The Geometries of S.

Andrea al Quirinale
Author(s): Julia M. Smyth-Pinney
Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 53-
65
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/990406 .
Accessed: 13/04/2011 13:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org
 The Geometries of S. Andrea al Quirinale
JULIA M. SMYTH-PINNEY
The unusualcomplexitiesof the ovalplan of Bernini'sS. Andreaal
Quirinaleresultfroma seriesof variationsfoundedin traditionalRe-
naissancegeometricmethod.Throughthe comparative analysisof new
measureddrawingsof the churchand existing archivalevidence,the
development of the designis tracedfromits initial Serlianbeginnings
to its final innovativeresolution.Analysis of the drawingsin con-
junctionwith historicaldocuments confirmsBernini'suseof conservative
geometric procedures andrevealsthereasonsforhis subsequent departure
from strictestpractice.The manipulationof geometry,proportion,and
dimensionarosenot only out of Bernini'sconcernforconceptualclarity
and theoretical orthodoxy,butalsofroma desireto usegeometryin the
supportof spatialorganization.The geometryof thefinal designillu-
minatesand underlinesthe essentialsimplicityof the interiorandgives
us a betterunderstanding of Bernini'sintentionsfortheviewer'svisual
experience.
ANALYSIS OF THE design and construction sequence of Ber-
nini's famous church of S. Andreaal Quirinale in Rome through
the examination of archival material has advanced significantly
in the past 20 years.' Nevertheless, our knowledge of Bernini's
design proceduresuffersfrom the lack of accuratemodern draw-
ings of the church.2 By making new measured drawings (Figs.
All drawingsand analyticaldiagramsare by the author.Grantsfrom
the AmericanAcademyin Romeandthe NationalInstitutefor Archi-
tecturalEducation,the SouthernRegionalEducationBoard,and the
College of Architecture,Universityof Kentucky,madeit possibleto
completethe researchandaregratefullyacknowledged.My thanksalso
to WernerSeligmannandJoel Sandersfor adviceandhelp with mea-
suringthe building.
1. Sincethe publicationof manyprimarydocumentsby H. Brauer
and R. Wittkowerin Die Zeichnungen desGianlorenzo Bernini,Berlin,
1931, other importantstudieshave included:F. Borsi,La chiesadi S.
Andreaal Quirinale,Rome, 1967; G. Bauer,"GianLorenzoBernini:
The Developmentof anArchitectural Iconography,"unpublished Ph.D.
diss.,PrincetonUniversity,1974;J. Connors,"Bernini'sS. Andreaal
Quirinale:Paymentsand Planning,"JSAH,XLI, 1, March1982, 15-
37; C. L. Frommel,"S. Andreaal Quirinale:genesie struttura," Gian
Lorenzo Berniniarchitetto
e l'architettura delsei-settecento,
europea G. Spagnesi
andM. Fagiolo,editors,Rome, 1983, 211-256; andT. Marder,"The
Evolutionof Bernini'sDesignsfor the Facadeof Sant'Andrea al Quir-
inale:1658-76," Architectura, forthcoming.
2. To cite a conspicuousexample,all of the measureddrawingsin
Borsi, S. Andrea,are unfortunatelypublishedwithout scale measure-
ments,or with graphicscalesthat areapproximately 25 percentinac-
curate,thus distortingthe building'struesize.
JSAH XLVIII:53-65. MARCH 1989
University of Kentucky
1, 2, and 3) and comparing them in both scale and geometry
with the known drawings in the archives, the geometric order
of the final design is revealed, and Bernini's interests and in-
tentions can be illuminated.
The essential element of S. Andrea's form is the oval, a geo-
metric figure introduced into church architecture in the late
Renaissance by Peruzzi, Serlio, and Vignola.3 It was Serlio, in
his treatise The Five Booksof Architecture, who codified and pop-
ularizedthe geometric rules for the construction of ovals.4How-
ever, the geometry of the S. Andrea oval is not strictly Serlian,
and this has confounded previous authors. Some have arbitrarily
imposed the standardSerlian ovals upon the plan.5 Others have
recognized the lack of correspondencewith Serlio but have been
unable to explain the geometry that Bernini devised or to dis-
cover the reasons for his departurefrom accepted practice.6
An oval is constructed from the arcs of two pairs of circles
(Fig. 4). For its construction, the four center points of those
circles (A, A', B, B') can be located by describing the pair of
isosceles triangles (A, A', B, and A, A', B') that are formed about
3. The oval is a geometricapproximation of the true ellipse.The
ellipsehastwo uniquefixedcentersandits perimeterarcchangescon-
stantly.The oval is constructedwith the arcsof two pairedcirclesof
differentradii.Duringthe Renaissanceand Baroqueperiods,the oval
washabituallyusedin preferenceto theellipsebecauseit is muchsimpler
to construct.Fora surveyof the historyandgeometryof the oval, see
T. K. Kitao,CircleandOvalin theSquareof St. Peter's; Bernini'sArt of
Planning,New York, 1974, 31-38, and Appendix1, 71-73. Much
recentresearchon oval plan designsin the Renaissancedependson
Wolfgang Lotz, "Die ovalen Kirchenraumedes Cinquecento,"Ro-
mischesJahrbuch VII, 1955, 7-99.
furKuntsgeschichte,
4. S. Serlio,Tuttel'operad'architettura Venice,1584,and
etprospettiva,
numerousothereditions.
5. P. Askew,"The Relationof Bernini'sArchitectureto the Archi-
tectureof the High Renaissanceand of Michelangelo,"Marsyas,V,
1950, 57, fig. 21. Borsi,S. Andrea,46, callsAskew'sdiagram"totally
arbitrary." Kitao,CircleandOval,108, n. 127, alsopointsout thatthe
diagramis obviouslyinaccurate.
6. Borsi, S. Andrea,46-50. Borsi is unableto discoverthe precise
geometricchangesin the designdrawingsandthe finalchurchasbuilt.
He concludeshis bookby makinggeneralcommentson centralityand
bifocalismandthe "substantial conservatism" of Berniniwhich, while
accurate,arenot specificenoughto be of greatvalue.Kitao,Circleand
Oval,108, n. 127, statesthat"Borsi'sanalysisof whathe calls'tracciati
regolatori'demonstrates conclusivelythattheplan[ofS. Andrea]evolved
internallyaswell asexternallyeitherwith a geometricalwebso intricate
thatit hardlyqualifiesas a regulatorysystem,or, asis morelikely,with
no cleargeometricalsystem."
53
54 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

' ' ' ' ' '

b' ''5 s a
1.S.
Fig. Gianlorenzo
Bernini,Andrea al Quirinale, Rome, 1658-1676, measured plan (author).

Fig. 1. Gianlorenzo Bernini, S. Andrea al Quirinale, Rome, 1658-1676, measured plan (author).

the majoraxis of the oval. By furtherdescribingthe length of The otherthreeSerlianexamplesarespecificovalswith unique

the radiiof the pairsof circles(AC and BC, respectively,for geometricproperties.The secondoval is generatedby two tan-
the smallerand largercircles),a specificoval is generated.It gent circles(Fig. 6). It is characterized
by 45-degreeanglesand
will have a fixed proportion(the ratioof minorto majoraxis is the longestor slimmestof the specificovals.The thirdoval
lengths, X:Y), as well as a characteristic roundness,and will is generatedby two tangentsquares,and is also characterized
only be variable in overall size. Extendingthe sidesof the tri- by 45-degreeangles(Fig. 7). The fourthoval, the ovatotondo,
angles to the oval's perimeter will describethe four points of is generatedby two circleswhose centerseach lie on the cir-
tangency between the arcs (C, C', D, and D'). cumferenceof the other,and is a specificcaseof the firstoval
Serliogivesfourexamplesof ovalconstructions in his treatise. (Fig. 8).8 It is characterized by 60-degreeangles.Eachof the
The firstoval (Fig. 5) illustratesthe standardconstructionpro- threespecificovalscanbe describedby a mathematical ratioof
cess, and the resultantseriesof possibleconcentricovalsbased the minorto majoraxislengths(X:Y in Fig. 4), as follows:the
upon equilateral60-degreetriangles.Becausehe does not set secondoval'sratiois \/2:2, or as a fraction,0.7071; the third
the lengthsof the radiifor the circles,no fixedproportionfor
an oval is described.7 8. Theovato tondois theovalBerniniusedasthebasisforthedesign
of the PiazzaSanPietro,beginning in 1656,justpriorto S. Andrea.
andOval,34, statesthat"theovato
Kitao,Circle tondo
was,in short,the
standard practice-atleastinBernini's
ovalinarchitectural How-
Italy."
7. Serlioexplainsthat"thenearerthatthe figurescometo their ever,Berninididnotusetheovato tondo
atS.Andrea. Interestingly,the
centers,so muchthe longertheyare:andto the contrarythe further crucialconstraints
imposedon thepiazzadesignby existingsitecon-
thattheyarefromtheircentersthe roundertheyare...."(TheFive ditions(seeKitao,Circle andOval,37-38)areanalogous to thosethat
BooksofArchitecture, of 1611Englishedition,NewYork,1982, Bernini
reprint againfacedatS.Andrea:apredetermined centerlinealongwhat
chap.I, bookI, fol. 10 and11). became theoval'sminoraxis,andalimitationoflengthinthatdirection.
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE
io
Fig. 2. Measuredsectionthroughthe entryandapse(author).
oval's ratio is 2 - V12:l + V/?i, or 0.7574; the fourth oval's
ratio is 2(2-sin 60 degrees):3, or 0.7560.
One of the drawbacks of the Serlian ovals is their inability
to be translatedinto simple mathematical and numerical ratios.
These complex fractionsdo not generatethe simple whole num-
bers that are preferable for building construction purposes or
for traditional Renaissance-basedhumanistic designs.9 For ex-
ample, when expressed in terms of the real scale of the oval
interior of S. Andrea these ratios become 63.6:90 Roman palms
for the second oval, 68.2:90 palms for the third oval, and 68.0:
90 for the fourth oval.10
The design of S. Andrea can be traced through two drawings
that recordtwo geometricallydifferentpreliminaryoval schemes
9. Vignola's"commensurable oval"is an exampleof an attemptto
dealwith the problemof incommensurability in Serlio'sovals (Kitao,
CircleandOval,109, n. 128 andfig. 51).
10. One Romanpalm= .2232 m. = .7321 ft. AlthoughI measured
and drew S. Andreausing metric measurements, dimensionsin this
paper will be given in Romanpalms. Since the Bernini drawingswere
donein palms,the crucialdimensionsin mostcasesareroundnumbers
in palms,while in metersthey arecomplexdecimals.Thus,numerical
relationshipsandratiosareeasierto discernby givingmeasurements in
palms.
55
for the church. Bernini's first oval scheme is found on a papal
chirograph dated October 1658, and preserved in the Chigi
archives at the Vatican (Fig. 9).11This first design is based upon
Serlio's second oval (Fig. 10).12 The particular choice of the
second oval can be understood by noting several of its charac-
teristic features.
The slim proportions of the second oval would best fit the
site's restricted dimensions from the street wall to the existing
convent building. Furthermore,when coordinatedwith the ac-
tual dimensions of the church, the second oval has the distinct
advantage of becoming commensurable, and generating easily
divisible whole-number dimensions in palms, as follows: the
ratio of V2:2 results in dimensions of 64 and 90 palms in round
numbers for the interior axis lengths; the concentric oval of the
11. CodexChigi,P VII 13, 40v-41r. Publishedby BrauerandWitt-
kower,Zeichnungen, figs. 167 and 168, the datingof the drawingis
discussedin Connors,"Bernini'sS. Andrea,"17-19, andFrommel,"S.
Andrea,"216-217.
12. The diagramis verifiedby the holes madeby the compasson
the Vaticanoriginal,as well as on a copy of the papalchirograph
preservedin the DoriaPamphiliarchives,andpublishedby Frommel,
"S. Andrea,"219, fig. 4. Compassholes that exist on the original
drawingsarecircledin my figs. 10, 11, 13, 17, and21.
56 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

Fig. 3. Measuredsectionlookingtowardthe altar(author).

building's exterior, with the chapel ring's thickness of 20 palms,

results in axis lengths of 104 and 130 palms (again a simple
ratio, in this case 4:5); and the center points for describing the
arcsof the oval are located at 22.5 palms from the axes' crossing.
Finally, the 45-degree angle inherent in the second oval can be
used to establish the location of the intermediate piers on the
C C' ~/ diagonal. All of these advantages would have been quickly ap-
Ci tS ^SC<parent j to Bernini and his staff, experienced as they were with
X/: \: / j \\ / oval geometries, and explain the rejection of the third and fourth
- ...A-.. ..Serlian
P''X
j l\ ovals as possible starting points for the design of S.
/\ j\ ;Andrea.
;j /\ /
/ \>LX ~ Bernini's initial decision to follow historical precedent as rep-
^ *|[~~
\"k~~ ' k~
IP'/ ?C; ^ B^; j |resented by the Serlian oval is consistent not only with his
~! ~ conceptual preference for traditional procedures, but also with
,, !x j the exceptionally short time involved in the design.13However,
iY Serlio's second oval also has drawbacks relative to Bernini's
intentions. The major innovation of the S. Andrea plan, that of
locating piers not only at the ends of the long axis but also at
the 45-degree angles, forced Bernini to elaborate on Serlio's

Fig. 4. Diagramof a standardoval construction(author). 13. The first oval design was apparentlycompletedin aboutone
month'stime,betweenAugustandSeptember1658. SeeFrommel,"S.
Andrea," 216.
 SMYTH-PINNEY:
Fig. 5. Serlio'sfirstoval (author,afterSerlio).
^-
1 1
Fig. 6. Serlio'ssecondoval (author,afterSerlio).
diagramright from the start(Fig. 1 1).14 The center points which
generate the small circles for the oval had to be different from
the points where the chapel center lines intersect the major axis
of the oval, and the 45-degree angle for the center lines of the
piers had to intersect that axis at still another point. Bernini
also insertedan uncharacteristicequilateraltriangle into the oval
to generate the center lines for the four secondary chapels.
The first design apparently did not satisfy Bernini and sub-
sequent revisions, previously unexplained, were made. The first
papal chirograph of October 1658 was used to lay out the foun-
dations and to begin to build the masonry shell of the church,
completed a year later in November 1659. However, it is fairly
14. Every other previous oval church used 45-degree or 60-degree
angles to locate centerlines of voids, as for example in S. Anna dei
Palafrenieri,S. Giacomo degli Incurabili,S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane,
and oval church projects by Serlio, Rainaldi, and Peruzzi. See Kitao,
CircleandOval, figs. 47-50, and Lotz, "Ovalen Kirchenriume," figs. 28,
40, 45, 51, and 52.
GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 57
k-
/-
/-
Fig. 7. Serlio'sthirdoval (author,afterSerlio).
7S
Ul
,5
f
1 1
Fig. 8. Serlio'sfourthoval, the ovatotondo(author,afterSerlio).
certain that Bernini modified the design of the church even
during this initial construction year. Some of the modifications
are recorded in a second version of the chirograph, now pre-
served in the Rome State Archives (Fig. 12). Although this
chirograph also bears the date of October 1658, internal evi-
dence suggests that it was made later, between 1659 and 1660.15
15. Archiviodi Stato,Disegnie mappe,cartella84, N. 476 II. The
text andthe basedrawingof the conventarecopiedexactlyfromthe
firstchirograph.Frommel,"S. Andrea,"223, arguesconvincinglythat
the majorproportionaland geometricchangesto the mainspaceand
sidechapelsshown in the secondchirographwere alreadyundercon-
siderationbyAugust1659.Thesechangeswerenotofficiallysanctioned
until 30 September1660, however,when the pope signedthe second
chirograph(Frommel,"S. Andrea,"233). The secondchirographalso
includes information on both the base sheet and an overlay sheet from
the period after 1660. Bauer, "Bernini," 95, first noted the sense of the
second chirograph as a drawing in process. It includes, for example, the
high altar chapel design that "was not even sketched out until 1668"
(Connors,"Bernini'sS. Andrea,"19) andthe travertinefacadethatwas
designedonly in 1670 (Frommel,"S. Andrea,"241).
58 JSAH, XLVIII:l, MARCH 1989

L~~ - ?2
Fig. 9. Detailof the planof S. Andreain the firstpapalchirograph(BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Codex
Chigi P VII 13, 41r).

-- I -,f
--l
----J--7

Q) L-
---- N 1-
. 1-r-
-X7
1

90 PALMr-1I 20
'SQ0

Fig. 10. Serlio's second oval compared to the plan in the first papal chirograph (author).
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 59

-
iL-, ^-.' -^ }
J--^
; _- I ---~~~

Fig. 11. Analysis of the plan in the first chirograph (author).

j.
/r1

ut

,r *

I
t
,
I
;"~ D: A

.-, X

1 J?
* ? i,: ' + ~ -V
S^ J r-
r:

. ' #. ?
, r- ,,?
r "', "? re a ?? " ?;

ii ,E'"r:! a * ~ ~ ~ ~~
+; t
S.
t
? A

*" *t
4,

Fig. 12. S. Andrea, detail of the plan in the second papal chirograph (Archivio di Stato di
Fig. 12. S. detail of the plan in
e
second papal
chirograph (Archivio di
Andreoma,
Roma, Disegnie mappe,cartella Stat476
84, N. 476 II).
II).

Certain changes recorded in the second chirograph, including in the size of the piers, which is an unlikely and undocumented
the enlargement and reshaping of the chapels and the reposi- operation.16
tioning of their center lines, must have occurred before the
masonry shell was completed. To make those particularchanges 16. Other changes made during this period include modifications to
after November 1659 would have required a major reduction the windows in the main vault (shown as ovals in the section of the
60 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

J [1 |
..._i ?-----r
-----
60q '----I
l1
\.p I-
46"\ ,-/

?2 i .rn

/f

2'

Fig. 13. Analysisof the plan in the secondchirograph(author).

Analysisof the planof the secondchirographshowschanges

from,but no realsimplificationof, the geometriccomplexities
of the first chirograph(Fig. 13). The angles of the chapels'
center lines (25 degreesand 60 degreesrespectively)remain
constant,but the points where the center lines intersectthe
_& minorandmajoraxeschange.Those pointsalong the axis still
I_ do not coincidewith the centerpointsfor the constructionof
I the oval. Both drawingsdo rely, however,on whole-number
dimensionsin palms to set most of the points for the plan's
construction.The oval in the secondchirographis now a vari-
ation of Serlio'ssecondoval: it retainsthe ratio of minor to
majoraxis lengths (64 to 90 palms),but its roundnesshas in-
creased.
90 PALM 5
Bernini'svariationof Serlio'ssecondoval is possiblebecause,
unlikea trueellipse,an ovalwith a set ratiobetweenthe minor
"SKINNY" OVAL, : ---. ARCS
El CENTEKRPCONT5 and majoraxis lengths (in this case V2:2) can be constructed
SERLtO'S Z2N OVAL : .ARCS froman infinitenumberof possiblelocationsforthe fourcenter
x CENTERFVINT5
SANT'ANDREA OVAL.- ---- ARCS pointsof its arcs(Fig. 14).17It canbe relativelyrounderor more
e CENT-Ft POINTS pointed,with relativelysmootheror moreabruptpointsof tan-
gency. Serlio'ssecondoval is relativelypointedand has quite
Fig. 14. Comparison of 2:2 ovals (author). distinctflat areasat the points of tangency.Berninichose to
varySerlio'ssecondovalto makea rounderovalwhile retaining
the originalratioof the axislengthsto eachother.At S. Andrea
first chirograph but built as the arched rectangles shown in the second
chirograph), and the reduction in the number of columns ordered for
the interior (from the eight requiredby the plan of the first chirograph 17. The minor and major axis dimensions of the S. Andrea interior
to the four shown in the second) by a contract signed in March 1659 oval(64and90 palms)remainconstant and
in bothpapalchirographs,
(Frommel, "S. Andrea," 220-221). in thechurchasbuilt.
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 61
+

-i
o i

41

) ? 0
\
130 PALM 5

Fig. 15. Analysis of the S. Andrea measured plan showing the final oval configuration (author).

1 _
the redesign of the chapels must have led to the revisions in re

It. -t .%
the geometry of the basic oval. As the chapel spaceswere mod- * .. -
. ~-.
ified, the oval had to become slightly rounder.18These design i .- , a
changes would have been made fairly soon after the start of I
construction in November 1658, because they were incorpo-
rated into the masonry shell. r
Z,J
The third and final geometric revisions to the body of the 'F
:I

church are revealed by an analysis of the church plan as it exists

today (Fig. 15). This final geometry is also depicted in a third -I) : O-i i/
contemporary document executed to display a design for the
?;J S I
s,_ ? r ..JFi
pavement and usually attributed to Bernini's assistant Mattia :-..1

de'Rossi (Figs. 16 and 17).19The geometric simplicity of the ?

y .
" ,

is"
,
' ??
-?i? i
r

18. The actualdimensionsinvolvedarealmostinsignificant.Math-

Fig. 16. S. Andrea, plan for the pavement, attributed to Mattia
ematicallycalculated,Serlio'ssecondovalwould havea circumference de'Rossi(Archiviodi Statodi Roma,Disegnie mappe,cartella84,
of 241.34 palms;the circumference of the rounderoval of the second
N. 476 I).
chirographwould be approximately 245 palms,an increaseof scarcely
1 palm (8.8 inches)in eachquadrant.
19. Also in the Archiviodi Stato,Disegni e mappe,cartella84, N.
476 I. Frommel,"S.Andrea,"241, statesthatthis drawingalsoserved
to obtainpapalpermissionfor the additionof the travertinefacade.The final S. Andreaplan is achieved by slightly modifying the angles
drawingdatesfromabout1670, andis thereforenot a designdrawing of the chapels' center lines and the radii of the oval's arcs. None
for the constructionof the mainchurch,which was substantially com-
of these changes would necessitate structuralmodifications of
plete. However, it does depict the geometry of the church essentially
as it was built, and variesfrom the measuredplan only in its more the masonry shell; they could be accomplished by subtle re-
accuratedrawingof the geometry.In other words,it merely"cleans alignments made with the finish materialsof stucco and marble
up" certainminorirregularities in the planof the churchas built. See veneer.
Borsi,S. Andrea,46, who arrivesat this conclusionandproposesthat
the minorirregularities in the existingbuildingmayresultfromerrors These geometric revisions result for the firsttime in the center
madeby the workmenduringconstruction. points of the oval's arcscoinciding exactly with the points where
62 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

I i.___
. I

Fig. 17. Analysis of the pavement drawing plan (author).

-r -1
i _ ____^-**T-

' *j- * ,
_. _ - t
- ,
* ,9
'
,, \

- r ; J
. . . ?"--. / r --:-J q

I' , -- \

I . . n--\.. 90,,
0 --:V::T- e 1t _.1
'
.,, ) ? .). O \ . 1

9*'3 '
.'

I . 0 0 _J
\-,..--.-J,1- \

Fig. 18. Analysis of the measured plan, showing the crucial visible dimensions of the interior (author).
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 63

.I

/'
' '

'. i0
tO

"
i '--;i :
:.

I ' :
j i;'
<i'-F -IA
i: : .X i^
' -
2 H:
.

0
i' ' ''
': I| . -
1 ^

<C11 -. -
11*'* ...w*^
,?
^_,V,
i___ ,I. - i90\ i

19.
Analysisof the measuredsection(author)...
Fig.
Pig. 19. Analysisof the measuredsection(author).

(03

'
i
1 i
0) i

Q-

Ii iI ?= ; 4^ , a p
j I
_. . lAn.yi eto
th . .iu n isLApAl
o? (chiro?rahu
a?e hr te]Briti drain)
w

Fig. 20. Analysisof the sectionin the firstpapalchirograph(author,afterthe Berninidrawing).

 ...
64 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989
I
.
- z_:
1m
... , -i: , ,
,^- , i-i. .. e.
Fig. 21. Analysisof the sectionin the secondpapalchirograph(author,afterthe Berninidrawing).
the chapelcenterlines crossthe two axes.20Now, the points
which generatethe oval's circumferenceare the same points
which generatethe voidsandsolidsof the interiorwall surface.
With the simplificationof the geometrycomesa simplification
of dimensionsas well, becausethe dimensionof 26 palms(the
radiusof the smallgeneratingcirclesfor the oval)now belongs
within a set of numbers(Fig. 15): 13 palms(halfof the baseof
the oval'scharacteristic triangle),26 palms,52 palms(the dis-
tancebetweenthe two centerpoints on the minor axis), 104
palms(the length of the minoraxis to the building'sexterior),
and 130 palms(the length of the majoraxis to the building's
exterior).
Threeothersets of dimensionsarealso apparentin plan and
section(Figs.18 and 19). Dividingthe majoraxislength of 90
palmsresultsin a setof dimensionsof 90 palms,60 palms(height
to the springingof the ribs),45 palms(the dimensionfromthe
20. It is now clearthat,contraryto Borsi'sanalyses,the intersection
pointsof the centerlinesof the chapelsdo not coincidewith the oval's
compasspointsin the two chirographdrawings.See Borsi,S. Andrea,
51, fig. 23 ("regulatinglines"for the planin the secondchirograph).
f---- I
I (
fi,
i
1
J
;I ,
centralcrossingto the wall of the entry),and 30 palms (the
height of the ceiling ribs).Anotherset of dimensionsresults
from multiplyingthe width of the interiorpilasters(4 palms)
up to the 64 palmsof the minoraxis.These dimensions,of 8,
16, 24 and 32 palms,are found, respectively,in the width of
the wall piers,the width of the openingsinto the rectilinear
chapels,the height of the minorpilasterorder,andthe height
to the top of the archedopeningsof the rectilinearchapels.
These two sets of dimensionsare relatedto each other in the
ratioof V2:2. Internally,dimensionswithin each set are used
to obtainprimarywidth-to-heightratiosof 1:1 (heightof dome
to majoraxislength), 1:2 (widthto heightof openingsinto the
chapels),and so on. A third set of dimensions,of 10.5 palms
and21 palms,is usedforthe heightsandwidthsof the secondary
roundedservicechapelsandis relatedto the firstset of dimen-
sionsin the sameratioof V2:2.
These latter three sets of dimensions remain constant
throughoutthe designdrawingsin spiteof progressivechanges
in the geometryof the oval. The majorrevisionsto the plan
(changesin the chapel'sconfigurations,the entry,andthe main
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE
altarspace)do not affectthe primarycompositionof the main
oval spaceas it is definedby the rhythmandproportionof the
interiorelevation.Only minoradjustmentswere madein the
section drawings. (Compare Figs. 20 and 21 to Fig. 19.)21
One mustask,therefore,why Berninirevisedthe oval'sge-
ometry.Were the reasonspractical,perceptual,or conceptual?
Practicallyspeaking,once the masonryshell was completeit
wouldhavebeeneasierto continueto applythe finishmaterials
usingthe geometryof the secondchirograph.Perceptually,the
resultantchangesare so subtleas to be invisibleto the viewer
within the space:the variationsamong the ovals are only ap-
parentwhen centerpointsandanglesaredrawnuponthe plans.
The impetusfor changedoeshaveconceptualgrounds,how-
ever, and the S. Andreaplan evolved into a figure of strong
conceptualcoherence.In the final building,Berniniinvented
an oval constructionthat solved the problemof geometrically
integratingthe innovativelocationsof the solids and voids of
the wall surfacewith the geometryof the oval'sconstruction.
The S. Andreaoval also generatessets of whole-numberdi-
mensionsandsimpleratiosamongthosedimensions,as Serlio's
diagramdoes not. Nevertheless,the S. Andreaoval remainsin
the Serliantradition:it is a variationratherthanan innovation,
remainingorthodoxin intentionif not in strictestpractice.
The geometricand dimensionalorganizationof S. Andrea
also now coincideswith the viewer'sspatialperceptionsof the
church.The reductionin the numberof dimensions,center
points,andintersectionpointsneededto constructthe finalplan
underlinesthe perceivedsimplicityof the main oval space.22
21. In each chirograph,the sectionsare drawnat the samescaleas
the plans, and directly below them. Detail photographs of the sections
are published by Connors, "Bernini's S. Andrea," 17, figs. 2 and 3;
Frommel, "S. Andrea," 226, fig. 8; and Borsi, S. Andrea,figs. 12 and
14. A photograph of the entire second chirograph can be found in
Frommel, "S. Andrea," 224, fig. 6. See also my n. 11 above.
22. Connors, "Bernini's S. Andrea," 23-25, makes an insightful
comparison between Bernini's centric geometric intentions and the epi-
centric geometries of Borromini. Bernini's preference for "simple, cen-
tric geometries," intuited by Connors, is confirmed by the increasing
geometric clarity of the S. Andrea designs documented here.
65
The suppressionof the oval'sinherentduality,and the conse-
quent heighteningof the space'sperceivedcentrality,is also
confirmedby the final geometry.The set of dimensionsthat
areusedto constructthe oval (13, 26, 52, 104, and 130 palms,
describedearlier)areall invisible.They neverappearasreadable
plan or sectionwidthsor heights.Nor do anyvisiblemarksin
the plan or section reinforceor even hint at the locationsof
either the centerpoints of the oval's arcsor the intersection
pointsof the chapels'centerlines.Consequently,no idealview-
ing positionis located;neitherthe geometrynorthe perception
of the interiorsupportsa notion that a staticperspectiveview
is primaryto the designof S. Andrea.Berninihadno intention
of markingan X at any specificspot in the plan.23Thus, there
is no cruciallocationalong the pathfrom entryto altarwhere
one is meantto stop and receivea fixed, frontal,and perfect
imageof the space.Rather,a generalsenseof approximate points
of restalong the axialpath from entryto altar,and a freedom
to readclear,three-dimensional betweenplanand
relationships
sectionareperceptualgoalsin Bernini'sdesignwhich geometry
reinforcesand controls.Finally,the characteristic dimensions
of the facadearedifferentfromthoseusedfor the interior.This
furthersupportsthe proposalthat the exteriorelementswere
built as later additionsto the main body of the church,and
constitutea separateyet integrateddevelopmentin the history
of S. Andrea.24
23. Thepavingpattern, whichcouldhavebeenusedto dothis,does
not.Thepavingdoesnotfollowtheanglesof thechapels' centerlines,
nordoesit emphasize the minoraxisas pathor zoneof spacefrom
entryto altar.Rather, it mirrors
thedome'sgeometry andalmostmakes
a three-dimensional "cage"of linesby extendingthe wallpiersonto
flooranddome.The pavingis centricratherthancentral,however;
Borsi,S. Andrea,27, rightlynotesthatthepavingasexecuted doesnot
cometogetherata centralpointasit doesin thedrawing.
24. It is notwithinthescopeof thispaperto dealwiththeexterior
of S. Andrea. TodMarder generously
providedmewitha copyof his
forthcoming articleonthefasade,(seemyn. 1 above),whichexamines
theseissuesin detail.