building, erected in 1730 by the Cavaliere Fuga, but really a very
handsome and well proportioned edifice. It consists of a cellar story;
not a basement, because a basement story is one, which seeming to be
intended for the support of another, yet is that by which we enter; a
ground-floor, and a mezzanine, all very plain; above these is the
principal floor, with a moderate portion of ornament, and there are
windows in the frieze, indicating another story. The windows of the
ground-floor have a pretty broad dressing, and a pediment over them; and
the whole of these dressings has the appearance of resting on a
pedestal, which again is supported on a plinth, perforated by the square
opening of the lower windows. This arrangement is excellent. The
mezzanine windows are perfectly plain. I do not dislike this, but it
would be better if there were no mezzanine. Where the whole height
exhibits but five ranges of windows, we put the principal range too high
when we make it fourth from the bottom.
I have already mentioned to you the eastern portico of St. John Lateran,
built by Domenico Fontana, with two ranges of arches, and of rather a
licentious architecture. Indeed, Fontana paid but little attention to
preserve the characteristic proportions and ornaments of the different
orders. This second school of architecture is much less exact than the
first; and very much inferior both in the design and execution of the
details. Adjoining to the church, Fontana was employed to build the
great square palace of the Lateran, but the parts are crowded, and it
has not an effect by any means proportioned to its size. This artist
also erected for the Cardinal Montalto, the chapel of the Presepio, in
Santa Maria Maggiore; the work was stopt for want of money, and Fontana
completed it at his own expense. This generosity made the fortune of
Fontana, when afterwards his patron became pope, under the name of
Sixtus V.
There were two other Fontanas. John, the elder brother of Domenico, was
more engaged in hydraulics than in architecture. He was employed in
settling the dispute between the inhabitants of Terni and those of
Reati, about the disposal of the waters of the Velino, and in forming a
head of water in the Aniene at Tivoli, for the supply of the town and of
the mills, to which we owe the present form of the great cascade. Carlo
came from the same neighbourhood, and was probably therefore of the same
family, but he was not much employed as an architect. He is more known
as the author of an elaborate account of St. Peter’s, than by any
edifice of his own.
But what I have undertaken to give you an account of, is the principal
palaces of Rome, and not the lives of their architects, and I believe I
have now almost come to the end of my task. The Sapienza, at least as
far as regards the front, was built by Giacomo della Porta; it purposes
to be a simple range of building, between two towers, but the towers are
too small, and not sufficiently marked, being in fact only distinguished
by little strips of rustic, intended to have the appearance of quoins:
the ground-floor of the middle part is without windows. The disposition
would be picturesque, if it were well managed. The court is said to have
been begun at least by M. Angelo, but it is doubtful if we see any thing
of his; it is nevertheless very handsome, forming an oblong square,
surrounded by two stories of arches, not very long, with the church at
one end; but unfortunately that church is one of the ravings of
Borromini.
There are two architects whose names are so familiar, that you will
perhaps expect to hear something of their works. I mean Bernini and
Borromini. Both have been mentioned in the account of churches, but in
the way of palaces, I think I should hardly notice any of their
productions, if it were not for the reputation of the artists. The
Propaganda is by the former, but I am at a loss what to say in its
praise. The front of the Palazzo Ghigi, afterwards Odescalchi, in the
Piazza de’ Santi Apostoli, is also ascribed to him; it is more rich,
than magnificent, more adorned, than beautiful. The proportions are
however, pretty good, and the effect may be admired, though the details
are very bad. The most objectionable particulars are some consoles
placed in the frieze, and some wild undescribable crinkums in the
ornament of the upper windows. The pilastered front is considerably
extended beyond Bernini’s design, and I believe the addition injures the
architecture.
Bernini’s whims are principally in the details; the general disposition
is often simple and good. His capitals, entablatures, and ornaments to
the doors and windows, are capricious, and in general very ugly, merely
that they may not be like what had been done before. The childish and
licentious love of novelty which this artist exhibited in the ornaments,
pervades every part of the designs of Borromini.
The immense Palazzo Barberini was begun by Carlo Maderno, continued by
Bernini, and finished by Borromini. The wings are beneath criticism, and
have no sort of correspondence in character with the centre. This centre
is composed of three ranges of arcades, nearly equal; the first adorned
with Doric half-columns, the second with Ionic half-columns, and the
third with Corinthian pilasters. This equality of parts, which ought to
be distinguished, renders the design confused and displeasing. The
principal story in a house, and probably in every building, should be
distinctly marked, and separated from the basement below, and from the
subordinate parts above it, otherwise neither the eye, nor the
understanding, can approve of the design. Considered of themselves, the
two lower ranges of arches are good, the upper is very bad.
Borromini has left sufficient marks of his interference in the Palazzo
Falconieri, where he has made two equal doorways, and put the staircase
as much out of the way as possible. His elevations, with all their
faults, are better than his plans, for notwithstanding his extravagance,
which at last amounted to absolute madness, he had some feeling of
beauty; though I would not be understood to praise wholly, any one of
his productions. He is said to have been concerned in the Doria Pamfili,
in the Corso, a building monstrous in every sense, and yet, in spite of
its absurdity, the long range of similar windows loaded with enormous
mouldings, and overcharged in all parts, produces an effect of great
grandeur, as seen obliquely in the narrow Corso. This palace, extensive
as it appears in its present state, has never been completed, and is a
mere fragment of the entire design. It is now perhaps, hardly equal in
extent to the Altieri, which is of better architecture, without being
good.
LETTER XXX.
ROME.
_Rome, April, 1817._
Having conducted you through the principal buildings of Rome, both
ancient and modern, I shall now endeavour to lead you to those of less
interest, but which nevertheless deserve some sort of notice; and whose
number and extent contribute much to swell the general notion of Roman
magnificence. We will begin these walks from the Piazza di Spagna, the
neighbourhood of which is the usual residence of foreigners, and
especially of the English, and from which I am only separated by the
magnificent flight of steps of the Trinità de’ Monti, which I have
already described to you. This piazza is adorned with a fountain in the
whimsical shape of a boat receiving the water, instead of floating in
it. This water is the Acqua Vergine, the channel of which is not
sufficiently elevated to make here any considerable display, but this is
no sufficient reason for such an absurdity. We will then walk if you
please, along the Via Babuina, which the Romans say is now subject to
the mal aria, because the French made a garden on the hill above it, to
the Piazza del Popolo. I have already said a little about this square,
if it may be so called, but I think I may add something more; on one
side is the city gate called the Porta del Popolo, and the church of
Santa Maria del Popolo, which if not very beautiful in itself, yet will
attract strangers by some good paintings, and by its ornaments of the
_cinque cento_, some of which are exquisitely beautiful. It is, I
believe, the richest church in the world in specimens of this style,
which was evidently taken from that of the ancient sculptured vases; we
also see here the chapel of Cardinal Cibo, rich in marbles, but where
the combination of black and verd antique produces a gloomy effect; and
the little chapel of the Ghigi family, designed by Raphael, and adorned
with sculpture by his hand; but I have already given you an account of
this little jewel.
The opposite side of the square, presents the opening of three long
straight streets, which I long to widen, and to conduct to a suitable
termination. The middle one is the Corso, the ancient Via Lata, to which
my desire of improving is particularly directed, as it would be very
possible to introduce the Capitoline hill into the view along it. This
might be crowned with something better than the church of Ara Cœli, and
the shabby buildings which now encumber its slopes might easily be
removed. At the angles between these three streets, are the two
corresponding churches of Santa Maria de’ Miracoli, and Santa Maria di
Monte Santo. Now if you ask me whether these are two St. Maries, or only
one, really I cannot tell you. The churches are pretty well, but rather
commonplace.
On the right hand of this Place, as you enter Rome, are some low
buildings, forming, I believe, a corpo di guardia, and perhaps something
beside, not at all magnificent. I have seen some designs for completing
this part in a manner more worthy of the principal entrance to Rome; but
none that I much approve.[50] On the opposite side is a zig-zag road,
leading up the hill to the public gardens; the first part appears to be
semicircular, and I think will be handsome, but it is not yet finished.
In the middle is a fine obelisk, transported hither from the Circus
maximus, which it was brought by Augustus from Egypt to adorn; and a
fountain. Here then is a fine collection of objects. It wants but little
of including several more, and of becoming such an entrance as the
enthusiasm of some of our travellers seems to have imagined it.
From the Piazza (for I leave the walls and gates to a future
opportunity) we ascend the Mons Pincius to what are now the public
gardens; an improvement for which Rome is indebted to the French. Hence
we have a noble view over the modern city, with its domes and palaces,
of the Janicular and Vatican hills, of St. Peter’s, which here alone
perhaps, shews its whole height, and of the overgrown palace which
shoulders it. Thence we follow the line of hills to Monte Mario, rising
nearly as high as the summit of the dome of St. Peter’s, and the eye
traces the valley of the Tiber to Soracte and the Apennines. Nearer are
the woods and buildings of the Villa Borghese, and the house of Raphael,
a picturesque object, which however externally, owes its greatest
interest to a name; and a bend in the outline of the city exposes to us
a portion of the external wall, with a deep road at its foot, crowned by
the pine groves of the Villa Ludovisi.
From the public gardens we pass to what was the Villa Medici, but is now
the residence of the French academy: here are apartments and working
rooms provided for the students, and a noble gallery of casts in
sculpture and architecture, for their use; here also the annual
performances are exhibited, previously to their being sent to Paris. The
back-front of the building has been much admired. It attracts however
more praise for the ancient bas-reliefs with which it is adorned, some
of which are very beautiful, than for its architecture. That
architecture is well suited to receive such pieces of sculpture; but
perhaps it is not very good taste, or very good judgment, to decorate a
building in this way, as the sculptures suffer from the constant
exposure. A little summer-house in the gardens contains a pair of the
most beautiful pilaster ornaments in existence. I prefer them to those
at the entrance of the gallery at Florence; but these also have
suffered, and are suffering.
The next object is the Church of the Trinità de’ Monti, standing at the
head of the magnificent staircase I have so often mentioned, and with a
fine obelisk in front, taken from the circus of Sallust. The church is
not very beautiful, but the adjoining convent contains the celebrated
Taking down from the Cross, by Daniel di Volterra. Thence, passing close
under my lodging, which I believe is in the house inhabited by Niccolò
Poussin, and close by the residence of Claude Lorraine, and by a house
which the latter has introduced several times in his paintings, we keep
the Via Sistina, which would lead us in a straight line by a small
descent, to the Piazza Barberini, in the upper part of the hollow which
separates the Pincian hill from the Quirinal; but turning to the left,
we may visit by the way the Capuchin church and convent, famous for the
St. Michael of Guido, an excellent figure, but as is the case in many of
Guido’s paintings, the bright blue of the cuirass is rather out of
harmony; this is probably owing to the use of a colour which has not
deepened with the rest. There are likewise some other good paintings,
and amongst them one which is said to be the masterpiece of Pietro da
Cortona, but his frigid productions will not please, after the glow and
animation of Guido and Domenichino. The cemetery of the convent contains
mummies and skeletons, dressed, and sitting in niches. Skulls, lamps,
roses, and arabesques; all of which are formed entirely by the
disposition of human bones, constitute the ornaments of a suite of small
rooms. Our conductor, a Capuchin, seemed to find the exhibition very
diverting.
From this church we descend into the Piazza Barberini, in the lower part
of which is a fountain, composed of a triton, supported on four
dolphins, and blowing up the water, “invenzione,” says the Guide-book,
“assai stimata di Bernini.” For my part, I have no taste for monsters.
The water rises with considerable force, and in windy weather often
exhibits the prismatic colours. We ascend the Quirinal hill along a
continuation of the Via Sistina, to the Quattro Fontane; where we cross
the long straight street leading to the Porta Pia, and marked at the
other end by the obelisk and figures of Monte Cavallo. We descend from
the Quattro Fontane, and after a slight depression pass by a still more
trifling rise on to the Viminal, of whose existence you are hardly
sensible, unless you are looking out for it, since the depression is
almost equally trifling towards the Esquiline. If however, instead of
going up the Viminal, you descend to the most depressed part of the Via
delle Quattro Fontane, by the Via di San Vitale, you will be more
sensible of the descent; and if you get into the gardens and vineyards
on the left, some substructions marking the brow of a hill, exhibit the
Viminal, not indeed as a large or high hill, but as one which might even
still be counted among the seven little eminences of Rome. On the other
side also, the Via Santa Pudenziana leads into an evident hollow. The
succession of these hills is perhaps more evident, if instead of passing
by the Quattro Fontane, we go from the Piazza Trajana, along the Via
Magnanapoli, and passing by the Villa Aldobrandini, continue along the
Vie di San Lorenzo and Santa Maria Maggiore.
The Esquiline is more conspicuous, and its ascent towards the church of
Santa Maria Maggiore is marked by rows of trees, and crowned with an
obelisk, standing at the back of the church. It is a very extensive
hill, now almost entirely occupied by gardens and vineyards. Passing in
front of the church just mentioned, we arrive at that of St. Antony,
where once a year, the ceremony of blessing the horses is performed; and
afterwards at a fragment of brick and rubble, called the trophies of
Marius, because here were found the marble trophies known by that name,
now standing on the balustrades of the square of the Capitol; but it is
in fact, as antiquaries are tolerably well agreed, the Castello, or as
we should say, not very correctly, the _head_ of the Marcian aqueduct.
In returning we may pass by the Arch of Gallienus, a plain building,
with no other ornament than what arises from the employment of two
Corinthian pilasters; and visit the churches of St. Praxedes, (without
obtaining any portion of the indulgences promised to those who frequent
it) of San Martino de’ Monti, and San Pietro in Vinculis, which I have
already described. They are all seated near the brow of the Esquiline.
I must take you a little way back, in order to see what is vulgarly
styled the Temple of Pallas, which some antiquaries suppose to be the
Forum of Nerva, and Palladio considers as a fragment of a court
surrounding the temple of Nerva. So lately as 1614 Inigo Jones saw some
of the temple itself remaining, but it was pulled down shortly
afterwards by Paul V. to make use of the marble. In the present day, two
marble columns are seen in front of a wall of large blocks of peperino,
and above them an entablature and a continued pedestal, which break
round the columns. This pedestal, as well as the frieze, is enriched
with sculpture, and on its face, in the space between the two columns,
is a figure of Pallas, and the other reliefs are supposed to represent
the arts of which she was patroness; an arch is seen in the back wall,
but filled up with similar masonry, and not corresponding to the
situation of the columns. The mouldings are over-ornamented; the dentils
and corona are too small, and the sima is too large. These particulars,
and the disposition of the columns, announce the decline of art, but in
its earliest stage, for the sculpture, and the mouldings and ornaments
are in general very good, and the whole has been well executed. Inigo
Jones, on the authority of Xiphilin, says that it was built by
Apollodorus, before Trajan was emperor.
Our next object is the Arco de’ Pantani, and the massive wall at the
back of the temple of Mars Ultor, supposed to have inclosed the forum of
Hadrian; and we will pass through the arch, and see the remains of the
temple itself, consisting of part of the wall of the cell, and three
columns and a pilaster of white marble. The entablature of this piece
also remains, and the soffite of the peristyle; and above it, and
resting in great measure on two of the columns, is the tower of a
convent, the work of the middle ages. Within the convent are said to be
some remains of the internal peristyle, but as it is inhabited by nuns,
they cannot be seen. These outside parts are valuable, not only for the
excellence of their design and workmanship, which are among the best in
Rome, but also as exhibiting some particulars not elsewhere to be seen.
The separate portions of the leaves of these Corinthian capitals are
divided into four points, instead of as usual into five, and the points
of the lower division in some instances pass under those of the upper,
instead of lying upon them, as is the case in all other examples. A bead
and fillet along the wall mark the height of the capital; the marble
rafters of the soffite rest on the architrave, there being one to each
column. This I take to be the regular Roman practice, while the Greeks
made them smaller and more numerous, and placed them over the frieze.
They are ornamented with a fret on their under surface, and one large
panel, with a fine rose in the centre, occupies the space between them.
From this we may proceed to the Baths of Paulus Æmylius; a well-known
fragment, which every body agrees was no bath, and had nothing to do
with Paulus Æmylius. Desdogetz has given it a place in his work, but it
certainly does not deserve to be introduced among the principal
antiquities of Rome. Little remains but a semicircle of brick walls,
with pilasters also of brick. It has been supposed to have formed part
of the forum of Trajan, with which it does not correspond by its
situation; and in character it differs still more from that noble work.
It may have been the _porticus absidata_, which is found in the
Regionaries near the forum of Nerva, or it may have been twenty other
things. Hence we pass to the Forum of Trajan, where recent excavations
have occasioned great discoveries. Marble pavement in its original
situation, steps, foundations of walls, numerous fragments of granite
columns, and four of the Corinthian bases belonging to them, remain in
their places, and these, with the help of several pieces of travertine,
also unmoved, and evidently intended to receive similar bases, have
enabled the directors to put the fragments in proper situations. What is
principally laid open is the Basilica, and for this it was necessary to
destroy several houses and two convents. The width of the part now
exposed is believed to be about half the length of the basilica. Of the
libraries, antiquaries have thought that they distinguished some
vestiges near the column, but very little of the situation has been
examined, and nothing of that of the temple of Trajan, erected
afterwards by Hadrian. The remains of some piers were found on the north
side of the column, and indications of their having been altered, and
partly removed, in order, as is imagined, to make room for the access to
this temple. Two churches and a palace are in the way of any further
researches in the part where if anywhere, the remains of such a temple
would probably be found; and independently of this, the great extent of
the ground required to be excavated, in order to display the whole
design, and the difficulty and expense of preserving it after it is
exposed, deprives one of all hope of seeing it executed. The column
still remains erect; a noble monument of the taste and skill of the
architect Apollodorus. It may seem that one column of this sort is very
much like another, and that there is little room for the merit of the
architect, but if you were to go two or three times from this to the
column of Antoninus, and return to that of Trajan, you would feel the
great superiority of the latter, though it might puzzle you not a
little, to find out in what that superiority consisted. This magnificent
column must always have been conspicuous as it is now, rising above the
basilica, and all the buildings of the forum; but the pedestal could
hardly be seen, except from the confined little court in which it stood.
This apparent _disproportion_ is one of the secrets of effect in
architecture. You shew large and lofty buildings, from large spaces it
is true, but you should also endeavour sometimes to bring great things
into contrast with little spaces. Nothing impresses the idea of size
more strongly, and when again you see an edifice from a larger space,
and perhaps over the tops of smaller buildings, the imagination carries
on the idea of size to all its accompaniments. The fragments of granite
columns which I have mentioned are most of them broken parts of shafts,
each of which has consisted of a single stone, but some of them are a
complete stone, which has formed only part of a shaft; and in this case
it appears that the Romans, instead of making a flat and horizontal
joint, formed a variously, and irregularly undulating surface on the one
piece, and cut the other to correspond with it; a laborious and
difficult process, of which the object seems to be merely to hide the
joint, for the strength of the column would not be increased by it. The
fragments of ornament dug up here, are inserted in the wall which
surrounds the excavation; many of them are of the highest beauty. Every
morsel we see of the works of Apollodorus makes us regret that we do not
see more of them. Yet in the plan there are evidences of _risalti_, and
of arrangements in some parts like that of a triumphal arch. This
nicknackery seems hardly consistent with the Greek style of the artist,
or with the exquisite taste exhibited in the mouldings and ornaments.
The disposition of the basilica is supposed to have been the same as
that of the church of St. Paul, and the dimensions not very different.
The different modes of pavement indicate what parts have been covered,
and what exposed.