Vincenzo de’ Rossi as Architect: A Newly Discovered Drawing and Project for the Pantheon in Rome
2015; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 50; Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/685679
ISSN2169-3072
AutoresFemke Speelberg, Furio Rinaldi,
Tópico(s)Historical Art and Architecture Studies
ResumoPrevious articleNext article FreeVincenzo de’ Rossi as Architect: A Newly Discovered Drawing and Project for the Pantheon in RomeFemke Speelberg and Furio RinaldiFemke SpeelbergAssociate Curator, Department of Drawings and Prints, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Search for more articles by this author and Furio RinaldiResearch Assistant, Department of Drawings and Prints, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreAlthough Vincenzo de’ Rossi (1525–1587) is principally known as a sculptor today, early written sources suggest that this eminent pupil of Baccio Bandinelli (1493–1560) also had a career as an architect. In the 1568 edition of his Vite, Giorgio Vasari (1511–1574) introduced the artist among the “accademici del disegno” as “Vincenzo de’ Rossi of Fiesole sculptor, and also architect and member of the Florentine Academy.”1 Raffaello Borghini (1537–1588), in his short account of Vincenzo’s life in Il Riposo (1584), similarly referenced his work as an architect: “He [Vincenzo] also loved architecture, and with his designs many works have been made.”2Given the fact that Vincenzo seems to have been generally known as an architect by his contemporaries, it seems surprising that no architectural project or building has, to date, been assigned to his name. The second part of Borghini’s sentence quoted above, which implies that the execution of Vincenzo’s architectural designs was often left to others, provides some explanation as to why so little is known about this side of his career. It still leaves us with questions, however, concerning what those designs were for and what they may have looked like.In an effort to explain Vasari’s and Borghini’s references to Vincenzo as an architect, Barbara Castro, in her 1998 biography of the artist, referred to the Design for a Fountain with the Labors of Hercules, now in the collection of the Cooper Hewitt Smithsonian Design Museum (fig. 1), as an example of his designs for architecture.3 A second drawing of similar subject matter appeared on the art market in 1983 (fig. 2).4 Together the two designs can be considered to represent the start of a small oeuvre, but while fountains occupy a middle ground between sculpture and architecture, they can hardly provide the sole basis for understanding Vincenzo’s career as an architect.fig. 1. Vincenzo de’ Rossi (Italian, 1525–1587). Design for a Fountain with the Labors of Hercules, ca. 1559–62. Black chalk, 17 × 11 in. (43.3 × 27.8 cm). Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, New York (1942-36-1)fig. 2. Vincenzo de’ Rossi. Design for a Fountain with Hercules and Cerberus, ca. 1559–62. Black chalk, with pen and brown ink (?), 17¾ × 14¼ in. (45.2 × 36.1 cm). Location unknown (formerly Colnaghi)A drawing newly attributed to the artist, acquired by The Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2013,5 more persuasively substantiates the references found in the sixteenth-century sources and sheds new light on Vincenzo’s activities as a draftsman and architect. The Design for an Altar Surmounted by a Crucifix (fig. 3) is inscribed and signed Vincentio Rossi by the artist at bottom right (fig. 4) and can be considered the first genuine architectural drawing known by his hand. Moreover, it is almost certainly connected to an early and prestigious commission in Rome for an altar in the Pantheon, by then the dedicated church of Santa Maria ad Martyres, that was awarded to the artist by the influential Confraternita dei Virtuosi.fig. 3. Here attributed to Vincenzo de’ Rossi. Design for an Altar Surmounted by a Crucifix, ca. 1546–47. Pen and brown ink, brush and graybrown washes, over traces of black chalk, ruling and compass work; annotated by the artist in pen and brown ink, 23 × 16¾ in. (57.3 × 42.6 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Brooke Russell Astor Bequest, 2013 (2013.205)fig. 4. Detail of fig. 3, showing autograph inscription with signature of Vincenzo de’ RossiThe Drawing and Its AuthorshipThe altar design is executed on a sheet of monumental size and contains four different views of the structure, placed on the sheet in a correlated manner, with three projections of the elevation depicted on a horizontal axis above the floor plan of the altar. In the center, the frontal elevation is worked out in pen and brown ink with a light, gray-brown wash. The overall construction consists of a protruding tabernacle supported by Tuscan columns on top of a podium with three steps. The tall frieze above the columns is decorated with a combination of triglyphs with guttae, and metopes filled with symbols of the liturgy: from left to right, a bishop’s miter; the host above a chalice and paten; Veronica’s veil with the vera icon; a trophy of the crucifix and other instruments of the Passion; and a trophy consisting of a ewer and censer. The cornice is crowned by an arched pediment, which is left undecorated, and on top are placed three figural sculptures supported by rectangular pedestals. The main sculpture in the center is an elongated crucifix with the rocks of Golgotha and the skull and bones of Adam at the base. It is flanked on either side by a figure of a crouching cherub holding up a lance—on the right side combined with the Holy Sponge. An altar table placed underneath the tabernacle consists of a thin slab supported by balusters. The plinth above the altar supports a reliquary in the form of a small central-plan building, of which only half is worked out in the round, flanked at left and right by three candelabra. In the wall above, a shallow compartment or niche with a semicircular top has been outlined by a frame with beveled edges.The elevation of the altar is combined with three more views: the floor plan (depicted directly under the elevation), the side view from the exterior (on the right, marked di fuoro [from outside]), and a section of the side view (on the left, marked Didrento [sic] [from inside]). These additional views elucidate various details of the design. They make clear, for example, that the mensa (the altar’s tabletop) protrudes from the tabernacle, and that shallow Tuscan pilasters are added to the structure behind the main columns of the tabernacle. The elevation and side views are combined with inscriptions providing relevant measurements in Florentine braccia. From these measurements it can be calculated that the main architectural body of the altar measures approximately 4.8 × 2.8 × 1 meters, and that the structure at its full reach, including sculpture and pedestal, covers almost double the drawing’s surface, with approximate measurements of 7.9 × 4.2 × 2 meters.6Aside from these notes, the sheet contains two other inscriptions written in the same hand but at different times. The four-line inscription at the bottom right is executed in an ink of similar hue to the ink of the drawing and includes the artist’s signature: Avete a chonsiderare dalli ischalini insu / echorre la misura della tavola dipinta che / va i[n] mezo de dua membretti che sono fralli / 2 pilasstri rinchontro alle cholonne / Vincentio Rossi7 (From the small steps and up, you have to take into consideration the measurement of the painted panel that goes in between the two members that are between the 2 pilasters behind the columns, Vincenzo Rossi).8The second inscription, which is placed in the central compartment over the altar, is written in a different, nearly black-brown ink. It appears to have been added later and rather quickly, because the cursive is less neat in comparison to the first inscription, and the text partially runs over the lines of the drawing: Se fatta questa tavola tonda / perche si servivano duna / vechia altrimenti nonsi / faceva9 (This panel has been made with an arched top, because they were using an old one, otherwise this would not have been done [designed] in this manner).10Despite the presence of the artist’s signature below the inscription at the lower right, the drawing was not connected to Vincenzo de’ Rossi prior to its acquisition by the Metropolitan Museum, and it had been on the art market as an anonymous, sixteenth-century Florentine design. This omission in attribution is perhaps explained by the drawing’s subject matter, which has no direct connection with the artist’s known sculpted oeuvre.A comparison of the handwriting (fig. 4) with that in a note written and signed by Vincenzo de’ Rossi—addressed to the learned courtier Vincenzo Borghini (1515–1580) and pasted on the verso of one of the artist’s few firmly attributed drawings, in the Musée du Louvre, Paris11—leaves no doubt, however (figs. 5, 6). Both inscriptions display the distinct cancellaresca cursive, the same use of flourishes on the letter e, and an almost identical signature by the artist as “Vincentio Rossi.”fig. 5. Note written and signed by Vincenzo de’ Rossi to Vincenzo Borghini, ca. 1562. Pasted on the verso of Hercules’ Descent into Hades (fig. 6). Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts Graphiques, Paris (1573v)fig. 6. Vincenzo de’ Rossi. Hercules’ Descent into Hades, ca. 1562. Pen and brown ink, over traces of black chalk, 13⅞ × 17⅝ in. (35.2 × 44.8 cm). Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts Graphiques, Paris (1573r)The draftsmanship of the two sheets is otherwise difficult to compare, owing to their different functions. The figural drawing in the Louvre, Hercules’ Descent into Hades (fig. 6), was conceived as a compositional study for a bronze relief to be placed under one of the statues of Hercules commissioned from Vincenzo about 1562 by Cosimo I de’ Medici (1519–1574), grand duke of Tuscany. The Louvre drawing was primarily meant to convey the composition and expressive properties of the relief, while the overall style of the architectural structure of the altar in the Museum’s sheet is descriptively objective and focused on a clear portrayal of the details of the construction. The character of the sculpted figures on top of the altar, particularly the quick and effective pen strokes seen in the two crouching cherubs holding the instruments of the Passion (figs. 7, 8), nevertheless unmistakably exposes the influence of Vincenzo’s master, Baccio Bandinelli.12figs. 7, 8. Details of cherubs in fig. 3The CommissionWhile the inscription and style of the altar drawing confirm the attribution to Vincenzo de’ Rossi, at first sight they do not reveal much that can help to identify the specific commission for which this design was made. The Central Italian watermark in the paper (fig. 9) is known to have been in use between 1529 and 1580—a time span that encompasses most of Vincenzo’s working life—and therefore does not provide any helpful clues, either.13fig. 9. Detail of fig. 3, showing watermark (letter M under star in shield)Viewed within the context of Vincenzo’s career, however, the relatively sober character of the altar design indicates an early work. In this respect the design is reminiscent of the overall structure of the tombs of the Medici popes Leo X (r. 1513–21) and Clement VII (r. 1523–34) in the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome—a commission obtained by Vincenzo’s master, Bandinelli, in 1536. To complete the complex project, Bandinelli supervised a team of Tuscan artists that included the architect Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (1484–1546), who created the overall structure, and the sculptors Raffaello da Montelupo (1504/5–1566/67) and Nanni di Baccio Bigio (1512/13–1568), who were responsible for the final execution of the statues of Popes Leo X and Clement VII.14 Although he is not mentioned by name, the young Vincenzo de’ Rossi, who began an apprenticeship in Bandinelli’s workshop at the age of nine, is generally presumed to have assisted in the execution of the two tombs, which were completed by June 15, 1542, when the ashes of the popes were transferred from Saint Peter’s to Santa Maria sopra Minerva.15Following his assistance on the two Medici tombs, Vincenzo appears to have worked for Bandinelli in Florence between 1541 and 1545, but his first recorded commissions as an independent artist were also in Rome, where he executed the marble reliefs for the tomb of Pietro Mates (1474–1545) in the church of San Salvatore in Lauro (ca. 1545)16 and the free–standing sculpture group Saint Joseph with the Christ Child for the main altar of the Chapel of Saint Joseph in the Pantheon (fig. 10). Commissioned in August 1545 to “mastro Vincentio scultore,”17 the latter sculpture can still be found on the altar of the first chapel on the left when one enters the building.fig. 10. Vincenzo de’ Rossi. Saint Joseph with the Christ Child, 1546–47. Marble. Detail of the Altar of the Confraternita dei Virtuosi al Pantheon (fig. 13), Santa Maria ad Martyres (Pantheon), RomeThe Chapel of Saint Joseph is one of the four subsidiary spaces within the Roman building, and it was donated in 1541 by Pope Paul III (r. 1534–49) to the newly founded Confraternita dei Virtuosi al Pantheon, later known as the Confraternita di San Giuseppe in Terrasanta (Brotherhood of Saint Joseph in the Holy Land). The confraternity was founded in March 1541 by the Cistercian monk and canon of the Pantheon, Desiderio de Adiutorio (ca. 1481–1546), who remained at its head until his death. The members of the confraternity came from religious and secular backgrounds, and among them were many prominent artists active in Rome at the time, including Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Antonio Salamanca (1479–1562), Perino del Vaga (1501–1547), Livio Agresti (ca. 1508–1579), Jacopino del Conte (ca. 1515–1598), Francesco Salviati (1510–1563), Marcello Venusti (ca. 1512–1579), and Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta (1521–ca. 1580).18The confraternity became a pontifical academy that survives to this day, and the minutes of the meetings, regularly held by its members, are kept in the Archivio Storico dei Virtuosi al Pantheon in Rome.19 The minutes of the early meetings provide detailed information about the commission and execution of, and payment for, the statue of Saint Joseph, and they also contain crucial records about a subsequent commission extended to Vincenzo by the confraternity that has so far gone unnoticed. This second commission entailed the erection of an altar in the same chapel that was to house the statue Vincenzo had made. It is this commission that provides us with a plausible context for the newly discovered drawing.The minutes of the confraternity record that the chapel remained unfurnished during the first two years after the official concession and, through use, gradually became cluttered and disorderly. For this reason, by October 14, 1543, Desiderio decided to commission works to furnish the chapel and decorate it with a statue. The chapel was also meant to house one of the most precious objects in the confraternity’s possession: a marble reliquary containing earth from the Holy Land that had been collected by Desiderio himself during two visits to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai in the 1520s. The relics had miraculously survived the Sack of Rome in 1527, when so many others were lost, and found a proper home in the chapel of the confraternity, which was therefore in need of a more dignified appearance.20Initially, the confraternity meant to dedicate its chapel to the Crucifixion and outfit it with sculptures of the crucified Christ, the Virgin Mary, and Saint Joseph. During the meeting of October 1543, however, the members discussed the fact that another altar in the Pantheon was already dedicated to the same subject (the first chapel to the left of the main altar), and they subsequently decided to choose Saint Joseph as their principal patron saint. In response to this change, Antonio da Sangallo the Younger—an important member of the confraternity since its founding and, together with Raffaello da Montelupo, one of the surveyors of the chapel’s refurbishment—suggested that he knew a suitable “antique” sculpture (“statua antiqua”) that could serve their purpose, and Desiderio immediately set out to obtain it.21Unsuccessful in this endeavor, Desiderio instructed the two surveyors in May 1545 to give the commission to “un mastro excellente” of their acquaintance—who, as the minutes of August 1545 show, was none other than Vincenzo de’ Rossi. Just two months after the members of the confraternity had discussed and decided on the iconography of the statue of Saint Joseph, Vincenzo was able to show them an initial clay model. This bozzetto, although not yet completed, was highly praised by members of the confraternity (“qual modello piacque molto”), and they gave Vincenzo further instructions to ensure that the final marble version would “please all, in every respect.”22Between September 22, 1546, and May 7 of the following year, the marble sculpture of Saint Joseph was completed, and during their meetings, the members of the confraternity began to discuss the subsequent commission for a proper altar, referred to as a large window, to accommodate it. Since Antonio da Sangallo, their principal architect, had died in August 1546, the confraternity decided to entrust this matter either to Raffaello da Montelupo or to Vincenzo.23Close reading of the minutes reveals that the satisfactory execution of the statue of Saint Joseph induced the members to invite its author to furnish the rest of the chapel as well: “The sculptor who made the statue of our Saint Joseph, having brought it to good result by now, also planned to begin to decorate the place where it was to be placed.”24 To execute the design, Vincenzo requested a draft with the specific requirements from the members of the confraternity,25 who assigned this task to Raffaello da Montelupo and Antonio Labacco (also known as Antonio dell’ Abacco; 1495–1570), Sangallo’s close collaborator and successor as artistic consultant to the confraternity. That Vincenzo was indeed chosen to design an altar for the chapel is confirmed further by the minutes of the meeting of August 1547, when the artist was asked to report on his progress with the statue and his plans for the site where it was to be placed.26Records of the meetings held in November and December of the same year show that most of the work on the altar had been completed to the satisfaction of the confraternity, and arrangements were made to pay Vincenzo and the craftsmen he employed.27 This passage in the minutes contains crucial information on the various elements of the altar Vincenzo had designed: “On the day of the 11th of December … were settled the accounts with master Vincenzo the sculptor, both for the rest that was owed to him for the statue he made and for the works he commissioned for the window in which the above-mentioned statue was placed, as well as the pilasters, architraves, frieze, cornice, the stone slabs and carving [?] all of it done perfectly.”28Several parallels can be drawn between the documentary evidence of the confraternity’s commission and details of Design for an Altar Surmounted by a Crucifix in the Metropolitan’s collection (see fig. 3). First, the most characteristic architectural elements of this otherwise rather sober altar design—such as the “architrave” and “stipiti”—are mentioned expressly in the minutes on several occasions with regard to the “finestrone,” or large window. Second, the sculptural decorations on top of the pediment recall the confraternity’s original intention to dedicate its chapel to the Crucifixion. Although this subject was rejected in favor of Saint Joseph, its presence in the design bespeaks the order’s principal devotion and is warranted by the importance of Christ’s sacrifice as the central focus during the Eucharist, an element that is further emphasized in the decoration of the metopes.A third important link is the prominence that the design gives to the reliquary on the altar (see frontis and fig. 3). This receptacle can be connected to the relics from the Holy Land that had been in the confraternity’s possession since its founding. Whether the reliquary in the drawing reflects an already existing object, or whether this, too, is a design by Vincenzo, is unknown. What is significant is that it takes the form of an octagonal temple, in clear reference to the centralized building structure of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. A receptacle of this shape would have been the ideal repository for the confraternity’s cherished relics.The two inscriptions on the drawing with Vincenzo’s comments on his plans contain further indications that the design is related to the commission in the Pantheon. His directions at the lower right seem to be meant for the craftsmen who assisted him in the execution of the altar, reminding them of measurements and particulars of the construction. The mention of a “tavola dipinta,” or painted panel, in this inscription is somewhat mystifying in the context of the Pantheon commission, since it cannot be adequately reconciled with the records of the altar’s construction as chronicled in the minutes of the confraternity. Panels and paintings are mentioned there several times, but not in direct connection with the chapel or the altar.29 However, in the drawing, the compartment above the mensa is portrayed as a relatively shallow space, better suited to a painting than to Vincenzo’s sculpture of Saint Joseph and the Christ Child.This fact, inevitably, raises some doubt about the veracity of the identification of the altar design in the Metropolitan’s newly discovered drawing with the confraternity’s commission to Vincenzo, unless it may be presumed that the sculpture was not placed directly on the altar but positioned elsewhere in the chapel, contrary to the summary wording in the records (“the window in which the above-mentioned statue was placed”). This hypothesis is partially sustained by the recent analysis of the confraternity’s records by Regine Schallert. In her written reconstruction of the chapel, which is based purely on the documentary evidence at hand, she concludes that the confraternity discarded the idea of having the statue decorate the altar in favor of placing it in a simple niche. The latter solution was thought to conform more to the “antique” appearance of the Pantheon, in which each subsidiary space had three rectangular niches in the back wall. This would have been in line with sixteenth-century efforts to restore the original character of the building—a project in which many members of the confraternity actively participated.30 The idea that the statue of Saint Joseph might have been given a separate place within the chapel seems substantiated further by the fact that Vincenzo selected a pillar from the church of Santi Giovanni e Paolo from which to fashion a base.31 Schallert does not discuss the matter of the altar further, but it is unlikely that the confraternity would have done without an altar for its chapel, both for practical reasons related to the liturgy and because of the frequent mention of “l’altare di San Giuseppe” in the confraternity’s records that predate the construction of the current Baroque altar, toward the end of the seventeenth century.32While the content of the first inscription may generate some doubt about the identification of the altar as the commission by the confraternity, the second inscription, placed over the central niche of the altar, speaks highly in its favor. Most likely written at a later time, the inscription (quoted above) shows Vincenzo in defense of his design. He explains that the niche has been made round because he had to conform to specific conditions, in this case presumably a painted panel with an arched top.The implication is that someone wondered about this specific element while looking at the design drawing, prompting Vincenzo to respond—a scenario that might be explained by the context of the altar within the Pantheon. Indeed, the overall design closely follows the model of the aediculae, or tabernacles, in the main hall of the building. The most significant departures from the building’s structure are the order of the columns (Tuscan in the drawing, instead of Corinthian) and the fact that Vincenzo decided, or was forced, to make his niche round, whereas the aediculae all have rectangular niches.Pantheon SangallensisThe decision to follow the general shape of the aediculae may have been influenced, or even prescribed, by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger. Annotations and sketches preserved in several of his drawings, now in the Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Florence, reveal Sangallo’s profound interest in the Pantheon.33 Rather than being in awe of its design, however, the architect focused on the defects he noted in the building’s architectural structure and set out to correct them, if not in real life, then at least on paper.34 Sangallo’s rendition of a new floor plan for the building (fig. 11) of about 1535 can be considered the culmination of this so-called Pantheon Sangallensis, in which all irregularities have been removed and the building answers to one uniform scheme.35fig. 11. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (Italian, 1484–1546). Design for the Floorplan of the Pantheon, ca. 1535. Pen and brown ink, traces of black chalk, ruling and compass work, 23⅛ × 17⅛ in. (58.9 × 43.4 cm). Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Florence (3990A)Antonio da Sangallo’s role as principal surveyor of the building activities of the Confraternita dei Virtuosi provided him with direct access to the architecture of the building. Although he did not execute the altar for the confraternity personally, it may be presumed that his stature as the architect of highest renown and seniority, and his role as surveyor, granted him the right to advise and exercise his influence on the plans, either through Raffaello da Montelupo, who survived him, or possibly directly through Vincenzo, whom he seems to have known from their collaboration on the papal tombs in Santa Maria sopra Minerva. Most of Sangallo’s emendation plans for the Pantheon, in fact, date from that period, when the two were working so near the antique building. That Sangallo knew Vincenzo well is further attested to by the fact that Vincenzo’s brother, Nardo de’ Rossi (ca. 1520–1570 / 72), was an active member of the Sangallo workshop until Sangallo’s death in 1546 and was also connected to the Sangallo family by marriage. A letter from Nardo to Sangallo written on the verso of a drawing in the Uffizi dated January 9, 1546, includes greetings from his brother and reveals that Vincenzo was staying with Nardo in Rome at the time of the Pantheon commission.36The Metropolitan Museum’s sheet itself also sheds light on the relationship between Vincenzo and Antonio da Sangallo. It is clear, for example, that Vincenzo had become acquainted with the particular drawing practice of the architect’s workshop. Over the course of his career and influenced by the methods of his father, Antonio da Sangallo the Elder (1455/62–1534), his uncle Giuliano da Sangallo (1443/45–1516), and Donato Bramante (1444–1514), Antonio da Sangallo the Younger had perfected a systematic way of portraying architecture by integrating plans, projections, and sections into one fully comprehensive design that enlightened the viewer about every aspect of the construction. This revolutionary system became particularly important in Sangallo’s work after the Sack of Rome in the late 1520s and 1530s, when he was working on his survey of the architecture of antiquity and his commentary on Vitruvius.37Though often criticized for a certain loss of spontaneity, the comprehensive end result was informed by a series of preparatory drawings, as demonstrated, for example, by the surviving designs by Sangallo for a free-standing tomb, often identified as a monument for Pope Clement VII meant for Santa Maria sopra Minerva.38 A comparison of Sangallo’s Design for a Freestanding Tomb Seen in Elevation and Plan in the Metropolitan Museum (fig. 12) and Vincenzo’s altar shows how Vincenzo adopted the expository manner of portraying the architectural form, as well as Sangallo’s use of wash, to enhance the spatial effects of the construction. Vincenzo does not seem to have used the latter technique for his figural drawings, or he may have abandoned the use of wash later, after returning to Florence, for a system of hatching, closer to Bandinelli’s approach (see fig. 6).fig. 12. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger. Design for a Freestanding Tomb Seen in Elevation and Plan, 1530–35. Pen and brown ink, brush and brown wash, over extensive, compass-incised and stylus-ruled construction with pinpricked measurements, on off-white paper now partly darkened, 15¾ × 7⅜ in. (40.1 × 18.8 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Edward Pearce Casey Fund, 1998 (1998.265)The decorative components of the altar—the choice of Tuscan columns and a frieze of triglyphs and decorated metopes—are also reminiscent of Sangallo’s preferred vocabulary, which was prevalent as early as 1519 in a design for part of the facade of Saint Peter’s.39 Vincenzo’s design is also especially close to another sheet by Sangallo, dated 1542–43, with ideas for the Porta Santo Spirito in Rome.40The shared history of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and Vincenzo de’ Rossi, and the latter’s knowledge of (or possibly even training in) Sangallo’s comprehensive system of architectural representation, reveals a closer connection between the two artists than was previously known. It is thus not surprising that the young Vincenzo’s candidacy for the confraternity’s two commissions was so strongly endorsed by the architect and his colleagues. In the execution of the altar and the decision to follow the shape of the aediculae in the nave of the Pantheon, Vincenzo was able to realize at least a small part of Sangallo’s
Referência(s)