Drawings of the Pantheon in the Metropolitan Museum’s Goldschmidt Scrapbook
2013; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 48; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/675316
ISSN2169-3072
Autores Tópico(s)Historical Art and Architecture Studies
ResumoPrevious articleNext article FreeDrawings of the Pantheon in the Metropolitan Museum’s Goldschmidt ScrapbookCarolyn Y. YerkesCarolyn Y. YerkesCurator of Avery Classics, Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University, New York Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIn the group of sixteenth-century drawings of ancient architecture known as the Goldschmidt Scrapbook at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the ten sheets devoted to the Pantheon (catalogued in the Appendix) constitute one of the most thorough records of the building that were created during the Renaissance. Emilie d’Orgeix described the drawings as “the most accurate and complete study of the Pantheon to survive from the sixteenth century,” and because of the drawings’ comprehensiveness, scholars have used them to identify features of the ancient building that no longer exist today.1 Yet the drawings in the Goldschmidt Pantheon series are significant not only for what they show but also for how they show it. A mix of sketched details and carefully constructed perspective views, the group resulted from a survey conducted by several draftsmen working in collaboration. As such, it offers an unparalleled body of evidence for considering how architects used drawings to study buildings in the sixteenth century. Furthermore, the Goldschmidt Pantheon series can be linked to earlier and later drawings in a chain of representations stretching from Raphael (1483–1520) to seventeenth-century France.The Goldschmidt Pantheon Series: An OverviewThe Pantheon series is a distinct group of drawings within a much larger set of heterogeneous material. The Goldschmidt Scrapbook, to which it belongs, once formed a single collection together with the Scholz Scrapbook, another group of sixteenth-century architectural drawings also at the Metropolitan Museum. As established by Howard Burns and discussed by d’Orgeix, the original collection was probably assembled soon after the drawings were made, in either the late sixteenth or the early seventeenth century.2 Subsequently, probably about a century later, the collection was divided and bound into two volumes, now known as the Goldschmidt Scrapbook, made up of drawings of ancient architecture, and the Scholz Scrapbook, with the drawings of modern architecture.3 At some point the volumes were separated from each other and then passed through a succession of different owners before being reunited at the Metropolitan in the twentieth century.4Within the Goldschmidt Scrapbook are several groups of drawings that focus on particular buildings—the studies of the Forum of Nerva are especially detailed—but none is as exhaustive as those in the Pantheon series. This group is relatively uniform. All the drawings are on half or whole sheets of the same laid paper, and although at least thirteen hands can be identified in the two scrapbooks, nine of the ten Pantheon sheets were drawn by just one of them, named Hand F by Burns.5 The following analysis focuses primarily on the nine sheets attributed to this draftsman; the tenth sheet (Figure 17) will be discussed later.Made with black chalk and overlaid with brown ink, the Pantheon drawings vary in scale from a detail of a floral ornament measuring a few millimeters wide to a full-page perspective view of an interior alcove, complete with key marks, inscriptions, and dimensions. Within this range, the drawings can be divided into three categories: plans, details of elements such as cornices and moldings, and views. Although a rule was used on occasion, most of the drawings were made entirely freehand, a fact that heightens the sense that the draftsman spent time at the building studying and sketching. The views, in particular, have a personal quality: all are constructed from the perspective of someone standing on the floor, and the draftsman’s position within the building can be determined for each one.The drawings are arranged in groupings that chart a path through the Pantheon: a view up into the portico roof appears on the reverse of a portico plan, a plan of the cella is on the reverse of a view into one of the cella niches, and elevations of the attic story share a sheet with studies of the dome. The dimensions inscribed on the plans also help to determine the draftsman’s route. On the plan of the portico, for example, are detailed measurements of nearly every element except the easternmost bay (Figure 1r). In the sixteenth century this area was blocked off by a masonry wall, constructed after a fire damaged the three columns of the last row. This wall can be seen in several drawings, including a view under the portico by Maarten van Heemskerck (1498–1574) now in Berlin (Figure 2).6 Because the measurements on the portico plan stop at this point, one can see how the draftsman proceeded with his survey until the wall blocked his path.1. (cat. 1). Anonymous French draftsman, mid-16th century. Recto (left): plan of the Pantheon portico and intermediate block. Verso (right): elevations of the Pantheon portico roof structure and bronze truss; details of the portico column base and the portico architrave soffit. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, and Mark J. Millard Gift, 1968 (68.769.1). On the recto, the east side of the Pantheon portico is at the top of the sheet, and the row of columns at the front of the portico, the north side of the Pantheon, is at the left. Photographs of 1, 3–8, 16, 17: Mark Morosse, The Photograph Studio, MMA2. Maarten van Heemskerck (Netherlandish, 1498–1574). View of the Pantheon portico showing walls to the north (the row of columns at the left) and the east (the row of columns in the background), ca. 1532–36. Pen and brown ink, 5 x 7 in. (13.2 x 19.5 cm). Roman sketchbooks, vol. 2, fol. 2r. Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin. Photograph: Volker–H. SchneiderThe portico plan exemplifies how details in the Goldschmidt drawings help locate the draftsman not only in space but in time. As d’Orgeix pointed out, these details often focus on the building’s structure, in contrast to the focus on ornament that predominates in other sixteenth-century representations of the building.7 As a result, there are elements that appear in the Goldschmidt series that can be found in few, if any, other representations of the Pantheon. Many of these elements are depicted in studies of how water drains and light moves through the building. The drawings of the roof (Figure 3r), for example, include details of the drainage system, such as the depressions that function as gutters to the pipes funneling water from the dome. On the verso of this sheet, the drawings of the intermediate block show the vaulting that spans the interior chambers and the openings in the ceiling of these rooms. Another drawing (Figure 4r) shows the rarely observed detail of the curvature of the floor near the partial plan of the cella.83. (cat. 8). Anonymous French draftsman, mid-16th century. Recto (left): detail views of the Pantheon dome, oculus, niches, door, and interior of the intermediate block. Verso (right): elevations of the Pantheon rotunda interior attic with partial section of the alcove ceiling and details. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, and Mark J. Millard Gift, 1968 (68.769.7)4. (cat. 7). Anonymous French draftsman, mid-16th century. Recto (left): partial plan of the Pantheon with diagram of the floor curvature and detail of the alcove corner. Verso (right): view, partial section, and detail of the Pantheon interior rectangular alcove. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, and Mark J. Millard Gift, 1968 (68.769.5). The drawings on the verso are upside down relative to the drawings on the recto.The Goldschmidt series also includes studies of circulation. The same sheet of roof studies (Figure 3r) shows not only the stairs that lead over the dome to the oculus but also the three sets of stairs at the dome’s base. The plan of the portico and intermediate block (Figure 1r) includes the two staircases on opposite sides of the main entrance (see Figure 1r). Renaissance architects rarely drew these staircases—the main routes of vertical access for the building—perhaps because they could not get inside them to take measurements or because they had no interest in them.9 Although the Goldschmidt plan has no dimensions for the stairs, the draftsman evidently was at least able to look inside the wall cavities, because he approximated their shape as well as that of the opening between the stairs and the side of the building.10As noted above, the drawings record a number of architectural elements that are no longer extant. In one of the earliest publications on the Goldschmidt Scrapbook, Henry de Geymüller cited a sheet of studies that includes detailed views of the Pantheon dome (Figure 3r).11 That drawing includes the bronze bars—now gone—that once were mounted on the vertical face of the oculus, presumably to support a frieze.12 More recently, Arnold Nesselrath discussed a Goldschmidt drawing of the bronze trusses that Pope Urban VIII (r. 1623–44) infamously removed from the Pantheon portico roof in 1625 (see Figure 1v).13 Other now-lost elements include the bronze letters of the pediment inscription, which the draftsman recorded precisely with measurements, going so far as to draw in the plumb bobs used to establish the vertical on either side of the letter S (Figure 5v). These bronze letters were replaced with modern copies in the nineteenth century, and the Goldschmidt drawings may be the only extant renderings that have details of the originals.14 In addition, the view of the exterior vestibule shows the marble panels beside the main door as they were before plaques were later inserted between them (Figure 6r).15 The frame of the ancient bronze door itself, shown in a measured elevation, appears as it did through the seventeenth century, with pilasters that extend over the entablature and a bronze lattice that is divided into seven sections rather than the current six (Figure 7v).16 Inside the building, d’Orgeix observed that the view of the interior entrance vestibule shows the octagonal coffering, now gone, that once covered the barrel vault over the door (see Figure 16v).17 The drawings of the marbles that formerly decorated the attic story also capture details of ornament that has since been removed (see Figure 3v), in this case during the renovations conducted under Pope Benedict XIV (r. 1740–58). Finally, the view of the entablature at the central altar opposite the main entrance (Figure 8r) includes the acroterion, or decorative pedestal, with a cornice that no longer exists.185. (cat. 3). Anonymous French draftsman, mid-16th century. Recto (left): elevation, profile, plan, and details of the Pantheon portico pilaster; plan and detail of the Pantheon door. Verso (right): elevation and details of the Pantheon portico pediment. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, and Mark J. Millard Gift, 1968 (68.769.2)6. (cat. 6). Anonymous French draftsman, mid-16th century. Recto (left): view of the Pantheon exterior vestibule with detail. Verso (right): plans of the Pantheon interior rectangular and semicircular alcoves. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, and Mark J. Millard Gift, 1968 (68.769.6)7. (cat. 2). Anonymous French draftsman, mid-16th century. Recto (left): perspective elevation of the Pantheon portico entablature with details of the coffering. Verso (right): elevation, schematic elevation, and detail of the Pantheon door. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, and Mark J. Millard Gift, 1968 (68.769.3)8. (cat. 9). Anonymous French draftsman, mid-16th century. Recto (left): plan of the Pantheon intermediate block attic; elevation of an attic pilaster capital; partial perspective view and partial plan of the central niche with details. Verso (below): partial views of the Pantheon interior rectangular and semicircular alcoves; partial views and plans of the intermediate block interior attic. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, and Mark J. Millard Gift, 1968 (68.769.8)These acutely observed details resulted from the Goldschmidt draftsman’s effort to record what he saw in front of him: unlike many of his predecessors and contemporaries, he did not offer speculations or critiques in his drawings.19 Andrea Palladio (1508–1580) added statues to the portico pediment to re-create how he believed the building had appeared in antiquity, for example, but there are no such reconstructions in the Goldschmidt series.20 Nor are there corrective adjustments such as the pilaster that Baldassare Peruzzi (1481–1536) added to the interior vestibule wall in order to remedy its asymmetry or the realignment of the cella interior decoration that appears in drawings by Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1439–1501) and others.21Dating the DrawingsThe evidence suggests that the Goldschmidt draftsman created his drawings sometime in the 1560s. Watermarks similar to the one found on the Pantheon sheets have been dated to both the 1540s and the 1560s, but the closest comparative examples are from the 1560s.22 Furthermore, the same watermark appears on a Scholz Scrapbook plan of the staircase, attributed to Michelangelo, in the upper garden of the Cortile del Belvedere at the Vatican.23 That stair case was designed and built in 1550–51, which rules out a date in the 1540s for this drawing and, therefore, for the Goldschmidt Pantheon series.24Related drawings in other collections help to reinforce this conclusion. In his catalogue of the drawings of ancient Roman architecture from Cassiano dal Pozzo’s Paper Museum, Ian Campbell identified a sheet of studies of the Pantheon as being closely connected to the Goldschmidt series.25 This sheet is found in Architectura civile, one of the twenty-two albums from Cassiano’s collection that are now in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle (Figure 9). Like the Goldschmidt Scrapbook, Architectura civile contains drawings by many draftsmen, and the sheet with the Pantheon studies belongs to a discrete series within it. This series, attributed by Campbell to an anonymous Portuguese draftsman, has twenty-five sheets devoted mainly to ancient buildings in the Roman Campagna, to the east and southeast of Rome; only the Pantheon sheet and a sheet of drawings of antiquities from Tivoli depict other sites.26 The thoroughness of these studies, combined with an apparent effort to order the buildings according to their topography, led Campbell to surmise that they had been made as part of a larger, systematic effort to record monuments and not simply for personal use.27 Although the Pantheon sheet is undated, two other sheets in the same series have the dates June 9, 1570, and May 1568 in their inscriptions.289. Anonymous Portuguese draftsman of the Cassiano dal Pozzo Paper Museum. Studies of the Pantheon, in Architectura civile, fol. 23r and v. Pen and brown ink, 12⅜ x 17⅝ in. (31.5 x 44.8 cm). Royal Library, Windsor Castle (RL 10376). Photograph: Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2013The close correspondence between the Architectura civile drawings and the Goldschmidt Pantheon series suggests that they were all made at approximately the same time. Campbell noted the similarities in their renderings of the bronze portico roof trusses, observing that both drawings contain the same mistake of showing the lower diagonal web of the roof trusses resting directly on the architrave rather than on the stones above it.29 This shared error, combined with the three identical measurements and matching perspectives of the two drawings, suggests that one is a copy of the other or that both are copies of a common source.The latter possibility, that the drawings share a source, seems the more likely. In addition to the mistake that Campbell noted, the Goldschmidt series and the Architectura civile sheet have several elements in common, and comparison shows that the Goldschmidt versions are the more polished, drawn with a higher level of detail and finish. Although they include measurements, the Architectura civile drawings are sketches, usually encompassing less of each building element than their Goldschmidt counterparts. The Goldschmidt series also includes many drawings that do not appear on the Architectura civile sheet; these are predominantly full-page views or plans that show an area of the building larger than a single architectural element, such as the plans of the alcoves (see Figure 6v). Nevertheless, the correspondence between the two helps date the Goldschmidt series to the 1560s; it also suggests that the Goldschmidt draftsman worked collaboratively, sharing drawings and information with others. Such collaboration is not surprising, considering that it takes more than one pair of hands to survey a building, particularly when those hands are taking measurements of hard-to-reach areas such as pediment inscriptions and rooftop beams.That the Goldschmidt series includes the dimensions of so many elements that are inaccessible without ladders or scaffolding—the pediment inscription, the portico roof, and the cella attic, for example—suggests that the draftsman studied the Pantheon when it was undergoing renovation. In 1565 Pope Pius IV (r. 1559–65) sponsored a project to refurbish the bronze doors at the main entrance; this project could have provided the necessary apparatus for the draftsman to survey the upper reaches of that area.30 Several drawings in the series focus on the entrance, including multiple views of the vestibule and a partial elevation of the door and its frame (see Figures 16v, 5r, 7v). One intriguing aspect of the elevation is that it shows the bronze doors without any of the ornamental bolts that now adorn its leaves (see Figure 7v). In the seventeenth century, architects including Antoine Desgodetz (1653–1729) studied these bolts carefully, making detailed renderings of the three types of rosettes.31 Yet, earlier drawings such as Raphael’s famous view of the main entrance, drawn in the first decade of the sixteenth century, do not show them, and neither do the printed illustrations in the treatises of Sebastiano Serlio (1475–1554) and Palladio.32 The 1565 door renovation included work on the bolts, so it seems likely that before this project, many of them were either missing or in such disrepair that architects simply ignored them; in fact, Francesco Cerasoli believed that the bolts were newly made during the 1565 renovation.33 The absence of bolts in the Goldschmidt series can therefore be interpreted as additional evidence that the drawings date to the 1560s.Considering the DraftsmanWho could have surveyed the Pantheon in the 1560s and created these drawings? The Goldschmidt draftsman was French, as evinced by the language of the inscriptions and the unit of measurement, the pied royal.34 Because the list of French architects known to have visited Rome in the 1560s is short, the roster of possible candidates can be narrowed considerably. Primarily because of the nationality of the draftsman, the Pantheon series has been attributed both to Philibert de l’Orme (1514–1570) and to the anonymous draftsman of the Codex Destailleur D in Berlin—a group of mid-sixteenth-century drawings that also have French inscriptions—while other drawings in the Goldschmidt and Scholz Scrapbooks have been attributed to the circle of Etienne Dupérac (1520–1607). Although there is some evidence to support each of these attributions, all are subject to doubt.The attribution of the Pantheon series to Philibert de l’Orme, proposed by Geymüller in 1883, has proved to be the most persistent. Geymüller published details of a sheet from the series, noting that the Pantheon group was then in the possession of Edmond Lechevallier-Chevignard (1825–1902).35 He based his attribution on the evidence that de l’Orme had visited Rome in the 1530s and the 1560s and had described measuring the Pantheon in his Premier tome de l’architecture, published in 1567.36 In 1902, when Lechevallier-Chevignard’s effects were sold at the Hôtel Drouot, the auction catalogue listed a volume of seventy-three drawings of Roman monuments as the work of de l’Orme, with a special note citing the studies of the Pantheon.37 Georges-Paul Chedanne (1861–1940), an architect who had studied at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, purchased the drawings at this sale,38 and they continued to be associated with de l’Orme through subsequent changes of ownership until they reached the Metropolitan.39The attribution to de l’Orme warrants consideration not only for the reasons that Geymüller named but also because the group clearly was made by someone with an architectural focus—a draftsman with an evident interest in structure and materials who made an effort to measure as many elements as possible. In contrast to more atmospheric sketches such as those made by Van Heemskerck in the 1540s, for example, the Goldschmidt drawings present technical aspects of the Pantheon.40 Although de l’Orme is the most likely choice among the French architects who visited Rome in the 1560s, the drawings themselves do not support this attribution strongly. In his monograph on the architect, Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos dismissed the possibility that de l’Orme could have made the Goldschmidt series because the architect’s handwriting does not match that of the inscriptions on the drawings.41Although the Pantheon series itself was never attributed to Etienne Dupérac, drawings from the Scholz Scrapbook of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome have been assigned to his circle by Rudolph Wittkower and by Henry Millon and Craig Hugh Smyth.42 Dupérac made two prints of Michelangelo’s design for the basilica, and the Scholz drawings have been interpreted as preparatory material for those prints; d’Orgeix hinted that Hand A, the draftsman responsible for the greatest number of drawings in the Goldschmidt and Scholz Scrapbooks, may have been Dupérac himself.43 Problems nevertheless remain in attributing the Goldschmidt Pantheon series to Dupérac’s circle.First, the question of whether this circle produced any of the drawings in the Goldschmidt and Scholz Scrapbooks—including the Saint Peter’s drawings—is not yet settled. Although the various Scholz drawings relating to Michelangelo’s architecture do seem to derive from a publication project, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that Dupérac was the project’s leader.44 Dupérac’s prints of Michelangelo’s architecture do not resemble the Scholz drawings either in scale or in scope: his prints present sections, elevations, and views of entire buildings at once, while the drawings focus on single elements, generally eschewing full plans and sections in favor of details. Second, there were other French printmakers working in Rome in the 1560s who might have been responsible for such an effort. Previous efforts to attribute the Scholz Scrapbook drawings have generally focused on such printmakers, as Anna Bedon noted in her analysis of the Scholz drawings of Michelangelo’s designs for the Campidoglio.45 Besides Dupérac, the Francophone milieu in Rome included the print publisher and dealer Antonio Lafrery (1512–1577)—also known as Antoine Lafrère—who employed both Nicolas Béatrizet (1515–ca. 1566?), an engraver from Lorraine, and Jacob Bos (ca. 1520–?; active in Rome, ca. 1549–80), an engraver from the Low Countries. Since both Béatrizet and Bos made prints after Michelangelo’s work, it is tempting to ascribe at least the Scholz Scrapbook drawings of his architectural projects to one of them.For the Goldschmidt Pantheon series, however, it is difficult to defend an attribution to Dupérac, Béatrizet, Bos, or any other printmaker. For one thing, the Pantheon drawings differ widely from the almost completely orthographic, scalar Scholz drawings of Michelangelo’s architecture. For another, the Goldschmidt Pantheon series was made by someone who understood—or sought to understand—how the structure was put together, including its technical, spatial, and material aspects. The drawings present the Pantheon as a building, not as an image. The engraver who rendered the view of the Pantheon cella with pilasters on the exterior—as it appears in Béatrizet’s print (Figure 10)—is unlikely to have conducted the Goldschmidt draftsman’s detailed investigations of the same wall’s inner structural arches and cavities.10. Nicolas Béatrizet (1515–ca. 1566?), published by Nicolaus van Aelst (1526–1613). Pantheum Romanum nunc Mariae cognomento Rotundae notum ad antiquam suam effigiem et formam expressum, after 1549. Engraving, 18⅛ x 18¼ in. (46.2 x 46.5 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Harry Brisbane Dick Fund, 1941 (41.72 [1.18]). Photograph: Katherine Dahab, The Photograph Studio, MMABernd Kulawik’s suggestion that the Goldschmidt Pantheon drawings constitute a missing part of the Codex Destailleur D in Berlin is a more logical theory.46 Codex Destailleur D is a collection of sixteenth-century drawings that includes studies of both antiquities and modern subjects, most notably a series of studies of a wood model of Saint Peter’s by Antonio da Sangallo (1484–1546).47 Kulawik argued that the Destailleur D drawings were made in the 1540s as part of a concerted effort to record the entire ancient city on paper. He noted that the drawings of ancient architecture in the codex include studies of almost every significant monument in Rome except the Pantheon—a strange omission, considering the building’s importance—and he posited that the drawings of the Pantheon in the Goldschmidt Scrapbook could be those missing drawings.There is evidence both for and against Kulawik’s suggestion. The presence of French inscriptions in Codex Destailleur D would support the hypothesis, as would the general character of its drawings, which, like many of the Goldschmidt images of the Pantheon, are sketchy, personal studies. Folio 38v in Codex Destailleur D, in particular—a plan of the interior spaces of the intermediate block with two sections of the connection between the intermediate block and the dome, taken at the roof level (Figure 11)—closely resembles the Goldschmidt plan of the same subject (see Figure 8r). The Destailleur D plan is messier, and the proportions are slightly different, as one might expect from a sketch, but all the essential details are there, including the openings through the walls of the building. Other highly specific details of the building, such as the openings in the ceiling of the intermediate block and the drainage system below the dome (see Figure 8r and v), appear in both versions.11. Anonymous 16th-century French draftsman. Plan of the upper level of the Pantheon intermediate block and details of the connection between the intermediate block and the dome. Pen and brown ink, 17⅛ x 11⅜ in. (43.5 x 28.8 cm). Codex Destailleur D, fol. 38v. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kunstbibliothek (Hdz. 4151). Photograph: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, KunstbibliothekKulawik’s own association of the codex with the survey project sponsored by the Accademia della Virtù, however, argues against a connection with the Goldschmidt Pantheon series. In the early 1540s, this group of humanists met at the house of Claudio Tolomei (1492–1555) to discuss the work of Vitruvius.48 In a letter of 1542, Tolomei outlined a proposal to publish the results of these discussions in a series of twenty volumes, the tenth of which would contain reconstructions of ancient Roman buildings.49 Since this series never appeared, it is difficult to associate any drawings with the project, and in any case, the drawings of the Goldschmidt series date to the 1560s, too late for such a connection.One architect whose name has been connected to other drawings in the Goldschmidt and Scholz Scrapbooks—though not to the Pantheon series—is Giovanni Antonio Dosio (1533–1611). Charles de Tolnay, in one of the earliest articles on the Scholz Scrapbook, in 1967, noted that seventeen of its drawings of Michelangelo’s architectural projects in Florence are copies after Dosio’s drawings now in the Uffizi, Florence.50 These are mainly drawings of the San Lorenzo complex, but they also include an elevation of the portal of the monastery of Sant’Apollonia, which Carlo Bertocci and Charles Davis identified as another copy after Dosio. Bertocci and Davis characterized the Scholz Scrapbook as “a body of drawings often based on prior graphic representations” and noted that many of those earlier models are by Dosio.51Given that the Scholz Scrapbook contains so many copies after Dosio, the Goldschmidt Pantheon series may well derive from his drawings. Dosio measured the Pantheon when studying the building for his own never-published architectural treatise. The resulting drawings cover many of the same areas of the building and elements that appear in the Goldschmidt series, including highly specific details such as the curvature in the cella floor, the marble panels in the entrance vestibule, and the openings in the ceiling of the intermediate block’s upper chambers. Moreover, Dosio’s Pantheon drawings were copied at least once: another set is in the Albertina, Vienna.52 Despite the overall similarities in subject, however, there are no identifiable copies after Dosio in the Goldschmidt series, and the perspective views and details in the group do not resemble Dosio’s completely orthogonal treatise drawings.A final candidate to consider as the author of the Goldschmidt series is Jean Poldo d’Albenas (1512–1563), a Frenchman whose name
Referência(s)