BRAMANTE'S TEMPIETTO: CONCEPT AND REPRESENTATION

Author(s): Sebastiano Brandolini

Source: AA Files, No. 1 (WINTER 1981-82), pp. 77-83
Published by: Architectural Association School of Architecture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29543305 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 03:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

Architectural Association School of Architecture is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to AA Files.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IT-0jr?k 'W

BR AM ANTE' S TEMPIETTO

CONCEPT AND REPRESENTATION

Sebastiano Brandolini

My interest in Renaissance architecture was born of a

search for lost architectural principles. Bramante's work,
so faithfulto the ideals of Vitruvius and Alberti, and yet so
open to innovation and so prone to be turned into
Mannerism, became for me an ideaj combination of
'concept' and 'reality'.The view of architectureas pictorial
representation and the deformations that architecture
underwent to obey the rules of three-dimensionalityon a
two-dimensional plane further deepened my interest in
Bramante's work, which became forme a link between
painting and architecture, spectacle and illusion and, of
course, between the Renaissance and Mannerism.
At the present moment, when architectural research is
dominated by a rhetoricaland narrow search for historical
identitywhich often arbitrarily chooses what we should
referto, the case of Bramante should be carefullyobserved:
both theway inwhich he absorbed Vitruvius's teachings,
studying Roman architecture directly (and how these
referenceswere formalized in his work), and the way in
which he referredto the concepts of Brunelleschi, Alberti,
Piero, Leonardo and Francesco di Giorgio (his immediate
3
predecessors and his contemporaries) and combined these
with teachings from the classical past. This enormous store
of references was shown and commented upon in his 1. Bramante's plan for the cloister of S. Pietro inMontorio (from Serlio's
architecture, in a visible and often disturbing way: the treatise)
control over these referencesmade his work into a set of 3. Perspective drawing of the Tempietto (by Bramante?)
new syntactical relationships.
with the rest of Bramante's work will focus on the
The Tempietto presentsmany of the ambiguities typical
revolutionary qualities of the Tempietto. Secondly, I will
of Bramante's work: in theuse of the classical language, in
try to demonstrate that we cannot isolate the Tempietto
the dialectics between perspective as opposed to, or
from thewhole of Serlio's plan, but we should see itas an
complemented by, centrality,and in the treatmentof the
integralpart of a much wider programme, of which Serlio's
grandemente piccolo together with the immensamente
plan is only a diagrammatic representation.
grande. The vast literatureon theTempietto, nourished by
speculations on the limitsof Bramante's plan as published While Donato Bramante was in Rome after his formative
by Sebastiano Serlio, sets no limits to the subject. years in Urbino and Milan, Iulius II della Rovere was
My goal will be, first, to demonstrate that in the feeding the architectural world with a new belief in
Tempietto, built in the firstdecade of the 16th century, greatness. On one hand Giuliano della Rovere, who named
concept and form are perfect representations of one himself Iulius after Iulius Caesar (in 1506he had a medal
another. Discussions of perspective, of the role of inscribed with IULIU(S) CAESAR PONT II), tried to
centrality,of the linkswith other circular buildings and restore to the institution of the papacy the political

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 greatness of ancient emperors; on the other Bramante difficult site conditions and in regularizing them into legible
attempted to recreate, in a physical form, the 'universal' spaces (the courtyard of S. Maria della Pace), but also for
architectural values of ancient Rome. Between 1503 and solutions which, however specific, still retain an
providing
1513, the two personalities worked simultaneously towards element of idealism which cannot be fully resolved in
a common goal. Vasari described such an event: 'Iulius II, practice (the Belvedere staircase). The site next to S. Pietro
a Pope full of enthusiasm and who wanted to leave in Montorio is, as it stands today, obviously incomplete;
memories behind, had an urge to build during those years; Serlio's plan for it is complete.
and it is his (Bramante's) and our fortune that he had a The circle was seen in the Renaissance as the absolute
patron like him, who gave him a chance to demonstrate his optimization of
Beauty. It expressed the perfection of

genius.' God's representations on earth: the globe, the stars, the

The subsequent ranking of theTempietto of S. Pietro in trees and the nests belonged to the same infallible
Montorio among the monuments of the ancients shows the structure of the Universe; this idealism, nourished by Neo
success of Iulius II and of Bramante in recreating a past Platonism, was associated with the greatness of the

age. As today's critics have sufficiently demonstrated, there Romans: Santo Stefano Rotondo, Santa Costanza, the
are both spatial and conceptual differences between the octagonal Baptistery near the Lateran in Rome and the

Tempietto and the type of the Roman circular temple, as Baptistery in Florence were regarded as tending towards a

described by Vitruvius and exemplified in practice; perfect state. Given these premises, the circle was the
nevertheless the ideal image of the Tempietto, as 'type', easier form to disrupt: Alberti's mathematical definition,
and as represented in the treatisesby Serlio and Palladio, is based on Vitruvius, that Beauty consists in a rational
seen as a legacy from a past glorious age. Serlio defined integration of all proportions in such a way that nothing
Bramante: 'Man of such talent in architecture, who, with could be added or taken away without destroying the
AA FILES
help and authority from the Pope, brought back the good harmony of the whole, shows the circle as the most
78
architecture, which had been buried since the ancients.' complete and absolute of all forms. Marsilio Ficino,
And Palladio, similarly: 'Since Bramante was the first who commenting on Plato's Symposium, can be seen to

brought good and beautiful architecture to light,which describe the Tempietto in metaphorical terms:
from the time of the ancients to this day had been
...it was not without reason that the ancient theologicians placed
forgotten, it seemed to me reasonable that his work should
Goodness at the centre: and in the circle Beauty. I say surely
have a place among the ancients.' Goodness in a centre: and in four circles Beauty. The only centre of
And, in order to show that the often considered anti all things isGod. The four circles which continually revolve around
classical method of Bramante followed the rules God are theMind, the Soul, Nature and Matter. The Angelic Mind isa
working
fixed circle; the Soul, in itselfmobile; Nature moves in others, but not
dictated by the father of Roman architecture, here is a
through others; Matter not only in others, but also by others is
quotation from Vitruvius: moved. But why do we call God the Centre and those other four
circles? Shall we declare? The Centre is a point of the circle which is
As the numerical proportions of the symmetryhave been decided, fixed and indivisible: fromwhere many lines divisible and mobile lead
then the acumen of the architect must act in order to relate the to their similar circumference. This circumference, which is divisible,
nature of the site to the function and the appearance of the building, revolves around theCentre not otherwise than a round body revolves
and thus, by adding and subtracting, introduce those corrections in around a pivot. And such is the nature of the centre that, although it
the overall symmetry, here diminished and there increased, which is one, indivisible and fixed, nevertheless it is found in each part of
make the building appear without defects, so that the eye is many, ifnot all, of themobile and divisible lines: since in each part of
completely satisfied, since sightdoes not seem to give a truthful idea each line is the point.
of things, but often deviates themind from the correct path.
I do not believe we can literally locate on Bramante's plan
Bramante stands in a privileged historical position: he the different elements Ficino describes, but we must

glorifies and re-writes the past, and is praised by his acknowledge a strong similarity in the concentric structure
successors for doing so; often considered the most of the components.
academic and classical of the Renaissance architects, he is As the subject of centralitywhich Iulius II represented in
also the most unconstrained in the formulation of a new political termswithin the town of Rome was a vital knot in
language of architecture. the conciliation between the Christian view of the world
Many of the critical problems which arise as we deal with and the pagan greatness of the Romans (represented in
theTempietto reston theplan as published by Serlio (111.1). circular buildings), the problem of perspective as the
Serlio placed the Tempietto in the centre of a circular mathematical understanding of sight gave scope for ideal
courtyard. How faithfully does this plan reproduce inventions and speculations on how to represent reality
Bramante's original idea? And, if so, how could this be and, similarly, how to invent illusions through reality. In the
realized in practice, given the problem of adapting the Tempietto Bramante deals with both centrality and
classical vocabulary to an unknown set of proportions and perspective.
syntax? Or should we see the circular courtyard as a The invention of linear perspective was a vital and
theoretical hypothesis which was never intended as a three necessary step in the rationalization of space: it allowed a
dimensional realizable building? These questions cannot be technique to locate yourself or any object precisely in
answered intuitively: we must analyse the possible roots of space through a series of measurable units. This
Serlio's plan and see whether the implications of the plan rationalization of space was from the start a means of
itself fit within the overall development of Bramante's harmonization of space, a step towards Beauty.
work. Brunelleschi, in his revolutionary studies of perspective,
Tiberi has underlined that Serlio's attitude is not only implies a single vanishing point system with a
documentary, but also interpretative. Serlio carries out a mathematically controlled rate of diminution of size and

typological criticism:working on idealmodels at different objects in space. Manetti, referring to a painting by

scales, he first focuses on the components and later Brunelleschi, tells us that the construction of the picture
formulates a series of deformations, which theoretically was dependent upon its being seen from a single
could continue ad infinitum, anticipating Montano's and viewpoint set at a particular distance from the picture
Durand's typological fragmentation. However suspicious surface. The position of the onlooker was controlled
we might be in attributing Serlio's plan to Bramante's according to the pictured scene, both in distance and

hand, in the end we have to recognize the historical direction. In contrast to this strict relationship between

importance of the plan itself. We cannot dismiss it as 'viewer' and 'viewed', Bramante's frescoes on the Palazzo

belonging to a deformed view of architecture. We also have del Podesta inBergamo distort the idealized equilibrium of
to accept the incomplete state of the Tempietto as it stands Brunelleschi, not because of the use of more than one

today: Bramante is known for his ability in dealing with vanishing point, but because of the length of the painted

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 facade, which requiredmore than one viewpoint and more
than one vanishing point.
Piero della Francesca and Alberti both investigated the
spatial implications of perspective. By questioning the
rigidityof Brunelleschi's ideas, they immediatelyexpanded
the singular perspectival view. Piero believed that only a
generally valid law would guarantee harmonical
mathematical space in optical space: he consequently
thought that the diminution of objects in space changed in
accordance with, or relative to, the change of position of
the percipient. This point can be picked up in the
Flagellation, where, within the regular stage of a square
piazza, the different lightsources distort the image and can
be read as different viewing angles: is there a law of
proportion between the projections on the intersectionof
the bases of differentvisual trianglesor, more concretely,
between the projection on the intersectionof a number of
objects in space?
Although Alberti followed closely Brunelleschi's theories
('Omnia ad certos angolos paribus lineis adaequanda\
everythingmust be arranged with definite or identical
angles and equal lines), through the four basic points of his
theories on perspective he approximates an infinite and
mathematically homogeneous space which works as a
unifyingagent for thepictorial field.The four basic points
are: a) there is no distortion of straight lines; b) there is no
distortion, or foreshortening, of objects, or distances,
parallel to the picture plane; c) orthogonals converge to a
single vanishing point dependent on the fixed position of
the observer's eye; and d) the size of objects is in exact
proportion to theirdistance from the observer, so that all
quantities aremeasurable. The idea of building as animans,
a correlated mass of elements which work towards an
organic whole, reinforces the idea of homogeneous space.
This is the beginning of the destruction of Brunelleschi's
peephole technique of construction: there is no longer a
solid object describing a vanishing point. As White says:
'The imaginative eye is freed of measurement and travels
into infinitybeyond the farhorizon.' Referring brieflyback
to Serlio's plan, I believe the 'homogeneous space' is
described by theuncovered ringbetween theTempietto and
the portico, and the 'far horizon' is the continuous line
defined by the portico and, more generally, by the
confrontationof inversesurfaces,which develop all-round.
In a number of works the loss of rationalized control
over space is apparent. In a painting called Architectural
view (today inBerlin, and generally attributed to the school
of Piero), the vanishing point is the sea, the flatplane par
excellence. And Donatello's relief of St George at
Orsanmichele in Florence, placed six feet from the ground,
is constructed to be viewed from below. However, in these
cases the view is constructed frontally.
The pictorial space rebornwith Brunelleschi consisted of
the two-dimensional representationof a three-dimensional
situation through themathematical definition of surfaces
and planes. As pictorial space became represented, it
simultaneously exhausted its contribution and forced on
the artists perspective as a three-dimensional device to be
employed on a three-dimensionalmodel. Architecture was
becoming pictorial.
Although we know very littleabout Leonardo's treatise
on perspective, and most of what we know comes second
hand from Cellini, this is of vital importance to
understanding theTempietto. Uccello's contribution isalso
noteworthy: in The Hood in Santa Maria Novella in
Florence, the intricacies of the composition denote a
continuous shiftingof vanishing points, as the eye looks for
a precise point of direction. A description of Vasari
contains Leonardesque ideas: the lost scheme for Santa
Maria Maggiore containing columns which ran into the
curve of the vault, but designed so that they appeared
straight, abolishing the curve as a visual stopper and
anticipating Borromini's unrealised vault of the central
This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nave of S. Giovanni inLaterano. This is,of course, beyond
Alberti's costruzione legittimaand was based, according to
White, on Euclidean theory which stated that things
appearing within a like angle appear to be of similar size.
The project of S. Maria Maggiore anticipates both
Leonardo's theories and theTempietto.
The fourmain characteristicsof Leonardo's theoryare a)
all straight lines not passing through the point of the plane
surface nearest to the eye are given a curvilinear distortion;
b) there is foreshortening and increasing distortion of
objects in all directions from this point, vertically,
horizontally, or longitudinally,with no tendency to stress
the plane surface; c) this point coincides with the main
vanishing point, towardswhich all orthogonals converge in
straight lines; and d) the size of objects isdependent on the
visual angle and does not diminish in direct proportion to
thedistance, the discrepancy being greatest forwide angles.
These four points seem to describe theTempietto itself:we
can imagine ourselves standing between theTempietto and
the portico, feeling the push of the curved surfaces
attractingus behind in the case of theTempietto and inside
in the case of the portico; we can then feel the AA FILES
79
foreshorteningof the dome, which nevertheless elevates us
upwards; we can then follow the lines leading to the centre,
which lead us to two identical, yet opposite, vanishing
points, one being theTempietto itself,and the other being
the horizon line, a continuous 360? vanishing level. Finally
we can imagine ourselves holding a camera in our hands
and, with a wide angle lens, seeing the distortion of the
columns and the depth of the courtyard, and reading the
non-directly proportional relationship of objects to
distance.
The overall resultof Leonardo's theory is the creation of
a homogeneous space, spherical in shape, bearing
conceptual similaritieswith Einstein's finite infinity.It is a
three-dimensional space, in contrast to Brunelleschi's and
Alberti's two-dimensional painted surface reproducing a
three-dimensional situation defined through the placing of
objects. Referring to Brunelleschi, Leonardo tells us, 'One
has to avoid such perspective.' Leonardo, by rejecting the
pictorial conception of perspective, unified centralityand
definition of objects in space into a single 'homogeneous
space': the sharp distinction between inside and outside
was substitutedby a possibilism, or ambiguity, on the exact
location of the observer.
Ifwe observe Leonardo's Last Supper; the height of the
vanishing point excludes a realistic relationship between
viewer and viewed: theobserver isnot provided with a fixed
spatial parameter. Any distance from the painted surface
will be equally ambiguous in defining the observer's
position in space, while the positioning of the fresco on the
end wall of the refectory 'externalizes' the view. In
Bramante's S. Satiro, the vanishing point is also placed
above man's height. Vitruvius's homo ad circulum and
homo ad quadratum are deformed through
superimposition by Leonardo (111.2).The cloister for S.
Maria della Pace is the idealized, yet revolutionary, 2 .Leonardo's
VitruvianMan
representationof thequadratum, while theTempietto is the
working out of the conflict represented in Leonardo's
drawing of homus ad circulum additus homo ad
quadratum.
A superficial reading of the Tempietto may lead us to
believe that it represents a faithful reproduction of the
ancients' ideas; but as soon as we investigate the
deformations classical language underwent in order to
describe adequately the centrifugal and/or centripetal
force,we then have to view Bramante in a new light.
The Tempietto observes many of Alberti's demands for
the ideal church: it is in fact planned at the centre of a
square (however typical Bramante's square is); it stands
isolated on a high platform; it is perfectly round (the
staircase to the cryptas it is today, reproduced neither by
Serlio nor by Palladio, is probably a later solution); itends
 The word typedoes not represent the image of something to imitate,
but rather the idea of an element which should serve for themodel.
The model ... is an object to be repeated as it is; the type, on the
other hand, is an object, following which everyone can conceive
different works. Everything is precise and absolute in themodel;
everything ismore or less vague in the type.

The Roman type, as found inVitruvius's description or

in theTemple of Sibyl inTivoli, is a peripteral temple.This
is about the only similaritywith Bramante's Tempietto,
which has 16 columns, as opposed to 18, 20 or more,
characteristic of known ancient examples (111.5). As a
result, the intercolumniations of the Tempietto are wider
than those of antiquity: this is then contradicted by the size
of the ambulatory around the cella, which is considerably
less than one-fifth of the diameter of the stylobate, the
proportion recommended by Vitruvius and found inTivoli.
As Rosenthal said: 'If Bramante had started with the
ancient type inmind, he would have retained at least some
of itsnumerical and proportional characteristics.' It has to
be noted, nevertheless, that the intercolumniations of the
Tempietto relate to its being a Doric building, unlike the
survivingancient temples,which were Corinthian and had
correspondingly narrower intercolumniations.

Conceptually theTeatro Marittimo inTivoli (111.6)must

have influenced Bramante: although the colonnade is
composed of 40 rather than 16columns, thediameter of the
Teatro Marittimo is 140 feetas opposed to about 40 feetof
the proposed courtyard surrounding the Tempietto, and
the central pleasure villa inTivoli is proportionately much
wider and was certainly lower than the Tempietto in
relation to itsperistyle, the idea of a circlewithin a circle is
clearly expressed. We do not feel the generating lines
leading us to and from the centre, yet the dialectics of a
concave surface as opposed to a convex surface are strongly

expressed. Water acted as a physical interruption in the

dialectics between the two surfaces. Other large circular
Roman buildings, such as theColosseum, or theTeatro di
Marcello, because of their size, never presented the
These
problem of Bramante's grandemente piccolo:
problems findclear visual expression in theoverlapping and
compression of different elements on the shorter radii of
theTempietto.
A model I found inside Santo Stefano Rotondo (111.7)
convinced me of the importance of paleochristian
architecture to understanding the Tempietto, especially
since Peter personified the first effortsof theChristians to
emerge from the darkness of the firstcenturiesA.D. Santo
Stefano Rotondo is formed through an additive process of
elements which, originating from the central circular core,
expands outward, until the original generators (the two
concentric colonnades) grow to become parts, rather than
wholes. Bramante strips the additive process to itsessential
elements: Santo Stefano Rotondo is an addition, San
Pietro inMontorio an organism, an animans. The filtering
5
of Roman architecture through Christianity before its
acceptance to the Renaissance is crucial to reconciling the
holy and the pagan. Santa Costanza, originally named
4. Perspective section of the Tempietto (Coner Codex, Sir John Soane's
Mausoleum of Constantine, is another example of the
Museum)
5. Temple of Portumnus, Porto (left) and Temple of Vesta, Rome, pivotal role of early Christian architecture.
elevations and plans drawn by Giuliano da Sangalfo The typology of theTempietto was filtered by architects
6. The two concentric rings of columns of theMaritime Theatre, Hadrian's like Sangallo, Raphael, Leonardo and Francesco di
Villa
Giorgio, before its crystallization by Bramante. As the
with the quiet hemisphere of the dominating dome (111.3); Roman periptefal typewas contaminated by the funerary
and it is furthercharacterized by the austere Doric order monument type with an articulated surface, the ancient
with horizontal entablature, the abstention from pointed ruins were nourishing imaginative schemes, fantastic
decoration and the planned use of statues. According to reconstructions containing new and unknown elements,

Wittkower, these elements show Bramante 'in line of purely experimental in character. Especially in the court of
descent fromAlberti as the executor of Alberti's fondest Federico da Montefeltro in Urbino, such imaginative
thoughts' (111.4). versions of thepast were given free rein. Bramante, during
The acceptance by Bramante of the ancient round his stay at Urbino, had probably participated in such
peripteral temple as a general 'type' rather than as a specific exercises: a funerary mausoleum was to have been erected

'model' is what has generated so much confusion among for theMontefeltro family in a courtyard of thepalace and
the critics.As Quatremere de Quincy has powerfully stated: a roundmonopteral temple can be seen standing on a small

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
platform behind a wall in theMiracolo dell'uomo ferito
con lapala inPerugia. It is inUrbino thatwe have themost
complete statement of the change in the concept of
enclosure: Federico's studiolo, in function similar to
Hadrian's Teatro Marittimo, is situated between the Sala
delle Udienze and theTorricini. It ispanelled with a base of
wood inlay,with space for two doors into the Sala delle
Udienze and guardarobe, but concealing the door to the
loggia: in thisway, which resembles the entrance to the
crypt of the Tempietto as it is sometimes drawn, the
studiolo, though in direct communication with the outside
and the panorama, appears as a wholly internalized space.
The schemewhich, according to Rosenthal, provides the
keystone in the transformation from imagination to
realization of the type of peripteral temple belongs to
Francesco di Giorgio's Codice Saluzziano in Turin (111.8).
The differences from Bramante's scheme are still
enormous, but the centrifugal/petal power is
diagrammatically represented. This scheme, accompanied
by the inscription 'ancient edifices inold Tivoli', provides a
possible link between the ancient pleasure island of
Hadrian and the miniature on the Ianiculum hill. And,
since both Bramante and Francesco belonged to theUrbino
group and both studied and measured Tivoli's ruins,we are
given serious reasons to add this drawing to the chain of
referencesforming the background to theTempietto.
In Francesco's scheme we do not feel the same tension
between thedifferentsurfaces of the empty courtyard ring.
We have 8 columns on the innerperipteral ring, and 16on
the outer portico ring.The portico columns do not lead us
to pilasters on the outer wall of the courtyard.
Furthermore, Francesco's circle is broken at the one point
of entrance, immediately contradicting the purity of the
whole idea and creating that visual interruptionbetween
surfaceswhich Leonardo was contesting, since it negated
homogeneous space. And, while Francesco's scheme deals

separatelywith the square and the circle, each one dictating

a pure and self-sufficient shape, Bramante combines the
two and, by doing so, internalizes the circle into the square
before internalizing the circle into the circle. It is
noteworthy that the diameter of Francesco's outer ring
corresponds to the length of one side of the square.
Rosenthal makes the subtle observation that 'the elegance
and integrity of Bramante's design is more readily
understood when one recognizes this intermediary stage.'
Francesco's scheme is intermediaryalso in thedefinition of
the relationships of the parts to the whole: Francesco
reduced the relative size of the central unit to thewhole,
while Bramante made his Tempietto larger than
Francesco's and reduced the anular ring.
It is the levelof coherence and integrationof the elements
which distinguishBramante's Tempietto (111.9).The whole,
as volume on the outside, and as space on the inside,
incorporates both the principles of perspective (the dome 8
pulling your eye towards the greatness of the sky from
every point) and the ideas of centrality, inherent to the
type. The strength of Bramante's scheme rests on the
intellectualprecision and with the exact interactionbetween
the elementsdisplayed. This is characteristicof Leonardo's
methodology, which rested on an understanding of how
7. Model of Santo Stefano Rotondo
each element contributed towards the realization of the
8. Francesco di Giorgio's Tempietto from theCodice Saluzziano
whole. Garin describes Leonardo's work: 'Machines and
9. The Tempietto as it is today
instruments,forces and matter: the anatomy of Leonardo
which develops intooptics, generalmechanics, and physical abstraction of man as living organism. The same

interpretationof theUniverse, reveals, under the skin, a phenomenon appears on the surfaces of the Tempietto in
game of canals, of fluxes, of ropes, of levers,of weights, of the form of overlapping systems.
primary and secondary engines, and the transferringand In the Tempietto, within the artificiality of the whole
movement of forces.' The decomposing and additive system, the purity of the circle is carefully described. The
method of Brunelleschi is broken up: the building works correspondence between microcosm and macrocosm,

through the interlockingand correlation of basic elements, container and contained, already described in thequotation
similar to nerves and muscles. No surprise thereforeto find from Ficino, works three-dimensionally.As God could be
a literaryrepresentation of these concepts in Francesco's understood through themathematical symbols of centre,
treatise, where architecture, at all scales, becomes circle and sphere, so the section of theTempietto becomes

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 another level of description, following the plan, of the example from antiquity; and it is the exciting view upwards
centrifugal force which generates the scheme from a which extends theTempietto into the skyand subsequently
localized point (wherePeter's cross stood on the Ianiculum expands the empty ring,without letting theTempietto 'be
hill). The section can be divided into three basic parts: a) crushed inside a gigantic shell'.
the underground sphere, fromwhere the seed fertilizedby The sequence of concentric circles (111.11), each one
martyrdom is born, symbol of apostolic salvation, internal to the other, and the continuous confrontation
synonymous with the hidden catacombs; b) the temple of between a concave and a convex surface, distinguish the
the Church, tabernaculum dei inter homines, a worldly Tempietto as drawn by Serlio frommost previous examples
sphere with four doors and four chapels, a labyrinthof of the same type. The contribution on this theme by De
lightand shade (the concave and the convex surfaces facing Fusco and Scalvini attempts to apply a semiological
one another, with consequently uneven and unbalanced methodology in the analysis of the Tempietto; in my
distribution of light)and of intricatepatterns on thefloor; opinion this method fails in that the rigid similitude,
and c) thedome and thedrum fullof light, symbolizing the externity is to signifleras internityis to signified,does not
heavenly sphere and the ecclesia triumphans. account for the stratification, in which the Tempietto is
As perspective promoted an omni-valid viewing only one of the components. De Fusco's methodology is
situation which did not locate one viewer in space, but successful in analysing the two surfaces of the cella as
rather created a condition (inside theTempietto, between descriptive of different situations (16 pilasters on the
the cella and the peripteral colonnade, or in the courtyard, outside and 8 pilasters on the inside), but it fails the
or under the portico) within a homogeneous space, the moment the colonnade of the portico is seen as a second
problem of internityand externity became predominant signifier,while it simplydescribes another levelof centrality
and the limit between two situations became critical: the revolving around God. This, of course, negates any
AA FILES facade was thus used to signifydifferentphysical states. In function to the orthogonal external shell, which becomes
82 the case of Serlio's plan the 'homogeneous space' can be redundant. De Fusco's confusion arises out of the forced
read on two different levels: firstas applied to each of the application of semiological ideas to the structure of the
different conditions within the plan or within the section, Tempietto: it cannot be applied when,we are faced with no
and secondly as there being the same homogeneous space definite internityand no definite externity, as De Fusco
pervading thewhole plan. As we know, the two concentric knows: 'The relativelygreater externityof this uncovered
structurescorrespond to two different levels of perspective, space allows us to consider both the ringof columns of the
but this does not necessarily determine two different levels peristyle and of the portico ring as two signifiers,each one
of internity,since the concentric structures belong to an delimiting an internal/signifiedspace: those of theperistyle
identical organism and are regulated by identical radii. and of the portico itself.'
Theoretically the outside cylinder could, when viewed as a Compared with the site as it is today, Serlio's open ring is
volume from a distinct point on a radius, become a new the most accomplished example of Renaissance internal
cella, subsequently surrounded by a new cylinder.When space transferred outside, implying therefore a
Benevolo (111.10) says that 'the plan reproduced by Serlio sophisticated conception of town planning, which sees each
must be considered as the working out of a theoretical urban element as container (volume) and as contained
hypothesis not only unrealized but perhaps unrealizable, (space) within a cohesive systemof connections, something
situated outside the experimental sphere within which resembling a Leonardesque machine. Therefore, as Brandi
Bramante tried to remain while exploring its boundaries', said, the open ring is 'a space without opening of
he undervalues the specificityof the plan itselfand the fact perspectives, but where the line of a circular horizon was
that Bramante did stop the development of concentric over-turned, as the focal point is neither in that horizon,
circumferences, theoreticallyexpandable adinfinitum, with nor in linewith the axis of the temple.' The eye isnever held
an orthogonal shell. still. Our perception, as we circulate, is rotated, as we get to
The animans features of the scheme are important to know the space rather than the solids; it is through the
understanding the Leonardesque machine-like structure, careful articulation of the surfaces that Bramante lets us
and the visible implications of the structure itself.The concentrate on the empty homogeneous space. We may
outside and the inside of the cella, by not relating to the compare thiswith the courtyard of S. Maria della Pace, the
same number of radii, defy the obsessive structural corners of which are convex and lead us continuously back
coherence otherwise pervading the rest of the plan: they to themain open space. As Bruschi observes, the courtyard
demonstrate that the scale of the infinitamentepiccolo of S. Maria della Pace 'ideally tends towards the
deforms the initial theoretical impulse. completeness of the circle'. The sudden contraction of the
Ifwe analyse a hypothetical section through thewhole of corner pilaster does not close the corner, but rather focuses
Serlio's plan, we can imagine the problems arising from the diagonal entrance against an object which sends your
crushing together different orders of scale: again, eye back to the spazio in si. The corners are ambiguously
according to Benevolo, if the column heightwere to remain concave/convex.
10. View of the
the constant, the intercolumniationof theportico would widen The idea of an outside structureenclosing a building with
Tempietto from
clock tower of S. Pietro 'beyond any permissible limit', but, if the height of the a courtyard appears inBramante's sketch in theUffizi and
inMontorio
portico order were to be increased, 'the Tempietto would in a revised drawing for St Peter's. They suggest the
be crushed inside a gigantic shell, blurring all interplayof insertionof St Peter's on a town planning scale. Similarly
internal relations of measurement.' In my opinion to theTempietto but, significantly,immensamentegrande,
Benevolo forgets that, as we walk around theTempietto, St Peter's is at the centre of an immense space, square in
our eye is constantly caught by the verticalityof the dome. shape, surrounded by porticoes which repeat in plan, with
In Bramante's drawing in the Uffizi, the dome is expansions and contractions and with the towered corners,
hemispheric, coherently representing Heaven. Bramante theGreek cross plan of the church.We have a centripetal
did probably intend a lantern, but did not decide on its arrangement within which the central and surrounding
configuration: this can be guessed by theway inwhich the buildings and the intervalsbetween themwere shaped and
dome is not delineated as carefully in the above drawing as proportioned to enhance the form and scale of the church
is the lowerpart of the structure,which suggests a degree of in the centre. Something similar happens in two drawings
indecision in the treatmentnot only of the lantern,but also published by Serlio describing the section, elevation and
of the surface of the dome itself.The lanternwould have plan of Bramante's dome for St Peter's, where the two
pushed your eye up into a perspectival vanishing point. concentric circumferences of the lanternand the dome are
It is the continuation of the cella far above the peripteral articulated as internaland external expressions of the same
colonnade which separates the Tempietto from any organism.

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 By comparing the arrangement of theTempietto within pictorial space and architectural space into a common
its courtyard and that of St Peter's, I do not believe that experience. We are dealing with Tafuri's fifth type of
Bramante's Roman production was 'a treatise and experimentalism: 'the exasperated articulation of a theme
handbook made of built structures,proposed as exemplar originally given as absolute*. Itwas Iulius II who provided
models', as Bruschi stated. This implies that Bramante Bramante with the opportunity to renew the architectural
abstracted the relationship between his architecture and the syntax. The celebrative nature of Bramante's Tempietto
site conditions in a Palladian manner which he never dared and, more generally, of the whole of Renaissance
to suggest. Bramante inheritedmuch Renaissance idealism production, did not impose functional separations, and
but was contextual by acting within a rich urban structure therebyprovided a total classical language which could be
and by demonstrating a vast flexibilityto adapt his schemes deformed but hardly broken.
to local conditions. His drawingsmay be absolutely valid as Montano, starting in 1580,drew his famous Tempietto,
concepts, but forms were used specifically to enhance inwhich he hid a typological experimentalismwith a fake
specific spatial scales. The Tempietto, if blown up to the coat of reference towards the antique. He dealt ironically
scale of St Peter's, would lose its spatial strength,and the with the theme of centrally planned organisms, and his
treatmentof the two surfaces of the cella would lose all intentionwas solely critical, being limited to a process of
meaning. It is significantthat,although the concept behind reassemblage of known elements. Bramante, on the other
theTempietto as drawn by Serlio and found in theMellon hand, dealt with the Tempietto as type (and thismight
Collection drawing is spatially similar, the treatmentof the explain Palladio's insertion of the Tempietto in theFour
surfaces and the volumes is different. Books), seeing no contradiction and no irony in combining
past and present in order to generate a future.As Rykwert
reminds us, 'Paradise is a promise as well as a memory.' It
Tafuri has listed five types of 'experimentalism', as
is the perfect synchronization with time which makes AA FILES

to 'avant-garde'. to an age Bramante's plan, as drawn by Serlio, credible; itcannot be 83

opposed Bramante, belonging
when avant-garde and experimentalism had common goals, considered an inventione by Serlio, because it corresponds
used theTempietto to contest the rigidityof Brunelleschi's to the culture of the firstdecade of the sixteenth century
viewpoint and to develop Renaissance language into a and because the Tempietto, as it stands today, is only a
complete three-dimensional statement by synthesizing fragmentof a whole concept of theUniverse.

//. Hypothetical perspective reconstruction of Serlio's plan

(from Paolo Portoghesi's Rome of the Renaissance)

Bibliography Murray, P. 'Bramante's Tempietto', Charlton Lectures on Art, delivered in the

AA. VV. Bramante, traUmanesimo eManierismo, catalogue introducedby Bonelli, Universityof Newcastle upon Tyne, 1972
Quatremere de Quincy, 'Architecture',Encyclope'dieme'thodique, 3 vols., Paris,
September 1970, organized by the Comitato Nazionale per le celebrazioni 1788-1825
bramantesche
Palladio, A. /Quattro Libri dell'Architettura
Benevolo,L. Storiadell'Architettura del Rinascimento,Laterza, Bari, 1968
Panofsky,E. Renaissance and Renascences inWesternArt, IconEd., 1972
Bonelli,R. Tra BramanteeMichelangiolo, Neri Pozza, Venezia, 1960
Panofsky,E. 'Die Perspektiveals symbolische Form', VortraegederBibliotekWarburg,
Brandi, C. 'Considerazioni sulla spazialit? in Bramante Pittore e in Bramante 1924-25, p.258
Architetto',StudiBramanteschi,de Luca, 1970 Pedretti, C. Leonardo Electa 1978
Architetto,
Bruschi,A. BramanteArchitetto,Laterza, Bari, 1969
Portoghesi,P. Roma del Rinascimento,Electa, 1970
Bruschi,A. Bramante,Laterza, Bari, 1977 Rosenthal,E. 'TheAntecedentsof Bramante'sTempietto', Journalof theSocietyof
Constant, C. 'ManneristRome ? Map Guide to Rome in the 16thCentury,' Architectural Historians, vol.XXIII, n.2,May 1964
ArchitecturalDesign Profites,n.20 Serlio, S. Treatise
De Fusco, R., Scalvini,M.I. 'Segni e Simboli del Tempietto di Bramante', Studi
Stirling,J. 'Introductionto theRoma Interrotta Entry',Architectural Design Profiles,
Bramanteschi,de Luca, 1970 n.20
Delia Valle, A., Fondi, D. 'S. Pietro inMontorio, una riletturaBramantesca',
Tafuri,M. Teorie e Storiadell'Architettura, Laterza, Bari, 1970
L'Architettura,Cronache e Storia, v. 18, 12April 1973
Tiberi,C. 'Misuree contemporaneit? di disegnodelChiostro di S. Maria della Pace e del
Fagiolo,M. Troblematica della ricercabramantesca',Controspazio, v.3,Marzo 1971,3 Tempiettodi S. Pietro inMontorio', StudiBramanteschi,de Luca, 1970
Garin, E. Scienza e vitacivilenelRinascimento,Laterza, Bari, 1965 Vasari, G. Le Vite
Guenther,H. 'BramantesHofproject urn den Tempietto une seine Ausstellung in
White, J. The Birthand Rebirthof Pictorial Space, London 1957
SerliosdrittemBuch', StudiBramanteschi,de Luca, 1970
Wittkower,R. 'Brunelleschiand 'ProportioninPerspective",Journalof theWarburg
L?tz,W. 'La Rotonda: Edificio civilecon cupola', Bollettinodel centrointernazionale and Courtauld Institutes, XVI, 1953
di studide architetturaAndrea Palladio, 4, 1962
Wittkower,R. Architectural Principles in theAge ofHumanism, London, 1949
L?tz, W. 'Das Rommbild inder Architekturzeichnung der ItalienishenRenaissance',
Mitterlungen des Kunsthistorishen InstitutsinFlorenz I, 1956
Marconi, P., ed. La cittacomeforma simbolica,studisuite teoriedell'architettura del
Rinascimento
Merini,M. 'Bramante:Umanesimo o Manierismo?', Controspazio, v.3, n.6, Giugno Sebastiane?Brandolini isa studentintheAA Diploma School. This essaywas writtenas a
1971 Third Year General Studies submission.

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.78 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:43:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions