The Geometries of S.

Andrea al Quirinale
Author(s): Julia M. Smyth-Pinney
Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians , Mar., 1989, 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.com/stable/990406

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

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

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Geometries of S. Andrea al Quirinale
JULIA M. SMYTH-PINNEY University of Kentucky
The unusual complexities of the oval plan of Bernini's S. Andrea al
Quirinale resultfrom a series of variationsfounded in traditional Re-
naissance geometric method. Through the comparative analysis of new
measured drawings of the church and existing archival evidence, the
development of the design is tracedfrom its initial Serlian beginnings
to its final innovative resolution. Analysis of the drawings in con-
junction with historical documents confirms Bernini's use of conservative
geometric procedures and reveals the reasonsfor his subsequent departure
from strictest practice. The manipulation of geometry, proportion, and
dimension arose not only out of Bernini's concernfor conceptual clarity
and theoretical orthodoxy, but alsofrom a desire to use geometry in the
support of spatial organization. The geometry of the final design illu-
minates and underlines the essential simplicity of the interior and gives
us a better understanding of Bernini's intentionsfor the viewer's visual
experience.
ANALYSIS OF THE design and construction sequence of Ber-
nini's famous church of S. Andrea al Quirinale in Rome through
the examination of archival material has advanced significantly
in the past 20 years.' Nevertheless, our knowledge of Bernini's
design procedure suffers from the lack of accurate modern draw-
ings of the church.2 By making new measured drawings (Figs.
All drawings and analytical diagrams are by the author. Grants from
the American Academy in Rome and the National Institute for Archi-
tectural Education, the Southern Regional Education Board, and the
College of Architecture, University of Kentucky, made it possible to
complete the research and are gratefully acknowledged. My thanks also
to Werner Seligmann and Joel Sanders for advice and help with mea-
suring the building.
1. Since the publication of many primary documents by H. Brauer
and R. Wittkower in Die Zeichnungen des Gianlorenzo Bernini, Berlin,
1931, other important studies have included: F. Borsi, La chiesa di S.
Andrea al Quirinale, Rome, 1967; G. Bauer, "Gian Lorenzo Bernini:
The Development of an Architectural Iconography," unpublished Ph.D.
diss., Princeton University, 1974; J. Connors, "Bernini's S. Andrea al
Quirinale: Payments and Planning,"JSAH, XLI, 1, March 1982, 15-
37; C. L. Frommel, "S. Andrea al Quirinale: genesi e struttura," Gian
Lorenzo Bernini architetto e l'architettura europea del sei-settecento, G. Spagnesi
and M. Fagiolo, editors, Rome, 1983, 211-256; and T. Marder, "The
Evolution of Bernini's Designs for the Facade of Sant'Andrea al Quir-
inale: 1658-76," Architectura, forthcoming.
2. To cite a conspicuous example, all of the measured drawings in
Borsi, S. Andrea, are unfortunately published without scale measure-
ments, or with graphic scales that are approximately 25 percent inac-
curate, thus distorting the building's true size.
JSAH XLVIII:53-65. MARCH 1989
This content downloaded from
40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
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 Books of Architecture, who codified and pop-
ularized the geometric rules for the construction of ovals.4 How-
ever, the geometry of the S. Andrea oval is not strictly Serlian,
and this has confounded previous authors. Some have arbitrarily
imposed the standard Serlian ovals upon the plan.5 Others have
recognized the lack of correspondence with Serlio but have been
unable to explain the geometry that Bernini devised or to dis-
cover the reasons for his departure from 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 geometric approximation of the true ellipse. The
ellipse has two unique fixed centers and its perimeter arc changes con-
stantly. The oval is constructed with the arcs of two paired circles of
different radii. During the Renaissance and Baroque periods, the oval
was habitually used in preference to the ellipse because it is much simpler
to construct. For a survey of the history and geometry of the oval, see
T. K. Kitao, Circle and Oval in the Square of St. Peter's; Bernini's Art of
Planning, New York, 1974, 31-38, and Appendix 1, 71-73. Much
recent research on oval plan designs in the Renaissance depends on
Wolfgang Lotz, "Die ovalen Kirchenraume des Cinquecento," Ro-
mischesJahrbuch fur Kuntsgeschichte, VII, 1955, 7-99.
4. S. Serlio, Tutte l'opera d'architettura etprospettiva, Venice, 1584, and
numerous other editions.
5. P. Askew, "The Relation of Bernini's Architecture to the Archi-
tecture of the High Renaissance and of Michelangelo," Marsyas, V,
1950, 57, fig. 21. Borsi, S. Andrea, 46, calls Askew's diagram "totally
arbitrary." Kitao, Circle and Oval, 108, n. 127, also points out that the
diagram is obviously inaccurate.
6. Borsi, S. Andrea, 46-50. Borsi is unable to discover the precise
geometric changes in the design drawings and the final church as built.
He concludes his book by making general comments on centrality and
bifocalism and the "substantial conservatism" of Bernini which, while
accurate, are not specific enough to be of great value. Kitao, Circle and
Oval, 108, n. 127, states that "Borsi's analysis of what he calls 'tracciati
regolatori' demonstrates conclusively that the plan [of S. Andrea] evolved
internally as well as externally either with a geometrical web so intricate
that it hardly qualifies as a regulatory system, or, as is more likely, with
no clear geometrical system."
53
54 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

b' ''5 ' s ' ' ' ' ' a

Fig. 1. Gianlorenzo Bernini, S. Andrea al Quir

Fig. 1. Gianlorenzo Bernini, S.

the major axis The

of the oval.
other By
thre
the radii of the pairs
geometricof cir
prop
the smaller and larger
gent circl
circles (Fi
will have a fixed
is proportion
the longest o
lengths, X:Y),
isas well as
generated aby
c
only be variable
by in overall
45-degree si
a
angles to the is generated
oval's by
perimete
tangency between the arcs
cumference of
Serlio gives (Fig.
four 8).8
examplesIt is
of
The first oval three
(Fig. specific
5) o
illustra
cess, and resultant
the minor the
series
to m
upon second
equilateral oval's
60-degree rt
the lengths of the radii for t
an oval is described.7
8. The ovato tond
of the Piazza San
Kitao, Circle and
standard oval in
7. Serlio
explains that
ever, "the did
Bernini nea
centers, so much the
cruciallonger the
constrain
that they are from their
ditions (see cent
Kitao
Books of Architecture,
Bernini reprint
again of
face
chap. I, book I, fol.
became10 and
the 11).
oval's

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 55

io

Fig. 2. Measured section through the entry and apse (author).

oval's ratio is 2 - V 12: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 translated into simple mathematical and numerical ratios.
These complex fractions do not generate the simple whole num-
bers that are preferable for building construction purposes or
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).11 This 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.

for traditional Renaissance-based humanistic 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 record two geometrically different preliminary oval schemes
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 coordinated with 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

9. Vignola's "commensurable oval" is an example of an attempt to

deal with the problem of incommensurability in Serlio's ovals (Kitao,
Circle and Oval, 109, n. 128 and fig. 51).
10. One Roman palm = .2232 m. = .7321 ft. Although I measured
and drew S. Andrea using metric measurements, dimensions in this
paper will be given in Roman palms. Since the Bernini drawings were
done in palms, the crucial dimensions in most cases are round numbers
in palms, while in meters they are complex decimals. Thus, numerical
relationships and ratios are easier to discern by giving measurements in
palms.
11. Codex Chigi, P VII 13, 40v-41r. Published by Brauer and Witt-
kower, Zeichnungen, figs. 167 and 168, the dating of the drawing is
discussed in Connors, "Bernini's S. Andrea," 17-19, and Frommel, "S.
Andrea," 216-217.
12. The diagram is verified by the holes made by the compass on
the Vatican original, as well as on a copy of the papal chirograph
preserved in the Doria Pamphili archives, and published by Frommel,
"S. Andrea," 219, fig. 4. Compass holes that exist on the original
drawings are circled in my figs. 10, 11, 13, 17, and 21.

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
56 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

Fig. 3. Measured section looking toward the 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
arcs of 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 j <parent to Bernini and his staff, experienced as they were with
X /: \: / j \\ / oval geometries, and explain the rejection of the third and fourth
- ...A-.. . j l\ P''X .Serlian ovals as possible starting points for the design of S.
;j \ / j\ /\ / ;Andrea.
*|[~~ \>LX \"k~~ / k~ ~ Bernini's initial decision to follow historical
I P ?C; ; '/ ^ ^ B^ ' j |resented by the Serlian oval is consistent
~! ~ conceptual preference for traditional procedures, b
,, !x j the exceptionally short time involved in the design.13 However,
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. Diagram of a standard oval construction (author). 13. The first oval design was apparently completed in abou
month's time, between August and September 1658. See Frommel, "S.
Andrea," 216.

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 57

k-

/-

/-

Fig. 5. Serlio's first oval (author, after Serlio). Fig. 7. Serlio's third oval (author, after Serlio).

^-

7S
Ul

,5
f

1 1
1 1

Fig. 6. Serlio's second Fig.

oval 8. Serlio's after
(author, fourth ov
Serl

diagram right from certain

the startthat
(Fig. Bernini
1 1).14 T
generate the small during
circles this
for initial
the con
oval had
the points where theare recorded
chapel centerin a seco
lines in
of the oval, and the served in the
45-degree Rome
angle for t
piers had to chirograph
intersect that axis also bear
at still a
also inserted an dence suggests
uncharacteristic that it
equilateral
to generate the center lines for the four
The first design apparently did not satis
15. Archivio di Stato,
sequent revisions, previously unexplained
text and the base drawi
papal chirograph of first chirograph.
October 1658 wasFromm
use
the major proportional
dations to build the masonrand to begin
side chapels shown in t
completed a year later in November
sideration 1659
by August 16
until 30 September 166
chirograph (Frommel,
includes
14. Every other previous ovalinformation
church usedon
4
angles the period
centerlines toafter 1660.
of voids, as for B
locate
Palafrenieri, Giacomo second
deglichirograph
Incurabili, as
S. a
Cad S.
and oval church projectshighbyaltar chapel
Serlio, design
Rainaldi,
(Connors,
Circle and Oval, figs. 47-50, and "Bernini's S. A
Lotz, "Ovalen
40, 45, 51, and 52. designed only in 1670

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
58 JSAH, XLVIII:l, MARCH 1989

L~~ - ?2
Fig. 9. Detail of the plan of S. Andrea in the first papal chirograph (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Codex
Chigi P VII 13, 41r).

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

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

-X7
1

90 PALMr-1I 20
'SQ0

Fig. 10. Serlio's second oval compared to the plan in the first papal chirograph (author).

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 59

-L-,
i
^-. ^ }
' ^ J-- -
; I ---~~~ _-

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

j.
/r1

ut

,r *

I ;"~ , t
D: A

.-, X

1 J?

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

r "', "? . a
re ??
, ' #". ?
r-,,? ;?
S. ?
ii ,E'"r:! a * ~ ~ ~ ~~ +; A t t
*" *t 4,

Fig. 12. S. Andrea, detail of the plan in the second

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

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

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
60 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

J [1 |
..._i ?-----r
60q '----I
-----

l1
46"\ ,-/ \.p I-

?2 i .rn

/f

2'

Fig. 13. Analysis of the plan in the second chirograph (author).

Analysis of the plan of the second chirograph shows chang

from, but no real simplification of, the geometric complexi
of the first chirograph (Fig. 13). The angles of the chape
center lines (25 degrees and 60 degrees respectively) rem
constant, but the points where the center lines intersect
_& minor and major axes change. Those points along the axis st
I_ do not coincide with the center points for the construction
I the oval. Both drawings do rely, however, on whole-num
dimensions in palms to set most of the points for the pla
construction. The oval in the second chirograph is now a va
ation of Serlio's second oval: it retains the ratio of minor
major axis lengths (64 to 90 palms), but its roundness has
creased.
90 PALM 5
Bernini's variation of Serlio's second oval is possible because,
unlike a true ellipse, an oval with a set ratio between the minor
"SKINNY" OVAL, : ---. ARCS
El CENTEKR PCONT5 and major axis lengths (in this case V2:2) can be constructed
SERLtO'S Z2N OVAL : .ARCS from an infinite number of possible locations for the four center
x CENTER FVINT5
points of its arcs (Fig. 14).17 It can be relatively rounder or more
SANT'ANDREA OVAL.- ---- ARCS
e CENT-Ft POINTS pointed, with relatively smoother or more abrupt points of tan-
gency. Serlio's second oval is relatively pointed and has quite
Fig. 14. Comparison of 2:2 ovals (author). distinct flat areas at the points of tangency. Bernini chose to
vary Serlio's second oval to make a rounder oval while retaining
the original ratio of the axis lengths to each other. 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
17. The minor and major axis dimensions of the S. Andrea interior
the interior (from the eight required by the plan of the first chirograph
oval (641659
to the four shown in the second) by a contract signed in March and 90 palms) remain constant in both papal chirographs, and
(Frommel, "S. Andrea," 220-221). in the church as built.

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 61

-i
oi

41

) ? 0
\
130 PALM 5

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

re 1 _
the redesign of the chapels must have led to the revisions in
I t. -t . %
the geometry of the basic oval. As the chapel spaces were mod- * . . - . ~-.
ified, the oval had to become slightly rounder.18 These 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/
?;J I
contemporary document executed to display a design for the S
s,_ ? ..JFi
r

pavement and usually attributed to Bernini's assistant Mattia :-. .1

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

"y,.

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

18. The actual dimensions involved are almost insignificant. Math-

Fig. 16. S. Andrea, plan for the pavement, attributed to Mattia
ematically calculated, Serlio's second oval would have a circumference
de'Rossi (Archivio di Stato di Roma, Disegni e mappe, cartella 84,
of 241.34 palms; the circumference of the rounder oval of the second
N. 476 I).
chirograph would be approximately 245 palms, an increase of scarcely
1 palm (8.8 inches) in each quadrant.
19. Also in the Archivio di Stato, Disegni e mappe, cartella 84, N.
476 I. Frommel, "S. Andrea," 241, states that this drawing also served
to obtain papal permission for the addition of the travertine facade. Thefinal S. Andrea plan is achieved by slightly modifying the angles
drawing dates from about 1670, and is therefore not a design drawingof the chapels' center lines and the radii of the oval's arcs. None
for the construction of the main church, which was substantially com-
of these changes would necessitate structural modifications of
plete. However, it does depict the geometry of the church essentially
as it was built, and varies from the measured plan only in its more the masonry shell; they could be accomplished by subtle re-
accurate drawing of the geometry. In other words, it merely "cleansalignments made with the finish materials of stucco and marble
up" certain minor irregularities in the plan of the church as built. See
veneer.
Borsi, S. Andrea, 46, who arrives at this conclusion and proposes that
These geometric revisions result for the first time
the minor irregularities in the existing building may result from errors
made by the workmen during construction. points of the oval's arcs coinciding exactly with the

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
62 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

i.___

I . I

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

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

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

. - . . -?"--
r * . ;/Jrq J '
--:-
I' , - - \

I . . . n --\.. 0 90,, --:V::T- e 1t _ . 1

.,, ' ) ? O \ .). . 1

9*'3 .' '

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

Fig. 18. Analysis of the measured plan, showing the crucial visible dimensions of th

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 63

.I

/' ' '

'. i0
tO

i '--;i
" ::.

I ' :

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

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

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

Fig. 19. Analysis of the measured section (author)...

Pig. 19. Analysis of the measured section (author).

(03

' i
1 i
0) i

Q-

i I I i j I ?= ; 4^ , a p
_. . . .iu lAn.yi o? th eto n isLApAl chiro?rah ( u hr a?e te]Briti dra w in)

Fig. 20. Analysis of the section in the first papal chirograph (author, after the Bernini drawing).

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

f---- I

I(
fi,

i
1

1m .. - , ,^- -i: , , i-i. e z_: ; I ,

. , .. . ...

Fig. 21. Anal

the chapel
central crossing to the wall of the entry), and 30 palms (the
which gene
height of the ceiling ribs). Another set of dimensions results
which gener
from multiplying the width of the interior pilasters (4 palms)
Withup to the 64the
palms of the minor axis. These dimensions, of 8, si
of dimensio
16, 24 and 32 palms, are found, respectively, in the width of
radius
the wall piers, the widthof
of the openings into the rectilinear th
within a
chapels, the height of the minor pilaster set
order, and the height
the oval's
to the top of the arched openings of the rectilinear chapels. c
tanceThese two sets of betw
dimensions are related to each other in the
palms (the
ratio of V2:2. Internally, dimensions within each set are used l
and 130 pal
to obtain primary width-to-height ratios of 1:1 (height of dome
exterior). to major axis length), 1:2 (width to height of openings into the
Three other sets of dimensions are also apparent in plan and chapels), and so on. A third set of dimensions, of 10.5 palms
section (Figs. 18 and 19). Dividing the major axis length of 90 and 21 palms, is used for the heights and widths of the secondary
palms results in a set of dimensions of 90 palms, 60 palms (height rounded service chapels and is related to the first set of dimen-
to the springing of the ribs), 45 palms (the dimension from the sions in the same ratio of V2:2.
These latter three sets of dimensions remain constant
20. It is now clear that, contrary to Borsi's analyses, the intersection
throughout the design drawings in spite of progressive changes
points of the center lines of the chapels do not coincide with the oval's
compass points in the two chirograph drawings. See Borsi, S. Andrea, in the geometry of the oval. The major revisions to the plan
51, fig. 23 ("regulating lines" for the plan in the second chirograph). (changes in the chapel's configurations, the entry, and the main

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SMYTH-PINNEY: GEOMETRIES OF S. ANDREA AL QUIRINALE 65

altar space) do not affect the primary composition of the mainThe suppression of the oval's inherent duality, and the conse-
quent heightening of the space's perceived centrality, is also
oval space as it is defined by the rhythm and proportion of the
confirmed by the final geometry. The set of dimensions that
interior elevation. Only minor adjustments were made in the
section drawings. (Compare Figs. 20 and 21 to Fig. 19.)21 are used to construct the oval (13, 26, 52, 104, and 130 palms,
One must ask, therefore, why Bernini revised the oval's ge-described earlier) are all invisible. They never appear as readable
ometry. Were the reasons practical, perceptual, or conceptual?plan or section widths or heights. Nor do any visible marks in
the plan or section reinforce or even hint at the locations of
Practically speaking, once the masonry shell was complete it
either the center points of the oval's arcs or the intersection
would have been easier to continue to apply the finish materials
using the geometry of the second chirograph. Perceptually, the
points of the chapels' center lines. Consequently, no ideal view-
resultant changes are so subtle as to be invisible to the viewering position is located; neither the geometry nor the perception
within the space: the variations among the ovals are only ap-
of the interior supports a notion that a static perspective view
parent when center points and angles are drawn upon the plans.
is primary to the design of S. Andrea. Bernini had no intention
The impetus for change does have conceptual grounds, how-of marking an X at any specific spot in the plan.23 Thus, there
ever, and the S. Andrea plan evolved into a figure of strongis no crucial location along the path from entry to altar where
conceptual coherence. In the final building, Bernini invented
one is meant to stop and receive a fixed, frontal, and perfect
an oval construction that solved the problem of geometricallyimage of the space. Rather, a general sense of approximate points
integrating the innovative locations of the solids and voids of of rest along the axial path from entry to altar, and a freedom
the wall surface with the geometry of the oval's construction.to read clear, three-dimensional relationships between plan and
The S. Andrea oval also generates sets of whole-number di- section are perceptual goals in Bernini's design which geometry
mensions and simple ratios among those dimensions, as Serlio'sreinforces and controls. Finally, the characteristic dimensions
diagram does not. Nevertheless, the S. Andrea oval remains in of the facade are different from those used for the interior. This
the Serlian tradition: it is a variation rather than an innovation,
further supports the proposal that the exterior elements were
remaining orthodox in intention if not in strictest practice. built as later additions to the main body of the church, and
The geometric and dimensional organization of S. Andreaconstitute a separate yet integrated development in the history
also now coincides with the viewer's spatial perceptions of theof S. Andrea.24
church. The reduction in the number of dimensions, center
points, and intersection points needed to construct the final plan
underlines the perceived simplicity of the main oval space.22
23. The paving pattern, which could have been used to do this, does
21. In each chirograph, the sections are drawn at the same scale asnot. The paving does not follow the angles of the chapels' center lines,
the plans, and directly below them. Detail photographs of the sections
nor does it emphasize the minor axis as path or zone of space from
are published by Connors, "Bernini's S. Andrea," 17, figs. 2 and 3;entry to altar. Rather, it mirrors the dome's geometry and almost makes
Frommel, "S. Andrea," 226, fig. 8; and Borsi, S. Andrea, figs. 12 anda three-dimensional "cage" of lines by extending the wall piers onto
14. A photograph of the entire second chirograph can be found in floor and dome. The paving is centric rather than central, however;
Frommel, "S. Andrea," 224, fig. 6. See also my n. 11 above. Borsi, S. Andrea, 27, rightly notes that the paving as executed does not
22. Connors, "Bernini's S. Andrea," 23-25, makes an insightful come together at a central point as it does in the drawing.
comparison between Bernini's centric geometric intentions and the epi- 24. It is not within the scope of this paper to deal with the exterior
centric geometries of Borromini. Bernini's preference for "simple, cen-
of S. Andrea. Tod Marder generously provided me with a copy of his
tric geometries," intuited by Connors, is confirmed by the increasing forthcoming article on the fasade, (see my n. 1 above), which examines
geometric clarity of the S. Andrea designs documented here. these issues in detail.

This content downloaded from

40.74.247.119 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:28:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms