BAROQUE AND

ROCOCO ARCHITECTURE

THE GREAT AGES OF WORLD ARCHITECTURE

ROMAN

Frank

GOTHIC

Robert Branner

E.

Brown

BAROQUE AND ROCOCO

MODERN

Henry A. Millon

Vincent Scully,

Jr.

In Preparation

GREEK

Robert

L.

Scranton

EARLY CHRISTIAN AND BYZANTINE

MEDIEVAL

Howard Saalman

RENAISSANCE
ISLAMIC

CHINESE

William

Bates

Lowry

John Hoag

AND INDIAN Nelson

PRE-COLUMBIAN

Wu

Donald Robertson

MacDonald

BAROQUE &

ROCOCO
ARCHITECTURE
by Henry A. Millon

LONDON
NEW YORK

PRENTICE-HALL INTERNATIONAL

GEORGE BRAZILLER,

INC.

All rights in this

book are reserved.

Published simultaneously in 1961 in

George Braziller, Inc.

and in London, England by
Prentice-Hall International, Inc.

28 Welbeck Street, London W.

Printed in the Netherlands

New

York by

CONTENTS
Text
chapter

1.

introduction

chapter

2.

Italy

15

chapter

3.

27

chapter

4.

France
Austria and Germany

39
49

Plates

Selected Bibliography

113

Index

123

Sources of Illustrations

127

INTRODUCTION
The seventeenth century saw the founding of the modern
"absolute state" and the dissolution of the fragmented
giances of the previous century.
autocratic

monarchy tended

a single ruler,

who was

of a nation and direct

the

first

alle-

The developing concept of an

to vest

all

power

in the

hands of

able to oversee the total organization

it

toward a single

goal. Since France

was

nation to reap the benefits of absolutism, European

history of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

is

concerned with French expansionist policy and the

efforts

largely

of

various international alliances to thwart French desires. For

two

centuries France

was the

political,

social,

and economic

heart of Europe.
In the scientific realm, during the seventeenth century the
varied and independent scientific discoveries of the Renaissance

were synthesized into a coherent whole. The synthesis based

on the Descartian development ot the scientific method was

characterized by the invention of projective geometry, calculus,
and the development of astronomy. The newly enlarged view
of the universe was applied to the newly developed state.
Art and architecture had a new role. They were, in many
cases, executed to popularize what were believed to be visible
truths about both the Church and the State. Art of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was to a large degree an orthodox, persuasive art that at times verged on high-powered propaganda. Art of the Renaissance was, on the other hand, primarily religious, and was relatively simple, self-contained and

More than in the Renaissance, the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries dealt with secular public art in terms

self-sufficient.

of large decorative ensembles designed to display the glory of

the patron. But this does not

any way neglected

as

is

mean

sometimes

that religious art was in

stated.

The

earliest

and

strongest enunciations of seventeenth-century principles are

found in church facades and

interiors.

BAROQUE
The Renaissance building exists to be admired in its isolated
The Baroque building can only be grasped through

perfection.

one's experiencing
is

static, its walls

sance unity

is

it

in its variety of effects. Renaissance space

and vaults

are plana! they

form

space. Renais-

achieved through a cumulative addition of clearly

defined similar static elements, while Baroque unity

at the expense of the clearly defined

is

achieved

elements through the

subordination of individual elements to invigorate the whole.

Baroque space

is

independent and alive it flows and leads to

dramatic culminations. Walls and vaults of Baroque buildings

from the plane surface and interact vigorously

with both
and exterior space.
The essential contrasts can be better grasped through a comparison of the Renaissance church of S. Maria della Consolazione at Todi and the Baroque church of SS. Martina e Luca in
are liberated

interior

Rome

(plates

1, 2).

S.

Maria

by an unknown designer)
with four semicircular

della

in plan, a simple

is,

apses,

Consolazione (begun in 1508

i.e.,

domed

square

a Greek-cross plan (plate 3).

free, on a platform, on a level piece of ground and the

mass form is a uniformly dressed masonry envelope
conforming precisely to the shape of the interior space. The
square crossing is defined by pairs of pilasters at right angles
at each of the four corners, and also by the transverse arches,
pendentives, drum, and dome. Nothing is hidden the forms
It

stands

exterior

are stated in their purity.

They appear added

to

it

The

apses are extensions of the square.

as if pasted on.

They

are separate

and

distinct.

Luca (designed by Pietro da Cortona in 1635)

is also a Greek-cross plan with semicircular apses but the arms
are longer than at Todi (plate 4). The facade is independent of
SS.

Martina

the mass and space behind

position (plate

2).

From

it

and follows

immediately drawn to the main

church
10

is

its

own

rules of

altar.

The

is

mass form of the

not clear fi-om the ground to the lantern.

It

changes

less indicative of the

and the exterior is

than the Todi church. In a sense, the

at each string course,

interior space

com-

the entrance, the worshiper's gaze

exterior are independent, following different rules

and
and having

interior

Luca was never intended to be

seen in the round. The facade is very different both in form
and material from the other three apse ends. It stands two
stories high, is made of travertine instead of brick, and is con-

different aims. SS.

Martina

siderably wider than the nave.

In the interior of Todi, the planal walls are articulated

architectural

members

(plate 5).

Doors and windows

by

are clearly

and simply cut into the wall surface

on

all

light reveals

all

membering

a screen that

wall area

is

sides of the puncture.

The

the elements impartially.

is

amount of

\\ith a liberal

resultant classical

The

architectural

applied to the planal wall surface

to supply an intellectual subdivision of the wall surface into

harmoniously related proportional

Martina

Luca

is

also

The

interior of SS.

bathed in light but, other than the open-

ings in the half-dome of the

(plate 6).

parts.

main

There are \\indows

apse,

no windows

are visible

at the lower level in the transept

arms, in the apse hemicycles, in the drum, and in the lantern,

but they are hidden from Ndew. As a

relief.

result,

the brilliantly lighted

and columns fix the attention. The surface

pilasters

The

is

in vigorous

corners at the crossing are beveled, blurring a sharp

and creating a more dominant central

emphasis. Strong pilasters, arches, and ribs define the arms and
diNide the crossing from the arms. The wall surface is difficult to
determine. Even when the wall does show itself from between
burgeoning masses, it is ruptured by a niche that presses against
the pilaster on either side. The main sensation is that of powerful
di\asion into separate parts

massive structural members purposefully describing a strongly

conceived space and not simply subdividing a wall surface.

ROCOCO
The architecture ot the early eighteenth century began to
show some fundamental changes from the blustery assured
building of the Baroque. Where Baroque walls, piers, and columns had been massive and forceful, the space focused but
di\dded into parts, and the light variable and dramaric, buildings of the

first

half of the eighteenth centur)^ were,

on the

contrary, airy and restrained; space was unified, subdivided, and

diffuse;

and daylight was everywhere abundant and revealing.

These distinctions are best seen bv contrasting Cortona's SS.

Marrina e Luca, already discussed, with Bernardo Vittone's S.
Chiara in Bra (plate 7). The comparison will demonstrate the

profound alterations in space concept as well as the nature of

the mass form of the wall-pier-column structure.
S. Chiara (begun 1742) has a circular plan v,dth four less-thansemicircular lobes added at the cardinal points.

center

is

The

circular

defined by four piers with paired composite pilasters

that lead up to a

dome which

covers only the central area.

The

four lobe-chapels extend the central space into large nichelike

areas

whose exact dimensions

are not perceptible (plate

8).

II

There
upper

a gallery completely encircling the building at the

is

level

above the chapels. The exterior wall of the gallery

dome

supports a second exterior

The

area between the

that covers the entire church.

two domes

is

lighted

unseen from below. The entire interior

by dormer window^s

painted in pale subtle

is

on the under surface of the second dome, illuminated by the dormer windows, show through irregularly
shaped perforations of the interior dome. In effect, there are
two separate buildings one set inside the other that flow tocolors. Paintings

gether at certain points (plate

homogeneous lighting

effects

Contrary to the obvious but

found in the Renaissance church
9).

Todi and the hidden but equally homogeneous light in Cortona's church in Rome, in Vittone's S. Chiara all the main freeat

standing architectural members that describe the central space

from the exterior shell. Backlighting makes those members seem to be part of a slender,
lithe structural system internal to the building within a conare backlighted

and

are separated

tinuous space.

The
and

no longer

parts are

Martina

in SS.

The

e Luca.

dome

interior

is

pierced

arches that span each of the pier-column groups of the

region and

is still

Todi

clearly defined as they are at

further perforated

by the

by

drum

irregular, triangle-

shaped peepholes. The domes above the gallery expand the

space as they flood it with light. In contrast to both Todi and
SS.

Martina

airy,

and

e Luca, S.

active.

What

Chiara
is,

Bra as

at

at the

ground

it

rises is

level, a

voluminous,

simple circular

space continuous with that of the chapels, becomes, at the gallery

level, a

complex spatial experience with screening columns, hidden

domes, and unseen but

light sources, illusionistic effects, double

implied spaces.
In the early eighteenth century in Italy, France, and

Germany,

dramatic spatial sequences or complex interwoven spaces were

12

replaced
tions.

by spaces

cal

both

The Renaissance-Baroque

finable areas

tinuity

unified in

from

was replaced by

vertical

and horizontal

direc-

horizontal division into de-

structure that, through

its

con-

floor to peak of vault unified the space in the verti-

dimension

predominantly

(as in

Late Gothic structure) and destroyed the

classical,

horizontal qualities of Renaissance-

Baroque buildings. Horizontally, interior space was extended

unbroken from the entrance to the choir and from exterior
wall to exterior wall across the nave and side aisles. In churches
the vaulting of the side

aisles

was often

carried

up

to the height

of the nave vault (again as in Late Gothic hall churches), pro-

ducing a single uniformly shaped space from wall to wall. Inter-

vening structure became a mere skeleton that acted to

certain portions of the space

and punctuate

it

veil

at vital points.

The

differences in space, mass, light, structure, and decoration

found in the eighteenth-century buildings, when compared to

new

attitude

will, in this

volume,

their seventeenth-century counterparts, disclose a

towards architectural space and mass that

be called the Rococo, even though the term was originally

coined to characterize a type of decoration invented in France

by

Pierre

Le Pautre

at

Marly during the

early years of the eight-

eenth century.

13

ITALY

As Spanish

influence began to

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
wane towards the end of the

sixteenth century, Italy experienced a general regeneration ot

powers that paralleled the Church's newly regained confidence in spiritual matters. Post-Reformation Italy, prey to mysticism and mortification as taught by Spain, built little. But
its

it reasserted itself and developed an assured, newfound

energy that was to transform most of the major cities of Italy.
In Rome, still the religious center of Christendom, and still

gradually

one of the most powerful of the independent Italian states in

the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were two
major architectural works still to be undertaken. The first, and

most obvious, was completing St. Peter's (still v,dthout facade

or dome) and reworking the casual area in front of it. The second
was revamping the city to provide for the greatly increased
resident population and the ever-increasing numbers of pilgrims.
Since Michelangelo's death in 1564 Httle work had been done
on St. Peter's, but when the energetic Pope Sixtus V was elected
(1585) he immediately set to work to complete it. He had men
working day and night and on holidays, and the dome was
completed in twenty-two months. Only the fagade and piazza
remained to be constructed.
Paul

finally ordered the

remains of the old basilica torn

won a comwas completed

(plate 10). Even in a collaborative endeavor Renaissance and
Baroque differences were clearly discernible, and Maderno's additions were quite different from Michelangelo's designs. In
Michelangelo's scheme the central dome dominated and absorbed aU all spaces and masses, though sharply defined, were
contributory to the central dome. The mass of the walls was
given new meaning as Michelangelo shaped the exterior wall
surface without any real reference to interior space.
Maderno, on the other hand, was working to suggest a fluid,
dramatic, dynamic space. The new nave was given v.dndows
for light it was made a bit higher and wider and the arches

down

in 1605. In 1606 Carlo

petition held for the

new

separating the chapels

Maderno

fagade,

down

(1556-1629)

and by 1612

the side

aisles

it

were completely

15

eliminated (only the pediment remains).

airier

The result was

a lighter,

nave in which space flowed freely from chapel to chapel

and from the side aisles into and through the

in the side aisles

nave (plate 11). On the exterior Maderno continued the rhythmic proportions and sizes that had already been determined by
Michelangelo (plate 12). But on the facade he changed Michelangelo's order of pilasters to columns, and, as he

had done

in

the facade of S. Susanna (plate 13) a few years earlier (1597-1603),

he varied column rhythm and wall

relief to create a dynamic

and subordinated parts to the whole to achieve unity and
direction. Maderno's revolutionary concepts both in terms of
fluid interior space and vigorous handling of mass formed the
foundation upon which the later masters of the Baroque were

focus

to build.

The

fagade completed, the piazza in front remained to be

organized (plate

14).

Sixtus

had already placed an

obelisk in

the square as he had done in other squares throughout the city.

An

and accomplishments led him to

remake the face of Rome by pushing through wide avenues
usually terminating in piazzas at the major pilgrimage centers.
In a number of these piazzas he placed obelisks to act as visual
incredible desire for action

foci or

nodes within the

city. In front

of

he erected

St. Peter's

an obelisk that formerly stood to the south of St. Peter's on the

The obelisk and a fountain erected
by Maderno determined, to some extent, the size, character, and
spine of the Circus of Nero.

even the approximate location of the piazza. The square had,

as yet,

no

precise limits since at that time

it

was defined by

little

other than the papal palace to the north and the borgo to the

and south.
Notwithstanding the energy of Sixtus

east

an

ill-defined

the piazza was

still

sprawling area at his death. In 1656 Alexander VII

asked Bernini to prepare designs for the piazza. Bernini sug-

16

gested a practical and yet majestic solution that

made

it

possible

to realize an adequately large piazza that could center the

portion on

the obelisk already in place, utilize

tain, define the

piazza by two

elliptical

main

Maderno's foun-

colonnades that sepa-

rated the city from the open space, and form a splendid fore-

court for the church (plates

15,

16).

In spite of the

amount of

time which elapsed between the completion of the church and

the construction of the piazza, and in spite of the fact that

an afterthought, the
successful integration of piazza and church almost dwarfed
Bernini's colonnade was, strictly speaking,

Maderno's achievement. The piazza is a church square, oriented

to the church rather than to the city. Although the east end
of the piazza

related directly to the borgo, there

is

is

no

relation

of transverse axis of the oval to the street pattern of the

A similar indifferent attitude to city- wide circulation is

also in smaller,

fagade built in

the church of

city.

evident

more intimate Baroque piazzas. The piazza and

1656-57 by Pietro da Cortona (1596-1669) for

S.

Maria

della Pace in

Rome

an excellent ex-

is

of the typical small, carefully circumscribed, intimate

ample

piazza (plates
fagade to an

17,

18).

Cortona's task was to add a modern

existing church

and to design a piazza to enclose

the facade. Three streets led into the

site at irregular angles.

Cortona composed the facade so as to create dramatic views,

when seen either through narrow doorways in close proximity
to the projecting portico or down a narrow street, disclosing
only a portion of the appealing facade. The fagade itself steps
level and is artfully counterbalanced

forward boldly at ground

upper

at the

level

by the concave wings on

either side.

The

concave wings further act as a foil to the erect central portion

of the fagade that has within its elements a much subtler repeti-

The

tion of the fluid sequence just described.

streets that enter

the square do so through doorways that appear to lead directly

into the church. Consequently, the spectator

thrust into contact with the church and

required to participate.

of

St. Peter's square.

The

is

is

immediately

both invited and

from that

effect is totally different

Cortona's square

is

intimate, restrained,

and small. Bernini's square is stately, majestic, and immense.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini was by far the most versatile master
of the Baroque.

He

has been called the Michelangelo of the

seventeenth century for while primarily a sculptor he was also

a painter, architect, poet, stage designer, and dramatist, as well

major teacher of the succeeding generation. His fame

grew to such bounds that in 1665 Louis XIV invited him to
prepare designs for the contemplated new Louvre in Paris. Ceras the

tainly not since Michelangelo

same

had any

degree, the admiration, acclaim,

artist possessed, to

the

and esteem of popes,

and citizens.
While preparing the preliminary designs for the Louvre (which
was never begun), Bernini was also designing a palace, which

princes, artists,

today in Rome, for the Cardinal Flavio Chigi, a relative of Pope Alexander VII. The palace, which dominates the
long side of a rectangular piazza, consists of a seven-bay, threestill

exists

17

story central section flanked by lower set-back,

wings of three bays each

(plate 19). It

is

three-story

conceived as a bold inte-

gration and reinterpretation of aspects of Bramante's "House of

Raphael" and Michelangelo's Capitoline palace. As in Bramante's palace the building is clearly divided into the utilitarian

ground or service floor, having little architectural treatment,

and the upper or living floors that are graced by pilasters, colonnettes flanking the windows, alternating pediments, and rich
moldings. Unlike Bramante's scheme, the two top floors of the
palace are unified within a single order, as in the Capitoline
palace of Michelangelo, and flank the central seven bays by
subsidiary wings.

18

The subordination of

certain parts to the

whole and the linking together of others produces a singularly

unified scheme of surprising dignity and power. The palace was
so successful it virtually became the standard urban palace solution throughout Europe for the next hundred and fifty years.
Bernini's masterpiece of church architecture, S. Andrea al
Quirinale (1658) (plates 20, 21), is an example of convincing,
religious theatricalism in which he has also exploited his powers
as a sculptor and dramatist. A section of the street before the
oval church is drawn into the site by curved arms that frame a
convex central portico reminiscent of Cortona's S. Maria della
Pace. Once he has passed through the austere entrance the
spectator is transported into luxurious gilt and colored-marble
surroundings with a dramatically lighted step-by-step story of
the martyrdom of St. Andrew. The main altarpiece, supported
by stout putd and lighted from a hidden source, depicts the
martyrdom itself. Above, on the lip of the cornice, supported by
a cloud, St. Andrew, after the martyrdom, is being wafted to
the heavens (the lantern) toward which he gazes adoringly and
from which light falls toward him. S. Andrea al Quirinale is,
perhaps, the high point of the Italian Baroque vision fusing as
it does painting, sculpture, architecture, and stage design into a
totally integrated system.

The wide

variety of expression inherent in the Baroque can

best be understood

by examining, from among the many

extra-

ordinary figures that proliferated during the century, the works

of Francesco Borromini (1599-1666) and Guarino Guarini (162483), as well as

those of Bernini. Although Bernini was a phenom-

and versatile artist, his purely architectural works

are not of the same stature as those of Borromini and Guarini
who were the most original architects of the century. Borromini
enally gifted

many

ways, the spiritual father of Guarini. Born in

Canton Ticino in the Alps, he came early to Rome where he

was, in

remained

for his entire

life.

Suspicious,

moody, and dedicated,

Borromini, almost fanatical in his pursuit of perfection, carefully supervised all the stages

of his designs, from the models

and drawings to the completed structure. The exact opposite of

and politician par excellence, Borromini
was stubborn, proud, and introverted. Bernini was the inheritor,
upholder, and prime exponent of tradition while Borromini was
the revolutionary figure with a phenomenal knowledge of all
aspects of his craft whose originality had ultimately tar greater
influence on the course of architecture in western Europe.
Borromini's ecclesiastical work began at St. Peter's. After
working for years as an apprentice under his uncle, Mademo,
Bernini, the courtier

on the completion of

St. Peter's.

Borromini received in 1638 a

commission to design a small church for the Trinitarian order.

The church,

S.

Carlo

alle

Quattro Fontane,

a provocative re-

is

interpretation of a centrally planned church.

The

oval

dome

placed over a modified Greek-cross plan (plate 22) which has

long axis

running from entrance to main

The dome

altar.

is

its
is

supported on four broad-footed pendentives which are themselves supported

by

pairs of fully-round

columns

(plates 23, 24).

longitudinal direction is reinforced by a semicircular apse

and entrance bay while the cross arms are portions of flattened
ovals. The niches, panels, doorways, and moldings that articulate and activate the wall surface are lighted by hidden windows
in the base of the dome. The resulting rich wall surface flows
from oval to oval, merging the whole into a fluid mass that
defines an intensely dynamic space. S. Carlo marks the first re-

The

appearance, since Hadrianic times, of a completely undulating

wall surface.

Borromini's superb achievement at

the chapel of

S.

S.

Carlo

is

only equaled by

Ivo in Collegio della Sapienza, also in

which was begun in 1642

(plate 25).

Rome,

Seen from the courtyard,

the upper regions of the chapel bulge upward and break out
into a lantern in strong relief

curious

spiral.

The mass form

is

which

finally

culminates in a

very carefully composed. Stable

which appear to contain the volume against

upward to buttresses which lead, through
curves, to the base of the lantern. There paired

pilaster bunches,

internal pressures, lead

their forceful

columns of the lantern continue the

lines to the vertical decora-

tive elements at the base of the spiral.

The

spiral

culminates in

19

an open, wrought-iron bulbous shape that captures and halts

the upward movement. The billowing exterior of the church
shows strength and vitality but the complex of dome, lantern,
and pinnacle is a masterly synthesis of fluid, linear elements and
rounded massive elements.

The

interior of S. Ivo

is

a single unified space.

The plan

is

geometrically derived from the superposition of two equilateral

triangles to

form a regular hexagon. Three

sides

of the hexagon

develop into semicircular apsidal shapes, while the other three

convex walls that reverse the curve of the

apse receives strong directional emphasis because it is matched, at the entrance, by only the
narrow wall with a reverse curve. The walls are articulated by
pilasters, and at the point of intersection of wall surfaces there
are always pilasters with crisp, sharp corners that run uninterruptedly from floor to cornice. There is no drum. In an attempt
to gain vertical continuity Borromini has rejected the insertion
of elements that would emphasize horizontality (pendentives
and drum). There is a strong linear continuity from lantern to
pavement, interrupted only by the pronounced horizontal of the
sides terminate in

apses (plate 26).

The main

cornice.

As

in S. Carlo, light

comes

in only

unlike S. Carlo, at S. Ivo six large

tall

dome

above the cornice, but

windows

in the base of the

provide ample light to bathe the originally

chromatic interior with an abundant, even light

S. Carlo, but unlike Bernini's

S.

Andrea

al

mono-

(plate 27). Like

Quirinale, S. Ivo

is

and ideas but limited in its use of color, choice of

and dramatic emphasis. S. Carlo and S. Ivo are buildings that, due to their appeal to the intellect (and their appeal
to a completely different aspect of the senses than Bernini's
buildings), have concealed within them an ever so subtle, but
rich in forms
materials,

nonetheless profoundly convincing statement of Borromini's

20

mystical religious

beliefs.

Guarino Guarini is the only architect who developed the expressive power of structure and space to even greater degrees
than Borromini. Guariui, a priest, mathematician, dramatist,
and theologian, was born in Modena. A tormented genius who
suffered from near paranoia, he constantly complained of being
mistreated, misunderstood, and unappreciated. But he was,
without question, the most inventive and original architect of
the last half of the seventeenth century.
After teaching mathematics

and philosophy

in

Modena,

Messina, and Paris, in 1666 Guarini went to Turin where he

stayed for the remainder of his hfe.

The appearance

provincial Turin of this monk-of-the- world,

man

architect extraordinary, produced a reaction

Within

several centuries.

few

in small

of science, and

which was

felt for

years of his arrival his vital crea-

gave the city an architectural life that made it

second to none in Italy and gave it an architecture that was
structurally and aesthetically in advance of most of the rest of
tive activity

Europe. In the seventeen years remaining in his

life,

Guarini

revolutionized spatial concepts and structural procedures,

most

Lorenzo (1666-79), the Chapel of the

Sudario (1667-96), and his Church of the Lnmaculate Concep-

particularly with his S.

tion (1672-97).

Piedmont its first (and

Baroque church. The complex but essentially

In S. Lorenzo, Guarini gave the

its finest) late

cal

geometry of

system, and

its

its

is

logi-

astonishingly successful structural

its

fascinating, intricately interwoven succession of

spaces immediately

the church

plan,

Italy

made

it

an architectural landmark. In plan

a narthex as wide as the

composed of four spaces

church; a nave, inscribed in a square; an oval choir; and an

annular vault behind the choir (plate
at the center of

28).

At the corners and

each side of the square nave the massive walls

bay inward \dgorously

as if seeking to

space, however, presses

back forcefully

wall at the lower level (plate 29).

occupy the space. The

as if seeking to sap

The momentary

the

precarious

balance of these prodigious forces of space and mass achieved by

Guarini at the lowest

level

of the nave leads to the complete

victory of space above in the revolutionary

dome and

lantern.

The dome (plate 30) is an interlaced network of eight slender

ribs. At the intersections of the ribs there are, instead of a web,
only space and light. Where mass should appear to strengthen
the structure Guarini adroitly places a well-lighted hole. Space

The structure
Lorenzo mark a complete

flows around and through the intersecting ribs.

and fighting effect of the dome of S.

change of direction in Italian church architecture.
The dome, a massive structural entity as conceived by Brunelleschi, Bramante. Michelangelo, and Bernini, was intended (if
iconographical significance

is

disregarded) to be either the chief

Pantheon or the chief elemass composition as in St. Peter's. For Guahowever, the dome was dematerialized and defined but did

arbiter of interior space as in the

ment
rini,

in exterior

not limit interior space.

21

The Palazzo Carignano

32).

and

(1679-92) confirmed the versatility,

of Guarini's creative powers (plates 31,

The large sweeping curves, the assured massiveness, the

ingenuity,

virility

the playing with delicate and masand

the phenomenal control of detail
and shadow,
mark the Carignano as undoubtedly the finest late seventeenthactive surface in high

relief,

sive light

century palace in

Italy.

two reasons the main

main salon (plates 33,
:

stairway, from

The

interior of the palace

notable for

staircase

and the pierced vaulting of the

The

evolution of the Italian palace

34).

asymmetrical placement in the

utilitarian,

its

is

Palazzo Medici-Riccardi in the early Renaissance to a stately

axial,

balanced composition, reached

culmination in the

its

Palazzo Carignano. At the Carignano a carefully considered

se-

quence of light and dark, open and closed spaces directs the
visitor to the

main

salon.

As seen from the

piazza, the broad sweeping curves of the

facade of the palace are ruptured, allowing a bit of the interior

to bulge outward at the entrance. Entering the palace through

the bulge the visitor finds himself in a small dark vestibule,

which leads beyond into a halfwhich opens out onto the courtyard. The
long side of the oval is parallel to the fagade and perpendicular
to the entrance. The long axis leads on either side to a few steps
where guards stood

originally,

lighted oval atrium

that enter a well-lighted rectangular vestibule.

Up

to this point

been in evidence. From either vestibule,

however, convexly curved treads of the duplicate main stairs
flow through a stair hall that is lighted only by windows at a

no main

staircase has

landing which

is

inviting.

flight. At the landing the

and become both welcoming and

halfway up the

treads reverse their curvature

At the top of the

flight there

is

tall, rich,

extremely

well-lighted vestibule (directly above the entrance) before the

main
22

salon.

interior

A circuit

forms

is

is clear.

completed.

The

The

logic of the exterior

and

vestibule leads into the m.ost spec-

tacular late-seventeenth-century grand salon in Italy.

Guarini's most influential church design, the church of the

Immaculate Conception in Turin for the Mission of St. Vincent

de Paul was begun in 1672 (plates 35, 36). A longitudinal church,
based on two circles that do not quite intersect, with an undulating facade, the Immaculate Conception church is unusual
in that there

is

no crossing no domed

focus.

As

a further indi-

cation of an intended diffusion of emphasis, the spaces formed,

with the exception of a small, domed choir, are identical at

entrance and apse.

transverse ribs.

the two
spring
is

It is

The

ribs all spring either

a diagonal toward the

no

toward the center of

the case of the area between the

circles, or, in

on

a double-ended church. There are

circles,

crown of the vault. The result

would normally be

a remarkable interwea\dng of spaces that

thought impossible in a longitudinal church. The walls curve

strongly in arcs of circles, the ribs lean inward and outward.
The space, although violently shaped, is not interrupted but
merges into an incredibly dynamic and expressive entity. This
building had far-reaching consequences in Austria and Germany
where Guarini's ideas were more fruitfully developed than in
any other region.

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
same economic centers flourished, but Turin as the capital of the kingdom of Savoy was becoming the major power in Italy. Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy
was made the King of Sicily at the end of the War of the Spanish
Succession and in 1720 became King of Sardinia. The Savoys
In the eighteenth century the

spent the remainder of the century consolidating their position

in northern Italy.

The family

ties

between the French

rulers

and the kings of

Savoy resulted in considerable French influence in Italy, but

there was also a very strong indigenous development. Furthermore, the holdings of the Holy Roman Empire in northern
Italy stimulated interest

among

the native Italians in the ac-

complishments of the Austrian and German architects. Rome

was still, however, a strong power in central Italy and experienced a remarkable rebirth in the first half of the eighteenth
century as French power was lessened.

The

Rococo that occurred in

much earlier work of
Alessandro Specchi (1668-1729), whose remarkable curvilinear
designs for the Porta di Ripetta (1703), now destroyed, on the
spectacular flowering of the

Rome from

1725-45 was presaged in the

river at the foot of

Via Condotti, disclosed a new feeling for

character of line and curvilinear form (plate 37). Fiis designs for

the Spanish Stairs (1723) were altered in execution by Francesco

de Sanctis but they defined a new direction in terms of space

composition (plate
Filippo

38).

Raguzzini

(c.

1680-1771), chief papal architect to

Benedict XIII, carried on with the concepts developed by Specchi.

Raguzzini's masterpiece of urban design, his Piazza

S.

Ignazio

23

(plates 39, 40),

which is no wider than the church fagade, presents

a curiously stagelike character to the viewer as he leaves the

The fag:ades of the buildings opposite the church are all

based on elegant curves derived from ovals. The suggestion of

church.

unseen spaces behind the strongly curved buildings causes

this

piazza to be psychologically more integrated with the city than

the preceding examples. There are a few other works by Raguzzini in

Among

Rome which

he did before the death of Benedict

XIII.

Maria

della

most notable

these the

is

the facade of

S.

Quercia (1727) which, with its restrained bayed-out facade, rich

and developed pattern of light and shadow,

surface decoration,
is
is,

one of the high points of Roman Rococo (plate 41). Raguzzini

however, only one example, perhaps the greatest, of a very

powerful Rococo school that operated in

and

Rome

in the 1730's

1740's.

more vigorous aspect of the Rococo can be most clearly

work of Domenico Gregorini (1700-77) and Pietro
Passalacqua (.'*-1748). The massive swelling facade of S. Croce
in Gerusalemme (plate 42), one of the finest in Rome, was
designed by Gregorini and Passalacqua. It is a bold composition
of light and dark accents. The particular quality of the facade is
maintained by the studied placement of the openings both in
terms of exterior composition and the effect they have on the
seen in the

delightful oval narthex.

Outside

Rome

the early Rococo can be seen in the works of

Filippo Juvarra (1678-1736)

who

was, surely, the greatest archi-

tect in Italy in the early eighteenth century. Juvarra

in

Messina and

trained in

was born

Rome where he proved to be the most

adept pupil of the aging Carlo Fontana. Recognized as one of

24

new

was
appointed Royal Architect to the new king of Sicily in 1714 and
promptly moved to Turin. There he immediately began work
on all the major architectural projects of the Savoy rulers.
Success followed success and his fame spread throughout Europe.
He traveled widely, visited England, and received commissions
from both the king of Portugal (1719) and the king of Spain

the most promising architects of the

generation, he

(1735).

The Carmine
is

in Turin (1732),

one of Juvarra' s

last churches,

the finest early Rococo church in Italy (plate 43).

nal church with three chapels

and

galleries

on

A longitudi-

either side,

it

has

an attenuated structural system with internal piers that are

slender

and

graceful,

not in the

least massive.

The

result

is

from exterior wall to exterior wall and from

both the nave and side aisles.
The most accomplished eighteenth-century hunting palace in

unification of space
floor to vault in

by Juvarra for Vittorio Amedeo II at Stupinigi

near Turin from 1729-33. The extended sequence of varied exItaly

was

built

terior spaces (plate 44) that are experienced in arriving at the

palace has

no equal

in Italy

and

is

closely related to ideas current

work of Here de Corny at Nancy.

Juvarra showed the same tendencies towards uni-

in France that led to the

At

Stupinigi,

fication of space

and

skeletalization of internal structure that

did in the Carmine. In the

domed grand

he

salon (plate 45) an oval

by the exterior walls is delightfully punctuated by

piers and undulating balcony railing. The effect of

space defined

the slender

the attenuated structural system that denies massiveness

ther accentuated

is

fur-

by the abundance of light and by the painted

decoration with high-value, high-intensity hues placed against

a white background. Juvarra' s real achievement

is

in the realiza-

tion of light, airy spaces bathed in uniform, all-revealing light

that merge one into the other to produce an elegant, gracefial

whole.

The

Turinese, Bernardo Antonio Vittone (1702-70), a pupil of

Juvarra in Turin and the only outstanding architect in Italy

during the middle third of the century, studied also at the Acca-

San Luca

demia

di

tyrant

who

in

Rome. He was an

irritable,

cantankerous

never paid his assistants and never received a major

had no equal in Italy. In his

by Guarini (whose Architettura
publication) and Juvarra. From Guarini,

royal commission even though he

work he was

chiefly inspired

Civile he edited for

Vittone took complicated structural systems creating active but

interdependent spaces having great expressive power.

From

varra, Vittone took attenuated structure, fluid spaces,

Ju-

and an

extensive decorative vocabulary. These apparently antithetical

aspects were completely transmuted once

combined by Vittone.

His buildings constitute a new direction a new attainment with

an intensified emotional appeal.
Vittone's late work, best represented

by the central-plan

Michele in Rivarolo Canavese (1759), fifteen miles

north of Turin, is, in contrast to his earlier bmldings, charac-

church of
terized

by

S.

interiors with

more ample

spaces

and

lighter structure

that are flooded with an even, airy, diffused white light, and by
exteriors that are

plan

S.

Michele

is

more integrated with the environment.

In

an irregular but symmetrical octagon with

25

widened bays

at the four cardinal points (plate 47a).

There

is

long slender choir with two side chapels and an oval sacristy

The entrance is set back from the street

and two curved lower pavilions sweep out from the portico and
frame it (plate 46). The church becomes a part of the city. The
street is temporarily widened to mark the presence of the nooff-center to the right.

table building.

In the interior (plate 47), in

its

vertical division, S.

shows a dome resting on a drum that

region.

The

Michele

also serves as a pendentive

exciting ambiguities of S. Chiara in Bra in the

drum

and pendentive regions are replaced in S. Michele by a serene

frision of the two elements into a connective region that emphasizes vertical continuity. Level by level as it rises the church
is

increasingly

filled

with light that

floats

down

over pinks, pale

and soft greens to the floor below. The effect

one of great delicacy without fastidiousness, and the church is
one of the most genuinely captivating works of architecture in
the world. Only in the superb Rococo of Southern Germany and
Austria were there architects who, working along parallel lines,

blues, light grays

is

were able to dissolve the

26

fabric to a greater degree.

FRANCE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
In the latter half of the sixteenth century France was split by
religious conflict. When a Protestant Bourbon king, Henry IV,
was to succeed to the defunct Catholic Valois line (1589), open
war broke out. Ultimately Henry found it necessary to abjure
the Protestant religion to take possession of his capital (1594),

but

it

was not

until 1598 at the Peace of Vervins

and contem-

poraneous publication of the Edict of Nantes, granting freedom

of religion in France, that he was able to unite all France under
a single ruler.

Henry and

his minister. Sully,

began a calculated

series

of

changes in the governmental structure designed to increase the

power of the throne and of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the
aristocracy. In this

way they hoped

to

make France once more

the greatest single power in Europe. With the accession of Louis

XIV, by the middle of the seventeenth century, France was the

one power feared by all of Europe and the history of Louis'
reign
fears.

is,

in a sense, a history of France's attempt to exploit these

The concentration of

administrative power in the hands

of the King and his ministers enabled the crown to organize the
entire country for war and commerce in a rational way. The

immediate

results

of this organization in both political and mili-

tary terms was obvious in France's continued successes, but

also

had

a revolutionary effect

on

architecture.

it

As national

wealth was virtually concentrated in the hands of a single

person, Louis was,
to build at
still

any

more than any man

scale

before

him

or since, able

without thought of expense. His buildings

stand today as epitomies of worldly splendor and magnifi-

cence attesting to the virtues of a highly organized state as well

as to the munificence of its ruler.

Toward the end of Louis' reign, while the political and economic organization of the state did not materially change, the
power of the bourgeoisie was growing even greater. Whereas in
the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, every major commission, except those from the crown, came from the landed
aristocracy, in the later seventeenth century the emasculated

aristocracy

was forced

to live at court

and was much

less able

21

commission

to

significant buildings.

ture of the seventeenth century

is

The

history of the architec-

primarily concerned with the

building projects of the crown, princes of the blood, prime min-

and the burgeoning bourgeoisie.

The seventeenth century also saw the rise of French Baroque
Classicism, a stoic and didactic version of the Baroque. Equally
evident in science, philosophy, religion, theater, painting, and
architecture, Baroque Classicism is a rational, reserved, and specifically French manifestation. Never before or since has France
had, at one time, such an array of mental giants as Descartes,
isters,

Pascal, Desargues, Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Poussin, Claude,

and Francois Mansart. By mid-century the carefully controlled

and subtly refined Classical Baroque trend was clearly established.
In France its pre-eminent position was never seriously challenged.
French Baroque architecture was more restrained in its expression than its Italian counterpart. The French architects were
fully cognizant of the principles discovered in Italy, but they
were also influenced by traditional French values and chose to
limit their architectural vocabulary in accordance with them.
Within these self-imposed limits they produced works of great
order wherein variety was achieved principally through subtle
adjustments in rhythm and proportions of mass and wall surface.
A comparison of a Late Classical Baroque example by Jules
Fiardouin Mansart (c. 1645-1708) with Cortona's SS. Martina e
Luca, previously described, will delineate

many

notable

differ-

ences and similarities between French and Italian solutions.

The

church of Les Invalides in Paris (1680-91) is J. H. Mansart's most

massive and yet most rhythmical and dynamic composition.

As

in Cortona's church there

is

a strong directional emphasis

even though Les Invalides stands

three sides (plate 48).
focus,

28

Mansart

free to

At the entrance,

be seen on at

to provide a culminating

steps the facade forward,

narrows the

columniations, and increases the depth of the relief

dom

least

inter-

The

free-

with which he manipulates wall surface and mass, while

conceived in more reserved and traditional rectangular terms,

is

Martina e Luca, by the fi-eedom exercised by

Cortona in dealing with massive curved wall surfaces, pilasters
and columns.

paralleled, in SS.

In plan Les Invalides

satellite

is

a clearly defined Greek-cross with four

chapels and a curiously Palladian-like, laterally expanded

apse (plate 49).

The

satellite

chapels are reached only through

small arched openings that enter from the arms of the cross, and

through the center of the four broad

piers that define the central

space. But the sateUite chapels are not really extensions of the

The

central space.

central space

is

overwhelmingly dominant. In
is less dominant, but the wall

Cortona's church the central space

more active and boldly articulated. At Les Invalides

columns and entablature define, less vigorously, but more clearly,
surfaces are

a central space that

is

overpowering. Pairs of pilasters parallel to

the wall support a single transverse arch while the columns support

only an entablature. In SS. Martina

Luca both the column and

pier support separate concentric arches that emphasize, in terms

of mass, the connection between the arms and the central space.

Both interiors strive for integration of the arms and central

space Les Invalides through the clarity of the subordination of
the parts SS. Martina e Luca through the manipulation of massive columns, pilasters, and walls. French classical Baroque architecture of the seventeenth century
acterized

by

are invigorated
possibilities

carefully controlled

its

is,

like Les Invalides, char-

and restrained forms that

by a highly developed

sensibility to the creative

inherent in traditional solutions.

When Henry IV

occupied Paris in 1594 he immediately began

and sought to remake Paris to

house its recently expanding population. By adding a series of
residential squares with uniform fag:ades, Henry hoped both to
provide needed living quarters and to transform the medieval
to add to the royal buildings

character of the city.

The new bourgeois

mediate success and were imitated

The

three

all

squares were an im-

over Europe.

most important and notable

architects in seven-

teenth-century France were Jacques Lemercier (1580/5-1654),

Mansart (1598-1666), and Louis Levau (1612-70).

Jacques Lemercier, son of an architect, was sent by his father to
Rome where he stayed from c. 1607-14. A favorite of Richelieu,
Lemercier was commissioned in 1635 to design the church of the
Francois

Sorbonne. In plan the church

is

unusual in that

it

has two prin-

one opening on the courtyard, the other on the

piazza in front of the church (plate 50). Lemercier focused these
cipal entrances:

two entrances on the central dome. He unashamedly demonstrated his knowledge of Roman examples since the plan and
dome recalled S. Carlo ai Catinari in Rome which was under
construction while he was there. But Lemercier' s church is more
reserved than its Roman model more refined in its lines and
less

vigorous.

Baroque.

It

is

a chastened version of the early

Roman

29

Lemercier opposed

flat

decorative planal surfaces to massive

vigorous forms in high rehef.

He

demonstrated the

full

range of

when he contrasted the vigorous lower story with six

round columns (that gains its power from deep shadow and

his abihty
fully

strong highlights) with the almost-flat upper story that

is

en-

dependent on the precise and delicate adjustments of

tirely

its

members and decorative features, both in depth

gain delicate shadow lines) and in proportion (to gain a

architectural
(to

tightly organized

and

The

dome rises boldly from the roof of the transept

arm.

flilly

The

exposed

carefully balanced composition) (plate 51).

and lantern delineate the shape of the

graceful lines. Lemercier was at his best in the

pilasters, ribs,

dome with

fluid,

church of the Sorbonne. The church

is,

throughout, that rare

combination of robustness and delicacy characteristic of

Lemercier's work.

He was

graceful silhouettes
ful

all

a master of delicate elegant line

which he ingeniously combined with

of

and

force-

mass.

In contrast to Lemercier, Francois Mansart was a difficult

person to deal with.

perfectionist,

he would spare his client

no expense to achieve the effect desired. He often changed plans

while the building was under construction and would brook no
interference with his ideas.

Mansart,

who

He

never went to

received few royal commissions.

Italy,

staunchly developed his

own

and purposefully restrained

was
succeeding generations even

intensely rational, highly polished,

architecture that virtually determined a national style that

to have profound influence

on

all

across the borders of France. His pre-eminence

among

teenth-century classical Baroque architects in France

is

seven-

due

pri-

marily to his forceful, assured handling of clearly defined mass

forms that achieve carefully calculated climaxes.

Marie de la Visitation, begun in 1632 (plates 52, 53),

the earliest of Mansart's churches that show his developed personality, is a small, restrained, circular domed church with
domed oval main and side chapels added on the major axes.
A dark entranceway emphasizes the well-lighted chapels. Each
Ste.

30

of the four domes

and

reserved,

it is

is

The

a lantern.

shows a

Even though chaste

clear subordination of

oval shapes of the small chapels would,

circle of the main central space. But,

Mansart retained the purity of the circle and

completed, intersect the

at the cornice level,

dome of the chapel, subordinating the chapels

and powerfully integrating them into the total composition.

cut into the oval

to

by

a church that

parts to the whole.

if

lighted

it

and in the effect of interpeneMansart showed a complete comprehension of Baroque principles which he, however, chose to employ
in more reserved and limited ways. Mansart's exteriors and interiors, composed with scrupulous purity and infinite stability,
In the calculated use of lighting

trated space achieved,

make him

in architecture

what Poussin

is

in painting the cor-

nerstone of French Baroque Classicism,

In 1634 Gaston

commissioned Francois Mansart to

reconstruct the Chateau at Blois completely. Construction was
begun in 1635, and in 1638 it was interrupted. The two constructed wings constitute less than a quarter of Mansart's plan.
Mansart confined himself to the use of limestone for the walls
and slate for the roofs. He composed his building using only
mass, precise and crisp delineation of surface patterns, openings,
and light and shadow. In spite of a great economy of means his
incredible sensitivity to proportion and relationships of mass
produced at Blois a sonorous and assured statement of his principles. The main courtyard entrance through a curved arcade
leads into Mansart's astonishing stairwell the most outstanding
feature of the whole chateau (plate 54). The stairwell is open
through three floors. At the second floor the well is partially
enclosed to effect a passageway from one side of the building to
the other. The passageway defines a rectangular opening through
which, from the lower floor, the dome that covers the stairwell
can be seen (plate 55).
The exciting spatial play and bold mass composition that
Mansart achieved at Blois was developed further in his chateau
at Maisons. In 1642 Rene de Langeuil, a nouveau-riche bourd' Orleans

on his estate a chateau that

would reflect his new position. Mansart was selected as his architect, and the building was completed by 1646. Maisons remains
today the most complete example of Mansart's work in terms of
both exterior and interior. A careful study of Maisons alone
would be a convincing demonstration of his phenomenal abilities and of the influence he was to have on eighteenth-century

geois financier, decided to build

French architecture. In plan the building

is

a free-standing block

with a central frontispiece and flanking wings of the same

height (plate 56). Maisons is the only building in which Mansart's crisp, restrained interior

decoration survives almost intact.

On the interior as on the exterior of all his buildings,

he employs

only carved limestone. All of his interiors are conceived in terms

of spaces well-defined by white limestone columns, vaults, and

31

which

walls,

are articulated

by

finely carved detail

without a

trace of gilding or painting.

The

Maisons goes through four

around the
side of a square. As at Blois it is covered with a dome and has a
narrow oval gallery at the second level to allow passage from
one side of the building to the other. The details of the stair
stairwell at

baluster

than

at

level,

Blois

flights

and sculptured decoration are much more restrained

Blois; and, due to the lack of windows above the second

the striking
is less

effect

effective at

of the sequence of spaces achieved at

On

Maisons.

the exterior, however, the

more complex than at Blois and there is much

greater emphasis on relief The central frontispiece, for example,
shows the most relief on the first floor at the doorway where it
is also narrowest. It is capped by an unbroken entablature. At
composition

is

the second floor

easily

it is

recessed, the entablature

connected to the top story that

the wall

itself.

is

is

broken and

is

back to the plane of

set

The pediment above the top

but the composition

is

story

is

also broken,

resolved at the peak where the raking

cornice remains unbroken.

The whole

is

combination
While Mansart was the major architect

a masterfully subtle

of similar but varied elements.

obstinacy and individuality

made

it

at

work

impossible for

in France, his

him

to be in-

cluded on projects that required a team of architects, painters,

and landscape designers to work together to produce

an integrated whole. Such a team architect, Louis Levau (161270); painter, Charles Le Brun (1619-90); sculptor, Gilles Guerin
(1616-78); landscape designer, Andre Le Notre (1613-1700)whose work was to astound the century by the quality and
scope of its integration, collaborated on a grand scale for the
first time at the chateau of Vaux-le-Vicomte. Vaux was the
sculptors,

32

most splendid and important non-royal chateau in France since

it served as the model for Versailles. It was built by Nicolas
Fouquet, Louis' Minister of Finance, in 1657-61. Louis XIV and
intimate members of the court were invited there for supper on
August

17th, 1661.

The evening

Fkcheux by Moliere with

sets

included a presentation of Les

by Le Brun, and music by

Lully,

ending with a fireworks display viewed from the terrace. Louis

was so impressed he soon commissioned Levau, Le Brun, and

Le Notre to expand and redesign Versailles.

Louis Levau, the son of a master mason and probably trained
by his father, began his career building town houses for
wealthy bourgeois

families. Levau's early

work, such as the Hotel

Lambert, with

its

novel use of the

site,

ingenious plan, oval and

octagonal rooms, and striking main staircase, was evidence of

accomplishment to merit his replacing Lemercier at the

Louvre upon the latter' s death. Levau showed a sensitivity to
the power of Italian examples that was unusual in a French arsufficient

chitect.

His thoroughly admirable College des Quatre Nations

(plate 57)

Maria

is

a very personal reinterpretation of Cortona's S.

della Pace,

and Borromini's and Rainaldi's

S.

Agnese in

Piazza Navona. Vaux-le-Vicomte was, however, his greatest opportunity and perhaps also his greatest success. In plan the
chateau, surrounded by a moat,

is

a traditional freestanding

block articulated by corner and central pavilions (plate 58). But

Levau changed the center pavilion to a domed oval salon facing

the garden. On the entrance facade, blocks of two bays each step
back to the center three-bay arched entrance. The garden fagade
is the most successful (plate 59). It is a forceful composition of
two pavilions with taU angular roofs flanking the robust dome
that thrusts out of the main block of the building. But of even
greater importance was the decisive relation of garden to chateau
achieved here by Le Notre for the first time.
Andre Le Notre, a son of the royal gardner of the Tuileries,
was born in Paris and studied both painting and architecture
before he settled on landscape design. He was a kind, gentle,
impulsive, but unassuming man with a phenomenal breadth of

and a desire for the integration of buildings, water, plants,

trees, and exterior spaces into a single coherent and completely
unified scheme. At Vaux, Le Notre first used radiating avenues
cut through woods or lined with trees fountains in combination
with large planes of water; treeless, wide-open, hedged and
planted parterres in contrast to dense wooded areas and a multiplicity of different terrace levels. The plan of the garden is not
as fully developed as his plan for the Tuileries (plate 60), which
vision

in 1664-72 replaced the

istic

random checkerboard

of the sixteenth century (plate

61),

pattern character-

nor as developed as his

plan for the gardens at Versailles. Nevertheless, at

were

all

Vaux

there

the elements he was later to use so successfully. Le Notre

isolated the chateau in the center of

an open space carefully de-

signed to emphasize the placement of the chateau. Terraces,

parterres, pools, fountains,

all

provided nodal points with estab-

lished axial relationships to the chateau.

It

was

genius.

at Versailles that

The gardens (begun

Le Notre found

full

scope for his

1667) are a perfect expression of the

33

control

over nature exercised by seventeenth-century

man

shadowed masses,
in an almost architectural way, to define lighted spaces and to
create lengthy vistas. The spaces were punctuated by fountains
or paved with long, wide, tranquil pools of water. Polychrome
parterres close to the palace led to a grass allee bordered by solid
masses of trees that extended toward the grand canal. The
grand canal continued almost beyond the horizon. A clear view
of the axis was never broken. Man had conquered nature and
molded it with precision and order from the palace to iniinity.
(plates 62, 63). Trees

The garden

were used

at X'^ersailles

at \^ersailles as

developed through several stages over

a period of years while the chateau

a small
sailles

itself

expanded

vastly.

From

chateau used as a hunting lodge by Louis' father, Ver-

became, under Louis XIV, the seat of his government and

demonstration to Frenchmen and the world that absolute power made

France the richest and most magnificent country in the world,
as well as the most powerful. The final architectural scheme
the residence for his court. Moreover,

it

was

a tangible

linked together as a unit into one vast enterprise the gardens,

and the city to the east.

Levau was commissioned in 1669 to enlarge the earlier chateau.
Fie was at his best in the garden facade where all the units,
though clearly defined, are subordinated to the center where a

palace,

freestanding portico at the level of the principal floor, in strong

rhythm and establishes a stable focus (plate 64).

Levau was succeeded by Jules Hardouin Mansart, the grandnephew and pupil of Francois Mansart. It was he who fiUed in
Levau' s terrace between the two flanking pavilions, and greatly
relief,

breaks the

extended the building to the north and south, trebling its size
(plates 63, 65). On the garden fagade of Versailles, he repeated
Levau' s forms but
34

when

the Royal Chapel was added (1698)

Mansart allowed full expression of his own abilities. The longitudinal chapel, which ends in an apse the full height and width
of the buHding, is tail and slender with a royal-gallery level
(plate 66). The proportions are those of a Gothic chapel. The
space is flooded by a liberal amount of light pouring in from tall
windows at the ground floor, gallery, and clerestory. Piers and
arcades wdth exquisite decorative detail define the nave and side
the ground floor and effortlessly support the Corinthian
columns rising from the gallery level. The remarkable quality of
aisles at

detail

ship

and

make

its

superb execution with the finest sense of craftsman-

the chapel a major feature of the chateau, which

itself

surpasses

all

other palaces in Europe for the integration of

the arts and for the sustained level of craftsmanship in

all

all its

parts.

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
As the eighteenth century began, the aging Louis XIV (who
was sixty-two in 1700), sensing a lessening of his ability to enjoy
various sensual pleasures, developed a greater interest in piety

and temperance. Life at Versailles became a dreadful bore, and

the young noblemen fled to Paris to form a more exciting society
of their own. It is understandable, therefore, that the first manifestations of a rejection of the ponderous dignity of Louis XIV
for something light, elegant, gay, and even sometimes playful
would emerge in the interior decorations and redecorations of
Parisian town houses such as the Hotel de Soubise Salon Ovale
by Germain Boffrand, c. 1730 (plate 67) and in the smaller, less
formal chateaux. The new attitude (the Rococo) eventually affected architecture, and strong, active, robust interior spaces
were rejected in favor of intricate, restrained, and elegant unified
spaces. From France the Rococo spread rapidly as far as Russia
and the New World. Eighteenth-century French architecture is
still

regarded today as the ultimate standard ot domestic

ele-

gance and refinement.

Jacques

Ange

Gabriel (1698-1782) was the most accomplished

architect of the eighteenth century in France.

nowned

The son

ot a re-

he was phenomenally successful at an early

that are the most exquisite
combinations of quiet dignity, superb craftsmanship, and elegant
proportional relations yet devised by man. The Petit Trianon
(1762-64) in the gardens at Versailles, built as an intimate weekend house for Madame EXi Barry, is Gabriel's finest residential
design and a high-water mark in French architecture. Eighteenthcentury architects moved away from the vapid, pompous Louis
XIV forms toward dispositions of interior space that emphaage.

architect,

He was responsible for buildings

sized privacy, heretofore ignored,

and intimacy,

as well as con-

Gawhich had no

venience. "Functional" domestic architecture began with

briel (plate 68). In contrast to

the Chateau

itself,

dining room, at the Petit Trianon Gabriel had both a salon and
a dining

room which opened onto

uninterrupted privacy, the dining

separate terraces.

room

To

insure

and
Although in

table could be set

served at the kitchen below and raised into place.

the Petit Trianon Gabriel developed notable technical achieve-

35

and cantilevered masonry stairs and

in apartment planning, it is in the
building's exterior form and its relationship to the gardens that
he demonstrated his unquestioned supremacy as an architect.
ments

in prandial elevators

made noteworthy advances

The

building

is

a sharply defined white limestone cubical block

with clean-cut edges and straight-forward junctures with the

ground and

sky.

The

fagades vary according to the interior dis-

position.

The composition of the west

fagade has been deservedly ad-

(plate 69). There is a harmonious emphasis

on the central bay and on the stairs that lead to the garden terrace.
The central half of the block which projects forward slightly has
placed against it four equally spaced columns on bases. The bare
walls flanking the central section have, at the ground floor, a

mired for generations

single tall

window

in the center of

an ample wall

contrast, the center section seems to be

umnsopen

The

instead of closed.

light with only the

all

surface. In

windows and

col-

outer sections are bathed in

moldings around the windows and beneath

The

on the other
hand, is richly articulated by deep masses of shadows under the
entablature and delicate linear shadows on the flutings of the
columns. Purely through manipulation of mass and light, using
only limestone and glass, Gabriel has created a facade of great
interest and sophistication. The tranquil harmony of the proportional relations between the bare wall and the center section
and between the center section and the entire mass was achieved
only through a scrupulous series of subtle and minute adjustthe cornice creating shadows.

central section,

ments in the size of the elements.

Although crystalline in its purity the facade
integrated with the gardens.

the building
it

36

is

The

wider than the facade and, as

enfolds the garden

and

links

it

is

also superbly

principal terrace attached to

it

curves outward,

inseparably with the fagade.

descend to the lower terrace they both

invite the garden to the terrace and the building into the garden.
A full appreciation of the Petit Trianon is not complete without

As the double

stairs

including the garden, composed of tapis vert bordered by flower

beds and enclosed by clipped masses of

on the main

axis in a circular pool.

of palace and garden

is

a serene

and

trees,

The

which culminates

sophisticated ensemble

perfectly

consonant master-

piece.

Gabriel was selected by Louis

XV

from among a group of

competitors to design a square on the river to the west of the

was to connect the existing

that time a wood) and the projected church

Tuileries gardens in Paris that

Champs

Elysees (at

of the Madeleine to the north, with the Tuileries.

Louis
1753,

The

Place

XV (later changed to Place de la Concorde), begun in

was to have, as designed by Gabriel, an equestrian statue

in the center of a rectangular pla.ce oriented perpendicularly to

the river. Gabriel's brilliant solution was to create a dry "island"

approachable only by bridges that spanned a

"moat" fourteen

feet

deep (plate

fifty- foot- wide

dry

70).

Subtly refined buildings opposite the river act as screens to

end of the square and to define the cross axis. The

Place Louis XV is different from Italian squares in many significant respects. In front of St. Peter's, S. Maria della Pace, or
close off the

S.

Ignazio, the space decides the shape of the plan of the build-

ings. In Paris there

is

defined by buildings,

no strongly shaped space. The sides are

by the woods of the Champs Elysees, by

and by the Tuileries gardens. The smaller "island" is

defined not by buildings but by a moat, balustrades, and sculpture. As it might be in Italy, the focus is defined with a statue
and fountains, but in Italy squares are usually inserted within a
completely urban environment and are entirely enclosed by
buildings. Gabriel's solution shows a remarkable integration of
nature and architecture an integration of a river bank, woods,
gardens, statuary, fountains, and urban architecture into a unified scheme. Gabriel's buildings and squares set a standard for
official dignity and self-confident majesty that continued to be
emulated in various city squares, government buildings, consulates, and upper-class residences until our own day.
The enlargements made in 1751-59 to the city of Nancy,
when it became the capital of King Stanislaus Leczinski's domain, constitute one of the most interesting and exciting sequences of spaces in the history of urban design. Energetic and
benevolent, King Stanislaus selected as his architect Emmanuel
Here de Corny (1705-63), a native of Lorraine who, as far as is
known, never went to Italy or even Paris and, yet, was an outthe

river,

standing master of eighteenth-century architecture in France.

Here's task in designing a
to unite the

new

new town (beyond

Place Louis

XV for Nancy was

the fortifications which had re-

town containing a site for

Here designed what were, in effect, three

cently been demolished) with the old

the royal residence.

Within the old city, in

he described with two hemicycles an

interconnected squares (plates 71,

tront of the

new

palace,

72).

37

oval space parallel to the palace, which, opposite the palace,

opened on the Place Carriere. The Place Carriere was a long

rectangular square with four rows of lime trees down the center.
Both a square and a promenade area, the Place was enclosed by
residences with uniform facades. At the end of the Place Carriere Here constructed, at the edge of the moat, a triumphal
arch with three openings leading to a bridge. At each corner
wrought-iron gates were combined with sculpture groups. The
square, now appropriately called Place Stanislaus, is unique in its
perfect integration of sculpture, ironwork,

sustained high quality.

38

and architecture of a

AUSTRIA AND GERMANY

SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES

Architecture in Austria and

Germany during

the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries was greatly influenced by ItaHan and

by French examples. But, nevertheless, the indigenous
Austrian and German achievement of the eighteenth century
was of sufficient stature to merit international attention and
later

acclaim.

The seventeenth century had hardly begun when the murder

of Henry IV of France removed the one strong stabilizing inWithin a decade the League (Catholic) and
the Union (Protestant) had begun the Thirty Years War (161948) that sapped the strength and resources of all Europe and of
Germany and Austria in particular. The Peace of Westphalia
brought an end to the war but little stability. The small states
that made up Germany and Austria had for the next thirty-five
years to resist, to the west, French expansionist policy and, to
fluence in Europe.

the

east,

Not

the increasing pressure of the Turkish armies.

until 1683,

when

the Sultan's armies were decisively de-

feated at the Siege of Vienna, were there relatively trouble-free

The small nations were faced v-dth the

what had been destroyed and building
expanding population. The major urban

times in central Europe.

gigantic task of rebuilding

anew

for a rapidly

building was directed to the construction of palaces and churches

as in the

remainder of Europe but unlike other west European

nations,

Germany and

built (or rebuilt)

southern

Austria in a flood of building activity

hundreds of rural monastic establishments. In

alone, for example, there were over two hun-

Germany

dred and thirty churches built between 1700 and 1780.

building spurt had profound influences

on the other

The

arts as well,

and during that period there were hundreds of fresco cycles and
Urban buildings were usually paid

sculpture groups undertaken.

for

by the crown, the

nobility, or the state but, to a large degree,

;

the rural monasteries were paid for by the people themselves.

The

abbeys, monasteries, and sanctuaries are not in any

to be considered as structures designed

by or

way

for the elite or

connoisseur but rather as a popular art springing from the

people themselves, built largely for their benefit. Therein

lies

the

39

explanation for the essential differences between the architecture

of the Austrian and

German Baroque and Rococo and

phisticated architecture of France

Italy the notable architectural

German

Italy. In

both France and

examples were largely the product

of the church and the nobility.

that Austrian and

and

the so-

It is

also precisely in this sense

was both astonishingly

advanced for its day and, at the same time, retarded. The architecture was advanced in its acceptance and assimilation of the
latest Italian and French ideas which were rapidly transformed
architecture

and unique expression. But the works were also

High Baroque was late in coming to fruition.
There is no High Baroque until the 1680's in Austria and hardly
any before 1700 in Germany.
The many different manifestations found in Austrian and
German art can be explained partly by the fact that it was produced both at the top and the bottom levels of society and partly
by the political subdivisions. Central European architecture and
decoration was highly varied: it was sophisticated and naive,
aristocratic and popular, refined and crude. It was the last great
into a popular

retarded in that the

attempt to achieve a complete synthesis of painting, sculpture,

and pageantry. Since that time integration

has not been a goal for, as the incentives toward specialization
architecture, music,

increased, the desire for an integration of

all

the visual arts di-

minished. Today we stand openly in awe of almost unable to

comprehend the profound interrelationships that characterized
the eighteenth-century central European concept of order.

The

specific character

of the central European achievement

can best be seen when compared with familiar examples from

Italy. The Benedictine Abbey of Ottobeuren in Southern Germany (Bavarian Swabia), an apt example by one of the greatest

German

40

by Caryll Nicolas Powell as the

"peak of German rococo attainment. " The plans were drawn up
by Johann Michael Fischer (1692-1766) in 1744 and the church,
his largest, was perhaps also his finest. The pale frescoed vaults
are by Johann Jakob Zeiller, and the splendid sculpture is by
masters, has been cited

Johann Michael Feichtmayr. The church is both a reinterpretation of the traditional basilican type and a combination of the
basilica and the central-plan church.
The church at Ottobeuren stands to the south of the small
village

it

dominates.

The plan

is

immediately apparent fi-om the

exterior a longitudinal basilica with large transept, crossing,

choir,

and

side chapels

on the nave

(plate 73).

The

facade (plate

by twin towers, bays out vigorously at the entrance.

The interior space is partitioned by piers and vaults into three
domed units (nave, crossing, choir) and the vaulted transepts

74),

flanked

(plate 75).

The

effect is

almost that of a Greek-cross plan. Diago-

emphasize its larger dimension (plate 78). White walls highlighted by

gilt ornament and the gray and pink marble columns and pilasters are flooded with a brilliant white light from the nave clerestory, the windows in the side chapels, and, above all, from the
seven large windows in each of the transepts. The flood of light
ripples across the white and gold surfaces, producing an effect of
lightness, airiness, and dematerialization. Decorative accents
and the highly active forms of the altars \\Tith their low-value
and occasionally intense hues dominate the white walls and
sober architectural membering. At Ottobeuren what is an essentially clearly defined, simple space is animated by a brilliantly
lighted surface activity. Far to the south, in Rome, at S. Maria
in Campitelli, light is used more dramatically, walls are more active, and the space is a dynamic element. S. Maria in Campitelli
is a High Baroque church built by Carlo Rainaldi about a hunnal piers and broad-footed pendentives at the crossing

dred years earlier (1663-67). There are certain similarities between the Rainaldi church and Ottobeuren; in design each
building

is

combination of central and longitudinal plans with

a transverse axis and a

is

all

columns,

domed

pilasters,

choir (plates 73, 76). Campitelli

and openings

(plate 77). It

powerful statement of the mass of the building.

The

is

a rich,

space

itself

both formed by the building fabric and in turn forms the

There is nothing stable nothing simple. The result
is a forcefully directed space that focuses on the dimly lighted
apse. Clerestory windows in the nave are small and admit rela-

is

fabric itself

tively little light.

At the

choir,

however, the clerestory windows

are larger and, together with the circle of

windows under the

dome, admit a great pool of light. The altar is kept in complete

darkness and there is consequently a distinct visual progression
from partial light, through a well-lighted choir, to the unlighted
apse which contains a miraculous icon.

There

is

neither dramatic focus nor mystery developed at

Ottobeuren. The entire church

is

the experience and

painting and furniture

all

does not

S.

have

their appointed

present a spatial climax as does Campitelli. At

pitelli sculpture,

it

Maria in Cam-

architectural place in the church within defined frames, while at

Ottobeuren the decoration, sculpture and painting

float

about

41

all

over the church converting the whole building into a sacred

mixing in among the parishioners, captivating them, and

transporting them to a dream world of shimmering light (plate 78).
theater,

The degree of integration of the visual arts achieved by the

Austrians and Germans was never equaled in Italy, even in the
Rococo. Bernard Vittone's

S.

Maria

di Piazza in

the masterworks of the High Rococo in

less

complete, even

if

more

intellectual.

church with domed nave and choir

but

Italy,

It,

Turin

too,

is

is

one of

appeal

its

is

a longitudinal

(plate 79). Vittone's spaces,

when compared with S. Maria in Campitelli, are certainly less

dynamic; the wall itself is less vigorous, and the spatial sequence
The structure is lighter and the surface
and decidedly more active. Light is more
abundant and more revealing and there is a much greater unification of the spatial units than in the Roman church (plate 81).
When compared with Ottobeuren, however, S. Maria di Piazza
appears to be a vigorous, powerful statement with dramatic and
clearly defined contrasting dynamic spaces. The structure seems
heavy and measured, the surface well ordered and carefully modless

dramatic (plate

more highly

80).

articulated

ulated with respect to the structure.

The

light seems restricted

and even contrived. In fact the entire church seems to be made

up of a series of discrete parts that are in some masterful way
knitted into a whole. Ottobeuren,

on the other hand,

is

a superb

synthetic whole in which the parts are never separate, the ele-

ments never discrete, but the spaces, surfaces, lighting,

and furniture are all fused into a conceptual unity.

sculpture,

AUSTRIA

The

42

three great masters of Austrian Baroque architecture were

Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach (1656-1723), Jakob Prandtauer (1660-1726), and Johann Lucas von HUdebrandt (16681745). Hildebrandt was born in Genoa, and he studied in Rome
under Carlo Fontana. By 1695 he was an engineer for one of the
Imperial Austrian armies, and apparently spent time in the
Piedmont as well as in Austria. He was appointed Imperial Court
Engineer in 1700 and in 1720 was knighted by the Emperor for
his accomplishments.

an account of
the rivalry and competition between Hildebrandt and Fischer

The

von

history of Austrian Baroque architecture

Erlach, twelve years his senior. Fischer

studied in

Rome and

is

von Erlach

spent at least five years in

Italy.

also

He

re-

turned to Vienna in 1687 where he soon became an outstanding

success. In 1705, five years after the

younger Hildebrandt, he was

appointed Imperial Court Architect, a post he held until his

death.

He was acquainted with the architecture of most of Europe

and Holland,

(he traveled to Prussia, Prague, France, England,

History of Architec-

and in 1712 wrote the

[Entwurf einer Historischen Architektur, Vienna, 1721).
Fischer's buildings are austere, imposing, and impressively monuas well as Italy)

first

ture

mental.
Fischer and Hildebrandt, the "educated court architects" have

common

nothing in

He was

with Prandtauer.

trained in the

trade as a craftsman-sculptor and entered the field of architecture

only in his

forties

upper Austria.
Erlach, he

when he

Much

was the

built his first church for an abbot in

and more rhythmical than Fischer von
non-urban architect to develop an im-

freer

first

portant personal expression.

Fischer

von Erlach 's masterpiece

church architecture, the

ot

Karlskirche in Vienna, built from 1715 to 1733 in thanksgiving

for relief from the great plague of 1713,

of great quality (plates

82, 83).

is

an architectural medley
facade, which

The extremely wide

can be read in a multitude of

different ways,

is

punctuated by

small towers, arches, historiated columns, and portico, culmitall drum and dome over the central longitudinal
The parts never quite seem to come together, however, and

nating in the
oval.

the single static unified space of the interior belies the multiplici-

on the exterior. The interior space is focused on the

well-lighted main altar at the end of a long, narrow, and relaty of effects

tively dark choir that

acter to the wide,

tall,

is

contrasted in space form and light char-

openly lighted vertical central space. The

resultant dramatic contrast gives a direction

the otherwise somber and

Fischer's lack of originality

and
knowledge of the
intelligence.

and forcefulness to

austere interior.

He was

was

offset

man

by

his

immense learning

of contrasts

who

exhibited

and France and yet

experimented with Mannerist space conceptions and decorative
motifs. The ultimate assessment of Fischer's worth must rest on
latest designs in

his influence as well as

on

both

his accomplishments.

work, Austrians learned that

it

European

for the

Through

his

was no longer necessary to im-

port foreign architects; and Fischer's

ment became the model

Italy

own

architectural achieve-

next two generations of central

architects.

Lucas von Hildebrandt was more of an architect than Fischer

though

less

of an

intellect.

His early work gave evidence of his

43

attempt to master the

latest Italian

schemes and to carry them

a step further. His Piaristen Church in Vienna (plates 84, 85)

owed a great debt to Guarini's S. Lorenzo in Turin but some
of the implications of Guarini's building were explored some-

what

further.

The cornerstone of the church was

laid in 1698

but

the church was not under construction until 1716. Hildebrandt's

form interior and exvon Erlach conceived of discrete spaces and

walls are active and curve vigorously to

terior space. Fischer

masses that were added together to emphasize their individual

on the other hand, is more

fluid and dynamic. He displayed an equal ability in handling
mass composition and decorative detail. The exterior, regulated
by architectural members, is a persuasive composition of convex
and concave surfaces that is ultimately derived from ideas suggested by S. Agnese and S. Carlo in Rome. The centrally planned
interior is composed of convex masses pushing in on the central
space that escapes upward. A sense of dynamic space is heightened by the decorative scheme which restricts all fresco painting
to the region above the entablature and all high intensity hues
nature. Hildebrandt's architecture,

to the altars themselves.

Hildebrandt's masterfully composed Belvedere palace (170023) in

Vienna was

built for Prince

Eugene of Savoy, the military

hero of the sieges of Vienna and Turin.

86, 87)

by

is

The palace facade

(plates

composed of a large central block interrupted at the center

a triple arcade leading into the two-storied stair hall.

The

by wings ending in octagonal

and terminate the flat facade.
Even here where Hildebrandt had a clear opportunity to break
the composition into separate discrete units as Fischer was wont
to do, the facade is a continuous flat plane converted by windows,
block

taller central

domed

is

flanked

pavilions that punctuate

frames, pediments, and pilasters into a richly patterned surface.

are his most successful. The entrance to the palace
on the landing halfway between the lower garden floor and
the main living floor. A pair of stairs leads up into the brightly
lighted, but sparsely decorated, entrance to the main octagonal
salon (plate 88). Hildebrandt was exceptional as a decorator and

The interiors
44

is

architect

who

could handle detail as well as the composition of

ability to control

both

the decorative character and the architectural quality of his

work

large masses

made

it

and

spatial sequences.

extremely important

In 1702 Jakob Prandtauer

astery at

His

for later architects.

was

Melk on the Danube

called

River.

on to redesign the monMelk was one of many

monasteries that, in a continuing medieval tradition, flourished

during the late seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries in

Austria.

The monastic

buildings dominate the river

great pile of rock (plate 89).

They were designed

to

on top of a
be seen and

appreciated from the river, and Prandtauer exploited the site to

the

fullest.

The church

itself thrusts

upward through the mon-

astic buildings, forming the culmination of the complex

as the medieval cathedral

much

was the architectural climax of

its

town.

GERMANY
In

Germany

High Baroque

the

arrived later than in Austria

but the two outstanding figures of the early eighteenth century,

Matthaeus Daniel Poppelman (1662-1736) and Johann Dientzenhofer

(.''-1726),

were in some ways more advanced than their

Austrian contemporaries.

Poppelman was

a favorite of Augustus the Strong, Elector of

Saxony, one of the greatest baroque monarchs, and he was sent

by him to study architecture in Paris, Prague, Vienna, Salzburg
and Italy. In 1711 after his return to Dresden from Austria and
Italy, Poppelman built the Zwinger, a pleasure pavilion that is a
noteworthy example in a long tradition of festival architecture
and one of the high points of the German Baroque.
As first constructed (1709) the Zwinger was a wooden structurea ceremonial amphitheater and Poppelman's task was to
convert

it

to stone.

The

plan,

much

smaller than originally con-

open square court about 350 feet on a

side, with two wide and deep exedra, all enclosed by one-story
wings. The wings are everywhere punctuated by taller pavilions,

ceived, consists of a large,

stairs,

and

balconies. Entrance pavilions (plate 90) at each of the

cardinal points are fanciful combinations of Mannerist

and Ba-

roque elements. The extravagant two-storied open structure,

crowned by a huge onion dome, concentrates

all

the masonry

structure at the four corners in massive multiple piers that contrast strongly

with the

large, open,

empty space

at the

upper

shows little or no
concern for the structural nature of its forms for example, the
relation of arches to entablature or herms to pilasters but there
is a marvelous integration of decorative sculpture and architecture. Poppelman conceived of his masses and spaces as separate
entities and enlivened his forms with a kind of noisy vigor. But
in these pavilions he also all but destroyed the wall nothing is
level.

The exuberant

stair pavilion (plate 91)

45

left

but the piers themselves. In

work that the

tics

Germany

skeletalization of structure,

it was in Poppelman's
one of the characteris-

of the Rococo, began to be seen.

The longitudinal church attached

to the Cluniac

monastery

at

Banz in Northern Bavaria, attributed to Johann Dientzenhofer.

is by far the most striking example of Franconian Baroque, and
is noteworthy in the development of Rococo through the use
of the transverse binding arch. Johann Dientzenhofer, who was
probably tramed by his father, an architect, is known to have
traveled at least as far as Rome from whence he returned in 1699.
He and the other members of his family worked in northern
Bavaria and Bohemia, and it is stUl not clear which brother was
responsible for certain buildings.
In spite of an unimaginative exterior, the

Banz (begun

1710)

is,

on the

Abbey Church

interior, a splendid

Guarini's Immaculate Conception in Turin.

at

adaptation of

At Banz, Johann

Dientzenhofer presaged the punctuated but synthesized space ot

the Rococo by stressing the longitudinal continuity of spaces.
Transverse arches across the nave swing forward toward the
altar or backward toward the entrance, touch at the crown,

and subtly knit what are essentially separate, geometrically conceived spaces, into an interlaced whole ot great vitality (plates
92, 93).

Swaying, binding arches similar to those at Banz were employed in the same year in a modified form at Breznov (near
Prague) in St. Margaret's Church designed by Christoph Dientzenhofer, Johann's elder brother.

The

exploitation of this un-

work of Balthasar
Curved binding arches became almost a
distinguishing feature of his ecclesiastical work, and they are
found in the Wiirzburg Hofkirche of 1733 (which he altered

usual feature culminated in the Rococo in the

Neumann

(1687-1753).

completely from Hildebrandt's original scheme), in the pilgrim-

46

age church of Vierzehnheiligen (1744), and in his

haps best

work, the Augustinian Abbey Church

and perNeresheim

last

at

(1745).

Balthasar

Neumann,

the outstanding manipulator of space in

eighteenth-century Germany, presented in his work a trium-

of delightful variations on spaces

first begun by Bnmelleschi three hundred years earlier. In Wiirzburg the additions Neumann made to the Residenz, a suite of
phant, ringing finale to a

series

stairs, chapel, etc. -the urban palace of the buildfamily-are equally exciting (plate 94). The
Schoenborn
ing-mad

superb rooms,

multiple spatial and light effects

on the ground

level are

almost

made real (plate 95). Spaces seem to melt

and merge into one another as light dissolves their substance,
but, as one mounts the stairs, the multiplicity of view is replaced
by a single, grand, immense space hovering above, into which
Piranesian fantasies

the stair ascends.

The

more

multiple spatial effects of Wiirzburg are even

thor-

oughly and more excitingly explored in Vierzehnheiligen and

Neresheim. Vierzehnheiligen, the best-known of

all

German

Rococo churches, has a checkered building history. In 1742 Neumann was called in to replace a local architect who had submitted designs for the church. The local architect was made
supervisor of construction in

Neumann's absence

and,

own

a free hand, altered the plans according to his

left

with

wishes.

Neu-

mann

returned some time later (1744) and discovered the

alter-

ations

made

Neumann

to his plans.

The

local architect

own

supplied a supervisor from his

however, was so

far

The imposing but

make up an almost
is

finally

completed

The

boxlike rectangular shell enclosing a space

molded and warped,

veiled

piers, galleries, balconies, vaults, ribs,

The only

Neumann

stable element remaining

so pierces

planal continuity.

when he
are

it

with openings

The pilgrim

is

and hidden
and arches

game

(plate

the exterior wall and

as virtually to destroy its

leaves the

enters Vierzehnheiligen. Walls

no longer massive and

stable,

Neu-

exterior walls

that willfully join forces in a gigantic architectural

98).

after

uninteresting twin-towered facade (plate 96)

cut and punctured,

by columns,

The work,

his assistant.

leads into a world of complex spatial delight.

that

office.

along that the plans had to be altered com-

The church was

pletely (plate 97).

mann's death by

was dismissed and

protective.

normal "real" world

no longer enclose they

Columns do not order

comprehensible spaces; the spaces themselves are both

separated and interwoven. Lush architectural decoration, lavish

and

and densely ornamented, frescoed ceilings

(plate 99). It is no wonder the simpleminded German peasant has, for generations, felt this church
to be the supreme expression of his religious belief. Neumann's
fame rests upon the highly original character of his fluid interaltars

altarpieces,

permeate the atmosphere

penetrating spaces, his ability to destroy massiveness of structure

even when working on a large

scale,

and

his

to assimilate diverse architectural ideas from

central Europe.

phenomenal
all

ability

over western and

47

Johann Michael Fischer did not enjoy the same princely patronage as Neumann. He was primarily a church architect. His
epitaph credits him with having built thirty-two churches and
twenty-two monasteries. He was, apparently, an able administrator. The very best sculptors, painters, and decorators liked to
work with him on his buildings where he encouraged them to
produce their finest work. His interiors are, therefore, the most
complete expression of the German Rococo. But the most successful Rococo exteriors in central Europe are also Fischer's, and
the most exquisite example from them all is the majestic, austere
facade of the parish church at Diessen (plate 100). Fischer, too,

was concerned with the problem of mass, as was Neumann, but

the bulkiness of mass was replaced by a sense of an easy, graceful
flow of space that was controlled and ordered by slender columns, piers, and galleries. Fischer revealed the lightness of the
skeletal structure by bathing it in light coming from hidden
sources. Neumann also, denied the mass of walls and even their
structural necessity by skillfully arranging slender piers and
columns in front of the direct glare of daylight entering through
large openings.

The strong

light spills over the structural

mem-

and tends to subordinate them to space and light. Fischer

and Neumann represent two outstanding but basically different
solutions to the same problem dematerialization of the fabric
in order to achieve diaphanous structure and spatial unity, the
dream of all Rococo architects.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Western man felt
he was part of a social structure to which he was subordinated.
The Renaissance exaltation of the individual was replaced by the
bers

integration of the individual within society. In the arts the desire

an extensive synthesis was manifest in the subordination of

individual parts of a composition to the whole as seen in the
fusing of painting, sculpture, and architecture into a unit, and in
the merging of individual buildings with the fabric of a city.
for

48

But this was an integration of opposites. Perhaps the greatest

discovery of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was the
acceptance of a viable existence that included diverse opinions,

and even open strife. In our fragmented

renewed interest in the Baroque and Rococo age
during which art, architecture, and the pageant of life were
united in an appeal that reached and reflected all segments of
intellectual contrasts,

society there

society.

is

/.

S.

Maria

della Consolazione, Todi,

begun

1508. Exterior.

2.

Pietro

da.

Cortona. SS. Martina e Luca, Rome, 1635-50. Exterior.

3.

4.

S.

Maria

della Consolazione, Todi. Plan.

Pietro da Cortona. SS. Martina e Luca,

Rome.

Plan.

^
^

/
#

t
vJ

/\

IP
la dg
m

']

w
.A-^,

TI

J.

fc^

'^

5.

6.

5.

Maria

della Consolazione, Todi. Interior.

Pietro da Cortona. SS. Martina e Luca. Interior.

7.

Bernardo Vktone.

S. Chiara.,

Bra,

begun

742. Exterior.

8.

Bernardo Vittone.

S.

Chiara, Bra. Plan.

9.

Bernardo Vittone.

S.

Chiara, Bra. Interior.

10.

11.

Carlo Maderno.

St. Peter's,

Carlo Maderno.

Rome. Nave.

St. Peter's,

Rome,

1606-12. Plan of nave and facade.

12.

Carlo Maderno.

St. Peter's,

Rome. Facade.

13.

Carlo Maderno.

14.

Rome,

S.

St. Peter's

Susanna, Rome, 1597-1603. Facade.

Square

c.

1638.

Drawing by

Israel Silvestre, detail.

?A.

Hit

4t

II

If

*''
;

if
}|

4
(

i5.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini.

St.

Peter's Square,

Rome, begun

>

<

1656. Plan.

16.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini.

St. Peter's

Square,

Rome. Colonnade.

17.

18.

Pietro da Cortona.

S.

Maria

della Pace,

Pietro da Cortona. S. Maria della Pace,

Rome,

1656-57. Plan.

Rome. Facade.

19.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Palazzo Chigi-Odescalchi, Rome, begun

:iyyZ:'l:"'//j

1664. Exterior.

20.

Giam Lorenzo Bernini.

S.

Andrea,

al Quirinale,

Rome, 1658-70. Facade.

21.

Gia.n

Lorenzo Bernini.

S.

Andrea

al Quirinale,

Rome.

Interior.

24.

Francesco Borromini.

23.

22.

Francesco Borromini.
alle

S.

Carlo

Quattro Fontane, Rome,

1638-41.

Plan.

S.

Carlo

alle

Francesco Borromini.

Quattro Fontane, Rome. View up into dome.

S.

Carlo

alle

Quattro Fontane, Rome.

Interior.

25.

Francesco Borromini.

S. Ivo,

Rome, 1642-50. View from

courtya.rd.

26.

Francesco Borromini.

S. Ivo.

Rome.

Plan.

r
L

mm

vf

21.

Francesco Borromini.

S. Ivo.

Rome. View up

into dome.

,f

28.

Guarino Guarini.

29.

S.

Lorenzo, Turin, 1666-79. Plan

Guarino Guarini.

S.

Lorenzo, Turin. Interior.

30.

Guarino Guarini.

S.

Lorenzo, Turin. View up into dome.

31.

Guarmo

32.

Guarino Guarini. Palazzo Carignano, Turin. Ground Boor plan.

Gudrini. Pa.la.zzo Carignano, Turin. 1679-92. Exterior.

c^c:"

^^

:=

r^-^

:-ll..'

ii"-1
(l

IN*
m^M^

^u

33.

Guarino Guarini. Palazzo Carignano. Turin. Main

34.

Guarino Guarini. Palazzo Carignano, Turin. Section through the main

staircase.

ifMi M

salon.

35.

Guarino Guarini. Church of the Immaculate Conception, Turin. 1672-97. Plan.

36.

Guarino Guarini. Church of the Immaculate Conception, Turin.

Interior.

37.

Alessandro Speccbi. Porta

38.

di Ripetta,

Rome,

703

(now destroyed). From an engraving by A. Speccbi.

Alessandro Speccbi and Francesco

De Sanctis.

Spanisb

Stairs,

Rome,

''23-25.

'i

39.

Filippo Raguzzini. Piazza S. Ignazio,

41.

40.

Rome,

1727-28. Plan.

Filippo Raguzzini. S.

Filippo Raguzzini. Piazza S. Ignazio,

Rome.

Maria

della Quercia,

Rome, begun

1727. Facade.

43.

42.

Domenico Gregorini and

Filippo fuvarra.

Pietro Passalacqua.

S.

Church of the Carmine, Turin,

Croce

in

1732-35. Interior.

Gerusalemme, Rome, begun

1741. Facade.

fli

Kf
id

44.

Filippo fuvarra. Stupinigi palace, 1729-33. Air view of

45.

complex of buildings.

Filippo Juvarra. Stupinigi palace.

Grand

salon.

46.

Bernardo Vittone.

S.

Michele, Rivarolo Canavese. Exterior.

\i

47.

Bernardo Vktone.

S.

Michele, Rivarolo Canavese. Interior.

47a.

Bernardo Vktone.

S.

Michele, Rivarolo Canavese, begun 1759. Plan.

1...^ t\^*^

^ .^

iS-Mm

48.

fules

Hardouin Mansart. Church of Les

Invalides,

Paris, 1680-91. Exterior.

49.

Jules

Hardouin Mansart. Church

ot Les Invalides, Paris. Plan

and

section.

31.

50.

Jacques Lemercier. Church of

the Sorbonne, Paris, 1635. Plan.

Jacques Lemercier. Church ot the Sorbonne, Paris. Facade.

53.

52.

Francois Mansart. Ste. Marie de

Visitation, Paris, 1632-34. Plan.

la

Francois Mansart. Ste. Marie de

la Visitation, Parii.

Exterior.

54.

55.

Francois Mansart. Chateau of

Blois,

Orleans Wing, 1635-38. Courtyard view.

Francois Mansart. Chateau of Blois, Orleans Wing. View up main staircase.

56

Francois Mansart. Chateau of Maisons, 1642-46.

Main entrance

court.

51.

Louis Levau. College des Quatre Nations, begun 1662. Engraving by Israel Silvestre.

58.

59.

Louis Levau. Chateau of Vaux-le-Vicomte, 1657-61. Plan of ground Hoar.

Louis Levau and Andre Le Notre. Chateau and gardens of Vaux-le-Vicomte.

60.

Andre Le Notre.

Tuileries gardens, Paris, 1664-

2.

Engraving of plan.

IXK HvrriE

1.1

WMii
IBS

61.

trr -

i-

IK-

ni-ix

nc la n_\<E

i-i'^i.k^k

T.

W^&i^'\m^ =^r%im

ta/aa IsH-aieili

'>v>:
'-42i'*t=fcJjs.J:V

Tuileries gardens in the late sixteenth century, Paris.

Engraving of plan.

q<x

i.b?c

tmcF, actitli t.MtNT

62.

Andre Le Notre. Chateau of

Versailles,

begun

1667.

Engraving of garden plan.

^^i?^

begun

View with gardens.

63.

Andre Le Notre. Chateau of

64.

Louis Levau. Chateau of Versailles, garden facade, begun 1669. Engraving by Israel Silvestre.

Versailles,

166~.

m m
it.-

vwwwwrwm

65.

Louis Levau and fules Hardouin XIansart. Chateau of Versailles, 1669-85. Garden facade.

66.

Jules

Hardouin Mansart. Chateau of

61.

Versailles. 1698-1710.

Royal Chapel.

Gabriel-Germain Boffrand. Hotel de Soubise.

Paris, c.

730.

Salon Ovale.

68.

69.

Jacques

Ange

Jacques

Ange

Gabriel. Petit Trianon, Versailles, 1762-64. Plan of main floor.

Gabriel. Petit Trianon, Versailles.

Garden

facade.

70.

Jacques

Ange

Gabriel. Place Louis

71.

XV,

Paris,

begun

753.

Emmanuel Here de Corny.

72.

Emmanuel

Engraving.

Place Louis

XV, Nancy,

Liere de Corny. Place Louis

1751-59. Air view.

XV, Nancy.

Plan.

73.

Johann Michael Fischer. Benedictine Abbev, Ottobeuren, begun

74.

Johann Michael Fischer. Benedictine Abbey, Ottobeuren. Exterior.

/44. Plan.

75.

fohann Michael Fischer. Benedictine Abbey, Ottobeuren.

Interior.

Rome,

76.

Carlo Rainaldi.

S.

Maria

77.

Carlo Rainaldi.

S.

Maria in Campitelli, Rome.

in Campitelli,

78.

1663-67. Plan.

Interior.

fohann Michael Fischer. Benedictine Abbey, Ottobeuren.

Interic

L*f'^

T).

\4.

19.

Bernardo Vittone.

S.

Maria

di Piazza, Turin, 1751-68.

80.

Bernardo Vittone.

S.

Maria

di Piazza, Turin.

Dome

Plan and section.

over nave.

'

'Tv^'*'^^^'^^^'*^

SI.

Bernardo Vittone.

S.

Maria

di Piazza, Turin.

Dome

over choir.

i*^^'

.f/^,

s
^ic

r
v^,

82.

fohann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach. Karlskirche, Vienna.

83.

Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach. Karlskirche, Vienna. Plan.

I /

15-33. Exterior.

*____!_ *

84.

fohann Lucas von Hildebrandt. Piaristen Church. Vienna, designed 1698,

85.

built 1~ 15-21. Interior.

fohann Lucas von Hildebrandt.

Piaristen Church, Vienna. Plan.

86.

Jobann Lucas von Hildebrandt. Upper Belvedere, Vienna, 1700-23. Exterior

detail.

ma

.^^^^.^-&3^>s^.^.a^>v-^^

agr-^^'--'.'

87.

?.

fohann Lucas von Hildehrandt. Upper Belvedere, Vienna. Exterior.

fohann Lucas von Hildebrandt. Upper Belvedere, Vienna. Main

stair hall.

89.

Jacob Prandtauer. Benedictine Abbey, Melk. begun 1702. View from the river.

90.

Matthaeus Daniel Poppelman. Zwinger, Dresden, 1711-22. Entrance pavilion.

91.

Matthaeus Daniel Poppelman. Zwinger, Dresden.

Stair pavilion.

92.

Johann Dientzenhofer.
Abbey Church, Banz,
begun 1710. Plan.

93.

94.

Balthasar

Neumann. Residenz, Wiirzburg,

fohann Dientzenhofer. Abbey Church, Banz. Interior.

1719-44. Exterior.

95.

Bakhasar Neumann. Residenz, Wiirzburg. Main

staircase.

96.

Bakhasar Neumann. Pilgrimage Church, Vierzehnheiligen. Facade.

Neumann. Pilgrimage Church. VierzehnheiUgen.

9~.

Bidthasar

98.

Bahhasar Neumann. Pilgrimage Church. VierzehnheiUgen.

99.

Balthasar

43-'"2. Plan.

Interior.

Neumann. Pilgrimage Church, VierzehnheiUgen.

Interior.

100.

Johann Michael hi-chrr. Parish Church, Diessen. 1732-39. Facade.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCES
Contemporary publicationsA bibliography of seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury books on architecture does not

exist.

See however:
J.

Schlosser-Magnino, La Letteratura Artistica, Florence, 1956 (VI, 3; VII;

IX,

5).

Leopold Cicognara, Catalogo ragionato dei Libri d'arte e d'emtichita posseduto dal Conte Cicognara, Pisa, 1821.

Catalogue of Avery Memorial Library, Columbia University,

New

York,

1958-59.

And for treatises

that contain mathematical chapters on

geometry and perspec-

tive.

Pietro Riccardi, BibliograEa Matematica Italiana, Modena, 1870.

For Spanish books, in particular, see:
F. }. Sanchez-Canton, Fuentas literarias para la historia del arte

Madrid, 1923-41, Vols. H,

Titles

III,

espaiiol,

IV, V.

not in Schlosser include the following:

ITALY
G. A.

Alberti, Trattato della

Misura

delle Fabriche, Venice, 1757.

Istruzione pratiche per I'ingegnero civile, Venice, 1799.

G. Amico, L'architetto practico

F. Bibiena,

Palermo, 1726.

.,

L'architettura civile, Parma, 1711.

G. Fonda, Elementi de Architettura Civile, Rome, 1764.

G. Guarini, Trattato di FortiEcazione, Turin, 1676.
C. Rana, L'Alfabeto in Prospettiva
Turin (1780?).
F. Sanvitali, Elementi de architettura civile, Brescia, 1765.
B. A. Vittone, Istruzioni Elementari, Lugano, 1760.
Istruzioni diverse, Lugano, 1766.
.

.,

FRANCE
113

P. Bullet, L' Architecture Practique, Paris, 1774.

Le Qerc, Traite d' architecture, Paris, 1714.

P. Le Muet, Maniere de bien Bastir
., Paris, 1681.
Mauclerc, Le Premier Livre d' Architecture, Rochelle, 1600.
J.

S.

P. Nativelle,

Nouveau

traite d' Architecture, Paris, 1729.

R. Ouvrard, Architecture Harmonique, Paris, 1679.

ENGLAND
C. Campbell, Vitruvius Britannicus, London, 1715-25.

G. Gerbier, Counsel and Advice to All Builders, London,

|. Gibbs, A Book of Architecture, London, 1728.

W. Halfpenny,

Practical Architecture,

London

1663.

(before 1724).

I!

B. Langley,
I.

Ware,

The Builder s Jewel, London, 1787.

Complete Body of Architecture, London,

1756.

GERMANY
G. Boekler, Architectura curiosa nova, Nuremberg, 1664.
Penther, Anleitung zur buergerlichen Baukunst, Augsburg, 1746-64.
J.

SOURCES
Publication of Documents

ITALY
Documenti per

C. Baroni,

mento

a nel barocco.

Documenti

V. Golzio,

la storia

deW architettura

Milano nel

rinasci-

Edifico sacri, Florence, 1940.

artistici sul

Seicento neU'archivio Chigi, Rome, 1939.

Orbaan, Documenti sul barocco in Roma, Rome, 1920.

O. Pollak, Die Kunsttatigkeit unter Urban VIII, Vienna, 1927, 1931.
A. Baudi de Vesme, "L'arte negli stati sabaudi ai tempi di Carlo Emanuele
J.

A.

F.

di Vittorio

Amedeo

I,

e della

Reggenza

I,

di Christina di Francia, " Attidella

societa Piemontese di Archeologia e Belle Arti,

XIV

(1923).

FRANCE
J.

Guif&ey, Les Comptes des Batiments

dti

Roi sous

le

regne de Louis XIV,

1664-1715, Paris, 1881-1901.

H. Lemonnier, Procbs Verbaux de I'academie

d' architecture, 1671-93, Paris,

1911-26.

GENERAL
HISTORICAL
F.

Braudel,
Phillipe

BACKGROUND

La Mediterranee
II.

et le

monde mediterraneen

a I'epoque de

Paris, 1949.

Dorn, The Competition for Empire, 1740-63, New York, 1940.

The Age of the Baroque, New York, 1952.
H. Nicolson, The Age of Reason, New York, 1961.
F. L. Nussbaum, The Triumph of Science and Reason, 1660-85, New York,

W.
C.

L.

J.

Friedrich,

1953.

114

D. Ogg, Europe in the 17th Century, 8th edition, London, 1960.

P. Roberts, The Quest for Security 1715-40, New York, 1947.
B. Willey, The Eighteenth Century Background, Boston, 1961.
The Seventeenth Century Background, London, 1942.
Wolf,
The Emergence of the Great Powers 1685-1715, New York, 1951.
B.
J.

DEFINITIONS

AND INTERPRETATIONS

Rinascimento e Barocco, Turin, 1960.

G. Briganti, "Barocco, strana parola," Paragone, I (1950) 1.
"Barock in Uniform," Paragone, I (1950) 3.
"Milleseicentotrenta, ossia il barocco," Paragone, II (1951) 13.
E. Castelli, Retorica e Barocco (Atti del III Congresso Internazionale
E. Battisti,

Studi Umanistici),
L. Grassi,

Rome,

1955.

Barocco o no, Milan, 1953.

di

W.

Vom Genie des Barock, Munich, 1956.

"Meanings of Baroque," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,

Hausenstein,

B. C. Heyl,

XIX

(1961).

Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,

XIV

(1946); XII (1954);

Entirely devoted to Baroque problems with artides

(1955).

by various authors.

A. Riegl, Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom., Vienna, 1908.

Stamm

V. Tapie,

Die Kunstformen des Barockzeitalters, Munich,

The Age of Grandeur, New York, 1960.

G. Weise,

"L'ltalia e

R.

(ed.),

il

problema

delle origini del 'Rococo,'"

1956.

Paragone,

(1954), 49.

H. WolffUn, Renaissance und Barock, Munich,

1888.

GENERAL HISTORIES
M.

S. Briggs,

Barogue Ajchitecture, London,

17. and

A. E. Brinckmann, Die Baukunst des

nischen Landern, Berlin, 1915.

V. Golzio, IlSeicento e

il

1913.
18.

Jahrhunderts in den roma-

Settecento, Turin, 1950.

C. Gurlitt, Geschichte des barockstiles, des rococo

und des

klassicismus in

Belgien, Holland, Frankreich, England, Stuttgart, 1888.

Kimball, The Creation of the Rococo, Philadelphia,

M. Osbom, Die Kunst des Rokoko, Berlin, 1929.
F.

1943.

H. Rose, Spatbarock, Munich, 1922.

und Rokoko, Leipzig, 1897.
A. Schonberger and H. Soehner, The Rococo Age, New York-TorontoLondon, 1960.
O. Siren, China and Gardens of Europe in the 18th Century, Stockholm, 1950.
S. Sitwell, Southern Baroque Art, London, 1924.
W. Weisbach, Die Kunst des Barock, Berlin, 1924.
A. Schmarsow, Barock

ITALY
See primarily :
R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in

Italy,

1600-1750, London,

1958

(Bibliography pp. 389-407).

See also:
G. Argan,

V architettura barocca in Italia,

Milan, 1957.

G. Chierici, llpalazzo italiano dal secolo XVII al XIX, Milan, 1957.

G. Delogu, V architettura italiana del Seicento e del Settecento, Florence,
1935.

D. Frey, Architettura Barocca, Rome-Milan, 1926.

C. Gurlitt, Geschichte des Barockstiles in It alien, Stuttgart, 1887.
Lees-Milne, The Baroque in Italy, London, 1959.
J.
E. Male, L'arr religieux de la n du XVIe siecle, du XVIIe siecle et du XVIIIe
siecle, Paris, 1951.
F. Milizia,

Memorie

degli architetti antichi e moderni, 4th edition, Bassano,

1785.
L.

von

Pastor, History of the Popes, Vols.

C. Ricci, Architettura barocca in

Italia,

XX-XL,

St. Louis, 1950-53.

Bergamo, 1912.

ROME
Roma, 3rd edition, Rome, 1944.
A. Colasanti, Case e Palazzi barocchi di Roma, Milan, 1913.
L. Callari, I Palazzi di

115

De

A.

Roma, dal Seicento

Rinaldis, L'arte in

Roms,

Novecento, Bologna,

al

Leipzig, 1910.

V. Fasolo, "Qassicismo romano nel Settecento," Quaderni (1953), No.

T. H. Fokker, Roman Baroque Art, Oxford, 1938.
C. d'Onofrio, Le fontane di
}.

De

1948.

und Klassizismus. Studien zur Geschichte der Architektur

K. Escher, Barock

Rossi, Insignium

Roma, Rome,

1957.

Roma Templorum, Rome,

G. K. Sutton, "Roman Fagades

3.

in the 18th

1684.

Century," Connoisseur,

CLXI

(1958).
J.

Weingartner, Romische Barockkirchen, Munich, 1931.

PIEDMONT
A. E. Brinckmann, Theatrum

M.

Novum

Pedemontii, Dusseldorf, 1931.

Passanti, Architettura in Piemonte, Turin, 1945.

A. Ressa, "L'architettura Religiosa in Piemonte nei secoli XVII e XVIII,"

Torino, July 1941.

INDIVIDUAL ARTISTS AND BUILDINGS

BERNINI:

"The Relation of Bernini's Architecture to the Architecture of the

High Renaissance and of Michelangelo, " Marsyas, V, 1950, pp. 39-61.
H. Brauer and R. Wittkower, Die ZeicHnungen des Gianlorenzo Bernini,
P. .\skew,

Berlin, 1931.
P. Freart
(ed.

de Chantelou, Journal du Voyage du Cavalier Bernin en France

by Louis Lalaune),

S. Fraschetti, II

Paris, 1885.

Bernini, Milan, 1900.

R. Pane, Bernini architetto, Venice, 1953.

Piazza

S. Pietro:

H. Brauer and R. Wittkower, op.

cit.,

pp. 64-102.

V. Mariani, SigniEcato del portico berniniano di S. Pietro, Rome, 1935.

H. MiUon, "An early 17th centurj' drawing of the Piazza San Pietro," Art

XXIV

Quarterly,

(1961).

R. Wittkower, "U terzo Braccio del Bernini in Piazza

XXXIV

S.

Pietro," Boll. d'Arte,

(1949).

O. Zunica, La piazza San Pietro e

Borghi, Tivoli, 1937.

Palazzo Chigi-Odescalchi:

116

H. Brauer and R. Wittkower, op. cit., p. 127.

A. Schiavo, La Fonrana di Trevi, Rome, 1956.
T. Ashby, "The Palazzo Odescalchi in Rome," Papers of the
at
S.

Rome, VUI

Andrea

al

(1916).

Quirinale:

H. Brauer and R. Wittkower,

op.

cit..

pp. 110

ff.

BORROMINI:
G. C. Argan, Borromini, Verona, 1952.
E. Hempel, Francesco Borromini, Vienna,
P. Portoghesi,

Palladia,

Quaderm
IV

(1954).

(1953, 1954, 1955),

1924.

Nos.

4, 6, 11.

British

School

"Borromini decoratore," Boll. d'Arte, XL (1955).

"Saggi sul Borromini," Quaderni (1958), Nos. 25-29.
H. SedlmajT, Die Architektur Borrominis, 2nd edition, Munich, 1940.
H. Thelen, 70 Disegni di Francesco Borromini, Rome, 1958 (Catalogue of
exhibition at Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe).
Carlo

5.

alle

quattro fontane:

Quaderni

P. Portoghesi,

H. Thelen,
S.

op.

cit., p.

(1954),

11, et

No.

6.

passim.

Ivo:

"U temo geometrico

L. Benevolo,

No.

di S. Ivo della Sapienza, "

Quaderni

(1953)*

3.

Giannini, Opera del Caval. Borromino cavata dai suoi originali, cioe

S.

Chiesa e Fabric a della Sapienza

A. Munoz,

"II

Palazzo e

Tomei, "Gli

P.

.,

Rome,

la chiesa della

la

1720.

Sapienza," L'Urbe,

architetti del Palazzo della Sapienza,"

II,

fasc. 10, 1937.

Palladia

V, 1941,

pp. 270-282.

PIETRO DA CORTONA:

N. Fabbrini, Vita del Cav. Pietro da Cortona, Cortona,

1896.

V. Moschini, "Le architettiire di Pietro da Cortona," L'Arte,

A. Munoz,
SS.

P.

XXIV

(1921).

da Cortona, Rome, 1921.

Martina e Luca:

G. Giovannoni, "La Chiesa di S. Luca e il suo restauro," La Reale Insigne

Accademia di S. Luca (Boll.). Rome, 1934, pp. 19-25.

GUARINO GUARINI:

Von Guarini bis Balthasar Neumann, Berlin, 1932.

D. Coffin, "Padre Guarino Guarini in Paris," journal of the Society of

A. E. Brinckmann,

Architectural Historians,

XV

(1956), pp. 3-11.

G. Guarini, Arciiitettura Civile, Turin, 1737.

P. Portoghesi, Guarino Guarini, Milan, 1956.
T. Sandonini, "II Padre Guarino Guarini modenese, " Atti e memorie della
Reale Deputazione di Storia Patria delle Provincie Modenesi e Parmensi,
Ser. 3,

(1888).

S.

Lorenzo:

L.

Denina and A. Proto, "La Reale Chiesa

tura Italiana,

S.

XV

di

S Lorenzo in Torino," Arciiitet-

(1920).

Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture, Cambridge, Mass., 1954.

117
Palazzo Carignano:
"II Palazzo Carignano a Torino," Boll, della Societa Piemontese
Archeologia e Belle Arti, V (1921), pp. 4-14.

G. Chevalley,
di

Church of the Immaculate Conception:

R. Rigotti, "La chiesa dell'Immacolata Concezione ora capf)ella Ardvescovile
in Torino, " Boll, della Societa

Piemontese di Archeologia e Belle Arti,

XVI

(1932).

JUVarra:

\'iale, A. E. Brinckmann, Filippo Juvara, Turin, 1937.

C. Rovere,
A. Telluccini, L'arte dell' architetto Filippo Juvara in Piemonte, Turin, 1926.

Carmine:
V. Mesturino, "Restauro della Chiesadella Carmine in Torino,"

XXXIV

Boll. d'Arte,

(1949).

Stupinigi:

M. Passanti, "La Palazzina di Caccia a Stupinigi," L'Architettura,

M. Bemardi, La Palazzina di Caccia di Stupinigi, Turin, 1958.

(1957).

III

MADERNO:
N. Caflish, Carlo Maderno, Munich, 1934.
U. Donati, Carlo Maderno, Lugano, 1957.
H. Egger, Carlo Maderno' s Projekt fur den Vorplatz von San Pietro

in

Vaticano, Leipzig, 1928.

passalacqua:

M.

Accascina, "Pietro Passalacqua architetto messinese a

Roma," Archivio

storico messinese, L-LI (1949-50).

RAINALDI:
E.

Hempel, Cario Rainaldi, Munich, 1919.

"Carlo Rainaldi and the Roman Architecture of the
Baroque," Art Bulletin, XIX (1937), pp. 242-313.

R. Wittkower,

Full

SPECCHI:
T.

Ashby and

S.

Welsh, "Alessandro Specchi," The

Town Planning Review,

XII (1927).
C. Bandini, "La scalinata e Piazza di Spagna," Capitolium, VII (1931).
E. Hemp)el,

"Die Spanische Treppe, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Romischen

Stadtbaukunst," Festschrift H. Woelfflin, Munich, 1924.

P. Pecchiai,

La scalinata

di piazza di

Spagna, Rome, 1941.

RAGUZZINI:

M.

Loret, "L' architetto Raguzzini e U rococo in

Roma,"

Boll. d'Arte,

XXVII

(1933-34).

A. Neppi, "Aspetri dell'architettura del Settecento a Roma," Dedalo, XIII

(1933).

M.

Rotili, Filippo

Raguzzini e

il

Rococo Romano, Rome,

c.

1951.

vittone:
C. Baracco, "Bernardo Vittone e I'architettura guariniana,"

Torino, 1938,

pp. 22-27.

118

A. Cavallari-Murat, "L'architettura Sacra del Vittone," Atti e Rassegna

Technica della Societa degli ingegneri e degli architettiin Torino, N.S.

(1956).

H. Millon, " Bernardo Antonio Vittone," Architecturai Review, CXXIX (1961).

E. Olivero, Le opere di Bernardo Antonio Vittone, Turin, 1920.
P. Portoghesi, Bernardo Antonio Vittone, MUan, 1961.
Bra, Santa Chiara:

A. E. Brinckmann, Theatrum

.,

op.

cit.,

pp. 21-22.

E. Olivero, op. cit., pp. 81-82.

R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture

Turin, S.

M.

.,

op.

cit., p.

di Piazza:

A. E. Brinckmann, Theatrum

.,

op

cit.

pp. 72-73.

285.

p. Cottino,

Cennj Storici sulla parrocchia

diS.

Maria di Piazza, Pianezza,

1920.

E. Olivero, op. cit., pp. 86-87.

R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture ...

Rivarolo Canavese,

S.

p. 285-86.

Michele:

A. E. Brinckmann, Theatrum

op.

cit.,

pp. 49-50.

E. Olivero, op. cit. pp. 95-96.

FRANCE
See primarily :

A History of French Architecture, 1494-1661, London,

A History of French Architecture, 1661-1774, London, 1921.

Sir R. Blomfield,

1911.

A. Blunt, Art and Architecture in France, 1500-1700, Harmondsworth, 1953

(Bibliography pp. 291-296).

de 1' Architecture Classique en France,

and 2; III; IV; and V).
Lavedan, French Architecture, Harmondsworth, 1956.

L. Hautecoeur, Histoire

(Vols. 1-2;

P.

See

Paris,

1943-55

II - 1

also:

Le Regne de Louis XIV, Paris, 1943.

Henry IV-Louis XIII, Paris, 1941.
Dacier, L'Art au XVIIIe Siecle en France
., Paris, 1951.
Francastel, "Baroque et Classique: une civilisation," Annales,

B. Champigneulle,
P.
E.

P.

Du

Colombier, Le Style

Louis Hautecoeur,
S. P.

Kimball,

De

1957.

L' Architecture Paris, 1938.

,

The Creation of the

Style Louis

Monuments eriges a la gloire de

Le Style Louis XV, Paris, 1946.

Pierre Patte,
P. Verlet,

XV, New York, 1941.

XV, Paris, 1765.

Louis

R. A. Weigert, Le Style Louis XIV, Paris, 1941.

PARIS
Contet, Les Vieux Hotels de Paris, Paris, 1909-30.
G. Pillement, Les Hotels de Paris, Paris, 1945.

F.

INDIVIDUAL ARCHITECTS AND BUILDINGS

GABRIEL
E. Pels,

Comte

de,

Ange-Jacques Gabriel,

G. Gromort, Jacques-Ange Gabriel,

Le

Paris, 1912.

Paris, 1933.

Petit Trianon :

James Amott and John Wilson, Petit Trianon, New York, 1913.
Bernard Champigneulle, Les Trianons, Paris, 1948.

G. Desjardins, Le

Petit Trianon, Versailles, 1885.

HERE DE CORNY

M.

p.

Morey, Notice sur

la vie et les

oeuvres d'Emmanuel Here de Corny,

Paris, 1863.

Nancy
Andre Hallay, Nancy, 3rd edition, Paris, 1920.
Anon., Compte General de la depense des Edifices

et Batiments que le roy

de Pologne, Due de Lorraine et Barafaitconstruirepourl'embeUissement
de la viUe de Nancy depuis 1751 jusqu'en 1759, Luneville, 1761.

119

LE
J.

n6tRE

Guiffrey,

Andre Le Notre (Grandes

Artistes), Paris, n.d. (c.l911).

Gardens
Lucien Corpechot, Pares et jardins de France,
E.

Ganay, "Fabriques aux

jardins

Paris, 1937.

du XVIIe si^le," Gazette des Beaux Arts,

1955.

George Gromort, L'Art des Jardins, 2nd

edition, Paris, 1953.

Alfred Marie, Jardins frangais classiques des XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles, Paris, 1949.
F.

MANSART

Anthony

Blunt, Francois Mansart,

London,

1941.

Chateau de Maisons
Leon Deshairs, Le Chateau de Maisons, Paris,
Stern, Le Chiteau de Maisons, Paris, 1934.
J.

Chateau de

1907.

Blois

La Saussaye, Histoire du Chateau de

J.
P. Lesueur, Le Chateau de Blois, Paris,

Blois,

2nd

edition, Paris, 1875.

1921.

VERSAILLES
C. Mauricheau-Beaupre, Le Chateau de Versailles et ses Jardins, Paris, 1924.
Versailles, I'Histoire et I'Art, Paris, J949.

Pierre de Nolhac,

La Creation de

Versailles,

2nd

edition, Paris, 1925.

AUSTRIA AND GERMANY

See primarily:
Bourke, Baroque Churches of Central Europe, London, 1958.
J.
C. W. Hegemann, Deutsches Rokoko, Konigstein im Taunus, 1956.
W. Pinder, Deutscher Barock, Konigstein im Taunus, 1953.
N. Powell, From Baroque to Rococo, London, 1959.
M. Wackernagel, Die Baukunst des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts in den germanischen Landern, Berlin, 1919.
5ee also:
R. Benz, Deutscher Barock, Stuttgart, 1949.
A. Brinckmann, Von Guarini bis Balthasar Neumann, Berlin, 1932.
A. Chroust, H. Hantsch, A. Scherj, Quellen zur Geschichte des Barocks in
Franken unterdem EinflussdesHausesSchonborn ..Augsburg, 1931-1955.
G. Dehio, Geschichte der Deutschen Kunst, Vol. 2, 4th edition, Berlin.

120

Leipzig, 1933.
S.

Giedion, Spatbarocker

und Romantischer

Klassizismus, Munich, 1922.

C. Gurlitt, Geschichte des Barockstiles und des Rokoko in Deutschland,

Stuttgart, 1889.

W. Hager, Die Bauten des deutschen Barocks, Jena,

S. Sitwell, German Baroque Art, London, 1927.

1942.

AUSTRIA:
Grimschitz, Wiener Barock Palaste, Vienna, 1947.
G. Jellicoe, Baroque Gardens of Austria, London, 1932.
H. Riehl, Barocke Baukunst in Osterreich, Munich, 1930.
H. Scdlma^T, Osterreichische Barockarchitektur, 1690-1740, Vienna,
B.

1930.

GERMANY:
W.
P.

Boll,

Du

Baukunst des Barock und Rokoko

Deutschland, Munich, 1931.

in

Colombier, L' Architecture fran^aise en

AUemagne au XVIIIe

Steele,

Taris, 1956.

A. Feiilner, Bayerisches Rokoko, Munich, 1923.

H. Franz, Die Deutsche Barockbaukunst Mahrens, Munich, 1943.

H. Granz, Studien zur Barockarchitektur in Bohmen und Mahren, BriinnMunich- Vienna, 1943.
M. Hauttmann, Geschichte der kirchlichen Baukunst in Bayern, Schwahen
und Franken 1550-1780, Munich, 1921.
W. Hege & G. Barthel, Barockkirchen in Altbayern and Schwahen, Munich
and Berlin, 1938.
H. W. Hegemann, Die Deutsche Barockbaukunst Bohmens, Munich, 1943.
N. Lieb, Barockkirchen zwischen Donau und Alpen, Munich, 1953.
H. Popp, Die Architektur der Barock- und Rokokozeit in Deutschland und
der Schweiz, Stuttgart, 1913.
E. Redslob,

Barock und Rokoko

in

den Schlossern von Berlin und Potsdam,

Berlin, 1954.

INDIVIDUAL ARCHITECTS AND BUILDINGS

dientzenhofer:
H. G. Franz, Die Kirchenbauten des Christian Dientzenhofer, BriinnMunich-Vienna, 1942.
H. Schmerber, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Dientzenhofer, Prague, 1900.
Strasbourg, 1901.
O. Weigmann, jne Bamberger Baumeisterfamilie
.

FISCHER

.,

VON ERLACH:

G. Kunoth, Die Historische Architektur Fischers von Erlach,

Diisseldorf,

1956.

H. Sedlmayr, Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, Vienna, 1956

graphy pp. 299-316).

(Biblio-

Vienna, Karlskirche
Greger, Kailskirche, Vienna, 1934.

J.

F.

P.

M. FISCHER:

Hagen-Dempf, Der Zentralbaugedanke bei Johann Michael Fischer,

Munich, 1954 (Bibliography pp. 105-106).
Hcilbronner, Studien iiber Johann Michael Fischer, Munich, 1934.

Ottobeuren:
J.

Beer,

121

Ottobeuren, Konigstein im Taunus,

n.d.

(c.

1957).

hildebrandt:
B. Grimschitz,

Johann Lucas von Hildebrandt, Vienna,

1959.

NEUMANN:

M. H. von

Freeden, Balthasar

Neumann; Leben und Werk, Gedachtnisschau

Museum, Wurzburg.
Knapp, Balthasar Neumann, der grosse Architekt seiner Zeit,
1953, Residenz Wurzburg-Mainfrankisches

F.

Bielefeld-

Leipzig, 1937 (44 pp.).

C. von Lorck, Balthasar

Neumann,

Berlin-Konigsberg-Leipzig, 1940.

H. Reuther, Die Kirchenbauten Balthasar Neumanns,

Berlin, 1960.

I.

Neumann, Raume und Symbole

des Spatbarocks,

Neumann; Sein Werk in Oberfranken,

Lichtenfels, 1953.

T. A. Schmorl, Baltbasar

Hamburg,

1946.

R. Teufel, Baltbasar

Wurzburg:

M. H. von

Freeden,

Wurzburgs Residenz und Furstenbof zur Schonborn-

Wurzburg, 1948.
Quellen zur Geschichte des Bsirocks in Franken unter
Hauses Schonborn, Vol. II, Wurzburg, 1951.
zeit (Mainfrankische Hefte),

dem EinHuss des

R. Sedlmaier and R. Pfeister, Die FUrstbiscboffiche Residenz zu WOrzburg,

Munich,

Neresbeim

1923.

G. Neumann, Neresbeim

(edited

by H.

Jantzen), Munich-Pasing, 1947.

Vierzebnbeiligen :
R. Teufel, Vierzebnbeiligen, Lichtenfels, 1957.

poppelman:
H. Heckmann, M. D. Poppelmann alsZeicbner, Dresden, 1954 (Bibliography,
pp. 119-120).

Zwinger:
H. Hettner, Der Zwinger in Dresden, Leipzig, 1874.

prandtauer:
H. Hantsch, Jakob Prandtauer, der Klosterarchitekt des Osterreicbiscben
Barock (Bibliography pp. 111-125), Vienna, 1926.

Melk:
F.

Klauner, Die Kircbe von Stift Melk, Vienna, 1948.

URBAN DESIGN
A History of Frencb Arcbitecture, 1494-1661, London,
A History of Frencb Arcbitecture, 1661-1774, London, 1921.

R. Blomfield,

1911.

1 7. und 18. Jabrbunderts in den Romanischen

Landern, Potsdam, 1919.
G. Giedion, Space, Time, and Arcbitecture, 3rd edition, Cambridge, Mass.,

A. E. Brinckmann, Baukunst des

1954.

122

P. Francastel, "Versailles et rarchitecture urbaine

au XVIIe

siecle,"

Aimales,

(1955).

F.

Hioms, Town Building

P.

Lavedan, Histoire de I'urbanisme, Vol.

in History,

London, 1956.
2, Paris, 1952.

Mumford, Tbe Culture of Cities, New York, 1938.

C. Tunnard, Tbe City of Man, New York, 1953.
P. Zucker, "Space and Movement in High Baroque City Planning," Journal
L.

of tbe Society of Arcbitectural Historians, XIV (1955).

Town and Square from tbe Agora to tbe Village Green,

New York,

1959.

INDEX

Numbers in regular roman type refer to

Abbey Church, Banz,

Accademia

di

46, 92,

text pages italic figures refer to the plates.

;

93

San Luca, Rome, 25

Architettura Civile, 25

Augustinian Abbey Church, Neresheim, 46

Baroque compared to Renaissance,

9-10, 15,

1,

Belvedere palace, Vienna, 44, 86, 87, 88

Benedictine Abbey, Melk, 44-45, 89
Benedictine Abbey, Ottobeuren, 40-41, 42, 73, 74, 75, 78
Bernini,

Gian Lorenzo,

16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21

BofFrand, Gabriel-Germain, 35, 67

Borromini, Francesco, 18-19, 20, 33, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Bramante,

18, 21

Brunelleschi, 21, 46

Chapel of the Sudario, Turin, 21

Champs

Elysees, Paris, 37

Chateau of Blois,

31, 32, 54,

Chateau of Maisons,

55

31-32, 56

Chateau of Vaux-le-Vicomte, Melun,

Chateau of

32, 33, 58,

Versailles, 32, 33-34, 62, 63, 64, 65,

Church of Les

59

66

Invalides, Paris, 28, 48,49

Chiarch of the Carmine, Turin, 24, 43

Church of the Immaculate Conception, Turin,

Church of the Sorbonne,

21, 22, 35,

College des Quatre Nations, Paris, 33, 57

Cortona, Pietro da,

De

10, 11, 17, 18, 28, 33, 2, 4, 6, 17,

Sanctis, Francesco, 23,

38

Dientzenhofer, Christoph, 46

Dientzenhofer, Johann, 45, 46, 92, 93

Entwurf einer Historischen Architektur, 43

36

123

Paris, 29, 50, 51

18

Feichtmayr, Johann Michael, 40

Fischer,

Fischer

Johann Michael,

von

Fontana, Carlo,

40, 48, 73, 74, 75, 78, 100

Johann Bernhard,

Erlach,
24,

42, 43, 44, 82, 83

42

Gabriel, Jacques Ange, 35, 36, 37, 68, 69, 10

Gregorini, Domenico, 24, 42

Guarini, Guarino, 18-19, 20-21, 22, 23, 25, 44, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Guerin, Gilles, 32

Here de Corny, Emmanuel,

25, 37-38, 71, 72

Hildebrandt von, Johann Lucas, 42, 43-44, 46, 84, 85,

Hotel de Soubise,
Hotel Lambert,

Paris, 35,

67

Paris, 32-33

Juvarra, Filippo, 24, 25, 43, 44, 45

Karlskirche, Vienna, 43-44, 82, 83

Rene

Langeuil,

de, 31

Le Brun, Charles, 32
Lemercier, Jacques, 29, 30, 33, 50, 51

Le Notre, Andre,
Le Pautre,

32, 33, 60, 62, 63

Pierre, 13

Levau, Louis, 29, 32, 33, 34, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65
Louvre, Paris, 17

Maderno, Carlo,

15, 16, 17, 19, 10, 11, 12, 13

Mansart, Francois,

124

Mansart,

Jules

Michelangelo,

Neumann,

29, 30-31, 32, 52, 53, 54, 55,

Hardouin,

28, 34, 48, 49, 65,

56

66

15, 16, 18, 21

Balthasar, 46-47, 48, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99

Palazzo Carignano, Turin, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34

Palazzo Chigi-Odescalchi, Rome,

17,

Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, Florence, 22

Parish Church, Diessen, 48, 100

19

86, 87,

88

Passalacqua, Pietro, 24, 42

Petit Trianon, Versailles, 35-36, 68, 69

Piaristen Church, Vienna, 44, S4, 85

Piazza design,
Piazza

17

15, 16,

Ignazio,

S.

Rome,

23-24, 39, 40

PUgrimage Church, Vierzehnheiligen,

46, 47, 96, 97, 98,

99

Place Carriere, Nancy, 38

Place de

Concorde,

la

Paris,

37

XV, Nancy, 37-38,

XV, Paris, 37, 10

Place Louis
Place Louis

71, 12

Place Stanislaus, Nancy, 38

P6pf>elman, Matthaeus Daniel, 45-46, 90, 91

Porta di Ripetta, Rome, 23, 31

Powell, Caryll Nicolas, 40

Prandtauer, Jakob, 42, 43, 44-45, 89

Raguzzini, Filippo, 23, 24, 39, 40, 41

Rainaldi, Carlo, 33, 41, 76, 11

Renaissance Baroque, 12
Residenz, Wurzburg, 46-47, 94, 95

S.

Agnese

in Piazza

S.

Andrea

al

S.

Carlo

ai

S.

Carlo

alle

S.

Chiara, Bra, 11-12, 26,

S.

Croce

S.

Ignazio,

S. Ivo,

in

Navona, Rome,

Quirinale,

Rome,

Rome,

Catinari,

33,

44

29,

Quattro Fontane, Rome,

7, 8,

44

18, 20, 20, 21

19, 20, 22, 23,

Gerusalemme, Rome,

24,

42

Rome, 37

Rome,

19-20, 25, 26, 21

S.

Lorenzo, Turin, 21, 44, 28, 29, 30

S.

Maria

della Consolazione, Todi, 10, 12,

S.

Maria

della Pace,

S.

Maria

della Quercia,

S.

Maria

di Piazza, Turin, 42, 79, 80, 81

S.

Maria

in CampiteUi,

S.

Michele, Rivarolo Canavese, 26, 46, 47, 47a.

S.

Susanna, Rome,

Stairs,

Rome,

16,

SS. Martina e Luca,

Spanish

Rome,

Rome,

24, 41

125

41, 42, 16, 11

23,

10, 11, 12, 28, 2, 4,

38

Margaret's Church, Breznov, 46

St. Peter's,

Rome,

St. Peter's

Square,

Ste.

Marie de

13

Rome,

Rome,

1, 3,

17, 18, 33, 37, 17, IS

Specchi, Alessandro, 23, 37, 38

St.

24

15-16, 19, 21, 10, 11, 12

Rome,

16, 17, 37, 14, 15,

la Visitation, Paris, 30, 52,

53

16

Stupinigi palace, 25, 44, 45

Tuileries gardens, Paris, 33, 37, 60, 61

Vierzehnheiligen Church, 46, 47, 96, 91, 98, 99

Vittone, Bernardo,

11, 25-26, 42, 7, 8, 9, 46, 47, 47a, 19, 80, 81

Wiirzburg Hofkirche, 46

Zeiller,

Johann Jakob, 40

Zwinger, Dresden,

126

45, 90, 91

SOURCES OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Rome:

Alinari,

45

12, 18, 19, 23, 24, 40, 42,

1, 5, 11,

Alinari- Anderson,

Rome:

2, 13, 20, 25,

38

Wayne Andrews, New York: 56

Archives Photographiques, Paris: 50, 51, 53, 55, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71

James .Arnott and John Wilson, Petit Triajion (New York, 1913): 68
T. Ashby and S. Welsh, ".\Jessandro Specchi," Town Planning Review, XII (1927): 37
J.

F.

Blondel, Architecture Francaise (Paris, 1752-56): 60, 62

A. Blunt, Art and Architecture in France, 1500-1700 (Harmondsworth, 1953): 49, 52, 58

Lorenzo

Bricarelli,

Turin: 47

Burckhardt, Gesammelte Werke,

J.

11,

Die Baukunst der Renaissance in

Italien (Basel,

1955): 3

Deutsche Fotothek, Dresden 90

:

}.

A. Ducerceau, Livre d'Architecture

(Paris, 1559): 61

Courtesy of the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (Gift of Mr.

and Mrs. Philip Hofer): 14

T. H. Fokker,

Compagnia

Roman Baroque Art

(Oxford, 1938): 22, 39

fotocelere, Turin: 31

Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome:

6,

41

Giajetto, Turin: 36

Wiener Barock Paliste (Vienna,

B. Grimschitz,

1947): 85

Leo Gundermann, Wiirzburg: 94

Walter Hege, Munich: 100

Photo Henrot,

Paris: 66

O. Hoever, Vergleichende Architekturgeschichte (Munich, 1923):

A.

P. Letarouilly,

92

83,

London: 16

F. Kersting,

Le Vatican

et la Basilique

N. Lieb, Barock Kirchen zwischen

de Saint-Pierre de

Rome

Donau und Alpen (Munich,

(Paris, 1882): 10, 15

1953): 73

Mainfrankisches Museum, Wiirzburg 97

:

Foto Marburg, Marburg-Lahn

MetropoHtan Museum of Art,

Henry A.

21, 48, 77,

New York:

Millon, Cambridge, Mass.

Piemontese

di

Moncalvo, Turin:

93
57, 64,

23, 34;

Archeologia e Belle Arti.

7, 9,

70

redrawn from G. Rigotti,

XVI

Boll. dellaSocieta

(1932): 35

44

Erich Muller, Kassel: 95, 96

Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna: 88
P. Patte,

Monuments

Augusto

Pedrini, Turin: 43

P. Portoghesi,

iriges a la gloire de Louis

Quaderni

XV (Paris,

1765): 72

(1958): 26

A. Renger-Patzsch, Wamel-Dorf uber Soest-Westfalen 91

:

Helga Schmidt-Glassner, Stuttgart:

Soprintendenza

John

B.

Roger
B.

ai

54, 74, 75, 78, 82, 86, 87, 89, 98,

Monumenti, Turin:

99

127

29, 30, 33, 46, 80, 81

Vincent, Berkeley, California: 27

Viollet, Paris

59

A. Vittone, Istruzioni diverse (Lugano, 1766):

8,

47a, 79

Dr. Otto Winkler, Vienna: 84

R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy, 1600-1750 (London, 1958):

4,

17, 28,

76

Printed in photogravure and letterpress by fob. Enschede en Zonen,

Haarlem, The Netherlands. Set

Romulus with Spectrum display, both

faces designed by Jan van Krimpen. Format by WilUam and Caroline Harris.
in

^
,