckmann, Juvarra, p. 157).] “Pensierl di Scene e apparecchie fatte per servi62. Altro Libro che comprende diverse me- zio del E.mo Ottoboni in Roma p.] suo Teatro page 139

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix1 / page 140

nella Cancelleria da me suo Architetto l’anno archives. It was in a private collection in the 1708 sino al 1712,” which is in the Victoria mid-nineteenth century, but this does not preand Albert Museum in London (idid., p. 162).] clude that it came from the royal archives, as 68. Libro di pit pensieri d’Architettura, was suggested by Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, buona parte eseguito in Napoli di D. Filippo Juvarra, p. 156. Riserva 59-6 may represent Juvara. [Identical with vol. 1 of the Tournon another one of the volumes in the archives. But

(ibid., p. 158).] iserva consists largely 9 69. Altro Libro di Disegni diversi di D. Fi- the stage and theaters, Riserva 59-2 of chapels

collection, entitled “Filippo Juvarra. 1706” Ri 5O_] ‘sts larcelv of drawings for

lippo Juvara. and altars, and Riserva 59-3 and 59-5 of work70. Altro libro di diversi disegni ing and presentation drawings. Therefore they

@Architettura (parte inutili e parte annonimi may not have been among those listed in the del S. Conte Alfieri) di D. Filippo. [The words inventory. The volume in the Biblioteca Reale that I have placed in parentheses were crossed (collection of the Duke of Genoa) which was out and put in the next entry, i.e., “71. Plicco di recently published by T. Bianchi (“Un manosdiversi Abbozzi e Disegni d’Architettura parte critto poco noto dello Juvarra,” Atti del x Con-

inutili, . . .”J gresso di Storia dell’ Architettura, Rome, 1959,

Since entry no. 58 is not a book of drawings, pp. 397-418), consists of texts on geometry and the seven volumes numbered 59, 60, 63, 64, 66, military matters, and drawings of orders; thus 69, and 70 are left to be accounted for. Of these, it, too, is probably to be excluded from the series.

no. 66 may not be by Juvarra. Two are cer- Nevertheless, it would seem that at least a tainly to be connected with vols. 1 and m of the major part of the Juvarra sketches, and possibly

Museo Civico, which have eighteenth-century almost all of them, have survived from the bindings. Several volumes are probably in- mid-eighteenth century. Since Juvarra collected cluded in Riserva 59-4, Biblioteca Nazionale, some of his own drawings in volumes (for exTurin, which contains 589 sketches, largely by ample, no. 67), and labeled many of his Juvarra. Like the other volumes of his drawings sketches for important projects (e.g., the drawin the Biblioteca Nazionale (Riserva 59-1, 2, 3, ings for the Duomo Nuovo, Sant’Andrea in 5,6), this has a nineteenth or twentieth-century Chieri, and Stupinigi), it is evident how much binding and may have been—indeed, probably he prized his drawings—and their value for fuwas—recompiled from the volumes in the royal ture biographers.

9‘

APPENDIX II

°3

Juvarra’s Projects of 1714-1715 for the Sacristy of St. Peter's

Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann published the major- Juvarra worked with two main alternatives:

ity of Juvarra’s designs (Juvarra, pp. 60, (1) an octagonal or ovoidal sacristy with an 128-29; pls. 78-95) but did not group them ambulatory which allowed for a large, light correctly. The main set of drawings, all care- room and easy circulation around it (Variants

fully finished for presentation, is in Riserva A, C, D, E); (2) a smaller, rectangular sac59-5 of the Biblioteca Nazionale, Turin. This risty without an ambulatory but instead with volume, bound in modern paper and entitled on _ vestibules (Variants B, F, G, and H, the model

the spine “Juvarra Filippo. Disegni,” has 16 project). Sacchetti dates the projects in 1714 folios measuring 32.5 x 41 cm., with 14 draw- (Juvarra, p. 30); Wittkower (Boll. SPABA, ings numbered by Juvarra to 21; nos. 1-5 and i, 1949, pp. 158ff.) shows that Juvarra was in 7-8 are missing. The sequence of Juvarra’s Rome by late December, 1714, or early in 1715. numbers provides the key to classifying the The following folio numbers refer to the volprojects, excepting Variant F’, but the grouping umes cited above in the Biblioteca Nazionale; does not imply chronological development or plate numbers refer to Rovere-Viale-Brinckpreference. Juvarra’s anonymous biographer re- mann, Juvarra. ports that Cardinal Annibale Albani saw “cin-

que disegni, tutti diversi, fatti per detta fabbrica” before the model was made (ibid., p. 25); Variant A the following breakdown includes seven, of which two, Variants C and D, are quite similar. From a domed octagonal sacristy with a coAll of the projects were located off the southern lumnar ambulatory, a covered passageway runs transept on the site of the old Sacristy, the to the facade of St. Peter’s, and a domed Greek Madonna delle Febbre; most of them had quar- Cross chamber opens to the priests’ quarters on ters for the priests to the south of the main room, the south. As noted above, ff. 7 and 8 are miss-

and porticoed bridges to St. Peter’s. ing. page 141

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix 11 / page 142

F. 2, no. 6, pl. 79. Plan. would seem) east—west, with the priests’ quarF. 3, no. 9. Elevation of the southern facade. ters on the south. F. 4, no. 10. Section through the sacristy and F. 10, no. 16, pl. 87. Longitudinal section

passageway. (Fig. 21) showing the mezzanine gallery

Riserva 59-4, f. 15, pl. 78. Sketch plan by at the ends of the sacristy. Juvarra of a similar project, but with an F. 11, no. 17, pl. 81. Cross-section, illustrat-

oval sacristy like that in Variant C. ing the main gallery, without one at the mezzanine tier, along the sides. The

. priests’ quarters have an oval or circular Variant B courtyard. Circular domed vestibules open to the north F. 12, no. 18, pl. 80. Elevation ot the eastern

; or western side of the complex, with a porand south of a long, sacristy; ,.. ; ticoed bridge torectangular the church on theonright.

either side of the sacristy are the two courts and

rooms of the priests’ quarters; and from the

northern vestibule there is a covered passage- ,

way like that in Variant A. a Variant F H. 5, no. 11, pl. 84. Plan. 4g: ; A small rectangular sacristy with a coved F. 6, no. 12, pl. 85. Longitudinal section of It. connected by low passacewavs to a circu.

the.sacristy andvestibule vestibules. on The one northern a y sow asses ” ,on oe . ; ar sidelarand a portico

the

vestibule 1s missing the staircase shown in other. It is thus related to Variants B and H, the

the plan. model project. The sacristy runs east—west. sacristy and the courts. 7 £92 DO. Dey Pls Os gs

F. 7, no. 13, pl. 86. Cross-section through the F183. no 19 |. 89. Cross-section F. 15, no. 21, pl. 83. Longitudinal section.

Variant C An oval sacristy with an ambulatory of piers Variant G and half-columns runs north-south, and the few adjacent rooms and portico are arranged on A hexagonal vestibule adjacent to the church a Greek Cross; the ample priests’ quarters of the leads to the sacristy, an elongated octagon,

other projects have been omitted. from which the priests’ quarters open on the

F. 8, no. 14, pl. 88. Plan. south.

F. 14, no. 20. Longitudinal section.

Variant D A project similar in all but detail to Variant Variant H—The Model P roject

C. The sacristy is an elongated octagon. (Fig. 66 )

B-9,no. 15, pl. 89. Plan. The wooden model, formerly in the Museo Petriano, Rome, was burned during World

Variant EF, War i It is known only from the description and plates in Rovere-Viale-Brinckmann, JuA rectangular sacristy similar to that of the varra, p. 129 and pls. 91-95, and a sketch by Chiesa della Propaganda Fide which runs (it Juvarra of the south side, Museo Civico, vol. 11,

JUVARRA’S PROJECTS OF 1714-1715

, appendixit / page 143 f. 10, no. 16 (ibid., pl. 90). This, the most rectangle with rounded ends, with small vesticomplex of the designs, was a more elaborate bules leading to domed staircases on the east version of Variant B. There was a semicircular and west ends. To the south of the sacristy was colonnade towards the basilica and two long the presbytery, with two courts, the shape of porticoed bridges connecting with the church. which is difficult to determine from the photoBehind the colonnade came the sacristy room, a graphs.

APPENDIX III

Venaria Reale A. Venaria Reale Before Juvarra

These notes are limited to an outline of points l. AMEDEO DI CASTELLAMONTE AND essential to an evaluation of Juvarra’s chapel: CARLO EMANUELE II the earlier chapel projects, the adjacent gallery and pavilion, the piazza in front of the chapel,

the two churches in town, and the proposed Amedeo’s project was published in Venaria alterations of the mid-eighteenth century. The Reale Palazzo di Piacere e di Caccia .. . didocuments sometimes spell the name as Vene- segnato et descritto dal Conte Amedeo di Castel-

rid. lamonte l'anno 1672, Turin, 1674, and again, in a handsomer but less accurate version, in Thea-

trum Statuum Regiae Celsitudinis Sabaudiae

ABBREVIATIONS Ducis ... ) Amsterdam, J. Blaeu, 1682, I, pp. Alff. (Fig. 28). Some land for the palace was

Art. 810 A. S. T.—111, Articolo 810, purchased in 1658, and Amedeo’s initial drawRecapiti per Venaria ings were ready before the end of 1659; see

Reale. C. Boggio, “Gli architetti Carlo ed Amedeo di

Papiers Paris, Bibliotheque Nation- —Castellamonte e lo sviluppo edilizio di Torino nel ale, Cabinet des Estampes, secolo xvul,” Atti SIAT., xx1x, 1895, pp. 52ff., Papiers de Robert deCotte. = a4 WV. E. Gianazzo di Pamparato, I Castello (CE. P. Marcel, inventaire della Venaria Reale, Turin, 1888, Doc. 3. The

des Papiers Manuscrits du ’ Cabinet de Robert de Cotte chapel was completed by 1061 (A. S. Tm,

_. . , Paris, 1906.) Art. 179, Conti del? Artiglieria, Fabbriche e Topographie Paris, Bibliothéque Nation- Fortificazioni, Paragrafo 10, Conto che rende ale, Cabinet des Estampes, alPIll.ma et Ecc.ma Camera il Sig. Anto. GaTopographie, Italie, Prov- ragno .. . negli anni 1660 e 1661, paragrafo

inces, Pa V. 30), and was “titolata a MARIA VERGINE & a

page 144

VENARIA REALE appendix 111 / page 145

S. Rocco, & in essa riposa il Sacro Corpo di ing became the parish church of the Virgin. S. Uberto in richissima Cassa d’argento” (Ame- Such a church was standing as early as 1674, deo di Castellamonte, op. cit., p. 12). It was when there was a payment to Giovanni Battista smaller than the version shown in the Theatrum Brambilla “per un’ ancona della Vergine San-

Statuum ... (Fig. 28) and may have had tissima fatta per la chiesa parrocchiale della galleries on both sides (Amedeo di Castella- Venaria Reale” (Schede Vesme, 1, p. 207).

monte, op. cit., figs. V, VI). Further proof of this reasoning is offered by a The following year, in 1662, the churches in document of the mid-eighteenth century (Turin, town were begun, as is known from the inscrip- Archivio Arcivescovile, Relazioni . . . 1749tions now on their facades. According to Ame- 1750, ff. 202-203v, report of the “Prevosto deo’s book and the Theatrum Statuum, both della Chiesa Parrocchiale di S. Maria del luogo

churches were to have had centralized plans della Venaria Reale: . . . oltre la mia Chiesa (Amedeo di Castellamonte, op. cit., figs. —Iv, Parrocchiale non esservi altra chiesa in questo and p. 6, “una delle due chiese di straordinaria luogo che la Reggia Cappella . . . essere la architettura, che si fabbrica presentemente”). forma e struttura della mia Chiesa Parrocchiale In his plan, the church dedicated to Saint Euse- bislonga e quadra”). This church must have

bius was to be on the north, and the parish been on the north, for it was replaced by the church, dedicated to the Virgin, on the south extant one. (ibid., the fold-out plan and view, and Thea- That parish church was founded in 1752 and trum Statuum, op. cit., pl. following p. 46). But begun the year after, according to G. Casalis, the reverse positioning is given in the text, zbid., Dizionario geografico-storico-statistico-commer-

p. 42 and by the present inscriptions on the fa- ciale degli stati di S. M. il Re di Sardegna, Tucades: on the south, “QUOD CAROLUS EM. II/ rin, 1853, xx, 866, who reports that it was DIVO EUSEBIO TEMPLUM / INSTAURATUM / IN designed by Benedetto Alfieri (see also Cat. 20,

PAUPERUM VERITUR SOLATIUM/MDCLXII/ no. 28), though in grander format, with a dome DENUO RESTAURATUM MCMLII”; and on the and two campanili, and was executed by (Giunorth, “NASCENTIS VIRGINIS / PROPITIO NUMINE seppe Giacinto) Bays. At the end of the eightOROSCOPANTI / NOVI OPPIDI NATALES / CARO- eenth century there was “in detta piazza evvl,

LUS EM. II / INAUGURAVIT / MDCLXII.” a destra entrando, la chiesa parrocchiale, disThe resolution of these incongruities may egnata dal Conte Alfieri, e dirempetto lo Spebe as follows: (1) The southern church was dale.. . . Due sono li parrocchie della Venaria, begun but construction never proceeded very cioé della Reggia Cappella, e della Comunita, far, perhaps not beyond the facade which the Ja prima di nomina Regia, e l’altra di libera colchurch shares with the piazza. Thus a lengthy lazione” (A. Grossi, Guida alle cascine, e vigne maintenance report of 1693 refers merely to “la del territorio di Torino e suoi contorni, Turin, chiesa principiata di S. Eusebio” (Art. 810, 1790, 1, p. 206). Mazzo unico, no. 26). (2) The northern cen- The buildings of the semicircular piazza in tral church was never begun; instead, a small, front of Juvarra’s chapel appear in a map of the simple rectangular church was substituted for mid-eighteenth century (Art. 810, Mazzo 15, it, or rehabilitated from a preexisting structure. “Tipo delle Fabbriche e siti del Sig. Conte di This building is shown in the fold-out view and Barbaresco nella Venaria Reale . . . Torino li plan in Castellamonte’s book; the plan can be 10 del 1761 G. G. Bays”), and probably go dated about 1673 (Schede Vesme, 1, Turin, back to Castellamonte’s period, although their 1963, p. 290). (3) Consequently, the dedica- extremely plain and possibly much-restored fations were switched, so that the northern build- cades preserve little trace of his style.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix 11 / page 146

] année. , , ugé 4 propo

2. MICHELANGELO GAROVE AND VIT- rendre commode, et de conner des Pee

TORIO AMEDEO I bien exposez pour toutes les saisons de Ors comme la figure du vieu palais de la Venerie

The French armies under Maréchal Catinat ctoit un quarré long, oe hon Sans Sn otog fired the palace in 1693, damaging the belve- rentre, Ou qui ressorte, 4 8 INS @ Prop d’apuyer deux extremités dere of the Palazzo, the stables and theauxoranay: ; du palais deux

Ha C aj grans pavillions, dans lesquels il y a deux aparte-

B: ; » of the early eighteenth century in.Piedmont: della nuova Chiesa... . : a ; , thus the date is uncertain. The extant facade of

Parcella Eredita. Ceppi-Balbiana, -< similar. b h ch Quittanze di Capo Mastro the convent is similar, but much shorter. Isabella, “Parcella delle pretese del Capo. M.ro Isa-

bello verso il Collegio de 2: 1761-1766 M.to R. P. Gesuiti della . ; ; Citta di Chieri in seguito On April 25, 1761, Adelaide Margarita alla ricostruzione della loro Ceppi Balbiana willed the major part of her nuova Chiesa.” The docu- property to the Jesuits to build the church

ment apparently dates (Chierl 75, testament notarized in Chieri by from 1773, the last year Giuseppe M. Giugliatti). She died on January

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendixx / page 242

3, 1766 (Collegio dei Gesuiti, Crotti). In a F. 6. “Piano de’ Coretti, e Cantoria a livello del royal patent of February 22, 1766, Carlo Eman- corridore del Coleggio.” Red and black ink. uele 111 allowed the Jesuits to sell parts of the F. 7. Left: “Facciata esterna della nova Chiesa.” legacy and use the funds, along with 20,000 lire A flap shows the Gothic tower. The facade from their own sources, for the church, with the does not include the inscription with the date - os inBrea, the pediment of the present“church. royal Procuratore Generale, as adminis; oe Right:

trator of the legacy (Chieri Prospetto interno della Chiesa.” Grey and Saey red ink.75) Section through the rear chapels of the nave, looking towards the altar, and showing the foundations.

3. DRAWINGS FOR SANT’ANTONIO F. 8. “Prospetto interno del Laterale sinistro

PROBABLY OF 1767 entrando tutt’in longo della Chiesa.” Grey

and red ink. Longitudinal section, including

In the Archivio Mauriziano, Ospedale the basement, showing the side of the church dell’Ordine Mauriziano, Turin, Libri e Mano- towards the convent (Fig. 141). scritti, Cassetto 10, is a book of drawings, F. 9. “Prospetto esterno della Nuova Chiesa 34.5 x 48 cm. bound in brown leather with a verso la Piazza.” Elevation of the eastern modern label, “Gesuiti di Chieri,” which in- flank of the church, with a flap showing the cludes 12 double folios, 63.5 x 47.5 cm. Since Gothic tower.

. « 299 F. 10. “Figura dell’Armamento del Coperto.”

drawings show and the walls «several gy . Grey, brown red “da ink.farsi” Planand of the beams da demolirsi,” there can be little doubt that of the roof

these are the drawings for, and not after, the church: indeed it is probably the book of Bays’

drawings mentioned in the letter of March 12, A. 1767 1767 (no. 4).

F. 2. Title: “Dissegni per la Nuova Chiesa de’ On March 12, 1767, Brea notifies De Am-

RR. PP. Gesuiti di Chieri.” brosi as follows (Eredita Ceppi-Balbiana, Let-

F. 3. “Piano della Chiesa Vecchia.” Red ink. tere):

narrow choir. : . , .

This shows the Gothic church, wine nae me Lessere stato il Sig. Architetto Bays fino

Cimensions of the present one, including the circa la meta dello scorso dicembre fuori di To-

cp: ; ; rino per il Regio Servizio, e le due susseguite

F. 4. °P tano delli Sotteranel an eee Noe: malattie da esso fatte, hanno portato la dilazione Il colorito di TOSSO denota © lle Ae f. one nel formare il Dissegno della nuova Chiesa di possono sussistere ed il nero oa e ae cotesto Collegio. Ora perd dopo varie combinaThe old walls to be Preserve he A e ° zioni meco fatte il medesimo ha compito e ne tower adjacent to the choir, and the Hanking ha formato tutte le piante che V. P. Riv.ma

walls of the convent. ; ritrovera ligate nel libro. . . .

F. 5. “Pianta en ane wee a iano di Scorgera dai disegni, e dal calcolo una spesa, Terra. II colorito di rosso d whe © velle a cui forse né il Collegio, né io ci aveva pensata,

glie vecchie che an lle « lle da fen © che si € un piano sotteraneo della chiesa. . . .

da farsi di nuovo, ed 1! giallo queme Ca Cem o- Osservera altresi due progetti per la Sagrestia

lirsi.”¢ the The walls to be demolished included e quantun . 1 ; old facade. A flap behind the q que a parere mio quello verso levante, parts 0 pace. P tuttoché pit dispendioso, sia il pid proprio e il choir shows two projects for the sacristy pid sano. . .

there, the upper one labeled “Secondo Pro-

getto”; cf. the letter of March 12, 1767, no. Brea writes on March 24, 1767, to say that

4 (Fig. 140). “convengo anche io nel giudizioso pensiere cioé

SANT’ANTONIO IN CHIERI appendix x / page 248

per il risparmio d’un sotteraneo alla nuova primi anni 1767 [e] 1768, anziche si preparo Chiesa, e per la sospesa determinazione attorno ancora in quest’ultimo anno egregia quantita di la sagrestia per il che dovendosi prescindere dal calcina e si formarono ponti per poter ben per

dissegno formatosi per detto sotteraneo” tempo compiere l’opera nella campagna suc(ibid.). Finally, he notes on April 15, 1767, cessiva dell’anno 1769 .. .” (Eredita Ceppithat “essersi stabilito il principio della demoli- Balbiana, Rap.nza), and “per la formazione zione della Chiesa al Mercoledi dopo le feste” delle mostre di stucchi neppure eseguitesi. . .” (ibid.). The facade is inscribed: “D.o.m. pb. (Eredita Ceppi-Balbiana, Parcella). No further

ANTONIO ABATE MDCCLXVII.” work on the facade is mentioned; presumably Bays’ instructions to the contractor are dated it was completed in this year. It is surmounted April 2, 1767, and the contract with Carlo Isa- by the monogram of the Jesuits. bella was signed on April 23 (copies in Eredita Ceppi-Balbiana). In 1773, Isabella complained

that it was agreed to complete the church “nel 6. 1769-1773 termine di tre campagne successive, princi-

piando da quella del d.o anno 1767... per The painting in the vault of St. Anthony in esser risoluzione presa da d. RR. PP. che nella Glory, apparently not contemplated in the origiprima campagna fosse d. nuova fabrica al co- nal project, was executed by Vittorio Blanseri perto, e cosi terminate le muraglie circondanti la (Eredita Ceppi-Balbiana, Lettere, letter by Chiesa, e nella successiva campagna venisse for- Brea to De Ambrosi of March 25, 1769: “Sul

mata la volte principale” (Eredita Ceppi- punto della Pittura progettata nella volta della

Balbiana, Rap.nza). Chiesa é cosa totalmente arbitraria al Collegio, all’esecuzione della quale ho io concorso in vista

del desiderio spiegatomi da’ Padri, e del mag-

5. 1768 gior ornamento, che quindi ne derivava alla chiesa istessa. . . . Sembrare assai grave la A letter of Bays on May 29, 1768, apparently mercede, che il Pittore pretende oltre le doppie addressed to De Ambrosi, states that “mi do 50,” and Chieri 75, Pagamenti, “Agosto a d. 21 Yonore significare a V. P. River.ma che la capi- [1769] Quittanza Blansheri Pittore [L.] 750”). tulazione complette soltanto la volta principale But according to Isabella, his work stopped in della Chiesa, e non s’intende la volta del Sancta 1769, and in August, 1770 he was told by De Sanctorum, né quelle del coro, e Cappelle, quali Ambrosi that “non era piv in istato di perfezio-

restano framediate dagli arconi” (Eredita nare la chiesa” (Eredita Ceppi-Balbiana, Ceppi-Balbiana, Lettere). On July 13, Brea tells Rap.nza ) . The capomastro further stated that De Ambrosi that “non stimo per ora prudenziale “non essersi in cinque annate cioe 1769, 70, 71,

la determinazione di desistere dal lavoro, com- 72, 73, lavorato attorno a d.a chiesa quando pito che sia la volta, mentre il compimento in pero tutte le proviste di ponte ed utenzili erano

questa campagna della Facciata della Chiesa e fatte,” and claimed damages of 3,988 lire di tutte le opere, che devono eseguirsi prima (Eredita Ceppi-Balbiana, Parcella). In 1773, d’abbattere il gran Ponte fatta per la volta, mi the Jesuit order was suppressed. paiono assai compatibili col fondo. . .” (ibid.). That the vault was executed in this year is

established by Isabella’s statement of 1773: “Si 7. LTTA esegui dalle rispettive parti il contenuto da cul

sovra in d.a sc.ra, e relative instruzione [the The Franciscans sought to move to the contract and instructions; see no. 4] per li due church late in 1773:

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendixx / page 244

I] Provinciale de Minori Osservanti di questa d.a nuova chiesa, e per tale sospensione di lavoro Provincia di S. Tommaso Appostolo Fra Cele- il d.o capomastro Isabella pretende un indennistino di Sciolze sino dal mese d’ottobre dell’anno zazione, avendovi lasciato fin’ora ponti internaor sono dopo pulicato il Breve di Soppressione mente, sebbene ha terminata la chiesa dal cordella Societa de’ Gesuiti ha umiliato riccorso a nicione in su, richiedesi perd ancora secondo V.S. R. M. a nome anche de suoi religiosi del un nuovo calcolo del sud. architetto [Bays] la

convento di S. Giorgio della Citta di Chieri per somma di L. 32/m. per compirla con tutti ottenere d’essere trasferito nella Casa di Novi- gli’ornati compresi nel disegno. Quando perd si

ziato, e Chiesa [of Sant’Antonio]. . . . volesse adottare il progetto dal. d.o Capomastro

i. che propone l’ommissione di certi ornati, ed

(Chieri 43, Busta “Traslazione de P. P. Min. opere, basterebbero in di lui senso L. 16/m.

Osservanti. . . ,” an undated copy of Fra Ce- . . . Che dovranno d.i PP. Min. Osser. adolestino’s report to the king, which must have perarsi con tutta la sollecitudine per compire la been written in 1774, since it antedates the Fabrica di d.a nuova Chiesa, e renderla ufficia-

transferral of early 1775). bile fra pochi anni seguitando il disegno sud.

A letter of Isabella’s from Chieri on October senza alterazione che faccia deformita, ben 31, 1774 to, apparently, the Abbot Crotti, notes inteso perd che possano con altri fondi che si that “adesso vedo che si comincia a lavorare e procurerano estranel da d.a. Eredita Ceppi agcosi se hanno di far fare la muraglia divisoria io giungervi la costruzione d'un coro per la loro

ci faccio il ribasso deldieci p. cento .. .” ufficiatura corale. (Chierl 43). Probably this refers to a wall Presumably the old choir was still in use: cf. separating the nave from the old choir. Bays’ letter of May 29, 1768 (no. 5) and IsaCrotti’s report of November 23, 1774, states bella’s of October 31, 1774 (above). that he has conferred with Fra Celestino and others according to royal orders of September

27, and then continues as follows (Collegio dei 9 1775

Gesuiti, Crotti, ff. 19-20): _ 1

S’intraprese quindi dal Collegio la Fabbrica In the contract for the transferral, the report della nuova chiesa nello stesso sito della vecchia of the Abbot Crotti is phrased in a slightly a tal fine demolitasi, e si addattd per chiesa different way (Collegio dei Gesuiti, “Capitoli provisionale un Porticato d’esso Collegio colla della Convenzione da Stipularsi per la traslacommunicazione a qualche camera attigua. II zione del Convento di Chieri de Padri Minori disegno che si prese ad eseguire per d.a nuova Osservanti,” probably datable January 7, 1775, chiesa era dal celebre Don Filippo Ivara, ed il see below): Sig. Architetto Bays ne formé le necesarie carte

per manodurre il Capomastro Isabella ad ese- La nuova fabbrica di d.a chiesa di S. Antonio, guirlo, e ne formé il calcolo rilevante a L. 74/m. stata principiata per conto di d.a eredita Ceppi Si sono spese sin’ora L. 64/m. delli quali nel 1766, e gia condotta a seeno che é terminata Yeconomo di d.a Eredita Ceppi ha sommini- dal cornicione in su, dovra continuarsi a dilistrate sole L. 22/m. ricavate dai crediti, red- genza d’essi Padri Minori Osservanti, e compirsi diti, e mobili ereditarij, le altre L. 42/m. furono in modo, che sia ufficiabile fra pochi anni come somministrate dal Collegio stato autorizato con cosi promettono, e s’obbligano detti Padri sullo decreto delli 2 maggio 1768 dal pred. R. Dele- stesso disegno, che si € sin’ora eseguito, stato gato [Brea] a prendere in prestito per conto dato dal fu celebre architetto D. Filippo Ivara, e d’essa Eredita sino alla somma di L. 20/m. da splegato nelle Carte necessarie per la manoduconvertersi in d.a Fabbrica, come si fece. Si tra- zione de’ Mastri da S.r Architetto Bays, e cid lascid ora da qualche anno il prossiguimento di senza farvi alcuna alterazione che faccia difor-

SANT’ANTONIO IN CHIERI appendixx / page 245

mita, benche potranno ommettere quegli ornati, n.ra Chiesa ... la fabbrica della chiesa fa che a giudizio d’esso architetto non siano vera- progressi con applaudimento universale”

mente necessari. (Chieri 43). Bays was paid the next month

The document then repeats Crotti’s words (Chieri 75, Pagamenti, “Chieri li 16 luglio

about the choir (no. 7). 1776 ‘Tommaso Rosso, Al Sig. Architetto Bays

On January 24, 1775, Vittorio Amedeo m1 per residuo de’ Dissegni della Chiesa, ristretto, granted the church and convent of S. Antonio to come in sua lettera 26 giugno 1775. L. 750”). the Minori Osservanti. (Collegio dei Gesuiti, A. Bosio, op. cit., p. 216, stated that “la chiesa “Regie Patenti 24 Gennaio 1775 di concessione venne terminata dai cornicioni all’ in git

alli P. P. Minori Osservanti .. .”). [sic] dopo il 1773 dall’architetto Bernardo VitOn June 26, 1775, Bays wrote from Turin to tone . . .”—but Vittone had died three years Fra Celestino (Chieri 43) to say that: “Mando earlier. a V.S. M.to R.do il compimento dei disegni per The church was dedicated on August 13, la loro chiesa dimandatimi. EF. poiché finora non 1776 (Bosio, Joc. cit.). A final account states: si é tra nol fissato il dovutomi. . . mi acqueteré “6 Xmbre 1777 Av.to Luigi Filipponi. Pagate

a Lire 750.” Fra Celestino wrote on June 29, alla Sig.ra Vedova Bays per disegni e lavorl 1775, to an unnamed official, acknowledging fatti per la fabbrica della Chiesa dal fu di lei that “essendo finalmente portato Monsieur Bays Marito come da mandato delli 3 Marzo anno a spedirmi il compimento de’ disegni di questa corrente (L.) 750” (Mazzo 75, Pagamenti).

APPENDIX XI

SS. Giovanni e Remigio in Carignano and Benedetto Alfierl A. Documents for the Early History

Although most of the documents have been in- Costruzione,rand11 Folders entitled, “Chiesa

telligently excerpted and summarized by G. Ro- Parrocchiale, Costruzione,”

dolfo, “L’architettura barocca in Carignano,” Land 11. . xv1, 1937, pp. 147-54 (supplemented now by un ai ‘Ln Pet

Atti e memorie del 11 Congresso della SPABA, Entrata et Uscitta “Libro oO sla Brogliasso

G. B. Lusso, Carignano, la Parrocchia, Pinerolo, Chiesa mea ver Pale 1964), I have nevertheless thought it useful 1761.” Accounts for 1761 to print the still-extant ones for the years from and 1763. These are kept 1755 to 1762, when the structure was com- in Costruzione, 1. pleted. For the work, chiefly decorative, of Libro Mastro “Libro Mastro tenuto dal

1762-76, as well as for the frescoing of the M. Ill.mo Sig. Avvocato

vaults and the construction of the upper part of Franc. Gaettano Gianazio the tower in the nineteenth and twentieth centu- sia dell’essatto, che del

ries, the account given by Rodolfo is fuller speso per la nova chi-

than that which can be reconstructed from the esa. . . .” Accounts for remaining documents; for this period I have 1756—58, also kept in therefore given only a few records that are un- “Costruzione,” I. . published or of special interest to several points Opere d’Arte Folder entitled “Chiesa

made in the text or catalogue. Parrocchiale, Opere d’Arte.”

ABBREVIATIONS Ordinati, 1755-59, | Ordinati del Consiglio etc. Comunale, Serie Prima,

Archivio Communale Guardaroba G., di Carignano v. 39, 1744—59 Calzolai Folder with miscellaneous vy. 40, 1760—63 documents and _ copies; v. 41, 1764—66 Kept in Costruzione, 11. v. 42, 1767-70

page 246

SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO AND BENEDETTO ALFIERI appendix x1 / page 247

v. 43, 1771-73 . . . hanno a nome di detta presente Citta v. 44, 1774—77 risolto, e stabilito doversi divenire alla CostruArch. Parr., Chiesa Archivio Parrocchiale di zione d’altra Chiesa parocchiale ne’ suddetti sitti

Parrocchiale. San Battista e Remigio, attigui alla presentanea, con la facciata risguarfolder entitled “Chiesa Par- dante verso la piazza, et nel modo che verra

rocchiale.” giudicata da ingeniere, d’ampiezza sufficiente al popolo di questa Citta, e Territorio.

1. 1755-1762 §2. Archivio Parrocchiale a . §A. Letter to Luigi Savoia di Carignano signed §1. Ordinati, 1755-59, f. 126v ff., meeting of by Francesco Benedetto Ceresia, the parish

October 30, 1755. priest; undated but after Oct. 30, 1755, and before May 5, 1756. (See below, Doc. 2B.) A

. . . Da pid, e pid anni che questo popolo draft of this letter has now been published in vive desioso d’aver un altra chiesa parocchiale, part by G. B. Lusso, op. cit., 1964, pp. per esser la presente non solo antica, e poco 101-102. decorosa, ma altresi angusta, avuto riguardo al

numeroso popolo d’essa presente Citta, e Terri- Sendosi stabilito dal Publico di Carignano torio, la quale ne’ giorni festivi, ed in occasione per Congreg.e G.le dei 30 8bre 1755 di far di principale Divine fonzione con grande stento edifiicare una nuova chiesa e casa Parocchiale

capisce il terzo... . necessaria, ed indispensabile per capire nelle Et sendo altrest detti Sig.ri come sovra sacre funzione il numeroso popolo di sel

Congregati informati esser la settimana or an- milla . . . da Erigersi detta nuova Fabbrica, e data comparsa persona di molto merito, che Chiesa Parocch.le nell’isola detta di San Gio. in rappresenta non tanto il continuo commune desi- qual isola o sia Recinto della med.a si ritrova derio di questo popolo che la notoria necessita presentemente la Chiesa, e Casa Parocch.le sud. per culto Divino, di divenire alla costruzione a fianco del Castello di V. A. S., con idea, e d’altra Chiesa parocchiale, per il che addunati disegno di voltare meramente la facciata di detta diversi Sig.ri particulari de’ principali in questa chiesa da costruersi verso loccidente, e casa del citta . . . assicuro esservi persona divota che Consiglio. E siccome tal posto, e sito non pud s’offerisce provveder il sito abbisognevole per considerarsi conveniente per comodo del detta Chiesa costruere, che si é una delle princi- popolo . . . per gl’infras.ti mottivi: pali spese, altra persona il terreno per formare P.mo per che incomodo, fuori da mano come

glimateriali. ... lontano dalla maggior parte dellie abitazioni, e

. . . per isfugire alcune gravi difficolta, che vicino alla cattiva aria del Po Morto. . . . potrebbero forse incontrarsi, e anche per avanzo 4.0 Per che sendosi Sig. Conte, e P.mo Ingedi spese, esser meglio servirsi de’ sitti attigui eniere Alfieri portato sovra il posto per riconoalla presentanea Chiesa unitamente al sitto della scere le fabriche, quali dovrebbono demolirsi medesima, formandovi la faciata verso la piazza per la costruzione della nuova chiesa secondo li

e pallazzo di citta che in questa guisa sarebbe tipi mandatili, disse il med. apertamente che solo ingrandire la presentanea giusta i bisogni siccome le fabriche contenute nellisola di S. del poppolo, e non aggiongernoe altro, che po- Gio. sono antiche, sarebbe di gran spesa la trebbesi farsi ameno quando si avvesse a cos- demoliz.ne luoro, senza puotersi approfitare de’

truer quella in altro sitto, tanto pit che li sitti, i materialil. ... quali si credono necessari per ampliassione di

detta parocchiale sono immuni in vigore del Therefore, the priest suggests the Regio Editto della Generale perequazione per non esservi in quelli compreso alcun sitto coltivo ellezione d’altro sito verso la Piazza del Ballo, e

di giardino, né dorto. . . . particularmente quello dell’isola della contrada

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x1 / page 248

detta de’ Botti, ed cid anche in vista degli infra P. atto consigliario 30 8bre 1775 risolta di

espressi motivi: far Edifficare per li motivi in quello espressi una P.mo per che il Prevosto . . . sottomette nova Chiesa parrocchiale non tanto nel sitto

per maggiore commodo di V. A. e Serenissima della Chiesa p.ntanea, che ne’ sitti attigui alla Famiglia d’andare a celebrare la santa messa nel medesima, 1 quali si sono allora creduti tutti necproprio Castello in occasione tutt’ora di viaggio, cesari per d.a Chiesa formare d’ampiessa suf€ passaggio per Carignano senza che V. A. e ficiente avuto riguardo al numeroso poppolo di Seren.ma Famiglia abbia l’incomodo di venire q.ta Citta, e fini, in qual tempo della sovra d.a

sentir la suddetta nella nuova Chiesa. risoluzione non s’era ancora fatto fare il disegno 2.0 Per che il sito denominato del Ballo é il p. d.a nova Chiesa Parrocchiale, ed sendo questo centro e cuore di Carignano, dalla qual parte ora stato formato dall’Ill.mo Sig. Conte Alfieri pure ne cresce e crescera di fabbriche per esser primo architetto di S. M., si € riconosciuto che

l’arla pit aperte, meno nebiosa . . . con la costruzione di d.a nova Chiesa non viene 5.0 per che il Benefattore é pit inclinato a ad occuparsi la Chiesa vecchia, la quale eziandio comprare verso del Ballo, ed ivi far la sud.a per sparmio di spese deve distrugersi per valersi nuova fabrica, che nella sud.a isola di S. Gio. de’ Matteriali d’essa nella formazione delle fon-

??;

§B. Letter from Luigi di Savoia, Principe di damenta della nova com’a tall effetto ottenuto il

; permesso dall Ecc.mo R.le senato di poter d.a

Carignano, attached to Doc. 2A. See now also nova Chiesa far erigere, si manda quella cioé la

Lusso, Carignano, p. 105. p-ntanea distrugersi contemporaneamte che si

Vista Vallegata supplica presentatici dal costruera la nova, mentre si sa che per celebrare Prevosto D. Francesco Benedetto Ceresia. . . gli uffici parrocchiali gia si é dal sig.r superiore concediamo la demolizione del Corpo d’essa ecclesiastico destinato la Chiesa della confraterChiesa, et acconsentiamo che si edifichi un’altra nita del Suffraggio detta della Misericordia. nuova, purché sj nel sito © giusta Ul dissegno §6. Calzolai. Extract from the Registro del Se-

del S. Conte Alfieri primo architetto di

S. 5S. R. M. inseguito alle determinazioni gia nato. presesi nella Congrega. Generale fattasi sotto li Ill. mi ed Eccel.mi Sign i. 30 Ottobre dell’anno scorso 1755 .. . et sidij Il Comune di Carignano avendo Vunica sua una decente communicazione per aver Pingresso Parrocchiale dedicata a SS. Gio. Battista, e Re-

nella medema Chiesa dal Nostro Castello sic- migio in stato non decoroso al Culto di Dio, e come ritrovasi di presente, e piu comodo, se sia talmente angusta, che pud appena ricoverare il

possibile . . . ‘Torino li 5 Maggio 1756.” terzo del pop.lo concorrente, desiderando §3. Turin, Archivio Arcivescovile, Codex de @edificare altra pit. ampia, aveva progettato di

Diversis, xv, p. 171. valersi del sito della vecchia coll unione d alcune

Permission from Cardinal Maillo, abbot of S. Case attigue da demolirsi, ed incorporarsi nella . ; , , nuova. FE, stante la maggiore parte della Michele di Chiusa, for che construction of the S a;. “ . . pesa vl € persona caritatevole, che la contrichurch “juxta typum a nobis approbatum, buisce, ed ogni sovra pit fara provveduto senza

dated June 17, 1756. aggravio del Pubblico, ne ha chiesto, et ottenuto

§4. Libro Mastro, f. 108, “Spese diverse.” dalla Curia Abbaziale di §. Michele della 1756. P.mo tittolo di regalia alli Sig.ri prati- Chiusa Passenso. canti inginieri dell’Ill.mo Sig.r Conte Alfieri Essendosi in appresso formato dal S. Conte p-mo architetto di S. M. p. alcune fattiche fatte Alfieri p.mo architetto di S. M. il Tippo, e di-

nella format.e del disegno dalla Chiesa. L. 168. segno della nuova Chiesa, ed essendosi quindi riconosculto non occuparsi la vecchia Chiesa,

§5. Ordinati, 1755-59, ff. 210-11, meeting of quale deve anzi per sparmio di spese atterrarsi

July 24, 1756. per servirsi de’ suoi materiali nella Costruzione

SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO AND BENEDETTO ALFIERI appendix x1 / page 249

della nuova facendosi intanto le fonzioni parro- mi verano communicati dal principio di detta chiali nella Chiesa della Confraternita della Mi- fabrica, sino al suo compimento. . . . sericordia, si é stabilito di fare la nuova Chiesa Carignano li 17 genaro 1757 Cesare Filippi secondo d.o Tippo e Disegno senza verun aggra-

vio del registro. Presentando percid li due as- Linfras.ti Ill.mi sig.i tutti direttori della sensi della Curia per l’atteramento della Vechia fabrica . . . hanno quella accettato . . . con Chiesa, e costruzione della nuova de’ 17 giugno, dichiarazione che mancando il capo Mastro sig.r e 19 luglio 1756, gli ordinati 30 8bre 1755 e [Lodovico] Peruchetti di continuam.e assistere a

24, luglio 1756. d.afabrica . . . dovrad. sig.r Filippi proveder [Included are] i tipi della vecchia e nuova altro capo mastro.

Chiesa, da quali risulta che la p.ma é in misura 17 Genaro 1757 di tav.e 23.9 ela 2.a di tav.e 45.10.

Supplica V. V. E. E. si degnino permettergli §9. Costruzione, IL, “Registro @ordinati della di occupare dette tav.e 45.10 per la costruzione Congr egazione della Fabbrica della Nuova

della nuova Chiesa. . . . Chiesa parrocchiale della Citta di Carignano.” Sobrero Pro.re

March 27, 1757.

Il Senato di S. M. in Torino L’infrasc.ti sig. direttori della fabbrica della Veduta Vallegata Supplica. . . permettiamo nuova chiesa parrocchiale destinata costruersi,

Yoccupazione delle narrate tavole quaranta sovra la rapresentanza quivi fatta dall’Ill.mo

cinque, e piedi dieci. . . . sig.r Marchese della Morra che grassiosamente

s’é complaciuto portarsi nella p.nte Citta, e che

Torino li 20 di Agosto 1756 con singolare carita s’é gia pit volte interessato, §7. Libro Mastro, f. 108, “Spese diverse.” e s'interessa per gloria del signor Idio ed vantag§ A. “175713 [Marzo]. . . pagato per caregei e gio di questo pubblico, h quali duoppo udite le lavoranti in occasione nell’autuno 1756 si é tras- Fapresentanze del medesimo con le PASSION © sato [tracciato] il disegno della nuova chiesa in motu Aaddotatt, per omettere di costruere 1

; oye ; campanile, che s’era progettato inalzare contem-

un prato del Sig.r Frichierl. L. 2.” ‘This was a poraneamente alla fabrica di d.a Chiesa, ed mas-

trial layout; the actual site was not yet ready sime per la considerabile spesa necess.a per

(Doc. 7B). quello erigere, che avrebbe probabilissamente

§B. Lbid., f. 70. puotuto portare una remora per la costruzione “Spesa fatta in demolizione delle case acqui- dalla pred.a Chiesa, con aver per tanto l’Ill.mo

state dal Sig.r Benefattore Frichierl per cos- sig.r Conte Alfieri primo architetto di S. M. truersi nel sito d’essa una chiesa. .. .” The sulle preghiere fattele dal prefatto sig.r Maraccounts for the demolition begin Dec. 7, chese della Morra a nome di questo pubblico,

1756. compiaciutosi per agradire al d.o sig.r Marchese,

§8.Ordinati 1760-63, ff. 181-82. ed a questo pubblico, lineare nel disegno la d.a Agreement of the directors of the building Torre, ed formatovi altro adornamento per rene

. Filippi for construction of the vault der decorosa la facciata d’essa Chiesa, cosicché

with Cesare Fullpp . tutto unanimi ringraziano esso sig.r Marchese

on the terms of the original contract, a copy of delli caritatevoli uffizi sin’ora usati a pro del

which is included, as follows: p.nte pubblico, e lo pregono di ringraziare a M’obbligo io sotto di fare, e dar fatte tutte nome di questo quanto possibile eSso sig. Conte le opere da muro neccesarie, ed opportune Alfieri della cortessissma Carita con cui ha voper Vedificazione della nuova Chiesa Paroc- luto [?] contentarsi di lineare la sud.a torre. chiale . . . secondo li dissegni del Sig.r Conte Mandando per tall’effetto senza perdita di Alfieri p.mo Architetto di S. M. in parte gia tempo darsi principio all’esecuzione in tutto, e communicatimi ed altri che nel prosseguim.o per tutto relativamente al sudett’ultimo disegno

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x1 / page 250

che il preffato sig.r Conte Alfieri s’é caritatevol- mero di persone, e maggior vista all’Altare

mente compiaciuto formare, e che d.o sig.re Maggiore.

Marchese della Morra ha quivi presentato, con

darvisi senz’ altro principio alli cavi per ponerla §B. Libro Mastro, f. 109v, “Spese diverse.”

pietra fondamentale in queste prossime feste “[1757] 7mbre a 8. Al Cameriero, e Domes-

pasquali. ... tico del Sig. Conte Alfieri in ocasione é stato in questa citta alcuni g.ni p. fare trassare la sud.a

§10. A. Libro Mastro, f. 94. a fabbrica. L. 15.”

“Spesa fatta in lavoranti per far li cavi per §12. Ordinati, 1755-59, ff. 338ff., meeting of gettare le fondamenta. . . .” Payments begin- May 21, 1758. ning March 28, 1757. §B. Libro Mastro, “Spese Diverse,” f. 108v. [The mayor presents] una rapresentanza ri“12 Aprile. A mani dell’Il].mo Sig. Marchese messali dal M. to Ill.mo e M. to Rd.o sig.r della Morra in occassione si é riposta la pietra Fran.o Benedetto Ceresia prevosto dell unica fondamentale p. la costruzione della fabbrica di parocchiale di q.ta Citta, in datta dieci del cor.re d.a Chiesa L. 40.” According to Rodolfo, op. con sedici capi, 0 sian motivi, per cui sarebbe

cit., p. 149, the foundation stone was laid on plausibile, eziandio necessario far edificare,

April 12, 1757. aggregato alla Chiesa parocchiale che di pn.te si §11. A. Costruzione, u, “Registro d’ordinati.” costrue pet a wantpame cc he cj Meeting of the directors of the construction of le dj Onsideranco a fenue spesa chealla oI vuole di pn.te in agregare un campanile

the church, September 5, 1757. sacrestia di d.a Chiesa, ed vice versa In cui addunanza sendosi rapresentato aver alPeccessiva spesa che vi vorrebbe quando i hieri l’Ill.mo sig.r Conte Alfieri fatto il favore di poster! volessero poi quello costruere doppo for-

portarsi in questa Citta per far proceder al Tras- mata lad.a Chiesa. . . . samento della sud.a nuova Chiesa per esser le [The members of the city council] hanno perfondamenta dessa credute costrute esclusiva- clo dichiarato, e dichiaranno esser loro in senso mente peré alle Muraglie del Coro, e sacrestia, e debbasi alzare do Campanile a misura che si cotall’occasione aver il sud.o sig.r Conte Alfieri alzera la sud.a Chiesa, e che debbasi in quello presentato un nuovo disegno uniforme perd lasciare un apertura d’un uscio verso la strada didea al gid formato, per cui viene ad ampliare pubblica. . . . la sud.a tabrica, “ isp armlare nel fempo stesso This exit, shown in Alfieri’s drawings (Cat. 3

d’alcune centinai di trabucchi di Muraglia, con ; ; ?

una Maggior visuale al popolo che sara in d.a 4), was not built. Appended to this document Chiesa radunato, alle Fonzioni che si celebre- is the petition of Ceresia, which gives as one of ranno all’altare Maggiore, con sentimento perd the reasons for building the campanile “per redi dover osservare le istruzioni che caritatevol- spetto, e merito del disegno fatto d’esso dal mente s’é offerto di dare per la costruzione di primo regio Architetto.” d.a fabrica, il che udito, ed visto pure il sudo §13. Libro Mastro, ff. 183v—84. “Registro nuovo disegno, hanno li sud.ti, ed infras.ti sig. dell’essatto, e spese per la Fabbrica. . . 1757.” direttori questo accettato, ed accettano[.] Man- Total expenses for the year, L. 12,164.14.1. dando percié eseguirsi intieram.te istruzione che §14. Libro Mastro, ff. 193-95. esso sig.r conte Alfieri vorra favorire di dare,

rendendo pur’ al medesimo distintissime grazie 1758 Scarigamenti o sian spese fatte attorno

per parte di questo pubblico della caritatevole alla Fabbrica della Nuova Chiesa Parocattenzione che il med.o s’é compiaciuto darsi in chiale. vantaggiare questo popolo con fare che il d.o Calcina . . . [total] L. 7237.85.4 vaso di Chiesa puossa capire un maggiore nu- Fornaci . . . [total] L. 1079.3.4

SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO AND BENEDETTO ALFIERI appendix x1 / page 251

Sarizzi . . . da Cumiana, et Scalini da Jan. 17, 1757 (ibid., f. 181, meeting of April

Barge . . . [total] L. 493.2.6 24, 1762; see Doc. 8).

Condotte de’ Matteriali . . . saldodellaDe- = §B. bid., f. 184, meeting of April 25, 1762.

molizione della Chiesa Vecchia ... L. It is reported that “in questa settimana si

909.10.2. deve dar principioprincipio ai lavori ri perpe la al lavorl necessarl

§15. Entrata et Uscita. Costruzione della predetta volta... .” §A. A 21 luglio [1761] a Gius. Basso in conto delle lose o sij pietre proviste per il Curnigione della nova

fabbrica di Carignano. L. 100. 2. 1762-1776

§B. Agosto a 8 [1761] a Gius. Basso di Barge p.

trab. 78 lose di Curnigione. . . en. 20 gradini p. §17. Ordinati, 1760-63, ff. 277v-278, meeting

lascala dellatorre. . .L. 108.12. of August 11, 1763.

§C. 1761 9mbre a 15 ad Ant.o Ferro, e Compagni

falegnami per saldo de’ loro giornate impiegati p. [The council members] . . . stabiliscono tutto 8bre scaduto alla costruzione del coperto di d. detto sternito [of the church] farsi di Lose di

Fabrica. . . L. 10. Barge . . . mandando altresi poner li vetri, e §D. [A 27 9bre 1761] alla Med. [Lodovico Peru- far le graticelle alle finestre di detta Chiesa dal chetti, the capomastro] in conto del dovutogli p. la Sig. Francesco Maria Carignano [sic] sotto

fabbrica della volta del coro. L. 60. Pistessi patti, e condizioni di cui in suo partito

SE. [Total expenses for 1761, L. 11,513.11.8.] delli nove maggio 1762 . . . mandando altresi

farsi costruere a tempo comodo la maggiore

§16. A. Ordinati, 1760-63, f. 174, meeting of alzata della facciata di detta chiesa per riponer

March 28, 1762. la Croce secondo il disegno ultimamente tras. . . La fabbrica della nuova Chiesa paroc- messo dall til-mo Sig. Conte Alfieri omar chiale é stata fondata, e costrutta in coperto con fan’ ure farsi P rowveess 3 grec “ ae elemosine di persone caritatevoli ed in specie porsi tutto all’intorno di dentro della suddetta

del sempre benemerito sig. Gioseppe Sebastiano chiesa ”

Frichieri che ha contribuito in buona parte, il oe

quale p. cosi dire non é pit in stato di contri- §18. Ordinati, 1760-63, f. 298, meeting of Octo-

buire in somma considerevole... . ber 30, 1763.

. . . Per forma.ne della volta sovra tutto il It is reported that Corpo d’essa nuova Chiesa incluso la sacrestia si richiede la spesa di L. 14200 circa secondo s+ + CSSCTSI S. M. sulle supplichevoli preghiil calcolo fatto dal Sig.r Architetto Benedetto ere stategli umighiate da questa Citta nella conFerroggio sotto li 24 del corre. giusta li disegni giuntura che nellor scad.e Mese di Tmbre, ha

formati dall’Ill.mo sig.r Conte Alfieri... . d.a M. 5S. visitato questa nuova Chiesa paro[Therefore, the council seeks] la permissione chiale, degnata dire non aver cosa in contrarlo di puoter imponer sovra luniversal Registro le che cadino per ora sulla Massa Universale del d.e L. 14200 per formare d.a volta, pero ri- Registro collettabile di questo pubblico L. 2500 partitam.te cioé una parte nell’anno corr.e, e circa p. contribuire al’opere pit urgenti di d.a

laltra parte nell’anno venturo. . . . nuova Chiesa... .

The Senate granted permission for this on April §19. A. Ordinati, 1760-63, f. 303, meeting of 10, 1762 (ibid., f. 178v., meeting of April 15, December 7, 1763.

1762). The directors of the building then came . . . esservi diversi lavori a fare per quella to an agreement with Cesare Filippi for con- [church] ultimare, ed in specie ad effetto puostruction of the vault on terms of the contract of tervi in essa far le funzioni necessarie[,] man-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT

appendix x1 / page 252 carvl l’Altare Maggiore atteso che quello che . . . Li sud’ particolari massaril, congreg.ne si ritrovava nella distrutta vecchia chiesa non e compagnie debbano far costruere il d.o loro é confacevole, né proporzionato al’vaso di d.a rispetivi altari, e guarnire le d.e loro rispetive nuova Chiesa, com’é stato di sentim(ento) Cappelle in tutto e per tutto secondo resta notPIll.mo sig. Conte Alfieri, p.mo architetto di tato ne’ dissegni dell’Ill.mo sig. Conte Alfieri S. M. che si é dalla p.nte Citta 11 Medesimo P.mo architetto di S. M. e d.ti altari e Cappelle pregato p. format. d’un disegno in marmore, il dar compiti, e perfezionati fra anni dieci prosqual si € compiaciuto quello formare, e tras- simi, e venturi, e dover pure ognuno de’ sud. metter, com’in effetto € stato quivi p.ntata, ezi- Corpi formare una guardarobba giusta il diandio gia dimostrato ad alcuni Marmoristi che segno did.o sig. Conte Alfierl. . . . si sono offerto costruerlo med.e L.3/m circa in- §21. A. Ordinati, 1764-66, f. 90, meeting of

clusivamente alli Balaustrini del presbiterio. . . Februar 3 17 6A , mandano porgersi riccorso all uffizio della R.le Yore a ,

Intend.a per aver la permissione di far la spesa The council, volendo dare ump rovedimento neccessaria per la costruzione di d.o Altare, e per la distribuzione ed assignazione de’ siti per

Balustrini. . . . li Banchi da colocarsi nella nuova Chiesa. . .

§B. Opere d’Arte. che si spera puossa esser ultimata nel prossimo Contract of Jan. 14, 1764, with the stone estate pet farvi le fonzionl P arocchiali ae carvers Andrea Rossi and Francesco Bottinelli vornenisstons Conte Mola di Beinasco to have the

for the construction of the altar and its balus- 3 “ nssigne’

trade in marble, for 3,350 lire, “a tenor del dis- S Ne , "i p 1 di cj

segeno formatone dal Signor Conte Alfieri Primo 0. 40 _ Fagato lire trenta NOve So oo CENUE Architetto di S. M. per mezzo perd del Signor al S.r Reggio Architetto Barber1 S p. disegno di Architetto Luigi Barberis . .. a termine di Banchi, e Lcol]laudo degh altari delle Cap pelle detti disegno, ed Instruzione, in data quello delli mo come da recapito del Conseglio delli 3 Ben diecinove precorso novembre e questa delli venti nan? 1706. The drawing, preserved in the city

detto dicembre. . . . archives, 1S 32 x 47 cm., in black and red wash.

1763. tember 4, 1764.

§20. Ordinati, 1760-63, f. 306. December 29, 922 Ordinati, 1764-66, f. 60v, meeting of Sep-

L’infras.ti sig.ri sindaco, e Consig.ri della [The councilmen plan] . a di far Papertura p-nte Citta . . . conoscendo ora che la Fabbrica della nuova Chiesa Parochiale Pultimo giorno della nuova Chiesa parrocchiale resta quasi dell corr.e Settembre e nell’istesso tempo consa-

ultimata, esser tuttor neccessita di destinare, ed crarla. . ; ;

assignare le sei Cappelle. . . . Pia da S.ri Congregati sapendo che in ocLa 2.nda [Cappella] dalla parte sud.a [dell’- casione del’apertura di dia nuova Chiesa ParoVangelo] sara un altare deddicato a Maria Ver- chiale fra altre cose restavi necessario porvi una gine sotto il Mistero dell’Assonta che si sa verra Croce di ferro alla Cima della facciata hanno costrutto da un singolar Benefatore [1.e., Frich- mandato ¢ mandano pregare PHll.mo S. Marileri] che ha di molto, e molto contribuito nella chese della Morra volere 4 nome di q.ta Citta spesa della costru.ne di d.a nuova Chiesa, uni- essa CROCE far fare, a termini del disegno del-

tam.te ad altro Benefattore.. . . lineato dall S.r Inginiere Barberis a nome dell’ Ill.mo S. Conte Alfieri.

According to Lusso, op. cit., p. 132, n. 2, the ee other benefactor was Antonio Faccio, a relative §23. Ordinati, 1764-66, ff. 62v-63, meeting of of Frichieri’s. September 22, 1764. After the chapels are then assigned, it is Li sig.ri sindaco e Consiglieri . . . sempre

stated that: memori delle preghiere fatte dalla medesima [co-

SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO AND BENEDETTO ALFIERI appendix x1 / page 253

munita] all’Tll.mo Sig.r Conte Alfieri p.mo ar- “, . . Punica Chiesa parocchiale di questa chitetto di S. M. per il disegno della costruzione Citta resta necessaria d’esser imbianchita . . . della nuova Chiesa parocchiale dessa citta, e si manda quella imbianchiare . . . ascendente

della cordialissima accondiscendenza del mede- la spesa per tal imbianchim.o a lire tresimo in aver nell’ 1757 graziato con tutta libera- cento....” lita la medema d’un singolare disegno, ed in seguito usato straordinaria attenzione per I’effet-

tuazione di quello, con aver nel decorso di d.a . .

fabbrica continuatamente con tutta benignita as- B. Some Drawing S Relating to coltato non solo chi eseguiva d.o di lei disegno, 5S. Giovanni e Remigio ma anche le rapresentanze che le venivano pit

che soventi fatte per parte di questa citta, spia- In the Archivio Comunale in Carignano nando sempre cortesissimamente ogni dificolta, e there is a folder with 19 ruled drawings, prenon avendo come desiderarebbe alcun mezzo per sumably by Alfieril’s workshop, as well as a

contrasegnare la gratitudine che deve ad un folder with several drawings of church furnitale Cavagliere di singolare merito, che indici- ture. All but a few of these are working drawbilmente tanto s’é adoperato p. la sud. nuova ings that show the church as it is today; the Chiesa a comune agradimento, applauso, ed following is a selection of those with more than

amirazione universale a supplicano il me- routine interest. desimo P retatto Hi-mo Sig. Conte Alfert p me 8, Copy of a site plan, including the old church. Architetto di and S. M. volere accettare quel in . ; part: . rarer Pen ink. 66.5quivi x che 47 cm. Inscribed pitt vivi; .atti di ringraziamento, si danno nn ; ; yes :

Ponore porgerle. Tipo dimostrative de’ siti, si della Chiezza e Casa Parrocchiale della pre.nte Citta, che delle

The church was consecrated on September altre Case esistenti nell’Isola detta di S. Gio30, 1764 (Arch. Parr. Chiesa Parrocchiale; and anni... .” (Fig. 143). Unsigned and undated, Opere d’Arte, from an inscription of 1771, no but probably before August 20, 1756 (Doc. 6 longer extant, above the inner side of the main and letter of Ascanio Sobero, “causidico” of the

door). city, in “Costruzione,” u1, of July 21, 1756, not§24. Ordinati, 1767-70, f. 247, meeting of No- ing that “deve in primo luogo far un tipo dimos-

vember 17, 1770. trativo . . . il quale indichi il sito della chiesa [The councilmen] stabiliscono, farsi p. ora vechia e la chiesa nuova. ”). Depth of the formare un Modello in gesso, e calce d’un Mida- site, 27:5 tr.; width, 18:5 tr. in front (west), glione da colocarsi nella muraglia del Coro della 13:1 in the rear (circa 84, 57 and 40 meters). Chiesa parochiale, in cui venghi rapresentato The new church is 50.5 meters wide across gli S.ti Gio. Batt.a, e Remiggio patroni di its facade, and 48.5 meters deep, or about 16:3 questa citta, si é come é [sic] stato formato un and 15:4 trabucchi (measurements from the picolo modelo dal Sig.r statuista Gio. Batt.a plan of A. Druetti in the Archivio Communale; Bernero . . . e per convenire col d.o sig. Ber- Fig. 144). The old church lay about 18 trabucnero p. la formazione di d.o Modelo in grande chi behind the facade line of Alfieri’s church. di d.o Midaglione da colocarsi nella d.a Chiesa The road on the south (right) leads to the casparochiale dietro Valtare Maggiore nella Mura- tle of the Prince of Carignano; none of the

glia del Coro. . . . _ houses on the site or near it belonged to the

Other documents for this work are summarized Frichieri, who bought them later (Doc. 7B). by Rodolfo, op. cit., p. 153; see also Cat. 7. §2. Plan of the chapels and tower on the right §25. Ordinati, 1774-77, f. 226, meeting of Au- (southern) side. Pen and pencil. 49.5 x 67.5

gust 7, 1776. cm. (Fig. 145).

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x1 / page 254

In contrast to the church as executed, the (Doc. 11); thus it is unlikely that this drawing chapels have columns in the rear corners; the represents an early design. Probably it shows a central chapel is crowned by a hexagonal lan- project after the changes of late 1757 and betern; the line of the street behind the church fore those of 1763, which were completed by cuts in closer and straighter; and the plan of the 1764 (Doc. 17, 22). tower shows the upper tiers in different form. 6. Elevation of the right side of the facade. The drawing must be later than September 49x68 cm. Inscribed on the verso, “Disegno 1757 (Doc. 11), and most probably dates per la posizione [?] di un orologgio.” shortly after May 1758 (Doc. 12). Construc- Identical to the executed facade, except for tion of the lower part of the tower was well the design of the clock under the upper cornice. advanced in 1761 (Doc. 15B), and in any case Two versions of this are shown by means of a the drawings must be earlier than the end of flap; these are drawn in an ink different from 1763, when the form of the chapels was fixed the rest of the design. Like Cat. 5, the drawing

according to Alfieri’s designs (Doc. 20). probably represents a project between late 1757 §3. Detailed and carefully finished plan of the and 1763, although the document for these alsacristy, tower, choir, and a small and the large terations seems to be concerned only with the

chapel on the right side. Pen and pencil. central part of the facade (Doc. 17).

69 x 68.5 cm. \7. Drawing of the oval frame of the bas-relief

The plan differs from the present one in four behind the altar, with a plan of the rear wall, to respects: the chapels still have corner columns, which the relief is attached. Green, red, black as in Cat. 2; the tower has a door to the street, a and yellow ink. 47 x 63 cm. Signed and dated: requirement specified in May, 1758 but possibly “Torino li 13 marzo 1771 Luigi Barberis arch.”

based on an earlier project (Doc. 12); the Inscribed: “Disegno della Figura dell’Incona entrance way behind the sacristy, which was [sic] e ornamen|[to] d’Essa per PAltare Magprobably intended for the Prince of Carignano siore della Chiesa Parochiale dell’Ill.ma Citta (Doc. 2), is longer and more elaborate, with a di Carignano, il [damaged: presumably “colohexagonal chamber; and in back of it lie the rito in”] rosso é la muraglia esistente del Coro, il

beginnings of an unidentifiable structure on the colorito in nero é i piantato della figura street. The entrance way was left incomplete, del?Incona, e leze[ne?] [illegible word] e i

and the structure was not begun. quadri, il colorito in giallo nella pianta é quello §4. Elevation of the right flank of the church. che si deve levare.”

Pen and pencil. 117 x 55 cm. The plan shows that the rear wall was not This corresponds to Cat. 2 and 3, showing originally open; the yellow indicates that parts the hexagonal lantern above the central chapel; of the old pilasters were to be removed. The the sacristy and entrance; and the beginnings of relief was conceived and executed by Giovanni the structure behind the entrance, which is the Battista Bernero (Doc. 24).

same height as the sacristy. §8. Elevation and plan of the tower, above the §5. Elevation of the central part of the facade. roof line. Pen and ink. 35 x 41.5 cm. Illustrated

Pen and pencil. 49 x 68 cm. by Lusso, op. cit., p. 146. Inscribed in part: Identical to the present facade, except for the “Abozo del campanilio del Duomo di Carignano decoration atop the pediment. This part was secondo il Disegno dell’Ill.mo Sig. Conte Alflightly sketched in after the fagade was drawn. erl. . . un povero vechio di ani 85 Francesco Although new ornament for the facade was Paruchetti del fu Lodovico capi mastri della mentioned on March 27, 1757 (Doc. 9), the eseguazione di detta opera [Doc. 8] poro [?] nave was considerably altered later in the year questo abozzo. . . .” The drawing may date

SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO AND BENEDETTO ALFIERI appendix x1 / page 255

from 1833-34 when an abortive effort was From documents of the arciconfraternita dei made to build the upper part of the campanile SS. Pietro e Paolo, which were discovered by me (“Costruzione,” 11, “Nota delle offerte della con- in 1961, and deposited in the archives of S. struzione del campanile, vedi Ordinato 8 Mag- Domenico (see now also Mostra del Barocco gio 1834” [which are missing]: “25 giugno Piemontese, 1, Architettura, p. 42, and N. Carborimesso il disegno del campanile al Sig. R1- neri, “La parrocchiale di Pobietto e la chiesa di votti”). The campanile differs in some details San Pietro a Casale Monferrato,” Boll. SPABA,

from the one built in 1932. N.S., xix, 1965, pp. 46-48), it is learned that

| the architect was Francesco Gallo of Mondovi, who went out of his usual south Piedmontese

C. Wrong Attributions to Alfieri territory to design the church in 1727. In the Libro de’ Convocati No. 13, f. 52, meeting of the

The modern conception of Alfieri’s art is too confraternity of March 11, we find that

broad, erring on the side of allowing him too é stato proposto dal d.to Sig.r Priore essergli much thetrasmessi unacademic and Baroque. Threedi, .S. — of of stati da Monsu Gallo Ingegnere buildings have contributed to this misconcep- M. della Citta di Mondovi due piante di dissegni Hon. per la fabrica della nova Chiesa. . . d.ti Sig.ri The most important of them is San Pietro Congregati, qual considerati d.ti dissegni coll’Apostolo in Casale Monferrato. This was first assistenza del Capo Mastro Zanetti Luganese attributed to Alfieri by a late eighteenth-century . . . hanno determinato, e scielto per la fabrica local writer, Deconti, from whom the attribu- med.a col parere di d.to Capo Mastro Giacomo tion was taken by N. Gabrielli, L’Arte a Casale Zanetti quale essi Sig.ri Congregati hanno elMonferrato (R. Deputazione Subalpino di Sto- letto, [e] ellegono per Capo Mastro della Fabrica ria Patria cLvu1), Turin, 1935, p. 39. Stylisti- sud.ta della med.a nova Chiesa, da farsi la cally, however, the church has nothing in seconda planta di d.ti dissegni come di minor common with Alfieri’s work except the ring of spesecolumns in the apse—which could have been In the meeting of Oct. 3, 1730 (ff. 64v—65 ) it is inspired by Venaria Reale. It is a Greek Cross reported that all the materials are ready “che directed towards the altar by shortening the faranno bisogno per far costruere il bacino della cross axis by means of shallow, rounded arms volta s.ra l’Altare.” Then on Sept. 16, 1736 (f. and elongating the main one with a semicircular 81), the Confraternity hears that the old church apse. Against this axis is set the ovoidal dome must be destroyed, and bids are taken “per la which is stretched from arm to arm. A conflict Costruzione delle fondamenta affine massime di of this mild, teasing sort is inconceivable in a potersi nell’anno venturo proseguire l’alzata s.ra design by Alfieri. But it is the lack of weight Terra.” On Aug. 10, 1737 (ff. 88v—89), Doand clarity in the forms that most effectively nato Zanetti, brother of the deceased Giacomo,

distinguishes San Pietro from Alfieri’s work. offers “di continuare la fabbrica sino alla The inconsequential dome, neither round nor perfez.ne del cornisone tanto di dentro che di oval, the reliance on small columns in the arms fuori. . . per tutto Genaio prossimo.” The offer and at the entrance to reunify the church with is accepted. On Dec. 22 (ff. 90v-91) the “Inthe choir, the unclear accumulation of pilasters gegnieri de Gioanni e [Vincenzo] Scapitta” are at the major joint before the choir, the minor named to measure the work done. The Confracurves of the facade—this is the work of a ternity reports on Jan. 17, 1740 (ff. 102-103), small, not-too-pleasant man, uneasily fiddling that Zanetti will be paid in full “terminata che

with ideas not his own. sara la volta del bacino da perfezionare al meno

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x1 / page 256

nel termine di due anni.” On July 9, 1747 (ff. vanni Battista Morondi, has recently been given 134v—135 ), the Confraternity accepts the bid of to Alfieri by V. Moccagatta,” Benedetto Alfieri “li Capi Mastri Pietro Ant.o Prato, e Giuseppe al Sacro Monte di Varallo,” Atti e Memorie del Terzino, quali s’obbligano di stabilire tutta d.ta Terzo Congresso Piemontese di Antichita ed faciata a tenore del disegno.” The facade is in- Arte, Congresso di Varallo Sesia, 1960, Turin, scribed: “Super Fondam. Apostolorum Angulari n.d., pp. 151-168.

Lapide Christo Jesu 1747.” But the documents show that in 1736 the

Several drawings, are the property of the cornice and plastering of the lower church were archives of S. Domenico. These include an ele- being completed under the direction of Morondi

vation and plan of the facade, 47 x 37.5 cm., (ibid., p. 156, n. 21). Alfieri’s name does and a cross-section of the church, looking to- not appear in the documents until 1740, at wards the choir, 50 x 35 cm. (Carboneri, op. cit., which time Morondi became the “Assistente,” figs. 7, 8). The drawings are similar in tech- and from then on most of the work was for the nique and resemble the executed work in all but “rinnovazione della Tribuna,” that is, the upper

a few details, such as an alternative design for church (pp. 155, 158). The only work in the

the small doors of the facade. lower church recorded in Alfieri’s time was for The afore-mentioned qualities of the church the “uscio dei coretti,” “stabilienza delli occhiaare common in Gallo’s work, especially the cross- dini del scurolo,” and the skylight in the choir, axial play. But San Pietro, though in some ways which suggests that only finishing touches were characteristic of Gallo, is also a new departure needed (pp. 160-161).

in his work. Until this time he was an indus- The style of the church also argues against trious hack with a sparing version of the boxy an attribution to Alfieri. Two circular bays, for seventeenth-century Lombardesque architec- the congregation and altar, are separated by a ture that one finds in the work of Francesco narrow, straight one, but are rejoined by curvLanfranchi, Gian Francesco Baroncelli, and ing arches that meet in the center. Though the Antonio Bertola (see above, Chapter vir). San church is small, it opens through slender col-

Pietro is the first of his designs to reflect a umns and piers to an ambulatory for the pilconsiderable influence of Juvarra, its facade grims and, in the choir, to a gallery. Into the now moving at angles, its choir opening for the darkness light comes from lunettes in the first views, a bit of life creeping into his moribund bay and again, more strongly, from the octagocreations. The next step, livelier yet, was the nal skylight above the sanctuary. Dramatically Confraternity church of the SS. Trinita in Fos- it restates the theme of the church, the separasano of 1728, with a facade that curves back tion and reunion of the areas for the spectator even as it steps forward, and a richer play of col- and altar.

umns inside: the design was approved by Ju- This theme was Guarini’s; and the plan and varra himself. The culmination of these mildly several details of the vaulting were closely pat-

Juvarresque works was Gallo’s masterpiece, terned after his church of the Immacolata San Bernardino in Cavallermaggiore of 1737; Concezione. But the open structure and the but by that time his younger contemporaries had ornamentation is more in line with—though not picked up Juvarra’s style with more vigor. For derived from—Juvarra’s work. The stucco decillustrations see N. Carboneri, L’architetto orations, which look like limp ironwork, resem-

Francesco Gallo. ble the softening of his style sometimes found in A more original work is the lower church of Vittone’s oeuvre. Conceivably Alfieri might

the Basilica of the Sacro Monte di Varallo have experimented in these ways during his Sesia, which, though long attributed to Gio- early years—from which little else is known—

SS. GIOVANNI E REMIGIO AND BENEDETTO ALFIERI appendix x1 / page 257

but his work from the 1740’s onward is quite published Guarini’s treatise in 1737 and began

different. He never then referred to Guarini’s the chapel at Vallinotto the next year (see architecture nor designed the lighter kind of below, Chapter 1x, p. 234). It was then conopen structure; and his ornament was rarely tinued by Costanzo Michela in the church of quite so loose and free (his altar and door- Santa Marta in Aglié of 1739 (on which I am frames in the choir are similar, but marbles for preparing an article). Both of these architects the altar and choir had already been prepared in had been associated with Juvarra in the later 1736 (pp. 156-57), and may have influenced years of his life. As pointed out in Chapter vi,

Alfieri’s designs ). p- 86, Juvarra at that time had made experiIt is also unlikely that Alfieri made the unexe- ments which paralleled Guarini’s work. In parti-

cuted project published by Dottoressa Mocca- cular, his two-bay project for the Carmine (Fig. gatta (her fig. 2-4). The drawings are not by 124.) can be compared with the Immacolata him; they must have been made ca. 1735, long Concezione. (It also has large Palladian arches before Alfieri is recorded at Varallo; and the in the nave like those in the lower church of Vaarchitecture is rather small and broken, quite rallo). One would therefore presume some conthe contrary of Alfieri’s usual simple grandness. tact between Morondi and Juvarra, although Since the project may well have been a competi- Morondi’s style is not clearly Juvarresque. As tion design, and its style lacks distinction, the Dottoressa Moccagatta notes, Vittorio Amedeo

attribution remains uncertain. had an interest in the Sacro Monte in Varallo,

Morondi would therefore seem to be the most and his son may indeed have been responsible likely candidate for the attribution of the lower for sending Alfieri to work there. Therefore it is church. Unfortunately, little is known about his possible that Morondi was called to Turin by career and style. The Cappella d’Anna at Va- the king, and came to know Juvarra, or his fol-

rallo, which he rebuilt, is done in an old- lowers, ca. 1734-35. fashioned style to conform to the other chapels; The parish church of Piova Massaia or the chapel of San Pietro in the basilica (second Piova d’Asti, begun in 1749, is much closer on the right) is in a freer, more Baroque style, than either of the above to Alfieri’s art, and but is not dissimilar to the work attributed to there are no documents to take it away from Alfieri in the upper church; and the parish him (Fig. 152, 153). E. Olivero, in his Miscelchurch of Rima San Giuseppe, of 1750, is a lanea di architettura Piemontese del Settecento, good deal simpler and stiffer than the lower Turin, 1937, pp. 17 and 106, shrewdly recogchurch, but may reflect a change in Morondi’s nized its resemblance to Sant’Andrea in Chieri style (illustrated by L. Benevolo in Quaderni through Bosio’s description (“la Soperga ingendell’ Istituto di Storia dell Architettura, 22-24, tilita”), but thought it Vittonian, though not-

1957, pp. 53-56). I have not seen the Porta ing that there was something Alfieresque in Aurea at Varallo, nor the parish church of the “aristocratica e un po’ fredda compostezza Camasco (for these attributions see G. Bordiga, dinsieme ... controposto all’espansionismo Storia e guida del Sacro Monte di Varallo, Va- largo e cordiale, alla festosita e alla pit: intima e

rallo, 1830, and Brayda-Coli-Sesia, Ingegneri e raccolta religiosita delle costruzioni Vitto-

architetti. . .op.cit.,p.51). niani.” Then O. Pizio, “La chiesa parrocchiale

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how di Piova d’Asti,” Attz e Memorie del u this provincial architect could have participated Congresso della SPABA, Turin, 1937, pp. in the revival of Guarini at such an early date. 187-88, came out more strongly for Alfieri; and The revival was initiated by Vittone in the early a decade later this was supported by good stylis1730’s, but did not manifest itself until he tic arguments, as well as reports of a local tradi-

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x1 / page 258

tion, by R. Ghivarello, “La chiesa parrocchiale to mention the style of the facade, rules him di Piova Massaia ed il suo architetto,” and F. out. This becomes clearer by a comparison with Gamarino, “Architettura barocca nel Monfer- Vittone’s Santa Chiara in Turin, of 1742. Both rato,” both in the Boll. SPABA, N.S. 1, 1947, churches combine the open chapels of the

pp. 104-15 and 116-17, respectively. church at Venaria Reale with the vault of The facade clearly has all the marks of Alfi- Sant’Andrea in Chieri; and both eliminate the erl’s style—his mechanical curves, compact open domes and lighted chapels of Juvarra’s brickwork, display of thick walling, and sche- architecture. But Piova Massaia completely matic rendering of Juvarra’s detail. But the in- lacks the flexibility and slimness and openness

ternal structure is too light for him, and its that Vittone preserved from Sant’Andrea. Perstucco ornament far too small and festive— haps, then, it was an early work of Luigi perhaps it is not even by the architect of the Michele Barberis, who, as Carboneri has said, structure. For those reasons, the church has “muove tra Vittone e Alfieri. . .” (Mostra del been attributed to Vittone. But the stiff rectilin- Barocco Piemontese, 1, Architettura, pp. 83-—

earity and diffuse grouping of the interior, not 84).

APPENDIX XII

°9

Documents for Vittone’s

Lite and Career

§1. Turin Biblioteca del Seminario, a volume en- Gios. Nicola Vitoni negotiante in questa titled on the spine, “Necrologio del celebre Vit- Citta. . . ,” dated June 7, 1705, Carlo Benetone 1770 19 Ottobre,” and on the first page, detto Valier, notary. “Notta della Sepolture erette in Nostra Chiesa Giuseppe Nicola was the son of Gaspare and di San Carlo [in Turin] ... ,” f. 88. This Giovanna Marcherita Vitoni (or Vittone, as the document was brought to my attention by name is spelled in a codicil of 1709). The chil-

Msgr. L. Grossi. dren of his first marriage are named in this docLi 19 ottobre 1770 alle ore due e mezza di ument as Giovanni Battista Francesco, his first francia di sera passd da questa mortal vita il born son, age 28; Filiberto Matteo (sic), age Sig. Bernardo Antonio Vittone ingegnere fra- 22; Francesca Maria, a nun in the convent of tello del fu Matteo Filiberto canonico della Cat- Santa Chiara in Cavallermaggiore; Giovanna tedrale per un accidente d’apoplessia d’eta d’anni Maria Theresa and Rosa Caterina, nuns in the

68 in circa; li 21 di sera fu portato il di lui convent of Santa Chiara in Turin; and Laura cadavero nella nostra chiesa; alla mattina pol Margherita, wife of a lawyer, Pietro Marchetti. del 22 dopo cantata la messa fu sepolto nella As “herede universale,” Giovanni Battista was

sepoltura de’ suol antenatl. . . . willed all his father’s physical property, while Since Vittone was elected in 1732 to the Ac- the daughters received sums of 50 to 250 lire, cademia di San Luca, the minimum age for except for Francesca Maria, who was left 100 which was 30, this document proves beyond lire “in perpetuo.” doubt that he was born about 1702, and not The children of Vittone’s second marriage, to circa 1705 as implied by another death notice Francesca Maria Commune, are listed as Clara published by E. Olivero, Le opere di Bernardo Francesca, Cristina Maria Barthelma, and

Antonio Vittone, Turin, 1920, p. 21. Bernardo Antonio, all in their “infantilita.” The §2. A. S. T.-1, Atti di Insinuazione, 1710, Li- girls receive dowries of 5,000 lire each, while bro u, vol. 1, f. 181. “Test. del M. Ill.mo S. Matteo Filiberto and Bernardo are to have their page 259

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x11 / page 260 “competenti allimenti ed indumenti, luoro vitta [not 1910], p. 361, who, however, omitted this

natural durante, et nella somma di livre milla paragraph).

per cad.o d’essi” from Giovanni Battista, with . whom they are to live; but if and when they In questa settimana Cl fu una accademia dell leave the house they are each to get 400 lire a disegmio con 12 solita assistenza del SIS. Card . , nali e per p.o premio dell’ architettura In p.a year. It is not clear how much the wife was to classe fu onorato M. Vitone Torinese come parireceive. A codicil of 1709 gives Bernardo an- mente nella 2.a classe fu p.o premio il S. [Conte other 200 lire a year after the age of twenty, and Paolo Antonio] Masazza Torinese co’ molto ap-

the same amount to the wife (idid., 1. 185, plauso di tutti e veramente si sono portati con December 24, 1709, notarized by Valier, and distinzione tutti due nelle rispetive classi. signed in Vittone’s quarters “nella med.a Parrocchia di §. Pietro del Gallo” in Turin). Vit §6- A. S. T.-1, Lettere Particolari, Mazzo 41, tone specified that he was to be buried in the Lettera V, and Lettere Ministri Roma, Mazzo

family sepulchre in San Carlo. 183, no. 194, “1732-35 Roma Registro di Let§3. A.S. T.-1, Art. 182, 1715-16, no. 1569. tere riguardanti la negoziazione principiata li 2 A short notice of April 17, 1716, mentions gennaio 1732, e terminata li 6 Xbre 1735,” “the Canonico, e Teologo Matheo Filiberto Vit- hereafter Lettere Particolari and Lettere Minitoni della presente citta come herede del fu Sig. stri. The following is a summary of the correGio. Batt.a suo fratello,” which indicates that spondence of Vittone, the Marchese Ferrero not only the eldest son but also the father had d’Ormea, secretary of internal affairs, and died. Consequently, Matteo Filiberto probably Cardinal Alessandro Albani, the “Protettore” of

raised Bernardo. the House of Savoy at the Vatican. These letters

§4. A. S. T.1, Regolari, Mazzi da Inventariare, were incompletely and rather confusingly deTorino, Padri Missionari, Mazzo 21: “Pror.a scribed by Olivero, Le opere . . . , p. 27. del S.r Bernardo Ant.o Vittone in capo del S.r. SA. Lettere Particolari. Copy of a letter from Canonico Filiberto suo Fratello,” signed Octo- Vittone in Rome, dated June 29, 1732, which ber 27, 1731, with Alessandro Fea as notary, was sent to d’Ormea.

“in una della stanze habitate dallinfras.to S.r ; ; i. ae

5 sima con acchiusa la cambiale di doppie cin-

Ingegn.re Vittone al 2.ndo [2] piano del Pa- . Ricevo 1n questo ordinarlo la sua stimattis-

lazzo del S.r Marchese Operti sotto la parrocchia quanta che S. R. M. col mezzo della sua Prote-

di S. Rocco cantone di 5. Massimo.” zione si é degnata accordarmi accid possa con. . . Dovendo portarsi alla Citta di Roma tinuare qualche temp © ad istudiare in Roma il M.o Ill.re Sig.r Bernardo Ant.o Vittone le PArchitettura Civile. restl necessario dlaver quivi qualche persone chi \B. Lettere Particolari. Letter by Vittone of accudisca alli di lui interessi e p.cié habbi rich.to June 29. 1732. to the kine. thankine him for his

VIllmo Teologo Filiberto Vittone Canonico hel = 5

della Metropoli di qu.ta Citta di lui frallo d’as- P- a .

sisterlo ne? med.i pend.te di lui absenza. . . . §C. Lettere Particolari. Letter from Vittone, also dated June 29, 1732, and once again to Bernardo is described as the son of the “fu S.r. d’Ormea. Vittone thanks d’Ormea for having

Gioseppe Nicola della P.nte citta.” brought to the king’s attention his award of first §5. Raccolta Autografici, Biblioteca Civica, prize from the Accademia di San Luca, and asks Turin, Mazzo 20. Letter from Juvarra in Rome him to decide upon a project which he could on May 17, 1732, to Turin, probably to the present to the king. Marchese Ferrero d’Ormea (cf. A. Telluccini in §D. Lettere Ministri, “Roma Registro,” f. 100. Archivio Storico Siciliano, N.S. xxxiv, 1909 Copy of a letter from d’Ormea to Vittone, dated

DOCUMENTS FOR VITTONE’S LIFE AND CAREER appendix x11 / page 261

cit.). the king.

July 2, 1732 (not July 1, as per Olivero, loc. has received the drawing and will present it to D’Ormea refers to the king’s gift for winning I. Lettere Ministri, “Roma Registro,” f. 302.

the first prize, and adds “E godendo io Letter of d’Ormea to Albani, dated March 18, doppiam.te di questo di lei vantaggio, mi desi- 1733. D’Ormea says he has written to Vittone derero sempre le occasioni di contribuirvi ricca- “sulli disegni che mi a trasmessi,” apparently

mente.” referring to a new set of drawings.

\E. Lettere Ministri, “Roma Registro,” f. 101. §J. Lettere Ministri, Mazzo 184, Lettera 107.

9, 1732. 1733.

Copy of a letter of d’Ormea to Vittone dated July Letter from Albani to d’Ormea, dated April 17,

Apparently acknowledging Vittone’s letter Albani strongly recommends Vittone, the

(Doc. 6C), d’Ormea adds: “Approvo intanto i bearer of the letter, to d’Ormea’s protection, say-

di let pensiero di far conoscere a S. M. con ing that “nel tempo della sua qui dimora ha qualche di lei opera l’abilita, ch’ella possiede, e seriamente applicato al suo nobile studio, e le che si va sempre pit rinforzando, io non credo di sara facile di conoscerne dalle di lui opere 1 legare in ci6 11 di lei genio, lasciando che operi il profitto che ne ha ritratto. . . .”

di lei talento ad effetto che con questa liberta 97. G. Guarini, Architettura Civile, Turin, abbia mag.e campo di distinguersi”; he then 1737, ff. 2, 3.

offers to present the design to the king. In the “Avviso a’ lettori,” the head of the \F. Lettere Particolari. Letter by Vittone of De- Theatines states that Guarini’s work having cember 7, 1732, probably sent to d’Ormea. been left unfinished at his death, Vittone writes of his p leasure to “resentarle ha lasciato a noi la fatica di ripulirla, e riuniuna delle mie debolezze sopra il novo studio che tla in un Volume, nel che non poco ci ha solleho fatto dei teatri a prospetive[.] Il ritardo cosi vati il Signor Bernardo Vittone, Architetto Aclongo ad inviar qualche segno della mia debole cademico della insigne Accademia di S. Luca servitt. non é statto difetto di volonta ma man- di Roma, quale dopo avere rapportato il primo

chanza di salute da tre mesi in circa . . .” and premio d’architettura nel Concorso dell’anno asks the recipient to present the drawing to the 1732 con la sua gentile propensione vi ha king. He also notes “lhonore che ho pochi prestato la mano. . . . Romae die 22 Octobris

siorni sono rice[vJuto da questa Virtuosa 1735. Academia d’esser statto iscrito In essa per Aca-

demico.” B. Documents Relating

§G. Lettere Ministri, Mazzo 183, Lettera 123. to Vittone’s Treatises Letter of Cardinale Alessandro Albani in Rome

to d’Ormea, dated December 14, 1732. 1. A. S. T.-11, Atti di Insinuazione, 1770, “Dal’uffizio della Posta le sara portato un Libro 11, vol. 1, ff. 487ff., the inventory of VitCannello di latta con dentro un disegno che li tone’s possessions published in part by Olivero, invia questo Architetto sig.r Vittone, il quale Op. cit., pp. 28if., and now by P. Portoghesi, non ostante la poca sua buona salute non trala- Bernardo Vittone, PP. 237-254. scia di applicare; anzi che per suo maggior pro- . The bulk of Vittone’s literary remains is

fito li vado io somministrando molti studi listed as follows: darchitettura, che conservo nella mia libreria.” [No.] 428. Quattro copie di d.a opera delle §H. Lettere Ministri, “Roma Registro,” f. 238 Istruz.ni Elementari di Arch.ra Civile del S.r and f. 240. Letters of d’Ormea to Vittone and Vittone in Tomi quattro legati in rustico cad.a Albani, dated Dec. 24, 1732, reporting that he copia, e consist.e ognuna d’esse in due tomi

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x11 / page 262

stampe, e due tomi di plancie quali estimo lire Carita [of Turin],” dated December 6, 1773,

ventidue cadun opera in tutto L. 88. and notarized by Domenico Bordino. In this dis[No.] 429. Quindici opere sud.e peré compren- pute among Vittone’s heirs, the following items

sivie di due soli tomi, uno di stampa, et altro from his literary remains are listed:

relativo di plancie legate in corame, lire dodici

cadun copia, in tutto L. 180. . . . Le opere sia edite, che inedite del Sig. [No.] 430. Una detta legata in marochino Ingegnere Vittone co’ suoi rami, o sian plancie,

purle] in due tomi sudetti L. 18. cloé le edite nel numero, e quantita di qui in LNo.] 431. Duecento tomi sudi primi legati in detto Inventario [Doc. 1] dal no. 428 a 433

Tustico. . inclusive, colla quantita di rami ivi pure Sessanta cinque toml figure annessi, e relativi espressa. Di quali opere se ne sono gia esitate

al sud.o primo purle] legati in rustico. ee diverse copie, e molte altre copie si trovano _Ottantotto tomi secondo Istruzni diverse presso il Sig. Agnelli di Lugano [the publisher

@arch.ra civile legati in Tustico, of Vittone’s books] state percid omesse in detto Cento quaranta tre copie Archr.a civile tomo inventario. Le inedite consistono in una raccolta

p-mo sciolte. di massime in materiali di serviti; un tratatto Trenta due copie Arch.ra Civile Tomo 2 sulla natura del moto locale dei gravi; una des-

sciolte. . . . . crizione di varie considerazioni riguardo l’estimo No. 432. Duecento sedici rami p. tirar le dei Beni stabili; un trattato concernente la resis-

carte p. lad.a opera. tenza, che 1 legni fanno ad essere spezzati; ed No. 433. Un invoghio contin.e diversi plichi di altro delle regole circa la curvatura dei Centene carte gia tirate da d.i rami p. formar li tomi di per la costruzione delle Cupole, state tale opere

plancie. inedite omesse in detto inventario perché stato Dichiarando d.o S.r Scotto non esser il caso solo dopo la formazione di questo rimesso dal di dar verun estimo alli d.i capl soyra descritti Sig. Architetto Gianni Battista Galletto di Casenza estimo, p. non sapersi se debbasi ancora rignano, al quale si per compire, ed assestare talle ritirare dallo stamp[ato]re in Lugano delle copie opere, che per la recognizione delle sue fatiche

del tomo 2.0, né se s’intenda, o no di far tirare prestate pel Sig. Ingegnere Vittone, gli fu

da rami le plancie per compire l’opera in tomi promesso la somma di lire tre mille

quattro, od esitarla in tomi due. cinquecento. . . . [No.] 622. Libro d’arch.ra di M. Vittone man-

us.o L. 20. §3. Formerly Ospizio di Carita, Carignano, In a simple binding, each of Vittone’s books documents published in part by G. Rodolfo, was worth about 11 to 12 lire. This evaluation “Notizie inedite dell’ architetto Bernardo Vitmight be compared with, among other volumes tone,” “Atti SPABA, xv, 1933, p. 450, and in his library, Borromini’s Opus Architectoni- destroyed during World War m1.

cum, two volumes valued at 18 and 12 lire, a

Fontana’s Templum Vaticanum, at 16 lire, . Cinque altri quinternetti di carta reale inGuarini’s Architettura Civile of 1737 at 9 lire, titolati nella p rime facciata, Leggi, © Dottrine Desgodetz’ Les Edifices antiques de Rome, at 8 Legale concernenti gh Edifict, : Fondi, e 1a con-

; . . , dotta delle acque tutti manuscritti.

lire, Scamozzi’s del?quinternetti Architettura UniverC; tr cui _ ; inqueIdea altri di carta pure

manu-

sale, at 5 lire. Even at that time, Vittone’s work scritti intitolati Istruzioni diverse concernenti

commanded a high price. Pesercizio della misura, e dell’Architettura ci-

§2. A. S. T.-, Atti di Insinuazione, 1774, vile.

Libro 1, vol. 1, f. 1165v: Altro quinternetto di carta pur manuscritto “Convenzione tra l’Ill.ma Sig.ra Contessa intitolato Discorsi Teatrali sopra la disposizione Barbara Lucia Vedova Bruno di Cussano, Clara delle cose pit bisognevoli per le operazioni da Costanza Vedova Seren, ed il R. Ospedale di farsi ne’ medesimi, e del modo di praticarle.

APPENDIX XIII

Miscellaneous Churches

by Vittone The Parish Church of Pecetto, Santa Maria della Neve

The records of the church survive chiefly in the 23, 1730 (ibid., ff. 104-105), the councilmen Archivio Municipale, Cat. 1, Classe 3, Scaffale learn that on April 20, the A, vol. 7, Deliberazioni originali di Consiglio, Considico Cinzano . . . haver fatto vedere al

1719-45, fascicolt 1725-30 and 1730-34 med. S. Intend. (presumably the Intendente (1734-42 are missing). The documents have della Provincia) che il dinaro ezzatto dalla now been published in part by N. Carboneri, pres.e Comm.ta nell’afio hor scorso di Introggio “Appunti sul Vittone,” Quaderni dell’Istituto di (i.e. Introito) . . . era dinaro stato Imposto, e Storia dell Architettura, 55-60, 1963, pp. 68- destinato p. la Construtt.ne della nuova Chiesa

TA. Parrocchiale . . . in seguito al che il preff.o S.

In the meeting of the city council on Nov. 20, Intend.e ha ordinato che si faccia fare il disegno 1729 (Ordinati, 1725-30, f. 94v), it is reported di detta Chiesa da formarsi peré nel sitto ove si that the Royal Senate in a letter of November 3, ritrova la presente, et quello fatto presentarlo al

1729 ordered the Podesta to investigate the med.o 5. Intend.e, accio dij li ordini che stimera “Supplica sporta p. parte di cotesta Comm.ta a opportuni. . . dl SS.ri Consegl.1 tutti unanimi

.p.. ilcome sovra hanno ordinato a d.i—Sindici propS.M.a fatto della della di nuova +): a qualche ; . 59 ponenti diConstruttione far dilligenza ritrovare

Chiesa Parrocchiale a luogo della presentanea. Ingegniere che sij peritto nelle fabriche delle The councilmen are then informed in the meet- Chiese, che si trasferisca in questo luogo, et ing of December 31, 1729 (. Colocati fart 1 centint al posto. . . dovranno questi pontellarsi all’armatura che section drawing of the cupola, and, apparently, dovra costruersi a to f ;

. ; « «59 questo ne appoggiata questa

to a third drawing of the Centini”: the last two alle Muraglie laterali. . . . are not preserved. It is concerned chiefly with 6. Ricoperti indi i Centini colla solita armathe geometry for producing the proper curva- tura di Tavole . . . si dara principio alla forture of the lines of the centering (“centini”) so mazione della Cupola, e nello stesso tempo si that the vault “sara un Ellisse segato dal minor elevera il Tamburo esteriore colligando tutto as-

diametro.” There were to be 56 beams of dif- siemme. .. .

ferent sizes running from the springing to the 11. Continuando Palzamento di d.a cupola, top of the vault. The document then notes that si alzeranno nello stesso tempo anche i muri laterali del Tamburo per dare con questo un 1 muri laterali supportare devono nello stesso sufficiente peso, ed incontro al piede della stessa

tempo il piede della volta, ed i muri del Tam- Cupola.

MISCELLANEOUS CHURCHES BY VITTONE appendix xr / page 283

14, . . . Si faranno nelli angoli della med.a riscontro ’approvaz.ne d’esso S. Vittone per il Cupola i dovutti speroni . . . e da questi spe- s.a divisato progetto della pittura, suggerendo roni partiranno i muriciuoli che sopportar de- eziando d’intraprenderla non solo per essa volta,

vono il Coperto. .. . ma per tutto il vaso della Chiesa, per cosi manteTorino li 18 Marzo 1768 nere un uniformita plausibile usando pero della

Bernardo Vittone conveniente moderazione nell’eseguire tal pit-

Borra Arch.to tura, accid serva bensi d’accompagnare, e dar rissalto all’Architettura, ma non gia a confon-

§D. Conto Esatt., 1760-71, 1768, f. 19, no. 87. derla con soverchio ornamento, nel che si debba Piu lire cento sel pagate per compim.to delle premettere lopp.na disegno di concertarsi con L. 206 al Sig. Architetto Gio. Batt.a Borra per buon Pittori. Quindi li prenominati Sig.ri Con-

quindici vacat.1 impiegati per la figura della sigl.ri . . . determinano di far eseguire la s.a nuova Cupola di S. Michele ed instrutioni della divisato pittura nel migl. modo, che verra additpositione Formaz.ne de’ Centini, come in quitt.a tato dal prelodato S. Ing.re Vittone, previo il

A luglio 1768... .” permesso del Uff.o dell’Intendenza. .. .

§16. Arch. S. Michele. . §18. Deliberazioni, vol. 41, 1766-69, f. 178, “Calcolo per la ringhiera da farsi attorno alla meeting of April 1, 1769.

seconda cornice interna. . . [Total] L. 476. Nellincertezza er la scielta di quel

“Torino li 25 9bre 1768 Bernardo Vittone.” dj di vi he P , ie a cul estimates by Vit. isegno di pittura, che meglio possa convenire

(‘This is one of several caret y per il decoro, e rissalto di q.ta Chiesa di S.

tore for manor wor k in 1768.) Michele per mezzo delle opinioni opposte, e con-

§17. Deliberazioni, vol. 41, 1766-69, f. 164, tradette dei due S.ri Architetti Vittone, e Borra,

meeting of Dec. 30, 1768. ed anche dei medesimi Pittori, . . . hanno deEssendosi ultimato il lavoro nel rustico della vere ner 8 one ee cadens ¢ tra

nuova Fabbrica Chiesa di S.magg.ri Michele, lumi P esesuims press P . wordi+questa tura sino avuti in talone riguardo,

la quale apparisce vieppili vaga, e ildella pit: lode- dei Lgepre; e . . ; che eziandio vi concorra consentim.to vole Architettura, e dovendosi venturo a an . che . . - lodati S.ri Architetti innell’or uno dei due disegni anno prosseguire per stabilirla, e portarla al suo ——, Doe. altri,.; in cui

. , . gia si. .sono formati, ovvero in quelli compimento, osservasi, che ese“1 a: _ -. siccome . Elleno convenissero. guendo il disegno, vi si trovano varll ornament .

di stucheria, ne’ quali l’esperienza bastante- §19. Arch. S. Michele. mente dimostra immetersi facilmente la polvere, “Istruzione per 11 Capo Mastro Scalpellino, e tele di Ragni con grave difficolta di poscia che dovra eseguire l’altare della V. SS.a Annonpolirle a dovere, e quel, che pit rilleva, insinuan- ciata, et da porsi in opera. . . . Torino li 15 dosi qualche puoco d’umido essere pur troppo agosto 1770 Ing. Bernardo Vittone.” This is the soggetti a staccarlo . . . avrebbero Pe bien altar of the large chapel on the left.

mato hi en eee es ai di ant ce ths . §20. Carte Diverse. “1770 Rivarolo Descrivendi supplire @ porzione det cisegnatt stucchi co dosi successivam.te lo stato delle spese di d.a

qualche pezzo di buona pittura, che facesse fabb l'ufficio di tale stucchi . . . avendo fatto inteso nn

il Sig. Ing.re Vittone di questo loro progetto, 1771 Rivarolo nel prosseguimento del succesaffinché esso pigliasse in considerazione, se sia sive stato delle spese si ricava dal conto Esattopitt conveniente, e decoroso il determinarsi a far riale did.o anno 1770... .

ornare la volta principale ultimam.te fatta a No. 326 Al no. 103 al S. Fondachiere Galquesta Chiesa di S. Michele con pittura di buon lateri p. prezzo di tanti colori impiegati alle gusto, prevalendosi massime del commodo della tinte, e vernice di d.a Chiesa, p. quitt.a 28 9bre

presentenea esistenza del ponte Reale, s’ebbe in 1770 L.130....

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN PIEDMONT appendix x11 / page 284

§21. A. Deliberazioni, vol. 42, 1769-72, f. 163, Piu lire cing.ta pag.to in rimborso al Sig.

meeting of June 27, 1772. Avy.to Viano dep.o per Torino a richiesta in . . . [E] trasmesso da Torino il dissegno, virtu dord.to 15 AP rile 1758 . | * Pet le pre instruz.ne, e calcolo formato dal Sig. Architetto viste necess.¢ al riguardo della Chiesa di San [Luigi] Barberis per la Construz.ne dell’Altare Michele e trasferta In q-t luogo del S. Ingegn.

mag.re alla Romana da farsi in marmi per Vittone e spese del suo viaggio, per cui ha imquesta nuova Chiesa Parrocchiale. . . . [The pieg.to g.ni 7 come da sua Relaz.ne 27 maggio

ng es 1758... L. 50.

council approves the design,] “esclusi li gradini

dessa balaustrata, ed il pavimento. §B. Deliberazioni, vol. 40, 1756-58, f. 198v, §B. Conto Esatt., 1772-80, 1771, f. 21. meeting of July 28, 1758. “No. 68: [Pietro] Bonvicino Sr. Ingegn.re p. Aver d.o Sig. Ingegn.e [Vittone], rimessa la li dissegni da esso fatti, cioé riforma di quello Pianta sud.a unitam.te all’Istruz.ne d’essa che del pulpito, bussola, altare magg.e e vacat.i fatti pur qui esibisce, e rimette in datta d.a Pianta

...p. quitt.a 15 ap.le 1772... L. 150” (1e., delli 15 cad.te avendo a buon conto dei vacat.i the altar was designed by Barberis, and changed fatti dal d.o Sig. Ingegn.e sotto li 11 scad. Mag-

by Bonvicino). gio, Relaz.ne e Dissegni sud.e pagato al med. S.

§C. Ibid., 1772, f. 12v, no. 50. Vittone L. 150 come in quittanza 17 d.o “ . . Al Sr. Architetto Luigi Barberis p. li luglio. . . .

disegni dell’altare Mag., Pinacolo, Balaustre, (Also, Conto Esatt., 1747-59, 1758, f. 37v, no.

ferrata d’essa, e del pavim.to collinstrz.ne e 133.) calcolo d’essa opere. . . quitt.al7 7mbre anno §C. Conto Esatt., 1747-59, 1758, f. 38, no. 134.

sud.o [1772]. . . L. 200.” “Piu lire cento pag.te al pred. Sig. Inge.re

§D. bid., 1773, f. 19, no. 104. Vittone, per sua trasferta a questo luogo li 9

“.. Lire’ cento cinquanta pagate maggio 1759 [sic] e g.ni 4 successivi in tutto all’Architetto Bonvicini p. li lavori e dissegno impiegati per il Trasiam.to e Misure di d.a fatti p. il sud.o altare, Pulpito, e Bussola p. fabbrica et abbonconto dell’altre sue fatiche,

quitt.a 22 Xmbre 1773. . .” . . .Inquitt.a 11 [sic] d. maggio. . . .”

§22. Carte Diverse. “1770 Rivarolo. Descriven- That this work was done in May 1759, and dosi successivem.te lo stato delle spese di d.a had nothing to do-with the preceding payment,

fabb.a. . . .” is proven by a summary in Carte Diverse The account concludes: “Totale L. 107,- (“1761 Stato delle Spese fatte dalla Com.ta di 074.16.4 .. . in piede Rivarolo li 9 ottobre Rivarolo per la Ricostruz.ne della Chiesa Parro-

1774 Pietro Lissonio Seg.ro.” cchiale diS. Michele. . . ,” unpaged), as well §23. Deliberazioni, vol. 42, 1774-76, f. 128, as by a notice that the “tracciamento” occurred

meeting of June 23, 1775. in 1759 (Deliberazioni, vol. 40, 1760, f. 179v, [Reference is made to the] lungo tempo che meeting of April 19, 1760). The summary also Monsignor Vesc.o é obligato a tratenersi in q.to establishes that the following payment is in adluogo per la visita sua Pastor.le, e per le due dition to this one.

fonzioni della Consacraz.ne d’Ambe queste 4D. [bid., Conto Esatt., 1759, f. 21, no. 94. ,; Chiese Parrocchiali [San Michele and San Gia- “Vittone S. Ingegn. Bernardo abbonconto de

como | suol vacat.i, e fatiche, di cui in Parcella del (excluding Doc. 24A). .. .L. 100.” §A. Conto Esatt., 1747-59, 1757 [sic], f. 31, §E. [bid., 1760-71, 1760, f. 17v, no. 96. no. 172. “Pit lire trecento pag.to al S. Ingegn.e Ber-

§24, Payments to Vittone, totaling L. 1517.12.6 med.o 13 maggio 1759 p. quitt.a 14 agosto

PLATES

PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCES

Berlin, Kunstbibliothek: 75, 99. Chatsworth, Devonshire Collection, reproduced by permission of the trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement: 69, 70. Chomon, Turin: 21, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43, 46, 54, 55, 74, 75, 76, 77, 87, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 127, 131, 132, 135, 138, 140, 141, 154, 155, 162. Giaietto, Turin: 108. B. Gallo, Turin: 166, 167. Gramantieri, Turin: 15, 17, 86, 88, 136, 137, 142, 146, 147, 149, 150, 157, 158, 167, 170, 171. Laurenti, Carignano: 143, 144, 145.

London, Victoria and Albert Museum: 83, 151. |

Marburg, Bildarchiv Foto Marburg: 1, 9, 194. Marburg, Staatsarchiv: 91. Moisio, Turin: 129, 130. Oxford, All Souls College Library: 8. Paris, Archives Nationales: 4. Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes: 6, 7, 29, 30.

A. Pedrini, Turin: 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 89, 152, 153, 161, 163, 164, 168, 173, 178, 179, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 193. Rinzetti, Rome: 2. Rome, Accademia di San Luca: 100. Rome, Gabinetto Fotografica Nazionale: 3, 101. H. Schnell, Munich: 196, 197. R. Scoffone, Turin: 149. R. Smahel, Olomouc: 195. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum: 5. Turin, Museo Civico: 17, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,

56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78, , 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 116, 123, 125, 126, 133, 134, 139, 182, 183.

Turin, Soprintendena ai Monumenti del Piemonte: 16, 48, 128. Vienna, Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien: 94, 95. Windsor Castle Library (by gracious permission of H. M. the Queen): 92, 93.

The author: 44, 114, 169, 172, 176, 181, 187, 191. , Reproductions made from publications (see List of Illustrations): 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 28, 40, 97, 98, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 121, 156, 159, 160, 165, 174, 175, 177, 180, 192.

~",:ians Fels 3 y fy Lae ‘Ge 1h : : . ; :eo Yk NO FES at ge: a ere Boom -a° oe ,ra Pay eee fs ba _ * . Sh . . ; 4h: oi Se, 4 .eete,rn aa | re no PCa te . a ; id vo . ” eal iy “2 eee . : ws te! at: or Pal * Re : Oe a. A . Yom af oe na 4 Serr ae ae . as Wade i va Wat es A _ , pio ea : 3 A yy, ig Boe . ce, So = 4 “a a= og ne a raas Y "eer Oo ee : a — . 3 a. es . Ba 3 a EO UN A OOS ee? Wee % sete 2 Se * weet rte Ae « ag ra a) . Be :

Fe, BF va 5 a BY } # a: / : Ss Dstt: cin he tf ss ° ll Rae. es ey . / ‘ff = ot ee ad int iz oe ” 3e . a ‘ a a. ? ~ “a Es: ee Ee . VAN — _ aN j 1 7 i fo a oe CG > aaa oa \ og fo a on o% “ A nan i ws ,Sy PoP -305) iar yew “IaeLa? pnei TP ~. we *.a: ~= »os3rvey & sf “fh vie. Pa . oT .A 9roe piste ene x5P Kale 3go zy. :i.-.x—_ : .". ss, aae 3;panes aa za ee ae “_Se “ares cs F; } at BES al oe Pa + ° ; ‘ r. bg t c oe el ; ee ‘Aan a-.\aa , a. >: : . ‘ & nee nes ee oS a a oe me : "Gee Re NOE es Gane « a); “Se _ | ye |g aa ‘et . tay. nz a a 2

an , A wae 3 a _ aes i ap =e ' \ i) he : E we ee sa s aaa vs we) : 7 ES 7 F . ; 3 PS a” % ar “i Of ‘\:.ae cee . Bi i j “sept Bei \\\ SEL peor ot VS By ; VA 4 So AR. a as Oe \ . Fe | WON ve KO Of, OP Set ae” Ghia oo me. ¥ VQ TAK ag HS 7 3 fag oF , ms. 1 etna” e 6: . f . oat = %. NN , . Re. * ? i} \ FR # a foes ; : ae ws : LA go eek i\ SO WSS no ne ae e = cen BN Aa \ “Set Rieee eseaiiienl 8 hos- : TESS Re :Weennn te as E: $1 bs .Siege wah } ak - wee Pas : 8anSefoli -sénanan

:‘"i‘.y!i

. . >. . ~. ; ~a1 NT . . . . o~

3- Rome, Church of the Propaganda Fide (with artificial lighting). 4. Paris, Collége des Quatre-Nations, project by Louis Levau.

Be wg Ay yo =. t E. Bee A. ala ;

Bo Se ; ae re ihe ae eer . ; ea ry ‘low gy ey . ~ ei ee ee cs 7 : . 4K ‘ ee* ‘4a NY as ‘)i 41 a}oe| :E. es_> Pseeis{Lose 6 i 2% : IE eeid2i i i. mo a ay._3 aE en ‘* rH paomen 1) ieo yee a. awen NS i. ‘; : aA bos! g | j mah, MAE: i, Sas ih cumeees 8 | Se _a” %err Sigs . = 2a >, AS aaa RE ‘ ae “a : j { . ay évod% :pOa—a ; SS AX S . fk : ae ¢ if aEa ee f “ Ma ‘ | | e a. mY > 7 ; +a oeae 2 “G sO as ~~agate “ i i. 2 us .1 inal “ q 4 %eae a eg a eee . (abi ene pe: : ~ F . " vet wey . oe oo a A, * ; ' | i ' Jf it aaa 5 : aan , On RR BURR Ge on & ~ Loe paral os - «a i — S 7 ft i ~ eee 8 —_ See a wee? ee tase =“ 2 | . :

| \ So i : t p > .

as y See 4 \ : — | ; ' m ok \ a Sat ',.i‘¢:::‘‘io |wy 3 oe i . ead ‘ ae ~ ot ve if i i, No ee 3 . . H ‘ : i . . pliers te 3 _ iS Be * * in . 4 : : * . 2 is = “| ; ee . Fi ; bw { = \ ; i .. x ' He id i, ee ee ' . i § E h » 7 4 ~ i: A EN P coed } : whl 4 & — : ; \ § .5 2% Ly "ae * on | ‘ah ae + , HH — | coon * ot a : = : i : ; i co, BS otwe. reeaen: San ; - ::{&a ” ‘ Fi an. (ae ‘a.;wel paglninnten Pam i.; Ree Lae :+NUE G Lee -. ~ a ay Aa i oe ‘ : :oe aot ee a gyae _ o :em©et 2 a . ees j Ba 4ee a oe>ae% he,rN. - . a. ake a . » ; |i oo ; Sr ae OT eee Rs

_ ya,onnoe — a~ey :ot2.7i oy sone — .E rsHoe ; 7a.eT eeSe oe ficae ~— ]Nia, H| ien a *,pee ‘rt;in, 3B \. -gad oe™ eee

is = ; , °. 2a itaae

2

3 S&S

Pal i, b , Yar al}

Al GP EAS

eae

i 4 Med

1 oN

| 4g

MEGE.S,

Pears

PH? |

SME \.

— | po wn - a3 ws it ’ am i ome 3bh:§§ es pr}, }fi: ii, ai

Ll ie a sy # Hf + } one ti

ek yh oe + Torts i! ‘ >

T ty; ") i on PE |,Sa At SoyaNIRA -aks eee aay $s Hy We a ;cal “ ... F‘. i EI 9Me - ‘we idSi wey ©og AN :\..oN y 4x~\ass Ane! : “\} “3 es iy CR 25k SH! © ~ a I ' ys Beh! . ee . rT. adi ea, by: 4\A a. x a aN { WY Ss ; "a ee \ . ». G iN i ee! ‘ os awe . Sa : St 5 =e | . # ~ Oty ee soe . ~ Neu mak ah if aS habe : ae iy ; —_ \ pete: ad a.: H\ “0 : lel « ») Coe. rN on Wie y ~v BS A + Ve [ NS Be a) s ¥ 2X ALS , WR WwW Ry . Ny Poe . 4 at NX oe a A KRESS A 2S eR . SN Xl , - Vs. ; Wel ae) ar a br NON e: @ a ° eT ‘Ne , ag Pe: i . % —— . i 2 x be . y y ” i, q iN _ i hd CAPR Le ¥ We v4 ~y42 tak ae xe 2, .|. ——" alt .:NS7-@NOR a | yO «is mn ere ASS 4. eae ni 2 F wh 4 Nae aes } \ ¥ : ae Wi 6B i . “mn if. we ee i an =, rt. we SS Na Ss Rea wt a . Tee ta ae ~VS‘:\\> SY. Tn ie Sy +“ wi¥.(a1‘ .-wy aa#A if ia. ae.:vo a, vm Mee, ir; abi MF ; i Ct aD* ®we . aaye —‘“tl * Sennen en Ee By “E.+.; ‘< ae Onn Tag. 8 oes “SAW a cob |e‘ 7Ae oF a‘ |.N; eSAP eeNe ss eS Ysi 3 ’R Aime. See . ie a 5 ff 2ia878 >isSel ax% ‘es ao SE an . e. os Hy =. ah 7 . ° on m : re . Taye I &.4g iN eal og so AR ; YY ae ; ee v arin . ns Bx i ss “if ae 3 ro sae “~S a 3 22i ety , . = : ~ “we 4 fs. os % 3 > & . *° ; a ' ‘se ae = - os . a ON

= ‘.;.:7AY .Rye SS oeOy ps *.“NC ~¥ eT A oaao etG:¥ : th i fe Wa SBA ‘ af ,.es: wih a a ;\8 Wy) ‘Ns — :e is : ar ot ath amzy = ai oon ae ti : eo he Se San : "it.N ee ’5 — om! weie ~~ :57o. °7)~ foiyok ite aan rs ai“LA ¥ rh - dpas +.4\>3ay i_ AaEs $4coat aadd tsi &

Tee FANT He. og7& ae&ae So, tu viii%,, Fs*4eae a; wR OeMt mg .ot{*Hy me . ke t ra aN ifa 7‘a eii ;N. 4a ay “3 ‘. pA

: Spa | i i Sl Re OP BNE Se. A i \ak re Sl RE. B z ff . + so — g pos fee $ .. ; A , 7 _ J. GR _ om * he » ae aA e:! . i\. a Ia ‘ ———— Ml a5 Se meee ae ms lela a a on eS Se Po oReaa) te > . ae ay . 5ag ies habeas Cia es YY 3 Al eS esaaasy nll * —— ss se TTT - oe . - om TORE'

a . . ‘ ee»... a

ii IRR ics ine i et ne ee SARS yh: eo we aR ee aiSy LEE Gl Age RRA| Sr Ieee 5 penal PROS, apt =:pel F ;‘ =, —? g Nisa +. ie Loepbs a! a sk oe aan “53 D Cx Be ay at we bE ee ae She se Pe ee OO ikea og gt

\ oe Me Tg ee = RNG” ween ke peed aoa “ = ah REALE:

ao ASERNO OU gh hee 0 Sere =AEC SERRESee Fan Qe

ot ln Coote Tr Pee 7 j Li) | SE | Ih ees *, . wa wyee—_ s(anbape iN . ee —Te pes : iee ee geet eee ee Fm eg manase iN ian | ' ON Tie aa a eee ae id sad es : te, | f . ‘ y . . SE AE ea a | 2 PB ee ”7 :fe; LA="ey. eS | oe : : , a Pes eos i entiow acer: f A . , \ | 7 5 Mee: { . : : . re Pee) Ss CRS ae = i ion Posh? es ee mo, : .:Leterme etLevitt : .Cat Si;s‘’to Vo ’‘MCCRECEENE eg Pos I Seat NA esoo, esCc OS go, Sadan 940 eSRie a: 7. © ape DS ae ae Yt feos EP ee. J , PC Pomc eN a UM Aj, oa cafe? ; 7 . 4 a, B. i Sr See RABIN Ce ae Se ea ae AS MO °is 7 oAta Roreanes oie an.| ‘ye oaPESTON % ay= MEANS ROB leRR == es Sie ke 4 arteBee at ny, rare es po ay ira | safeties mace CRETE 1afoo Ze OO gon ae 4 a . POE: Sea See eee BRS ieee nites, poe en 3 ta te PEE BENE et A ——.oan ya ED Sore SS, ns ALR ia J ; a ~ SEROUS A Teena a “hy a eee ae wr at Rael os _ . otis oe _ wae 1 Sodas ve a . oe : oe tsk Stay he a PO aS aor a a iF So Md 4 ~ - ane eeeget worsens ’4aa go eee Ne ‘ .N ; PMECREME DR NCB nS Cake 4° 3-5. 5 Re ae fs: =ean 4§A| Fgh AR Al - retorts -ee eo Ewy ORGIES, / ET? . , : LSMaes? . mmr eeSS3. cans se 24 eeA ae CC Soe ONE . oe . . LoS BLO neg if. . od a Me ” i a C , a no en “USS A Sas” vo RAR pees Beet ag Ps ns on me co as CT Ree 4 Z . XTe w ve wo |NS ’ O®§ ..a— . ., .A QZa . 3ae .to ; 1. , ao. oat Ne ae Se oN tao oun, a kine ]a Nr aN é i ny ae a Beara, = vast are: ae Ea. aL ae : : tte SF ae * OG OS Sa + ee een tes 4! fo j rr en pcr THES SS ei a| ™ “ toque qo; ‘ : : . . peeewes Ve ererem ea, ye ae 8 eee yee pat Me Ode |,jitJ:tii:i ;|i| Ves Ja Reale difarjg! : ry weg e: : : pp yy oe ca Be 4 ’ DBD: DGuarins 4 i ro ' | | : Hi, f --;: Chapelle de he 22S Grr... ni : oe “ 4 eww ioe 1 | \ ar] , , a : ™ “— OF ee ee Cee src gen LES Bee, S 4

a 1h Ss a vt. r x SEE ee } nny ,eemer “en RS CSRS ROME eyeekf.nS ‘ taRa ie .\A ea RE ay MS aera eee core: RC [Bees 'Bs .ee= WN "1, sid Le : alae) H ee oat CREM Repee Rare teats bn aMR ea ee aTe MMe OS aS t| NE no ag xeouy YY “Jee wh OS atposes, ae, iat aad PINE eeee Nae aie! TS.e tA, / OES ES ee eo ' RRP ARH ip RR Re ares , te Late eT Fg ne Ry oo Og 6 ole . a, IQS 7 aes | ares :Ti fee| Fae es' SS \ ane eeSES See GlNee BANE ALT Ts m , .: N ham a ae i dent oeee ROR RSP areas CAD Looe fryreau Temi |i"NINDS 217 BRM G7 eC oe a3

( ae ee ; ete, |can : | ~*~" x| ‘ Saeeeee . a aee 4 OSE ff {9 fig) ene eno“o a~|| ae a [ : $ ) ( ; ! Pee = aeme -*of os. NY , ay AS ) Sas _ : : —— aS 4 ! a eae age es * ae a oe eeFICS :Hy . f, 4LC i, fhe “ i4%s 3 :=ay ; {;* ao . a4 . Vis ey es A .; .my“:SN ' A; te ‘ :rw ‘ eee: - rn “i L ecot = = : a ey “a = =. INTER = Beant VN} 5 once Ss : “ys Jot a . F Hy i itTe 7]7,=fipe Gener ene .owe a ieSSke is | See ee ae Se i o ve ve x eee Se. ee ae i He ot el Siete en OP 4 esoy 18 Re_, Se 7ee ae.:ef y°a—— . 1: aag ie*yiocrit .eee r ee a ~aT ite _.:rae a,ee aa-= J fo ‘ow DF . rds zee Swe a4 Pe Se :oe 22 , aN i . ov —— Me Menge mE : ne > :Bese .:6_chaeae a4 ak |>”Soe angre Syoe / 1=:¢}Be PA C4 aeff), 2: =~| >“t~an! Ea |{eye ienine af4‘a byes \ ‘ SS “Ye i + oy ns . — Le A.wee ee, fay pe aa oF)e ie} oral a= a L2 | an ° \_ares Bye| S ews : o" eS 14: wimetal - as oT”.

ik teerste |ane of — KReKS ee,AOy \e 6) 2eS._eet ee2)Ee a pe a Sy 2 oo a were SE esEE ee 4SEe J 3ee 3 - | Sa es ie,ee Ay ‘ >hon 4 F > fs= | — jel Sere ee ee ene ae rf . Aen sant n. Seen7 e. a oa he, 2 eoSite Set = ee adg = SS i ie “ © _ Me - Foneiees fs : ee ,a, :Hee By TA: E 9Be: ee O oes "S ==: an Es »; $ xJ. : “Go . 2 .Eres, reea-oN _.* &‘ ‘:is a. 7so Ree ESS ier 2) Sa feck, an. oeVES, esj . ae Bah Be : ~asis 4on::. a*.3rl.is+5 >

~ONE, —eg‘ eS. Po a ce = | = ; y vege ! f ‘43S RAN co, | gage TS i =. we ~~ s ie 7 ~e RE. | vee Tee va e : ." ae ; x Ss 3 . - am ~ F ~ : : . a oe x oP. hae ; P oe ; Pa i fs ate

i oe eeu ATED + ene 4s aeaet,: — Posie Sa Ve . _— . me” ie ne . { B TE! oe V4a”a WEN ™ % . a P °. «B Ny R a— ~ 2 Ee hh om og B | ee heg

ae! ANT ie, OE ON + Ve ae: ee Ba aan Orn | / a

Pw +. Be . .*, ’ - ey . * " ‘ae ~~ . , ok

previl . ;: gy Hl H.A ; a kc 4 vw . a Ny SS > Laa .aoe 4 Pi 7 xA ham ~~ Ryi .“eS . ‘y . id .nae © TAM a . . es ‘ y . a pa, __ ms f eeay ae . a oa ¥ io in yr yet : Mie :

; es =3 ,' rm NG! Ks > ite : . pee! 4 \ ay ge Ye (3x‘fee oe 5} woaN >.‘OM, “RS _ ws : SN ,wg .fyiN LY as Ee of a @ mg Wey \P / oe.4 — ae , poles 28), se SL PR eS a, ‘ Nd J z ms Res “ we ae . a Bs Be 4 "sO ° e ee a

Se ee . Se oo

: : : ‘ ; . : 7 es -¢ ; pe é g / rr i, Oy ‘SBR x “

ro .~\ ‘“ce. ~ePR eh ‘oe ean 2 . | (a || | _=a) J ’ : anal we .|

eae . : ‘Lo. & ‘eci.) .:|*; Meets

tg a XY .)¥ }: .,; ‘ * ‘ @]a ‘.

7~~ s . m“6 eee , SWS. }’|Ne ,! ’ ne 5 \ : / a aX Af a i i \ > ' a} 4 16. San Lorenzo, vault as restored after World War II.

17. San Lorenzo, cupola.

&

in

(of @ ; ‘fa 4 ad 7 4

4 @ i" ) M4

en a , al? -

¢: “yKaleer ,a-.ey on3 _ ., a— x | acto pi

aGigun TY ieWeiee fines Ng ot Ramee ' . : y ' od o k . cal ¥ ?

! i / fi | Re { IT !

ww ; od 1k me) al

OM\ ADE ge caeyorn >ay me/ |.eens & be a.ERS AWee ih | oy: /,ee' ynr) > , bx Se ‘ " . . pores, y ‘ = ta tf A aes ¥ vi ; an

Tw vscag! "es ktrsar. etosL. ae " ‘+i*. a;fao a. an .{Agee | we -anVe, 'ro Seee Ay see be r-|a iwie 7? ‘Si , Ate aed co ee ee ce see Conan s ryoe aTaoy ty ‘4 m—— fl eS ‘ 4ve“°;. x 5 4a ._— , : p -- *. }

4) ah : a aot, |; .. et hcg f _ ig a ia oe i pet

: aed * . . a - Goal i — 5 etal nh ee rt. AT Ste i . A 498 1& a

| wa f : Phe } om: ‘ied -) yon? a ; Ke Fo 9 it, IA —_

So fen. ast - a a ae / . ra 7 4 mT. ¢! | A ' ' cs ae 4 o ict aad e. oe ‘San 1p : - .. - , e¢ gab sy +} Pet 3 qa > i, a AE 4 , Seat. ~ ae . a _ \ AS fee) V\ Cae ee. .\\eaeeer aca)? (7¢Ee“ae ANY WS oepa om f/f |.ieiy Se seer ae eehsOd °°" *\4.oo AS: Ba iad ag et7gelF. ey me: ee ;thy mo? Nye i4pees Al 7.z. Of|. Al \ ‘*WY Pa é 1 gir = / I pe. ’ 3 Q ae i > ee + e ; 8 3 i b i ee ia ; et ak. 1 a i ta \ A ER BY Aci? an Bt a me, \ ™ fe Fee _ / Hates ye RB eS eee a ree it nt A i, eek | ~ 2 é .ofwih me QML TANG OOO ER a st A | 1°

fe” & oN PL a. 5 pee Ae” ote ey | 2 BT PAA VERNAL ESOP 7 BL TN | iy - Pe ie ae i ~ ran} me 4 i Sti. ys L. aN _ he: wom Fe 8g TEU a : sal a si j A sr mt ion | ar .. E a ie ts WE , ans i : 4 ‘ rEE xe i. < mY SN. A , L > ad oan - ea zz - 4. 3 “oh £ es | p

. _: se San: ‘x>PSfa4.\ \AN cy +=Ae Se axa , . face a re, oa aif at. y 2 iAlad i ; é es ~ *ae nl 4; febib. § j> : j 6a 4i?wl“ , ;. *"4he = ;. op eee cae : fy%hy ; ‘ i x can la a | 1 y : . S AN be 3 ' ~ ; _ Se < Le, “id €3° Lo a , r4 £3 gs ; fs — ied . i E ‘ oan ’ 2

Nine? \o ee Sig gtiaT lhTee Ge wl’ Vis Sgt 2iawn “0 as Pee .\ \\Wye *és. % .\ ‘ae aa ne es MM 7& 3Sek Oea 5.ASaad ili é, aee oe ar ett . i i $ . Gl \\\ \Y NWA, Sate SS eg FO og | a

Tore ). 1 4 Ga

iq 9J ie =2\\! ome en Tae /”kA ey j, .34 sit | DP Fi 4 we Bit we) ‘Wat: . ye % (Sag sO rian S =KI zi aS ql 3, ie ‘ lt s 1\‘aWOR ——— Ba‘ at + Ams . ‘ “a. ae. Se ; ~ — Vy = _~ = nhtioed: Sane > . BA ah ‘ ' : 7 i . key i) 4 Lg Pari “ . . _ 7] a pane “" = o~ Le Ca = ~ 2 a 4 4 4 _ Ty 3 tee y

wot 1 ar” Lt yee “VA —_——_ a ~ \ a JA * a 4 ‘ 4 . ‘ ‘SS ae , 4 3 a aol - Mec | 4 = * i TTS ° ~ _ poo {= < pun _ . a \ wa y .

hs rsee f2f ys ™ 4Fo asgf 1c.~5= }/ x 4% ap . j 4aah3i Summ . . oe 4aa .“,Y.. eJia . rtCie OFS “a ~ dre. ~ R*ol oa}, aoaPh, ¥Py 4tebf—— - sn Ns] “aSe#,pare

EF A OO C/I hoe oo ag

teCin, ane fo coke f : oor it sy he , 7 4 “v x X NS —_ eZ ee tie ee a Renn ba ” So » f P ib : sn HEE : 4a . a cs fs . it .” %. . xed Sa wa me _ 4 u ‘ ke r 4 ‘4 a ae eres ae a —_, ik aaa 5 oO Ve Gs - “eta ted ” ‘ i\. ~~ _ . eeliicadar \ hia '

7 Ney t . Q : eet aa,Pwn » tea roc. .w\ afA~": .i :i ase fe - 4 ae,Cz a47~~} co wall a » a” 4 ‘ “oo* Bee * ) -aba é =. teas- YA ‘ uf:e lw

; ES erSS vsY oo,oe ¥-“4\Wiamy R, ~ :4 .‘ond . 7 ,.a” . .:H.y \ | :nl =t/a y¥ ‘ ees ae,’» 7 \ ,a gs :a“ « & By! | —_yf a2an .‘s. ’.‘an Re Be op Pi. ss ty, ~~ , = J i — ay mS a ———. af \ .4 t 7 ‘€ Ff 7 Pp ‘.ee yee 4 i ee = oe er . “yh. “4 , , , NS ; & eo ON : ~~ A; 3 d ae SS" ‘ “i « ne , iS 4 F < ba 4 2 SB eS h 2 aa . : an 4 » RE : o bn a 18. Turin, Santissima Sindone.

Pee, SN ee Wasp we ce ae bd 4 ; a2. 4 e . . .

19. Vicenza, San Gaetano, Guarini’s project. 20. Oropa, church project by Guarini.

NOs es meee ages ies. teeth DELLANM DELL OF Dg ,; me arma t wa arn Tam 2rom : - 7. Se ntpeten ry f .27 5es_;[4 at cn Lot «‘tag eh Tore nage a.:Ce a=— 7 c tee pola OB: Of vee eeawe ee ‘a~A _ 2:. ‘ -

———— ae ee Ngoc To eCa4 RNG a:ee EEN ~ "ESS oS ae \e) pon ee ae eat, Ute: san oy a eet Cae Tie toe Tine, oe q f = ae, eto ee arts ae : oy. coon ss . pene eu te : i. — . ’-NA aem, > 5a ee ae. ™ = ee ee, ee bese . Lae, 4 pe ow es.

mae Poe oF aeaae ; ryro2oa meg Y FON Oe Eon oe eee ‘fSAWS ST G EN a i ts i? ta, Bp orded W * 1 o -interiore a \ < x : ih ‘ *| :\\\2=. : rSe: ° LPao 5 =aqEN ~~ P| . 4P| Ht 3 UB 2a; I ina AN co el oe ) 4 — +> ar ie 4 sme L , Ba mnt I M 3 . .

i|—.baer_— ; . nee . & a:,=|-Sa:i* 4eo] iou nn: Tar rn _ } ) 1 ty «4 ——— atha i | ES Le ’ i | . i : aH t ¢id 1 h |BI: Foi gy: au oie.ae

| 3 ;ee \ Sow: x yoZz ' wt wiae ug ae . fe | Hm3 ™ ae Ps1me aaBe a %eae 5 ay ‘3we re wtDy ¥YS 5) ‘t ry i x ney: Y a PN ss VR , rar \l: *“al aa % ee po *: _7Py "3 eg | : ee ALN pags e. °ae ae FF dP om ; by BE isYY, ,ii . ey Yager :yer joy ig : 3{ci. _: :Ss NS ~.De et) ::sy wos My .™ i a 4 a ‘ee ay a ~ ane e ee ; Fe ’ a;i a a . " chert toot : H Fe , . area “ Nee EE . as , iL 1 { \ : . * oe : vy eee. ' ger oe . : ¢ * ~~ ‘ i Loe, AF 4 ww Sk ah be rs — \ 1 ¥ Bi ~~ oa y a \ , a ao pane a ‘ Re, weep tne “A ie ~ oa ‘ 4 we tye! . ae, . : ~bh 4r.~~ v: agit ne,Rc. men, , ; 8B ye ~ ” a) —_ Fe. ve . :‘;jB rE =ialPg oS EJ ™b. ms, “, pie t ae . “: i> ae ee 9-\bS% . 3oe j piaiaeze sp Cn :ia.4ry ;aOO. ~aia‘ ai2ws~~~ on 4aewe4a.ga

Ra!’meaner, ‘ a ee, : a© “a cf acipees Be ee A. ee ec \x,~conti R ES .ate oHJ “f E41 ee ee ¥ hy «Re sso A NOS Ne i ouicerll . 7gee a\:ee&, b+ ' ieuat ae an me é\. a,i ,.‘: SS — Ge “# “Hy we \we Nee *_ a ee

~~ . eo ee meen ecuae ~. . 3h ee eee OE , ee! / an j . 4 2 / . we ea CE A is leer ‘ ne Be : oe fee ) RS {Aprweingermmongt Eos ae4 Co C° if free .eS race Y= SS. Wee/ mS SO; WN foo. ig 4 Sateen a”,f

A . a §, . , ; ; , f : g f

ve, bo eeRY 5 ee a oN Ssyaa aa i” aeans NY%oS ty ws i 7 AIEEE . “*Nee —| 2NS Bt.Fe Wytects ¥ aoe mee N we q j CES eas ‘ ao= a i 4

: at. d aa) . ——, CMa ees: ee fi, fe ia . . ss NN wS ! ow 9 ee Sere mee 3 7,” © ¢ ba, ey. NG PgR NS:i:Ale Saati joo BA om 7yl SSR, ieee =iy BYA : ts 1: gee 8‘tl-og she ad, Of NN ES an SSN : a. er im_na—ee i ae 5 i a aCe cose Se UE SS ee B tat SS ‘ oo er ae tSS ' . tet oe — A t : Nee a . , oe Ak & : 2 is ee OE ae 1 SNe. H a ne at: 8 oe 4ope tie.ag ? oe pemen oF , can _. s-ee, | VOUS ‘Se ‘+4 g 7oN, as ‘Be Jes iamee 4, > a . er fy aeo a -. : .a og eo ee id A(oF we 4:ge alae een “awut ager ee

‘ iii || ii Litt = | ~: nae RAS 25 Be It i oF 3. pynears 7 a ee eg,‘ Poa ~S ee Cpe ONT esYA ; - ‘+s Ne He eae \-nef. oo wee SSSa Ma JS Se a .tema os;oP Ss | LEEESE atlDe3ES hee ; _.. Bat Sa) 7 eis 2... OE weer SB: OR Og ("ie ie ie i Syed ae y J {:a‘i . Sara tha Vig’ 54,aoe oeBe Ng aShy }A kc* Set aUb ee H if=” eee éah:RB ‘ ot& wry eS4- Pa 4 4,oc 5mo:)6 (asa! eee Ree a car fe iBg.% } | on cal: a | iP 4 e COM SEI BB aR Bee ide: ae | 2 a aru [255CL 5Sca a eS | RPaed BES en ||_eeivAOU Ric Cee. aSea || coe « aa .asex A t 8cipeSR , % a E ;

! ; ae ie “ER & teeRR ’ oe reemreie: Pes) a i Ce ; ‘ a ee nd YOM§ . ay ‘ is a reaa {2] beie ye? a Bue Gm ee a-OG 2keare Sarre :an a AaB 38aeCREME eee |. reSte ase“)recs Prag aah gl ERE Se ime. ee “|Gees: ae oe yee pis Eli rt.fWER act onos4). we A Ses .! 3¢>" RA Soe ae t Sn Soon th ae * RE BRR: a Se 1: > co ad : Sa ee Y ert as te hoe ne F Bees Te Aya ae AAS Bk ae ; Hy i ~ a ams; Se Pee Boge z if’ ES ae ie 8, ae a3 uo epee . oh a ye sh MEe . . vss: eae Yl et 4 ve : “4 aoe Be. CE 4cael Wg LS Gas ae«Uf ed Pee BS ee aea.Peenaee : ee » Fee OB .ee.thes .vhs! a is ~. ‘ = . orn si * . " ? = oS Re! ; “5 eae tl ey : Mewemee Se ee. bil. bas i f — --T= a3 ea: ibade > ST i: At, i. ae a } oa ee a pert 4 : : “Oo €* l8S% eT ooo BENE, rite OS oats A ¥r + awe! camioworece ee wee c . al * : ‘re ON - rae ta REE oS RNS

- ok wer S . 7° a wt tol ay wes “* - Re pre ry LG tay ci conadieds yet nee, = ay

ee SR ee 8 8 8 I eR ene ee gear eae | [Pig Ge Tk PHM ey ed ing eg NOR Ee ean en > wg ~a. 4% APRA LIFE REN 4 oa te meses 1) RR ROE ; meee Ri a Foe: POW Fa Frock re Oh aod sa . J "iperr at or! wed ‘ 7 = so] 7a 2 t;an i. +~otd we va ~~ in SS — a”:Ra ota xeg Aang gl e P:Sareea ee renee +1«See ‘ Le a pay elPLS. BA; =Bs ; Fi Sq. MES . in|

fee ee,ao3aeayTePe TIES ally “ALLS ELE. © «SN 2 STN ww tiala a; ; ry eee : .) , ve ° oe iSn Beets Th sew ee . eyUe Agee: ERED ae ig nt bp SSane. Guamoma Stn TTS " Aen, 2‘Payee neerwe ps bs CTE a 44 a >.” ie oe >» => ave wR ite - i. - a On wer Ee. ar Ey Je ae ee Fry Re, CE a Oe eae ow aeTro Bete P 34 i rich ays é 16 8 wag ef SEABES < Pee: es Nar es Sea Be ” eat ™~ “te. S °C nee a eed 7 _— ee ee

F 8 s¥ “~ : ee tS ee BiB AGU MERA Taha “Ey bees iT. MSN OF eo ah iz eea ie Bie: *,rae ¢ VERE Ste mae Mea aeee 1Po —_Mate ey a x — Te aes Raat"ieaxewy Le TA sin” wee Re rm2»Udo BR WE 8 aod “pe Me NK,ee we oe er “ =“ . !,— a at1;- eal ad}oo ; : 462 Oeee. PyYy ‘mem x 2 fo 8 | Ky 4 EO My +NE BMEee rr "a4, ao oat ntBy _ aeog ~ . ag a 9 roel 2.3 | rt DP oar A >... ee Le et ee ee = a; R gat De ho pre bt pee a yee ep ad San a eee Nas oars Sl: ade | oy BS Ce CPeS SR SE ~ x eae ; ; g xBN Ti yonaK) 7% qa() Plage % re = ee? ANG hadee . pam - \ Bae Ue oe aa |i .tear we . Mies lle”We Le , ® Taner BeTeak aener oy ase eat a ace anrre5 ~elg4y 4 ve NT oak ee ee eae “e a+Pee oe, et , * Ny n i € eS es. * cael *. patie Putaient” elena

he. mS 5Jho-: gt a enP Sewe ~ ke°.acoy a ° =n i5WK =. “f4i SB ON“re y WOU MEARNS, ~a ayBN CARN ? .a + MAA TAte OF , 23 * . iy art : car on ene pe aan F a fo Cea “ : . .. ae 4. 2". Se tr ba fe KAN ve ees ee. NE } ~ & ee ‘ eo “eee 8 Oe 4 SrAg B fe oe ke OO a Bowe PE ar ee XS ;> i, Sn. . “ell i | pn a * ba oe of 4 - ¥ Per ere secant sea #5 vos ¢ i xs ” : aaa arent ¢ Uaioe Ei so Mk on) Py aa... >. Tyr wan Se |,: re i. ms tyA *~aad . ia . aeee :.°etae aanet igi ‘Cae: . a \merry ? 3 ;Ma. Tippee an \\iaaa< ‘ 4 ‘ . . ~ | ay ss } . wn wie 2" 2M uilion | | -< i-ae Se us ee «. ahiae wes Do “at SOT, Ye PSey a! | An Ak SENECA. a1“a eee i ae eo ale : A. . Esti MARE 2 Soa if i| phbbbbbbt Sibi rt Bebe eee, ee. F 4 ‘ ° ‘i . == PRESET TS eey red gas & : . : a MENEL ELUNE vce . Een eee: I s . Ey & es Peers pitt PAE :Bekins HUE fe Cease NS déon _ peer tRee i “ag “N mS aeBee = an i” 4i :_ss oh) Hieet }@ em NS NSS EE =) Ee F atRo 4.0 7§,!x> PY DEN oa: | Sach & Aa; 7S tt.the Ue Jy oe :iiet Coste wees tht au, | 8 aaae Oe eras Eo nt ag on ok aw 1 77 fF aie : we 3 Hy a vote ; anf gate! i an es Pige. sy £28 ot ae: ewok Ren + ‘ * th Oe d é + Ss L iHi asia Biniies | iY aeaN ; N38 its.AN gs ik ie weeeepam on %ma a eeye $tlit ac aD REE ie. (fea a- BES SHER &oe teae te oa Me Toe L 6-_ 6 tan! FSCO t ew ia oS ae¥ee mei jee, FSree pothe pw? : Ww

see oie et 2] Bees ee Y f ve . ‘ a oe : ; . ee anMt = “Bet aoa Sars caect BR: (Gt 3beh. *ee -.— = i? - es ttsSetaees & Wereeerey’ s:Vaecacice Geese tees aoe ae se Bee oe FL. “ee, | £9452445¢ thterstrapesesgepenas (pe eeeBee ee: ee a |eg =p he Boe im.: 0s eee tt a “ ire io thy EY Re ee ee a | ve cite eoaaaeees Ge : Pee EBS ET “|. eset Ee t 4 eB. gene Mee Bigs ye |e MR Se ‘ | ‘ se * “y. |ass: esee 4dit: YreEE :Re . ; -fy coe Ge Bie ik tyke ea. wes ee ,toaaa oe >.: » og a 84. coh eiwe Giese Be ie .= ~ 4aek | ) i, : igo eS ei tf Ges bocce ett terre:3 ES tt ae . or So i We os. ace 1 (ee oe : etteees ieee “8 = cf) Se oo os a i ge : a Ge re . ¥ | »eeeevescecy 4464400000000 04OSE t3aft . eres Ss| rt bhbeirers ft t aA oes ,-r:=;. :; AVEO Ret OERSit babes . “S| a ee; 4, a 3 ”leo o-agShik aread 2 taeUB: SASay ox yaeen pam Ntes 4 ee -Seon Race < ~ Bee i 4 are a? aoe ra .:RUGa LCtARNESRS me + : eee 4 ! BS @ oe ees apt ass & £3 we tke + eS te noe oy Ry. Sg ae 74S teat yeaa we t us Fie t 4 a ‘ i api ® + ee gee nd Cee Ree a PUT Ceaa Rat he fy paca — pi ige tO 6 Oo S e ee r se te te 3 aot tates s +, aie ne Pais © ae .a RU UCUL ESE RSE, piet @ URED bp . oe ae a yaaa -e che aby a “fta2

CRURLRA CEEOL EPME RACES Pcf ee ‘ehh . tee ee GPR

a eM ogie SET

pre. nH. }afiBY (J . a) aw Werere hE oe Es —, cee coon S ae . Sf Oca oeee ting! . oteT. eM ee ia 3sa 2ee Se FE: a Mc gC:SR ed’ +4 ; BegSeem oo Loe: Rag Se ateTA fe igare as :4ef A---:aa=any, Sy ee, AY: FON: ej: an als ES ic ~ . ‘ Moe 1 pil yy HU [. ee ON, j me Co the SRS oO . 7 tt a Ae ate eee 302 Se | ome Lie ae ° Des TM 3) eps se ee” : 7s ‘ £ “4 AN lst (fe “oss Ms * Sh SES Ghee : ay RPI ge I 2 SR ees 2 Se oO ne aSe wv .—: “_* co, ;a,— - . a.; tp . :a% so, ie sot fe :: i2. = (% / @ XN ett os - ‘, |ag eS He .atray: #=ri=’ .“y 7: ee. : (Se: i ot ‘ ote ’we ae 3é Benes _“aOS erent* ,; BS t: 7‘.oe—" 4s eee i,: :-oan TeULawaET ih. : ‘ { fe a wh. . pe.oe rs- “ye nemo se ccregll |SI . - . mo -ao) a.— i oo not a SE oS SG Oe Ve nd i : mo ee Lift kk, nere HySate Pemy wD Bk i3 X re * can con to. fi -“ -~ cae ‘ oy 2 . na ‘ é os eer ¢ am ct % take r eSiore ae yee iad ae a Bee TURBO coe or he

ix i . ::: wv . 4 hoe . . on EL .| i:a.° -ae “ ., + if :ae eh-: S i aa :ae soe

3 . ° . 4, ae ae ; —— aOR BR “ge !, pe LA fea or Pe

; (Sls. | TIRE SE ane Eg Va (eeeeee eee SS TLR i OT CS berTES per ee eel Sve A;

. ae . nnn Simin P; . .

33. First project, plan. Cat. 3B. ra

THE CHAPEL AT VENARIA REALE 34. First project, interior of the facade (left) and cross-section through the rear chapels. Cat. 3A, f. 22.

\ 1 4 ———— w. WT) |\ ee Pig =F ae Lg BT , $———~. ZY VY. Sfl oe 7me =e bf fap ON yr t geSao. a Pos steae neee AWN me BERIT Ra See See 4 ae Solis ut me LY a : = OED SAG Ea a be SS oS ok fe, § Ny a: . a

BSCy OO iglesia Be a::aren 9 | fe =—. Le rR\ -i

Boo a,ee. os '— 6 8 6 ewe “ .. aSees ” eel sa :Pe Bo . . Ss stot. tf ee aa cfm- aa sceoe ciameaedy pate : Yr aie sah ol ? cla b. Fegeete wili OE TeeeAy ieity at ah a .USE 3 $ “pga : ' sy ‘ . bie ageenrsSa: ‘§ fel A ae BON aes We ES Af i ee ; }'gs a ff; i]ao Ti ¢Be One \ Vo. TP NO N Bebe. | eeerLtae Sooo Fe y ne en V4 a eel & its pcan a : pk eo OF | oA! }e en ‘toe ha ~ WW eutimeitiirie ‘, |. CLARA 3 ante a am co

eeneaay eee ac7 ah:ttwt ae ET ae> ERTS bie Se ee .ae1be got) FE ,'i aeios .UNE. papi Ieee EER. ai: cE"een no 2 ef FR Be Re r Se a ow ow gee A ee Ce Gee Doe Be : } ie . 1 cree ie atone i 4 : : : a I oe ee + do ft ee $2.bs s \s 4 4 il a : WE aA&Ae " «pong ee peenpe: re ‘iene ne A ria rr ie eb —TT S er dt i dt a il | feet” YES eee aa, A ie ie thnk MEEENS. Silla is ORO nn! pact - “he 1 ie, eae aes . (Hah ge YH hi » LZ ere ays “de GF ah ot1h: es

eeER : Ss :OS iUeSaree BeRRS 2 ee aetered ee) tsme ee See Geaan ey, oe4(a ee se,Sa Contes Od) A selva | OEE: x) ee I ae j| :gs +47—=)-* fAlil i Vs |ae | i Be ee oe pO SS Se Em apt ane ame waBy Te bak itee wy 4 At

. (ge Sens ae : . " :

: Tt Oe aeTER BT, is. .Srna {zoma ' a= AS 4Oi ie Pe wa, ee . -| Soe es cr ao . ate =; a “, ee oe fo Ln EAE a OO 7 poet Peta EAN | ie eee 72:)

Se ae rN teTS FOR RAM NeBRITON Oe ERCP ARONA he eeaehE i RG PRR SES . SE ER ORSRR RTeee Emen arnTE enRN See Che ATES Pa on oR ER EERR RRL CSO, EGOS RCE

os ee

yi aa,SG >

“ . FLoc. . 3 ab‘ role de4,

;GS 3 aie . -:,.'_. i.bidLemi .a.o |i CNC) ve Low o . : BB . = — : : a og: ‘,.op |.«4.‘sk,ood : { CX FR * Fa 4 . , . , | . Pia ~~ ~ x ris . ae EP LO 1 ee a, Oe

ile7 Se lel 3,SY tere] 2 ~/Mh at4S|!| ae . saad aan \Yonk aBa , . 2) meg. -28 1] VG Oo / :§a& {Vena; len bs.xe. iIi "Ss Hes AUS) ky ar VaVon WA FulFy) Aa we er TEE ONT . ue : | wi ik ae Aan © ea ae oe She . Re] jae G6 at | FP ae 3 te ~f 1t.#

AeTY “pee Seeman a ’:Ny Sn "8 4;4We)” aniWh | UTA |. cos .' phy a eee NE TL A ‘GPa _—_—< Lemar hi: ae be. 4 i| _tePOF v7It.Cee aA . _ =~. Sie ” OY, ; i Bi cK é — Re het i OFS SG CS 2 ee ; al Ritts Lae Bea“ “a :| —— n*, ‘ -— atT ve =tes ~~

yrs Per _ & bef RL, - , £ -s .

. 7 / fibrks te _f as CF acto ial? “Ferryse ob freger — 2 NS we rhenseg o & ime Ce

re. “t : -” : sfeS oe. a # SOle oo °2 beeNN | raeuel asd | WR 2 Bees oe grape ee er ES Grey Sy ; . it Om Sar” oa) saees i ne RAM [> aga Wit oo me |: ce Pedet | VO at 3": - PR, Pale 2 Me oo OT : :|.

51. Preliminary facade design by Juvarra. Appendix V, Cat. 3. 52. Preliminary section by Juvarra. Cat. 4.

ae a a : . os md ; oe , ae Se Se soe ten, Te > a Tse ~

4 : C— pO) inl : ie ah | (eee — Sa | er : : wy = iY AB “2 ; He ) aan , Soe al " oe " US Re wert TT ed 7. ene fe FETT > | | EE — RES ear 4 9 BEANE 2. NN y ae eg 4 EO; +e San | “RS A ARETE on wa |. W/E | YM). WA |EERO RSPR CLS AO X | || AW) iY df ORLA a AN, } | Pau’ ., eet Mt) /g Ge” Bees 5 PS x eZ aN i | ‘ $: V4 FS ie, GO = nog = SS \ ae p

“.4 yy f a,;;1) Vp ZaZS. N \t . a= ‘My 4ar,SeZX CS AH4%QAL2 , wpe } yy Y 2YI Vy Mi H ‘\ j| ::

We VW (ain 4 ! Wy | i J) \ : y i J YM Ups | “yt Veceb Dich LAG ME he | ia

4 We { !

a B= a } ~ : hoy ee ¥ i; oe _ ' oo ; Nee ST SS Se =weeSS Fa ah 5~~, era? ee ieS —= ~— NR 2 Pa re Paoea on ft ~71nersneos Ny‘ A] . |£6 AgeSS arOe# =} cSri_oe M/ : oe A) eer ee Ss a, eee. , - \ Se: seer Seb

oY TSS pT Ee od) PRE TB ONCE oe enn | yo | _ETO var ae | 3| i3§|aon? —ayoon t|)i —— 4 ; qrer 4

ant| eee ykFot+ |eee syj|nee3| — | bee ; ee °----“ft yt we POY He | 4: a iba S}coeee) pct ilo ‘4 ; *)ytd Ui oes Bai oid ee Serer L ry it i i Ye. ‘ i Do ddd pe |! ill Hay | ee nn Sy, a = ghee ene —_——-—~ to. { t: A a a iM ¢ ‘ee oe a )? ae . } oe 4. See” = eT Sh ee bee tebe s emer Se SSS SEES |! wal i! —— —— | i | icy at: | | ‘ a 1 . | \ i j _ 7 — «| tu =are ii |

an hoe "an ‘ane | eeeae a} pha 7 | mo eee Soong nn 1 (1 i= EL Pah Sa cat .yareak > |aon: ‘4i5LR! ‘ ‘fh. {8 . FT) 7 ae ;*i

oraeomnee —— — — vm enna ewrewtemae tne anounonraans a) oo: iH BIC ( Mt eh. LL \p 7aalpr LATre AM STAT LL pers TT >Bo 02! < | /=~ ertAt! PeLeaa. aorAP 2" oe FdGil. awe, use oe a ee ee + ee : an ee rn eeill ee.Ta) tT ,tke Ce gre, ou to — : Te a;

— re . a) ot tL nO uy bey (bree -24bN Cee cdosbee. x >= oF |

~ — —_—_ _—. . i * a b : A j A | 4 (/ yao Noe i, , 2 ee “= , ee anor a ra aes gsi Adit, =] ==: =e Jf Eh thee. 4) ~ BitL - io. hh7oe|;‘, 7 ay lar $b ‘ , . \) Ve 2 tal S-~_: G —/ (ne AY Oael aie | (\ °a iY “> iae , \y ° Kea Ss . | 1 \ | ! | ; | Aee 8ca SED TO | mn / We Twi: | a eo I, oa I OA | , “, PEN Th iY . Uy \ — . ar . La \ : . Vi) f ——_ wsTe —_an — tc Sa y| ||a"ier | ~AZ, Li wr on “a -‘a“yt iu

;; “Ss ‘A.OT yy - IXQ ra lg IE

ae = ereenenecacmene eevee nee mene 5 ip, os OS OL, OO |

Ee | a binges aie oo

J"FAy “a . ing) aoe AA |:ane cor oe oe eee . 7a. ‘ £ ~~

fa dh dome bt Tver ae | |oe te Be yw Deng mc\ aAne. bkHL , BL } iola

) aya SY Wi ae|iAN \ eZ ai8 {| i 4 G4 iE ‘LZ so aS oe ¢ If | at . :fae? i] 6(1177s ‘= | Pa, ;Oe 5 _ : 17) —— meee = eee |.o! Seas Ya [oe Fy a = ny srisloci We? ——" ° MWe oo iann eee ee i 5 + y ° . ; . Septet Sy a By bn cea” ee Me ese. mee PM ah eee as |

62. Preliminary plan for the 63. Preliminary section for the third central project. Cat. 14. third central project. Cat. 13.

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN

od GRRE

64. Last plan for the third central project. Cat. 15. 65. Section of the last design for the third central project. Cat. 16.

|; te‘h4wget |’G re, es SON nn ‘oe te rns /"EE°ea. “ON Ny - atr* TE. acta aa| ;| ;eee ‘4 ZAP is!V/ oNa~~ i. \ ' vn 4 : _ je G We Sea mon = {er wre || TT : Wale ANS ‘la 3 yo 4 \ &) re wy / if t 7 ~~ oA -_ {| 4 40 Yy iit . /Atos 3 ‘ ‘ L GOrL PY, t: ,AR . qT {| 4G 74 OG Y/ Fa J \ ; wk: So -i WA TT | i re re 2 ‘,™yl c eR,Zc weaN wet.| 4Sat :‘ { ,| :NI ' ~* 4, mT an WY ‘ 1

o> Se: a hop my — FT | J ae i Ge ,

CAA AND! , ry i} an” . aNNU, _ ALI SO wv Leg i fi . OX | oove

.2) 5 .ae . ; P “wp ~; VK) Fest! a ee : 3 BN ae? Ce Oo ae ee eee ee eet . ‘f}| oz : a | |a ’;:.q

my-_ Pi —€ Po~, | ANS | 3 cs1? ii 2We ~Caaar -SN a eaaeee, ae ; oe : ;“eo ae " MRO : re ~CERRS ae [a We 4Se, ir. x\ 4- x.|iod NS EBEVS. i ao A? . \|aaa SO.bak 4Do OY 4 Paiores SgaR ge Sth OS :“ght

i. afps=.vs ee RR . wt Musee = “|Sees ES: we es —_ beast 1 .SS >. AF a1i/mT A &.BR SE JENE \ ¢, ~° ee sy uetaebeleegy “Pin - ve A! ~ \ a“Lunt >> osSTUE! Ar |_— f/f) ~Ris Cot. ES2)a: St Se of Be ff ‘ “> WAS z ne: ie | U1 Pe SS “EL ae: e T > \ 14 } 46 * ? Tae Migs Se aN : ee MG) Gat AL WS = Fe > Eas i "| Tate 7 Pom . SS SNES me (te Fi oF ey wean ore 2 cor deen i PAGS = ye ' , WY) Nt WN! ~~San~— NSa ae a woud | esNG RYoy,Lf25"- ”~jon ee RS 2”ee(SRG Ag: (bul zB ae. Nes ~~ hi. fa. Ps 3 Y IfPA fa —_ miona|Sa reece i l ei ~¥.| {a4 . Ys as = tai. ee . aaw , , 'SN awe. ‘si 4 "qdon4sa¢ae > ar a LS ES ie: aa, Weis.\ >4oa My3Rage, ons.ww” ‘ SQ “SS é 1 8r Ly ; “ia . » aan (7) SE ie mannan

al AGRE. an | ee SS > ae fh fv EN. i SR ee, | See. f * Pia be Ny og ae “~S Se. XS ‘Nea i ee *N \ } leks se Bre AY Les sow ahy vf 2 Zl ‘ See ~Mh Rieaoe Ba OA 1 ApGa % ~. ASSsss WARN 7 - \7), \\\\ EeePS eeae Oe ees iF yi rif etl \| er ty ated ; . OT 4 _ ie aS y ; vy ¥ aby “ SS | : / ‘\ nl) \ , 7 ae “gg Pea es, £5 & * ( MA fi > ~- gw te eee, we Se 2 Re ee SSR PP wot | / eae 2 FY Me | Afi‘ i

: hk Oy ‘ OR were ae |ES ;~ aa| 4 ne

, nieos: oSee8 ee a eS TDraUa OS©oe ; ieee se ,Ah fain 10)CH © SRA Gb a eo Ae Se" Sade CULE ee AIt ES OLS eeee Ne ES ogi! , —s LO ; tdb .‘ 'Af oh. §igo i oe any . ,\ we 4, ea. pesl .~eae ’ dit.ait , ‘ ° we BS§7 ‘A . t! ;, rn } isae v 18 4 ) ows fk ae q. “Mi Bane Re. aUS ,=: tn ee If aa|oat ne Sie ict. e ] Nail: ~ 1 ee }{Hdd. ti ‘- Ql {= 2 elieSee) a. , i ae 5—. ii} }2A (ny) * an! ‘man BR ; =a. man! , ey TE Se, 2 ie “ ae as 2 |, Jae meenii! [Mion a , | ant Jafalis | Ae Ay; 4Tij 3ikmtde SOL. aeayel yu PSE . .Nama} af'® ,3,wert)! eatety BY A ' Ry i[ _§ am x : he ry ‘iw 6 a\ «f = ° :“yy -‘ a+ye vee | 7 st al Kg" 4 ‘irr ee vid f f) | : I hPa ==> BF ‘fl & : ie BY Se ef hi Bf ral wid ay |: | my ye RECSee Te: Mee Oecd) a{ ii | AER ADR er ef 2 i Ae £\be tf ee a ae ae mPEave & ‘ee ea.||J33v— age | { * Ne ‘thi af ae ee Ga i" bay og Pty | i fe i, {i ag ad “of ' ' te! 1 apo :po aerh4% ee: HY.Oe ReiRAR he iS, ' |at:alNN ly mae’ 5" ;1,PA qi,)lah ) |‘:y| A} iue; An ty ; )We afon i )‘‘itd, 4} t4a13 | ler t |‘|me oe | SPB Caen: WH begs Mey | gy Hy Nibge LE. ; fe 7 cee IR ‘ a) w: i... he j ! j | | pie I : é EF \“aN ——— - ee pln© —.Soe an oe — Le & &_~ EE.(qfee \ comes i +’ a). a aged }fj- panenat —~.5I ‘ lie~_ | : iiih es teht ft‘ 2? i seer a” ge Sr — 4 ee = oy [3 See A 1 ae 2 aa eo >; lie "ji eid :. ———— eth ns - ae hi ae 3 (orn 7 fo Kf --Ae-e } * 2 a an ae So Pe? 24 M he

. é i f eS i ; fac oe i ie 4 | if } ah | au i ih rs 7 T P= art fig = Wee ‘ff IGANG ag NA Pp, i | ! Q’na - aea= ”Ww a j a i] “a ji * { y 4‘ 146 oe: woe i > 1 jeRy be tj{ 4,my F-q;‘a= -alOh os, .‘‘ .£— ire.wy: _i F|a85-4

~— | we: il } ee ta. — Oe, f f { . healt a. a) fl ar - Ry ak , i ij ‘ it . te , ; ‘ jn oe ad = i i Zz = . ‘ ’ , — ¢ P| : S ; : oP d “74 : {

VA ie, a |] La ER a || UA AN ir, pee, enog ¢: ik coh eal as Awe || mM, -} Ay .| ie $rae arn . 7heeCS ~”AARY :Zz~ Of 4me eo iy va. 4ea:ic} Se| ty. qyefiete (ey 2.. ifst +. ee— Nad, {prs ;LL list mii! ,oe Arte | =| lees eee “TAG , et) , Ath \IlY Aft: .ote - an ~-*“AE ‘ 4iBe ::awe *ene ; .Se od A ‘| D I 4 fie */ i) -Fa F=i -rAS af -. £ $; ;aae)! ai4 .- NE theee t 7\ fsa ‘e aee 1aBi) wines tb me -a jf S) !4‘ ' BO li . Vy ' eg 4 i NY , # iain. = Sees z “ i : oF ? 7 F = ee 0 ee re | r i a a aa ah at | yey)eae asH3 | afeAee?a ¥Ee C—) of yy id fi‘Si( ees ae ilee_ :\e14 i Tocco re 1 i a:Mie) ~~ hie hi a) mn ‘i yAN ya | cc: abee’: aR oon® DVI. PePPY/ NEMBYE Tb foe rere) TIie ANY ' ::ae) :iNvn _ foo ; , a : ai; 1, N , . : ;md y = q : is i eb [| i it : W 4 | iy | 4 ~ ht = Wl far enFe@ a, My . 44 ‘

° ov — ow .. e; *.’ ~~ bdwv hoy © ¢ o en:

cr ° on ' , »—* | 2 se g y= | ‘fSone of ro*4.; ~*.. a. ; ned royello Yee % . - - owe cee GN rare,

e @. ‘ owt ©) om © ‘« 2 x : .

1ee,s€

+ e e i i” tb a a ¢a yo | oo we ® | ° a oe ao s e ‘torte rrsew F60ewa|, S .3 f ryk » pho >_— @euee See wee L a hem wem wee we * '

e . a ; _ ; S | . niRy - ::nnd 1#4 S ie chle: “BH a#44. te 75. Plan by Benedetto Alfieri. Appendix VI-B, Cat. 2, f. 2.

THE DUOMO NUOVO IN TURIN

77. Plan by Bernardo Antonio Vittone.

76. Duomo Nuovo, section by Alfieri. Appendix VI-B, Cat. 2, f. 4. Appendix VI-B, Cat. 3, pl. 84.

° gins wel Ayuiyer Ma whe aiid ial AA — . en nec -

A 5) A © os ha » ;

a eat > we N pene ee : Re: | é ) x, | ‘ “aji7FARMS ed See ii | a ee aS am Geen a . a tee % . on Py ve Ee me ee Tae ‘ oo re 6 ae | o@ @ FF Pt, 2 a i ia. an . a ere a = Oe a af 4g or eee tee wer QA RE Fd | oe | me 5 = = eee ar wr Wr} UU ee 2 rs atti Gia ences ple aid a es a ") | % . 7 , . e

mm io a,: ,'Ne 3 fn. bo ig 4 howe = ams i“ .a. ree) A q :ers Ss etre ay q| -ns ot oy EET Ee ss 2 EY | ATTN NET Se eee : i oes Pos al S | i . ont: lage PETER: We ee ie $2 5 * ws !

é| Pe) oy A Rast ee toy a . ee Dgif oa7ee) ee eR | LBa:mit

int | eei Lf;. °

‘J te. oe = i ° oe » bd fe SSIES oe Re e Se rerrgsdl aa Motes . Learn aatias @) » The | °

Nove mR | ;CO, A ’ ioa ‘6aS ; . 2Ae v6 . -_ nS é Vt eS = a te . ;:&Pp a,reat a \ 4 FN, ? aan aa op 2...' ‘

|i oo ; ' ‘-‘s a : : APA. x ar4éSA ‘ +. / aD 4 neLE al Se “4 -57, ey’ . % & § "gi . ip \! o ; . | Rs Las f\

aad ‘, Bo ~— i mali Ss: ‘Ga " GUTS fie ree

3,

y=Pe palewiknas t iat * eer .,‘,\ ,Tae a ‘ aay4veA.

é:pL. ;&IVa oCN74 . ZN. a4 a < = . aT ere Tae SS; gifs —— _—. poe LX Fee ke XS , SK NSE ROE i i} :| aEat 6 —— \ AS . — all f . a. a? av naa itt C KET YZ SAG a | ope

||

‘a >Zak wy 5on yr" , w/'/, @ Le 7.shil: we ee edarag att 26 anneal — or |——— 4°y4-5“fa :r tan, 2 a ae... y. oye ee aie me nh, Adie ‘ ft —— cm 1) OT Pe aea alc V ; ana ae oe ; = ; : ‘ ie M . 4 ae it “gs ‘ ee ee ee re LG —— hGH ff ..OA" a wr ts bia , #. ——— nce | .Wie aj ft -hete wad. Firi Drver BESS enh SE4Ne \ te 4‘_ ts :| ast nat VARA aLidlTAT 44G4 SW ie ——— aanle |a(iY

: He, Yi , |

7 a“.4:pn fi 44 _ae i WAAL id| a a2 = Wa om , ; | ; ner , sy w . ; . . - es . :

,eB|eI7ee ~. OS 78. Juvarra’s first plans. Appendix VII-C, Cat. 1. 79. Sketch of the casino and wings for the first project. Cat. 2.

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI

So. View of the first project. Cat. 3.

‘elena ES == EER. er. yen ; 7 .:' }eesti ah : St i Sa oN soot : mn... > > “=e Nos ee. / a = : ef Wh ; : Ai ' ait ; hi " SS . =, we a _V/ rs > e) , 7] i . “QS —_ nNON : So... “ f-_ — = sea, tt ‘ . FLY a ae ‘7' oon © oes : oe ae _—| Oo ~~ F hi ~ ae a e " 2 7) Pode i ff 3 > oom .4 ‘ale to} . Oe | aq |ry a . a-f-vee ——i —S PFAS Re‘Ny so. . iI|| em. abe Toe SS SA .é//;PPAR tt ye \f oo eee Tr ee Tos, it y kh Ses /IJ eR PP I i. ~To TOTES ) > ta era NA Nl Do “ay \ |ye eh oe eer lfm ee ee se eee Ne Yt \ a Sp mae pn. Ree -.eee \=- WY NS Om as, aaa : { \° -v —7-—__———ooe etfo: ont ~ “. 2 bodman r iLj }¥ \ ee "3 ||,o“.aNWT .-4 er af re Aad - ‘ he 7 \ WBS gan aS — A er ee a See ' , a . : aed / Seanl ~ : :| o_o . - a+ meh . a - sos nn -: oT wermm “=emi mke ~— Eeresent SeeeS~ :+. ‘ 1°a “> ‘+ ee _" Soe, “er = Tots : aN 7 2

| : * _ an ; aa i a) t wr “~f f rR siren Woe eee oo ‘ rw .

a yi ¢ | YP eeyyasNS | a-}--‘ ] eesti na —— ~~ ey = wll — !~~ i | ee y : ere on SA i Soyer APecatenaeceeseaee. . NN ; , ; ‘ an "= _—e are sri tl we wok ae _as" oe se . N 4 ‘ \ ~

| — . as ) ee

ean ——+-}-—._ ---\salt tes PASS Lu-pRSSSe | . , MEL 4 pidUL { , pase q —i oe Ny‘4.,SI? ngaN: ¥ it ~ Pee ee | Sedie = 5; Qs oN NS“ = VG es

i Ramo fh RR i) a te ot bn TR IS Ae PB IN SE Bec dete CH

2ad ZWe ong. \toe le! ' SON RRSThe e aan . 13 .SC 3. pot DP >ryi¥};\.r F re1.‘> weeNy di :=" ee! Ty iy| | Ry tr; PACE %, ae 6a Bee ‘ :i.|ii, i= :; ae \| : )

Xo, ee TP r iis Ry di FREES a ig A 7 meet Ris , j | YP ee Z i i!Soe So oe! |i| I7AM a | _ W: - .wed OM ac 27k 4 ifee | mF ry ’1la| |i' 7 | SE ae Se ayaby RON ES ES ig Ee AereeREE Rte Te eeeeRe a ee AoGS Ay‘= Pee et tale of “AOE ey { cP teae MM 4Se oseeeiyNN Sw nang eet 2 SRY RE eewe: oe mp a a Sa Bes ei, eee:faSie saoea stat MAE Tg EET 5png I Re GRO Sea EEE, pase rms. rieshe Se ace ag ro rete RE eae Nai eR Ss eyAes RS ‘ aaan Seeanes einai DsSas sates ASWE Sot Fr) ORIN Te eet Tn Aaoleate eh Oe a 5Dv A SP eee Lage This ee TERR sont : fetes Ne Pane OR: pre Ty SptAE Rg np Ts. ahSat gH ee eetaAen Pee Eee! 6 akshone Fa aES) eSke SIOSe nagPE ceeROT dn ey

1 OE OE MELT TR eeeos Ca a TEare ES RATE GER TR og 2Ce! OA SehelORES OV eee Rywaaseeie eo ares et ogee Pn RT 1aloN ‘eiGa0rey POT f op Pry hen wea? ae " MAE Wn ee ot ng align: eae aa at Oe ees ple ae otge, . en: oe akcn.Stes wh a, £3oe a aetitetere ar wre git: hyBe ¥ Os att 9Cony er ; ove ™ ye ey te . asee wwe iw ke ESE a ataS ™Pme = PALS ae gh. ;Vg Pd mT . acy *ies RenFE no n™ ac - Féas,

Cee Neel 2S ETabe EES > taa -$i Fataes cA Og eae ONY Po *, nyer CSI, ee” Mees LO Ate oeafhens aa 7% ets FE ART OiSar eS ieses Pe Mis otbevgee Mg ’ St aa osRS(8omar een MS hy sates we ae =. Kae seg's, er . ro aa of.See ry aNeale ‘a Rete aesEER On geeSS se eysarin, RO oe E> “4oe i oe ‘a oN “a .aae Eh ae!le,we Rae ae Je 2. win.ar. “mf: he's? as et ‘tas Pat, a peFeoe a rs5ae& rzA aA ae aa . by, Pese ta. |ree

wo ofa ats Baten P mbipag toe baepaSe.2 bet Bee de’ pot ;BY x fae” et-La SW ow eA . + 2 ", + : rit o* Or 7, 3 . . 5 c-? : hn ste Lap apace OOE ARREARS GiLé FERN a Sige PACITY Ys: NER ae aE .$e roMTS aoe a.Re foeEME Ve eR ‘ -OM Rae « ane. .“me be. ee

ge : :44ee Y’ -. zee Mey { . . ~~ . = > —_ . ~ . ‘ i % H tons stn eee " mapa Lleaiaeiianeey ae in = ab Sa A A eR Nee wa antes sie oh

“ js Bea ‘ aa ~ ' . * ~ . eae CA tae See | re SO wenden amet -: 9D npme — - . ~

: _ i Me, Jie i * w| 7 ag ; 5 A . ne t fa ’ is “ { oi oat i b : ’ t Ft _--. cee i a |

emg -. . cs ——~ STA eee i,or OMNI oe na wearen RE icra aioegecer —-ae ~aes °a Ee a Zs mR:./i«F.PV aie le :we | yFE .:) ad ‘eee oS mr ae ~ ig: ae Ce # See ES ae aR & ¥ ahs (WOM OE Ogg a

lc SS ee pdb Mn

j Bi _ 48 a ae ° ai ae a ho a “* . | ar | ae >

- A te 7 Pe : re °¢ a ae eee TT — “aon: ay = i a aa ‘ a - ‘emacs 6a ? —_ ws ie

StS, ae ee TR re rel 2) 2 Soe | ae:

; 4 br» sate Er OO a Ee RT vf =e ._ eee Bad a oy tae 5

e ie ke * ie . p 68 MOR occ BE

2 . , wang) VG

ey ee

Jae 5 SE a Se fos Ei aaa” Ba lee:

:: ni bh | ae a ri i - a . : . ; aes i - ® ¥ Lo. . = . % i. ~ = = ene ena = oO a wa = is i L iu ar A) => Be Dn St “i as ae emcees 4s

oe ft] aoa i Sig: fe F | -_ _. _ tt

- a 2a ? - se, = ? . Bak ar * iam ee aie) i iyi “s i 2 “Hi hy

os tee Aud | 4 Pal / a SS a 7 HEUER Se fH! :| ;Sa S +ao ao ere : 08 ay rr : Ha 4 a : a Re fee { i ae _ os : - i..ii ° . #HE 7 “\ Bi ge. ” ly 7 cet| o£ a A}. Fiyh 1E ani \c | ; aeihil HOE) | pe

ae t.jo ie ae ee

nee. A oeaee ae |asbo: baPe “iUng ¢Fe Pe 0} ary: be ?r J. ~,t xBH: tets oe :. eee fee: +} arZEIENS oi teama aan ts a/ epee he (tya§eids ee :ftaAe .— -*idPRU) HVT.coo 2“ Sexpse” V7 \ \ Oy 2S / A Ss oe , ; 5 | aoa - 7ce: NYOB nNPRN aa fat f i ;ee. ae +US 7 iat —

oe RAI aA ES ww f At } >_ mi I: Pe :

wee: RL tegen ah TER GB 8 = 4lnDBS 3 Pe \eat , = pYaree ) | aeCa > =~ - || 1grat RCRA aa—:

aFI aeRe. Ly" h : a; a TES Ye a "Bs : % q

§8§. The salon, viewed towards the garden.

THE PALAZZINA DI STUPINIGI

89. The salon, viewed towards a lateral gallery.

mina wa. Vw a a “aN Wt ® Zo Hey; Cf

| t % . . | . ~ 7 ~ | | Z yan Uf i ff ease i

RAS \\ OPTeeOD S/O”) | 3) OR BRR! OBcc,SER GEST 7 Mel Meek , We ; , | ~ , Le ~~ : “ 7 Ce f "7 :

4 A J Re "itt~ >> : 4 . - a“ on ™ i rs { a .j /‘éam =e ae'O) a ajneA. AR. ‘4 e(QR: rv AN \s — ”nat es poo| |Teall if :

~ aR , so iS \ |: | sated CY ik ee on UV aS Swewe) = mite aie m~ ¥ TES i we ow : a . y ate i! Me! ir al! ;

ae i_ane , xwi aa‘,ec ( ae) ,oo { 2eTreye ia EF Sy ¢} pos Os. “: -S ~ .ey id |cn i

. LL ifo “3£tce .aeX ) so BAY We Saeae 2acs:arr ne44 4= . “os 8 . wee en ton. _——— *» , | aa 5 V4 f=i Me :==“¥he)4 RA a : 2 at A. “a i mh Ne ee i ; &. ae ry . ay Fa at A . 4 a ¥ “mie $k Fe S- bem SRfs “TEE CORate. RASS. ae oY Ns pares ” Moe ey oN, : ffbeet : rrein ~ *D é " ¥esit} ae es ‘

“ASS . ’carey . ay S a=r: ry Pm °42G —SSN AK Nar teieiayay laa mit Eeomy ynca ies =. i ao a* ogy “3 . ‘ .~ ° 2ae - JEy ~ pityne Ps

MMR OSS Ly od A

vio ree el Xsf j . ie *7x4 ee Oe =tM TS,.,be see eS. aee = os i e1+ fie aBar 4eee eee 2‘ AHE 4 1A} . Rpe i. nee bt ,. Poy | ; |aesS\—— raedFe: ae ie ase J - 4, oh . 4. agrl+Ng i : rase a

renEE +s ‘~ Fcow fe:= ;%a>: oa ; :fr:AS :mone ‘348 ; AT . 43ace 2exisxwar +.te | Ah“RB - See it ~~ . f a? + (tees > ‘fgbre ose Th gs Tey &,

~ Sega | é SS : i eua |3oro aorcasa ee ™= we)eeSS mo,: . ree Pot

aBur:im hee 2 | tllEC: me “Pasi: ro pees. ate fg al ‘ 3 H { K ani i hi, ng thas : i. LY a ry ) ram _ if 3 F : :

ee) fs i am agg PY tay , oF me if f id i iHiee 3saeHi CORI Ost \|: th: ol Re tie oe uu zl} be Sami anicant ite a ui mel tn ae le“aAE itnakeaie —ae ‘

| RH ie eA AS a ee PR

RS He‘ %Sit eae a ee | hers ee i ilmy PN r-OF 11 q ;aa rg ,. ih ‘ e,_— ar iscur 5 ,3roa. { Apea ‘ , :Ne : : a; j ‘ '

- a. oH . ¥“me ij1m 3ee i. a. : xiS lente 3a i 5“ we f*ivnrel 4: -, 4/. Hom 1 bore E. Eh aa HH | Bae< oe &pele a 4, thfadc: :iaORSTR At . Aoe. UOT Hi 4& rile a 4ALo : — RR Beno HS +r aET eetWri a | ?—_ feeTT) 4 i PPent: 1 RR .

oahu gt tf..@ yee “sd RAR ‘tone pees i an y _eee a

ri i | . Filner a Msgr inj phe ° . . , Fen ynerte‘lta+Aw/

4 ne 24 Vr anChae as it wo -e ots i' aSee Aw on - as OE a ies) , arioy ee ae SK! AW ee ee a = “ en = a a *s ‘ 4 y | \% OAL, [ee ; a SOO Se” wee / an | ‘b+ Prewe / Se \ Oe v6aBey “ot: , . pote i é e, 8 > oy RS ore Rel (4 aASecane ae) hoe . id 9{a -&Pa apespee igh Nae bed pe~o >| fofGN fir ESYESIRS f a» %oeOst $e. ' Ay ae. =. eaeor ON < ‘ yaa ?ENE c ¢ fe vg {s& k MSN 3 [oe eee a J. ae: ptt nr, Eme Sy: KS es K foo A Tyr . ay oe. oe ies “Fo ee _.< = NN vad eee eo ais =5 a: Bo ari WS a———aFS rR ag RAR? nas peney 8Ba oeZe ae7 aa Heng NO oes ae SS , ret fh ‘20 me Cale EPS ONS ee,Pa conf yeRS aQ eent ~ ; oo enn, fit'B| ot See iano tn|esn fe) ae ” : oe We x SRK = #=«¢ as, oR ry i 7. “ a oS re | ~\ ROE ™& Cs BBB gb RB YMA AY AS ab a3 ay ec ir 9S Se Ce Se ee a2 ie| — > Bo oe I A me : Se 2 BES SSR ;VEN. CP eo SeSe on~~ 2T otmG a Vi ; | we: ff a,1]: mod ie COeee Ga RE ,vs ar”owe ~as My AXNy Sas CPNPORTA NFLal BRR > ene ~~ Sw 4] 7Jy cha if fe San P poise ¥ 7 “ Ne \ we . atch . , 7 \ is \. 4 5 We Raa _ : rs ie pe —_ oe TRC Ng “x aS . a oy Cte aw PN ee Re a Ue aE ae sei fs Petit tf y .a—. WoO ee Pei ge So aJesaS7ee“%sren pee } fai bits ga en . . . , ‘i ~s Peg r eS ee Sn as cae “Das Criginal bebicdl sich iia a eps: bae. 2JacRS tbe NR peed . OT ii. a a ite ma -age: Kg . SaNpee . Can ; 7 .© ySuthou

A AIK SS gS a RES : ae ee Lie

SS 3 .

So ee a ~ eee . +? . . ote

a ; ¢ ( a SAX c o: a 2° preyet . . 4> PELL ~~ EEE . -LO.HpSSv . |

Ce, teaoram oem enema me Sen er . SET ; - 4 9| |ce, Dt at | = ~— _ er = aaa ne ~— : @. 4 4 . th. a ps ik 5 we a eee Ber . ; +e : wc ae | a ig } be L— 7 7 —~:. * ” yo ey . a) aPde:Xe wt pSsO:‘ sivan ' . EN f Lae o_o ay = . . ae . NK SA - ae _ s ; . gg. Juvarra’s elevation of a royal palace for three persons, variant of a design awarded first prize in the Concorso Clementina of 1705.

100. Juvarra’s project of a royal palace for three persons plan.

| ae. fois fee py7i 7. or ° peer o ee a sg ms oo 4 ASi < ro ee tote2. “I —t aaa ees rr. JA Oe, an

pot he ¢A :ZierTCoO) Pad OS.ay es OR ETSME - x eS:

p Lowe" . oeZaae rf Cc EIS 5h 1.07" co ‘ = A aeeee ye>eee a¢ *7 Lo ye i ‘Sh fs! > . beafmae = S20}, oe.: oe

Phe SNR” "fe OR io NE tial @) ~{\-O = o/ eS VE Sy 8Og SR PEN! Ors COTA ORG DA a i ol NS _ : § ‘4 C5 LN ‘OL. gd ba “St y a o] 1.. ,if,/ aa[Jhe OD 1 oo ~~: Cy 2 ~s a. hn atteyOSS. Tie . Pigs~ab ‘ IAN mB mor Od,+-TN -#£

tac eae a a oe £3, oT > : A feSP 432.NOS

. _) a) a nd: © ~ ™ ie KD YG { Tan Oy, Dsa evs Gigeee DeFi Cagq et eS 2 acme! ] oe cy tet ft PES 2=feapa 4 eR ALLTOP gt A) XS SIP a ae Tey .@ oS Oe aS }tk fis ‘SY Riel r : ~ ZA * . CA a ° 1 y OO rm? ‘ —{ — @ + ful > is) ° ia ms ‘ Cd 72) " J a3 < , aaei ‘mn a: ta- RL Tm Te eesOOO ao OB RIP AS od a7Ares 7 CH od 5

SH . ©& w st 5 — >2 - ; ee PA et moe oN ™.7 my. Satie y, ak j bh’ Pan _ \\ C\ \ x . . ™~ | “OO ifOme - ~ “* ~~a \ SseT 5 ™Cz ©:o mm. VOOR gk Iae . = >«2 weVi \, I\»44oe . iaSe / ’e=ah .: ae i%Bsa. “SS Qa :NN ~h S Te7.RBS ns rps ° .ro | ,pt “ eo

3 Mall Bey OR 2 UY, SF ae |a Me. en 2 ear . r ky NS rat :~ ~~ : aa fo ——. . _ ee EES

eh . ' —_ | A : o a “ " ” — ; \> Se \{ Sand inate? © ate , 4 : ~~ “ . ws teessesee ses “zt ‘ ge ; ~~ &*t i “. 3 : ot .

:etSNe ek:&-‘ nag 4y S. a2 aay. tS. .Pere ‘) SO Cy ee” de ONE Gee | Pa . a. ! "VAS a duhion

— am - AY Sey & * m . ~~ = |. > $P coe e. “7 / Stole, ont cS| Sane ; ic xBye beSone Fee

oe me ° * | MA om te ‘ orm i" . ° : . : ‘ 4a * (, hi| ~eC NY ee ‘Sae Bir, a | BRAS “ ; it ‘ ie 4 > VOY \) ie. :-' De "ad :"¥»; .Jf

i hedRallis “ro, SE \ ew i, ee~~,” ay ey , : . ie :, Wee . ; me . DARE Se se a ‘ a “Se , E.,JAF ym ,|\ ABE jos | if: tf it ae: of. iAee et1AN 3(or zo” ey ;reiaod Ys

ieee Tie) . meelueree @‘ es :_ .ries Te ce by 1m Pie # '|hs.‘;{oom re +ee . . ee ! % ht 5taPom, : 4ie mi beey :Sa: ise _ +Oak: . — 1"

4: -) 7 4‘4>i t+eee ee ee EE _ a - 7

,! - «4 } hoo ara toe eee VO PAV SIN TED NA OF OS Baprrns Neve .t

os -. ‘

Vt. ’) ~Pet eeJois;

7, Se woe gee BSze yes cur ty Met yeee a oe estat oe ‘ Oe TEIN ERS eee mo eB ea rr ..ot So. ee cera ie ae ss . ee ill —— er | tg oe ; Pn Trt be | Phe iee aa 2% | / Mies : . * ae Cee ee “ tal oor oan haan . ~ ‘S ee . ~ Pee Y |:ne __ eta EM Cel old ai JSR orER .2” an aFO of. ‘Aee * aPS _ a MP ep ae ee FEL ee 4 ro, ttog . eB a oe ne: aS wom. :oP !es We, ties, . aee 4 eere a2mn e Rx :5pad *,of“e fe ‘. wee hd- ee Moe cs ars, :G

Pe Ps eon’ US Pecan ot AS feoaekyoS °|}Te * yf“Le Hata Ss, Y apo Pog. a fe ar’ a Ane SOS - Sey yonts ean we,: :7. |ie a: [er eer © Cans a «oi vee SRAM DSBOMA SD | st tt ts He ae

MN gp ages OB fe , Betsy ty es . is :

L: .Fee ‘iseaoo ; coe a. oo of i.- PST free ae “4a ote ft ae . .oo wt .. “, “7. ‘ err i ~apes, H2 Y. da .ae oNi ay oe ; ne rn a . “ay —-. *. _ _an oo . iarate . } _all onan ; 7 ee Petey ee eran i« . oneeGo. @wae ee...ete.OB

: :4i...;~_ree oT ete . eo dee eee tg : DUM .:Yee, *Rae »aMee te ae” sett wet ~. ed oe: LY ai..:t~.tae tee: “af ~ er eee z 7 . rn a ban we oe ee Se Te 3 Foe, : ml y iw.. ti‘:

A... Er a

_ a nT i |S Ag ae |e __ a Cone poteghen Ween SR re : pei Se RS e . . . . bie J : - oe ees She tel te : : pene nee ere + Ae * 5 . . “Tug 2 § » ‘

10s. Lisbon, Nossa Senhora da Devina Providencia, Guarini’s plan.

ET ai ee :ere es Sj wR . aa ~ alae a Sn em Os ng z

ic jg ie '1 ae=e ye Ly ewan ae . AS ;“Dal ~a.' Cb a KS 9s etaba SRO -~ Ple em wee ewe eee Sen :~ens ¥ “ae ans” oe ‘ Tine ee oe ' az ey VRE . a..." > a aan) Teen eye es rh es Gm 4> a. ‘:Ss ao yh —_— i +; : falls. . ‘aFee a : chap tet.='ee \--f ."39 aaiies PS [ge Li =4 Ue. i -= t Naam i,nina :Bis ay | a \ ee eee en | a i | | T || (cae & H a

—° wo A.D.wm Gxarine Guarini Auct. Anne i679 Gi: Miiati Fe .. ep tm eee # eaoe* itty

at | t)' ..' .‘ye to

2:s ’

4 AN wt bem . /

{a+=nsa

_— cn : - ° i : CH, ‘ ;3c °.Oo ad a a . . 4 ‘ | i> . a ~~. fay. / \ oo “ya { aN \\ \ zi 7°a om 2o ~—\ \ ‘4 a4 [7TN nal 4 ‘ \) YY a =. ,beak . , Rae | le gh,

id CA _ ‘ Te teh thee eV WEE f : ‘ > 1 L i.

2 = HK : a4 7 rr AN .e||\,!. ate , tt wm ft ea | EC . ~~ . . . 4q ~N “Pg ‘ E » >gy, one ee ‘or -_ : 7 aT i pS ¥ hg / e+ mee - oe a :

B4 . . . . - ae _—— . - - =. — frordat .

: ; , | war AS 7 F | a fs 7

: S> . n> OME snc Te | \a

| 111. Copy of a plan possibly by Michelangelo Garove. Appendix VIII, Cat. 3.

"| Le 4 . . ; . Fe / ££ Py | ! aa! a a ||a e

TURIN, SAN FILIPPO NERI

ia “a : | iria ig j = , 7 oa 7 : ie 1 Le % 3 | | . =a , Wy : | } | | . i :-.;7

' 112. Copy of the executed plan, possibly by Garove. Cat. 7.

| oe ne a“ a” . . - - .

:'® I| } :3| :

, | , | , eed) . — a S : .id. ~, B = we rt 4 a 7 h >on @ |: a “— GT = i. eee . ~~): +) ae

13 ar. . . ro | i fey i ' a hed? . ty ‘a el | ae — a ;Al ie Ky Ss , je hoe M_) , 7 | - : a: 7, |"ey ee)M | ae : hae |i 5,f ll: fe ' 4| Oe var |;

.: i, if. cy its , :

~~“4 * a14 ae 4

By 5, . . -yeswes s&

F) wh se Wg \

Fi ] * m4

:+ nae _‘AlF a,. gg,oN aparm SWS ,4 !‘’. pa Cn. aN . . eo XN \ » . ae . Pry Pens ‘ " . ‘ * y*an eee.SS ae ‘ be. ‘1 " 1.ft. a!oo eo aot |he . ‘ae een woe Ue a. / "'e| jalaunaasenh eee eee . . . y

‘wt ‘ : ee ee |riot

| | aa. wee a - eee } fy ° ' Be mee = -~-(; beee c eee ae ,

t

113. Drawing of the main altar as planned ca. 1701. Cat. &.

TURIN, SAN FILIPPO NERI

r. oY-eere

114. Campanile.

2 -SR ne Oye a mNL : .~ 2a ‘ NS pe See j See aN >, “a. oe a a BAR ree ae

: oa vad Jee S seed

acer te ty.a~om .P‘a3;aiea,a— -‘pgos Se te. J ae : ° SS aa x7, q . . ann eal . ore, ie Sar: ay”

aPef ee, Of a i . Fi; eee . . ae ee ee

z a cane , wee ae ee, . Y . .¢ rons

af. ; i” ja a are a

a Ji)Bf fee©A{Hb oe a ee

ene .

he fh fNR agg SORE es mt ce LE: DS et ae a Se oaCN a a, figs TwNye tensOT an ays) (OWS bag >) meena OaRee

NS sale, ala aah Se ia.Io . : os ott el TI TS: ee Seas Cae hee i, ee ge é; Ae 7 ae a: ea So ae ap MesAdBote PS ve mi ae Ett ettge nna thre, BORNE Se oi 1 atten ae be

oe Sor oR&gaeSAE SaRee Lack ot OE a? es Sac. a a ‘yt see & : 7. om ot be. ois, > nS“arth oa . rae en rnSaa %* Fas. a Tae

re 7a AOE robe Be ees: =eRe i oeae < abate = es ware ep 5 cky eBME nen , i.§ a. ig Rs ped re 7, 3a: a. iPe“Rad oa ap Arae had5: arg- Oomne 2 a4 prs _ Aeae aMhate piasRe a ay ae ‘Res, Ache ode, oteUE Trwy LeInt Ot,- : SY d oS ees: een Deen eee oe eek Gn ae, a-ee-eerie eee 4o,f tf Le ms crs ay Se eh ae “ oe s nant. S ay a3 "ahs ek nee: 3A Sd bee i eee SE Ra ES th ote, 25 Senea; Ee kas ro eee iy: fe eds eh Ge te Bag Me

| |

|

-ee . __ oo ee | __, ut _— n-ne — | us _~ a vr q , . ° ‘ m F rca i | aor ar a, iS! i 7 maT { , . cea! Pha ey ne ' t aaa 5 : 7 . nn 2 On ae r an

.“ at +

.7‘S.i

- . eae eee a 4G % } it ¥ } pt a ; : ut : . peeyo ~~ y i ibe ; bo OD | q ee | ‘a _ : oe ae a 4 od s ~ ~. Rs) i) ' i ‘, of ab & ; oe ae si ia 4 FF |e: ro .:ine a7 4 OF “te ig -5 o> s mt ge ~~. md st \ ey th oe 7: a fad ve oy : "ES a oo “se, Lay ' "og : af i \+ojPi 7 -. :i ee mG . “ 7;Fe oF Nee wi es of iia Paty ho ‘ |e : 7 ort wee ST oe ee” pel es Of oe __. _. iy ; e pene Wp wale ~ fi Bm oy raf ol | QS oe ’ i ; -! oS me, : @ 7 —.ie' |:°“@ ~ + gen _ # 3} ey = > 7 . AE wai D0 REE ag 2, reih * so . ~~ 9) ee kh “4 . ! i wes ; 6 gt sw : of | Y ™ . FF. el ZO ).: gaé.|ry bd — ‘ ea Sa 4 “rina ad , Ar ; : : . “4 7 cae . ~ os jy go foo, i aa ee ae. ; ; ; | —r y vr ¥ é 1 ak. “" = ; + an ad 7 a ; ‘ Th er i -

tLaa ! in) eo _©

7. \- aa wee, pee he fe 2} ed Se a wig - wey

115. Initial plan by Juvarra. Cat. 10.

...:.

TURIN, SAN FILIPPO NERI

116. Longitudinal section of Juvarra’s centrally domed project. Cat. 11.

°. . :°‘ee “ie *ua 2% ra -ann7sp :aea- te ‘os 3ES ~o « Rey; tao: “.oe oy Pee FL aft ae -oO ye ek 1s : ae taal .ca oyeAPS =:os . :& -ee Se, & ~S.~oe si are e|SL, *sted - oh:oeos Sate: I Dore 4TO ae 3 Re BS eg des ae os vs bg ES ge “ eee” es ee es 5, < p. TN gpte sd Sep a A ee Fo i Kus a iis 3d Fe cx ores. ere * Ls foot Ets ae, . Se o” raat EEN ig e Oy Gkagcogs STReek, RASS HE. she’ SsEe 6a ae x =Fo Myo $ eg ee:3: Cate RGEC? :: ONCE areSeays et osoiindy eaeCaFt ee aeHag weeB4ee#* Eeelage: i ROY OSS ‘Se eekpice NS “a PEBee, Bn ee ie; aay aes taees os eaepi? pad

ptt ae ue Deene | ee .rere ee idSy a ayRE ; a “a, nee .” ih 2s ce Tora oan)be wh#'+l>ai£4. waecytes . 7 . %,nk ANae. a_ ie ;| ,a=an ty, aAS yo cae Pia ”aa“ “4 sh MY a 7. Sry oe afoe . aa. oe*Cer ; tO . ee ae: ;| em=

ete Far frill etrere Mee » a *- oF a At 7 «:>ease! a oe t 7rR e =.“i &*. sak". bight +A eS nee‘ ona t : : ossrg .rewr, oapeer a >Sahy} » *&. i>. 3; vo wy a Beh. .: