Gianlorenzo Bernini, Girolamo Lucenti, and the Statue of Philip IV in

Transcription

GianlorenzoBernini, GirolamoLucenti, and
the Statue of Philip IV in S. Maria Maggiore:
Patronage and Politics in Seicento Rome
StevenF. Ostrow
Thispaperpresentspreviouslyunpublished
documentsthatshednewlighton thestatue
of PhilipIV in S. MariaMaggiore.Thesedocumentsestablishtheprocessby whichthe
andfinancedthestatue,andoversawits completion;
chapterof thebasilicacommissioned
theyalso allowa radicalredatingof the work,with respectto bothits conceptionand
BerniniandGirolamo
execution,andtheyclarifytherolesplayedbyGianlorenzo
Lucenti
in its inventionand realization.Thearticleinterpretsthe statue'siconographyand
carefullyformulatedpropagandistic
message,andconcludeswitha reconstruction
of the
statue'shistoryfromthetimeof its completion
to itsfinalinstallation.Viewedwithinthe
broader
framework
of European
politics,thestatueof PhilipIVemergesas botha product
anda victimof therivalrybetweenSpainandFranceand theireffortsto assertpowerin
thepapalcapital.
In front of the entrance to the basilica of S. Maria
Maggiore,at the right side of FerdinandoFuga'sportico,
stands an over-life-sized bronze statue of Philip IV of
Spain (Figs. 1 and 2). El Rey Planeta, the Planet King,
appears as a powerful militaryleader, dressed in antique
cuirass,militarycloak and boots, holding a scepter in his
outstretchedright hand and resting his left hand on the
hilt of his sword. He stands in an exaggerated contrapposto and turns his head to his right, directing his gaze
beyond the raised scepter as if he were about to utter a
command. Philip is represented as a heroic figure, a
I wish to express my gratitude to R.P. Jean Coste, former archivist of S.
Maria Maggiore, who first encouraged me when I began this project
and greatly facilitated its completion. I am also grateful to Meredith Gill
for her help in obtaining microfilms of the documents; to Benjamin
Kohl for his generous assistance in deciphering and translating some of
the documents that form the basis of this study; and to Nicholas Adams
for his careful reading of an earlier draft of this essay. I am especially
indebted to Irving Lavin, with whom I began my study of Bernini and
who encouraged me to pursue my investigation of the statue of Philip
IV; to Evonne Levy, whose friendship and knowledge proved invaluable throughout this project; to Mons. Justo Fernandez-Alonso, the
present archivist of S. Maria Maggiore, who greatly assisted my archival
research and shared with me his knowledge of things Spanish; and to
the Art Bulletin's anonymous reader for thoughtful suggestions about
both the article's structure and its content.
warrior-king and guardian of the Church. From its
conspicuous location in the basilica, even the casual
observercan infer that this imposing statue occupies an
importantplace in the publicimage of S. MariaMaggiore.
The earliestpublished notice of the statue appearedin
a late seventeenth-centuryguidebook. In the Descrizione
di RomaModernaof 1697,by several writers, the statue is
briefly mentioned and Girolamo Lucenti-the seventeenth-centurysculptor,founder,and medalist-is named
as its author.' Francesco Posterla, in his Romasacra,e
modernaof 1725, Filippo Titi, in his guide of 1763, and
Antonio Nibby, in his well-known nineteenth-century
guidebook to Rome, simply reiteratedthis earlierattribution.2 It was only in 1900, with Stanislao Fraschetti's
monumental study of Bernini, that the statue began to
receive serious scholarlyattention. Citing a drawing for
the monument then in the Chigi Library,inscribedin a
seventeenth-century hand: "Design.o del Deposito da
farsi a S.ta MariaMag.re del Re di Spag.a del Bernini"
(Fig.3), Fraschettiproposed that Berniniwas responsible
for the design of the statue and that Lucenti merely
carried it out, considerablylater, in 1692--a date established by the inscriptionon the base of the statue.3
Fraschetti'sdiscovery of Bernini'srole in designing the
monument was followed by Brauer and Wittkower's
SDescrizione di Roma Moderna formata novamente con le Autoritradel
Cardinal Baronio, Alfonso Ciaconio, d'Antonio Bosio, Ottavio Panciroli, e
d'altricelebriAutori, Rome, 1697, 641-642.
2F. Posterla, Roma sacra, e moderna,Rome, 1725, 110; F. Titi, Descrizione
delle pitture, sculture e architettureesposteal pubblicoin Roma,Rome, 1763,
250. The statue is not mentioned in any of the earlier editions of Titi's
guidebook. A. Nibby, Roma nell' anno MDCCCXXXVIII,Rome, 1839, III,
384. A. Blunt, Guide to Baroque Rome, London, 1982, 90, and W.
Buchowiecki, Handbuch der Kirchen Roms, Vienna, 1967, I, 249-250,
repeat this attribution.
3 S. Fraschetti, Il Bernini. La sua vita, la sua opera,il suo tempo,Milan, 1900,
414-415. The drawing, and a copy in the Uffizi (Fond. Arch. 3657), are
cited (p. 415, n. 4) but not illustrated. The Chigi drawing (pen and wash
over chalk, 420 x 270mm) is now in the Biblioteca Vaticana, Chigi P. vii
10, fol. 45. The inscription is discussed below. Elisabeth Kieven (oral
communication) has kindly informed me that the inscription is in the
hand of Carlo Fontana, who may also be responsible for the architectural elements of the drawing.
This content downloaded from 64.49.83.98 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:03:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90
THE ART BULLETIN MARCH 1991 VOLUME LXXIIINUMBER 1
s;:::
ii:,•i•
•'•-:--eii•
ii
1 Gianlorenzo Bernini and Girolamo Lucenti, Philip IV, 1666. Rome, S. Maria Maggiore (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome, no. 9584)
BERNINI, LUCENTI, AND THE STATUE OF PHILIP IV
91
bAx
..................
.........
.MN
:::
9.0
Si ;~iii
?
L-.-"-Pi
(ZC- _ L ?___? _
-•.----lY
.....................
Ag?
-:
.
49
.
-qmlgm
iAMA"
2 Berniniand GirolamoLucenti,PhilipIV,1666.Rome,S.
MariaMaggiore(photo:author)
3 Bernini and workshop, Projectfor the Statue of Philip IV, pen and
wash over chalk.BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Chigi P.VII10,
fol. 45r (photo:Library)
lengthy analysis of the Chigi (now Vatican) drawing.4
The authors focused their attention on the architectural
setting for the statue-a recessed niche flanked by pairs
of converging columns, with a concealed light sourcewhich appears in the drawing both in elevation and
ground plan. They added little, however, about the
statue of the king, despite the fact that they argued that
only the statue and its base were in Bernini's hand and
that the architectural elements were drawn by an assistant.5 Nevertheless, Brauer and Wittkower's suggestions
about the circumstances of the commission and the date
of Bernini's drawing were of considerable value. They
posited that the canons of S. Maria Maggiore commissioned the statue from Bernini in gratitude for Philip IV's
founding in 1647 of the Opera Pia di Spagna, which
provided the clergy of the basilica with an annual income
of 4,000 scudi.6 And although they were unable to cite
any evidence for the date of the commission, based on
the fact that Philip IV died on 17 September 1665 and that
three months later, on 11 December, the chapter of S.
4Brauer and Wittkower, 14, 63, 157-160, pl. 114. These authors (p. 158,
n. 1) cite A. Mufioz, Bernini architettoe decoratore,Rome, 1925, pl. 54, as
having first reproduced the Chigi drawing. The drawing is also
mentioned and the statue discussed (following Fraschetti's argument
concerning authorship and date) in E. Lavagnino and V. Moschini,
in Vaticano, exh. cat., Vatican City/Rome, 1981, 207, cat. no. 202. See
also above n. 3.
SantaMariaMaggiore(Lechiesedi Romaillustrate,vii),Rome,1924,30.
5Brauer and Wittkower, 158, n. 1. This attribution is maintained by
A. Cipriani in the most recent discussion of the drawing, in Bernini
Brauer and Wittkower, 157. On the Opera Pia di Spagna, which will be
discussed further below, see Cinti, (G. Azzochi-the
publisher-is
often, but erroneously, cited as the author); and Staffa, 370-394. Cinti
(unpag. intro.) mentions the statue only briefly and states that it was
commissioned by the chapter of the basilica as a sign of gratitude for the
foundation.
6
92
::~~~~
!:
i
i
:::-:
::I~i:
4 Bernini,Studiesfor theStatueof PhilipIV,pen and ink.
Leipzig,Museum der bildenden Kiinste,inv. no. 7852v(photo:
Museum)
Maria Maggiore celebrated solemn obsequies for the king
and erected an elaborate catafalque designed by Carlo
Rainaldi, they assumed that the statue was also commissioned on the occasion of the king's death. Bernini,
Brauer and Wittkower proposed, must have executed the
drawing in December 1665, after his return from Paris,
and it was only in 1692 that Lucenti carried out the
statue, albeit in a way that deviated considerably from
Bernini's original design.7
The proposals put forth by Brauer and Wittkower
formed the basis of all subsequent discussions of the
statue.8 However, in 1981 an additional piece of evidence
relating to the monument was identified: an autograph
drawing by Bernini in Leipzig with two preparatory
studies for the Philip IV statue (Fig. 4).9 In her analysis of
this sheet, Linda Klinger noted that these sketches
provide significant evidence for Bernini's earliest ideas
for the statue; because these studies appear on the verso
of a sheet on which Bernini drew figures of Fame for the
Scala Regia, constructed between 1663 and 1666, Klinger
concluded that Brauer and Wittkower's dating of the
commission to 1665 was correct."'
Notwithstanding the existence of the Vatican and
Leipzig drawings, which strongly argue for Bernini's
invention of the statue, the precise date and circumstances of both its commission and execution remain
uncertain; and the nature of the collaboration between
7Brauer and Wittkower, 157-158,158, n. 1. Carlo Rainaldi's catafalque is
discussed and illustrated in O. Berendsen, "The Italian Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Century Catafalque," Ph.D. diss., New York University,
1961, 225-226, fig. 19; and Fagiolo dell'Arco and S. Carandini, I, cat.,
212-213.
8
dalQuattrocento
A. Riccoboni,Romanell'arte.Lasculturanel'evomoderno
ad oggi, 2 vols., Rome, 1942, I, 206-207; M. and M. Fagiolo dell'Arco,
Bernini.Una introduzione
al gran teatrodel barocco,Rome, 1967,cat. no.
199; Martinelli, 66; Borsi, 341, cat. no. 60; Cipriani (as in n. 5), 206-207;
and L. Barroero, "La Basilica dal Cinquecento all'Ottocento," in
Pietrangeli, ed., 244.
der bildenden Kiinste, Inv. No. 7852v, pen and ink, 124 x
9 Museum
179mm.
'0 Klinger, in Lavin et al., cat. no. 64, 248-252, esp. 248 and 251, n. 5.
Bernini and the little-known Lucenti has never been
addressed. Previously unpublished documents in the
archive of S. Maria Maggiore, including the contract for
the statue and a series of capitular decrees concerning its
manufacture, now permit a new look at the monument
to Philip IV. This fresh evidence allows us to establish
with unusual precision the process by which the chapter
of the basilica commissioned and financed the statue,
and oversaw its completion. A redating is now possible of
the conception and execution of the work, as is a new,
more precise dating of the Vatican and Leipzig drawings." After reconstructing the chronology of the statue
and the network of patronage that financed it, the article
takes up questions of attribution and collaboration, in
light of the new documentation and stylistic analysis. A
reading of the statue's iconography and carefully formulated propagandistic message follows; and the essay
concludes with a reconstruction of the history of the
statue from the time of its completion to its final installation, and with an analysis of its blatant political implications.
The History of the Statue: 1643 to 1666
The story of the statue of Philip IV begins in 1643, four
years before the official founding of the Opera Pia di
Spagna and twenty-two years before the death of the
king. For it was in that year that Philip first expressed his
intention of making a sizable donation to S. Maria
Maggiore.12 No doubt as an inducement to the king and
to encourage his donation, on 31 July 1643 the canons of
the basilica declared that they would erect a statue in his
honor as a sign of gratitude.13 The decree, however, was
premature. No action was taken on the statue by the
canons and the donation of Philip IV was not immediately forthcoming. Negotiations between Philip, the chapter, the king's ambassador in Rome, representatives of
the Kingdom of Sicily, and other interested parties over
the promised donation dragged on, and it was only in
1647 that the Opera Pia di Spagna was finally established.
" In a recent essay by Mons. Fernindez-Alonso, "Storia della Basilica,"
in Pietrangeli, ed., 19-41, the author discusses the Philip IV only briefly,
but does provide (ibid., 39) a revised and more accurate dating of the
statue. His chronology, however, differs from the one established by
the documents and presented here.
12The Archivio Capitolare di S. Maria Maggiore (hereafter cited as
ACSMM), Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, 1647-90, contains numerous
documents that prove that the idea for the donation began in 1643. One
such document, a copy of a letter from the chapter of the basilica to
Philip IV, states: "Il Capitolo e Can.ci della Basilica di S. Maria Maggiore
di Roma humilm.te rappresentano all M.V.ra che stando questa Patriarcale sotto la sua Real prottetione p[er] il che sino dall'anno 1643 fu V.M.
servita di dottarla di Ducati 4000 l'anno in spoglij et frutti di chiese
vacanti nel Regno di Sicilia...."
3ACSMM, Atti Capitolari 1641-51, fol. 35v: "Venerdi ad 31 d[ett]o
[Luglio] 1643. Che alla Maesta del Re Cattolico p[er] gratitudine, si facci
una statua, et nella inscrittione s'instrecci il nome del Ecc.mo Sig.re D.
Gio. Chumacero et di Mons. Ill.mo Carillo come Promotori et factori di
tanto benefitio." On Chumacero, see below and n. 23. At this time I am
unable to positively identify Mons. Carillo. Mons. Justo FernandezAlonso, who kindly brought this document to my attention, first noted
its contents (as in n. 11, 39) without citing his source.
93
With this foundation, promulgated in the bull "Sacri
Apostolatus Ministerio" by Pope Innocent X on 7 October 1647, the longstanding ties between S. Maria Maggiore and the Spanish monarchy were strengthened.
Moreover, as first conceived by Philip in 1643, and as
reiterated in the papal bull, the Opera Pia was a means of
expressing his profound devotion to the Virgin (whose
principal church in Rome is S. Maria Maggiore) and of
assuring the salvation of the Spanish monarch, his
family, predecessors, and successors.14 Once established
in 1647, it provided the chapter of S. Maria Maggiore
with a perpetual annual income of 4,000 scudi, drawn
from the Sicilian dioceses of Mazzara and Catania. This
enormous sum of money made it the richest single
source of income for the basilica. The money paid the
salaries of a "Cappellano Regio di Spagna," ten canons,
and additional chaplains assigned to the Sistine and
Pauline chapels in the basilica; in return, the clergy was
obligated to celebrate three masses each year for the
Spanish monarchy.'"
A pivotal figure in securing the Opera Pia was Giulio
Rospigliosi, the future Pope Clement IX. Born in Pistoia
in 1600, Rospigliosi came to Rome in 1617, where he
studied at the Jesuit College. At the University of Pisa he
earned doctorates of philosophy and theology, and he
taught philosophy there from 1623 to 1625. He became a
prominent figure in the Barberini court of Urban VIII,
holding several important ecclesiastical positions, including those of referendary of both Segnaturas, Secretary to
the Congregation of Rites, and Secretary for Briefs to
Princes. Rospigliosi also gained considerable fame as a
poet and librettist, providing the texts for several operas
performed for the Barberini family. It was through his
work as a librettist for the Barberini that he came to
befriend Gianlorenzo Bernini, who on several occasions
designed the stage sets for his operas.16
In December of 1636 Urban VIII made Rospigliosi a
canon of S. Maria Maggiore. Thus began his long association with the basilica, an association that culminated
much later in the century with the erection of his tomb
within its walls. On 14 July 1644, just two weeks prior to
Urban VIII's death, Rospigliosi was appointed nuncio to
Spain." He held this important position until 1652,
throughout much of Innocent X's pontificate, and during
his time in Spain managed to represent successfully the
interests of the Papacy and gain the respect and friendship of Philip IV.'8With the election of Alexander VII in
1655, Rospigliosi's career was advanced considerably; he
was named Governor of Rome, then Secretary of State,
and on 9 April 1657 he was finally raised to the cardinalate.
In his capacity as papal nuncio to the Court of Philip IV
and canon in absentia of S. Maria Maggiore, Rospigliosi
was in a unique position to foster the founding of the
Opera Pia. An act of such piety and generosity, one may
imagine he told the king, would bring prestige to the
Spanish monarch, enhance Spain's standing in Rome
and with the pope, and benefit their beloved S. Maria
Maggiore. All three goals were accomplished in late 1647
when the Opera Pia was officially instituted by Innocent's bull.19 Rospigliosi's decisive role in promoting the
establishment of the Opera Pia was immediately recognized by the canons of S. Maria Maggiore; and in 1652 a
short tract summarizing the history of its founding, titled
"Relazione dell' Opera Pia di Spagna," was written on
behalf of the canons, and was dedicated to Giulio
Rospigliosi, singling him out as having been instrumental in securing Philip's gift.2"
On 15 May 1648, seven months after the bull was
issued, the canons of the basilica appointed three of their
members to visit Innocent X in order to express their
gratitude to him for expediting the founding. On the
same day the chapter also resolved to place portraits of
Philip IV, Cardinal Albornoz, Juan Chumacero, and the
4 The bull of Innocent X is published in Cinti, 165-185; and Bullarum
diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum pontificum, ed. A.
Taurinoro, xv, Rome, 1868, 532-544. In a hitherto unpublished and
autograph letter written by Philip IV to his viceroy in Naples, Pedro
Fajardo, the Marquis of Los Velez, dated 12 February 1645, the king
expressed his reasons for establishing the foundation, employing
language that was later incorporated into the bull. It states, in part: "Al
Ill. Marq. de los Velez primo mi Virrey lugarteniente y Capitan general
en el Reyno de Sicilia. Por estar la Iglesia de la Basilica de S.ta Maria la
Mayor de Roma debaso de mi Real proteccion y la singular devocion
que tengo a N'ra S.ra resolvi el an'o pasado mil seisciento y quaranta y
tres dotarla en quatro mil ducados de renta perpetua en cosas
ecclesiasticas ..."; the king also specifies that a certain amount of the
money should go to the celebration of masses, "en el ... altar de N'ra
S.ra por mi, mis hijos, y successores prosperidad y buenos sucessos
desta Corona." ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, 1647-90, unpag.
This letter also confirms the origins of the donation in 1643.
's My information on the Opera Pia is drawn from Cinti, passim; Staffa,
370-372; Martinelli, 66, n. 4; Fernindez-Alonso (as in n. 11), 39; and D.
Taccone-Gallucci, Monografia della patriarcale basilica di Santa Maria
Maggiore,Rome, 1911, 74-77.
16 On Giulio
Rospigliosi, see Pastor, xxxI, 319-322 and passim, with
additional bibliography. For his work as a librettist, see F. Hammond,
"Bernini and the 'Fiera di Farfa,' " in I. Lavin, ed., GianlorenzoBernini.
New Aspects of His Art and Thought,University Park and London, 1985,
115, 125, n. 1; and Magnuson, I, 248-251. On Bernini's friendship with
Rospigliosi, see Baldinucci, 61-62.
17 Pastor, xxxI, 320. Rospigliosi had been in Spain before, in 1626, in the
entourage of the Cardinal Legate, Francesco Barberini.
'"His
intimacy with Philip is reflected by the critical role he played in
negotiating the king's marriage to Marianna of Austria in 1649. See
Pastor, xxx, 87-90.
19Cinti, 1-4.
2 ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, "Relazione dell'Opera Pia di
Spagna." This single bound volume, written by a certain Don Pietro
Caetano, bears a date of 8 September 1652. In the dedication to
Rospigliosi, it states, fol. 2: ".. . e perche sanno questi Signori Deputati
[i.e., canons Gio. Batt. Fedele and Don Bernardino Barberio], e tutto il
Capitolo con quanto affetto e diligenza si sia adoperata V.S. Ill.ma nelle
speditioni de gl'ordini cossi favorevoli alla Basilica tanto dal Re, come
dal suo conseglio, mentre e dimorato Nuntio in Spagna ... " See also G.
Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastico,103 vols., Venice,
1840-61, xii, s.v. "S. Maria Maggiore," 124, and XIV, s.v. "Clemente IX,"
54, for a discussion of Rospigliosi's pivotal role.
94
Conde de Ofiate in the sacristy of the basilica to commemorate the founding of the Opera Pia.21
The three men named along with Philip IV were
among the most ardent voices for Spanish affairs in
seventeenth-century Rome. Gil (or Egidio) Carrillo Albornoz had been made a cardinal by Urban VIII in 1627 at
the request of the Spanish king. A blood relative of Philip
and a strong advocate for the interests of Spain, he
headed the Spanish faction in the College of Cardinals.
Although appointed Archbishop of Taranto in 1630, he
remained in Rome in order to support Spanish causes,
and in the conclave of 1644 he was instrumental in seeing
to the election of the pro-Spanish Innocent X.22Don Juan
Chumacero began his career as law professor in Salamanca and by 1626 had achieved the powerful position
of Councillor of Castile. In 1633 he was sent to Rome by
Philip IV to negotiate a number of sensitive issues
between Spain and the Papacy, and from December 1639
to early 1643 he served as Philip's Ambassador Extraordinary to Rome.23The third individual to be commemorated by a portrait, Ifiigo VWlez de Guevara y Tassis,
Conde de Ofiate, was among Philip IV's most trusted
advisers. He served the king as his ambassador to the
Holy See from 1646 to 1647, and during the Revolt of
Masaniello in 1647 Ofiate led the Spanish cry for papal
intervention against the rebels in Naples. Following the
defeat of rebel forces, Ofiate was appointed Viceroy of
Naples by Philip in 1648, re-establishing Spanish sovereignty over its vassal state." Although it is not clear
precisely what roles were played by Albornoz, Chumacero, and Ofiate in founding the Opera Pia, that they
were honored by portraits suggests that their actions
ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, "Memoria Di tutto cio' che si'e
operato dal Capitolo dopo la Fondazione dell'Opera Pia di Spagna
seguita li 7 Ottobre 1647" (hereafter cited as "Memoria"), fol. 1: "15
Maggio 1648." Canons Fedele, Elisei, and Boccapadulo are "deputati...
a ringraziare la Santita di Nostro Sig.re Papa Innocenzo X della Grazia
fatta al nostro Capitolo nella Spedizione della Pensione di Spagna....
Fu risoluto che si metti col Ritratto di N.S. sopra la Sagrestia, quello di
Sua Maesta Cattolica, del Sig. Cardinal Arbonoz, Conte d'Ognat, e D.
Giovanni Chiumazzero."
The "Memoria," written in a late 18th-century hand, is a compilation
and precis of capitular decrees spanning the years 1648 to 1789.
From the late 16th century on, the canons of S. Maria Maggiore
commemorated their most generous patrons and benefactors by erecting portraits of them in the sacristy. Many of these portraits today hang
in the salone (or Sala dei Papi) and archive of the canons' palace, erected
by Paul V.
' On Albornoz
(t1649), see A. Ciaconius (with additions by A. Oldoino),
Vitae, et res gestae PontificumRomanorumet S.R.E. Cardinalium,Iv, Rome,
1677, cols. 561-562; L. Cardella, Memorie storiche de'cardinalidella Santa
RomanaChiesa,8 vols., Rome, 1792-94, vi, 273-274; Pastor, xxIx, 159; xxx,
15-23. Pastor (xxIx, 159, n. 2) cites a relazione of 1643 which states of
Albornoz: "A lui sono appoggiati tutti gl'interessi della corona."
23 See Pastor, xxviII,326; xxIx, 189, 199-200, 204-206; and J.H. Elliot, The
Count-DukeOlivares. The Statesmanin an Age of Decline, New Haven and
London, 1986, 431, 436, 655.
24 On Ofiate, see Pastor, xxvIII, 199-200; xxx, 77, 81, 85; Elliott (as in n.
in Diccionario
23), passim;A. Barbero, "Velez de Guevara y Tassis,
Ifuigo,"
Madrid, 1986, III,
de historia de Espalia, ed. G. Bleiberg, 3 vols., 2nd ed.,
929; G. Galasso, "Napoli nel viceregno spagnolo dal 1648 al 1696," in
Storiadi Napoli, vI, pt. 1, Naples, 1970, 3-26.
2
were significant and were highly appreciated by the
canons of S. Maria Maggiore.' Moreover, their involvement attests to the importance attached to the Opera Pia
and to Spain's presence in one of Rome's most venerated
basilicas.
It was in April 1659, almost eleven years after Philip
IV's donation, that the canons of S. Maria Maggiore again
brought up the idea of erecting a statue to the king of
Spain. This time, however, the proposal was followed by
action. In a meeting of 26 April the chapter issued a
decree stating its resolve to have a bronze statue of Philip
made and to begin raising money, in addition to the 500
scudi already put aside for the project. The purpose of
the statue, according to the decree, was to honor the
Spanish monarch as the "supreme benefactor" of the
basilica. In addition, the decree states that Girolamo
Lucenti, founder of the Reverenda Camera, had expressed interest in making the statue; that Cardinal
Giulio Rospigliosi, "to whom all the canons declare a
special debt," also had proposed Lucenti for the job; and
that Lucenti had been accepted unanimously to carry out
the project.26
This decree makes it clear that the plan to erect a statue
of Philip IV was in no way associated with the king's
death in 1665, and, in fact, predated it by a number of
years. Moreover, since Lucenti had petitioned the canons
prior to the issuance of the decree, and as some funds
were already placed in reserve, it may be inferred that
the idea for a statue, first voiced in 1643, had begun to
take form before the decree of 26 April 1659. It also
becomes evident that among the members of the chapter,
Cardinal Rospigliosi assumed the decisive role in undertaking the project. In fact, the initial idea for the statue
may well have been Rospigliosi's; it would be a vivid
expression of his desire to honor the monarch in whose
court he served and with whom he negotiated the Opera
Pia, as well as being an affirmation of the Spanish
Crown's support of S. Maria Maggiore.27 Perhaps the
decree of 1643, quoted in n. 13, in which the canons
5 In the capitular
first expressed their intention of erecting a statue of Philip IV,
Chumacero was singled out for his role in promoting the king's
donation. On Ofiate's role in negotiating the foundation of the Opera
Pia, see Staffa, 371. ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, 1647-90,
contains a copy of a letter dated 13 February 1647 written by Philip IV to
Ofiate (then serving as his ambassador to Rome) regarding the
foundation of the Opera Pia.
26
ACSMM, Atti Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 65: "A di 26 Aprile [1659] ... [it
was resolved] Che si faccia la statua di metallo alla Maesta del Re
Cattolico, e delli danari venuti ultimamente se ne ritenghino a questo
fine scudi cinquecento, et A proportione di quello haveranno ha[v]uto
tutti contribuischino alla spesa di essa.
"Facendo istanza il sig.re Girolamo Lucenti Fonditore della Rev[erenda] Camera di voler' fare la sud[det]ta statua di metallo, che ha
risoluto il Capitolo di esporre alla Maesta del Re Cattolico come a
supremo Benefattore, venendosi anco proposto il medesimo dall'
Emin[entissi]mo Rospigliosi, per incontrare i gusti di S[ua] E[eminenza], alla quale professano tutti i Can[oni]ci singolari obligationi, si e
concordemente accettato per detta Op[e]ra." See also "Memoria," fol. 4.
27Borsi, 341 and Cipriani (as in n. 5), 206-207, both assumed that
Rospigliosi was responsible for proposing the statue.
most surprising fact to emerge from the decree is that
Girolamo Lucenti offered his services to the chapter and
was Rospigliosi's choice for the project.
The next documentary notice about the statue concerns the financial arrangements. On 4 September 1659
the chapter expressed its desire to continue raising
money for the statue, for which purpose three scudi
would be collected from each canon celebrating a mass.'
Money trickled in over the course of the next several
years, but it was not until 1663 that a sizable contribution
for the statue was received.29In a capitular meeting on 28
January 1663 the canons declared that the 2,000 scudi
collected from Cardinal Astalli and the royal treasury of
the Kingdom of Sicily would be used to settle outstanding debts and to pay for the "statue being erected to the
Catholic Majesty in our basilica."30
The decree of 28 January is a particularly revealing
document, more for the name of the source of funds than
for the fact that money was being raised for the statue.
Cardinal Camillo Astalli, who personally donated 900
scudi, was one of the most Hispanophile members of the
College of Cardinals. After a brief time as a cleric of the
Camera Apostolica, Astalli, a distant relative of Donna
Olimpia Maidalchini, came under the protection of Innocent X. Virtually overnight, the pope made him a cardinal, adopted him as a member of the Pamphili family and
appointed him cardinal padrone.He also received a sinecure worth 30,000 scudi a year. However, in 1654 Astalli
fell victim of his own incompetence and his close ties to
Spain. When, in that year, Innocent was planning to
attack Naples, Cardinal Astalli warned Philip IV, who
was then able to prevent the pope's plan from unfolding.
Enraged, Innocent removed Astalli from the Curia and
deprived him of all his titles except that of cardinal. He
lost his Pamphili name and sources of income, and was
exiled from Rome. He remained in exile until the death of
the pope, but reappeared at the conclave of 1655 as a key
member of the Spanish-Imperial party. And in gratitude
for his support of Spanish causes, Philip IV named Astalli
Protector of the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily and in
1661 helped him to obtain the bishopric of Catania.31
Given his personal history, Astalli's financial sponsorship
of the statue is not surprising. He had the means to
support the project, and it offered the cardinal a public
showcase for his allegiance to Philip IV. It may also be
assumed that Astalli, as Bishop and Protector of Sicily,
aACSMM, "Memoria," fol. 5: "Nel Capitolo del di' 4 Settembre 1659 fu
risoluto per continuare a poco a poco a porre in ordine ii denaro che
dovra spendersi per la statua, si ritenghino 3. scudi per Canonico nella
Messa, che dovra cantarsi Domenica 8. dell' corr.e."
29 The financial documentation
pertaining to the statue is incomplete,
but see ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Libro Mastro 1647-97, fol.
64, left and right, for entries regarding the collection of money from the
canons.
3oACSMM, "Memoria," fol. 5r-v: "Nel Capitolo dei 28 Gennaro 1663
resolutum fuit cum in Sacro Monte Pietatis reperiantur scuta bis mille,
quoniam mille et centum exacta fuerunt ab Aerario Regio Regni Siciliae,
et novemcentum ab E.mo Card.li Astalio, decretum fuit, quod scuta
mille et biscentum dividantur inter Eos, qui caedulas habent, reliqua
95
played a part as well in securing funds from its royal
treasury.
In a capitular decree of 16 September 1663, Bernini's
name appears for the first time in connection with the
project.32We learn that two canons of the basilica asked
Bernini--"expert in architecture," as the decree calls
him-to select a site for the statue, and that the sculptor
proposed a location in the portico, which, it is reported,
would provide "more space and light" than the site
offered by Prince Borghese.
The reference to Prince Borghese and to his proposed
site requires some explanation. He can be identified as
Giovanni Battista Borghese, the son of Paolo Borghese
and Olimpia Aldobrandini, and grandson of Marcantonio Borghese (the nephew of Pope Paul V), whose sole
heir he became upon the premature death of his father in
1646. Like his grandfather, Giovanni Battista Borghese
was closely allied with the Spanish monarchy. Having
been made a knight of the Spanish military order of
Calatrava in 1654, at the age of fifteen, he assumed the
title of Prince of Sulmona, in the Kingdom of Sicily, a title
first bestowed upon Marcantonio by Philip III. Giovanni
Battista also received the title of grandee of Spain from
Philip IV, and later served Philip V as ambassador
extraordinary to Clement XI.33These close ties to Spain
serve to clarify why he volunteered a site for the statue
honoring Philip IV. The location of the site, however,
remains uncertain, although in or near the Borghese
family chapel must be inferred.
The Pauline or Borghese Chapel, erected by Pope Paul
V from 1605 to 1621, together with its adjacent sacristy
and other subsidiary rooms, was founded and remained
under the legal control of the Borghese family. With the
death of Giovanni Battista's father in 1646 and grand-
applice.tur Statuae erigendae Cattolicae Majestati in nostra Basilica." See
also Atti Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 89v.
31 On Astalli, see Pastor, xxx, 39-42; xxxi, 1-2; G. De Caro, "Cardinal
Astalli," in Dizionario biograficodegli italiani, Rome, 1960-, Iv, 453-454;
and Magnuson, II,13-16 (with additional bibliography). Astalli's appearance is vividly recorded in a portrait by Velizquez, painted in 1650, in
the Hispanic Society of America, New York. See Brown, 200-201, pl.
233.
32ACSMM, Atti Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 95: "Die 16 7bris [1663]. Cum
Rev.mi D.ni Piccolomineus, et Spinola retulerint se alloquutos fuisse
D.num Aequitem Berninum ad hoc utpote in Architectura paeritissiumus unum e duobus locis eligeret in Porticu' n[ost]rae Basilicae pro
erigenda statua Maiestati Regis Catholici, consuluit illum longe aptiorem esse quem possidet Exc.mus Princeps Burghesius non solum ob
maiorem capacitatem, sed etiam ob lumen, quod maius habebit praeter
alias adductas rationes, et quoniam pluries id factum fuit ' Capitulo, ne
videamur solis verbis operari per vota secreta decretum fuit, talem
locum emi, et ut cito fiat electi fuerunt Rev.mi D.ni Mutus, Piccolomineus, et Spinola, ut maiore, qua possit solertia aggrediatur opus." See
also "Memoria," fols. 6v-7.
33 See G. De Caro, "Borghese, Giovanni Battista," in Dizionario biografico
degli Italiani, Rome, 1960-, xI, 596-597. Giovanni Battista's grandfather,
Marcantonio Borghese, was created a grandee of Spain in 1620 by
Philip III; see G. De Caro, "Borghese, Marcantonio," in ibid., 600-602.
On the Order of Calatrava during the reign of Philip IV, see L.P.
Wright, "The Military Orders in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
Spanish Society," Past and Present, XLIII,
1969, 34-70, esp. 53ff.
96
father in 1658, he became the sole patron of the chapel.
Since the document refers to the site as "possidet"-owned-by Prince Borghese, it must, therefore, refer to a
location within the confines of the chapel or its adjacent
rooms; and given the fact that neither the chapel nor the
other Borghese-owned rooms afforded ample space,
light, or public access, it is no wonder that Bernini
proposed to place the statue in the portico.34
It was nearly nine months later, in June 1664, that the
chapter of S. Maria Maggiore formally contracted Girolamo Lucenti to execute the statue of Philip IV. A
preliminary agreement, dated 3 June, between Lucenti
and two canons named as representatives of the chapter-Ottavio Boccapadulo and Pier Filippo Bernini (the latter,
Gianlorenzo's eldest son)-established that the sculptor
would carry out the project according to terms to be
settled within eight days.35A capitular decree of the same
date notes that the preliminary contract between Lucenti
and the chapter had been made, and furnishes the
second mention of Gianlorenzo Bernini in connection
with the project. It states simply that Bernini reviewed
and approved the contract.36
One week later, on 10 June, a more detailed and
specific contract with Lucenti, also overseen by Bernini,
was established.37It stipulated, among other things, that
the sculptor was to execute the statue of the king in
bronze; that it was to be twelve palmi high without its
base, twelve and one half with; that the statue was to be
gilded; and that it should be completed and delivered
within fifteen months-that is, by September 1665. Lucenti would receive the respectable sum of 2,200 scudi to
cover all materials and expenses.38
It becomes clear from the contract that the canons
desired a rather imposing monument, an over-life-sized
gilt-bronze statue (nearly three meters tall) of the Spanish king. In addition, the contract called for a particular
image of the king; it required Lucenti to make a model of
the statue with Philip "armato conforme l'Imperatori
Romani con manto Reale e scettro"-that is, exactly as he
appears in the finished work. And once again, Bernini is
named; Lucenti's modello must meet the approval of
canons Boccapadulo and Pier Filippo Bernini and of
"Signor Cavalier Bernino," all of whom would have to
approve the gilding of the statue as well.
Once the contract was established, five years after the
idea for the statue was seriously put forth, the project
began to get under way, and the immediate concern of
the chapter regarded the financial arrangements. A
capitular decree of 13 July 1664 informs us that 4,000
scudi have been set aside for the statue-a sum that
represents 1,800 scudi more than the 2,200 mentioned in
the contract as the amount needed to cover all of
Lucenti's expenses.39 The most logical explanation for the
additional money is that it was intended to pay for the
architectural setting for the statue, as seen in Bernini's
drawing in the Vatican (Fig. 3).
There can be little doubt that the sheet in Leipzig and
the Vatican drawing as well were produced no later than
April 1665, that is, before Bernini left Rome for his
journey to Paris.' Together the two drawings exhibit the
very features mentioned in the documents: the Vatican
sheet, in which the architectural arrangement is the
primary concern, shows the statue located in a spacious
and amply lit setting (the portico); and in the sheet in
Leipzig the king is represented wearing armor and a
royal mantle, holding a scepter. Moreover, the Vatican
sheet, which is certainly a presentation drawing, shows
the statue to be approximately thirteen palmi high (based
on the scale on the drawing itself), that is, extremely close
to the height dictated by the contract. Further evidence
in support of a date in 1664 for the Leipzig studies is
provided by the recto of the sheet, on which Bernini
drew figures of Famefor the Scala Regia. The sketches of
Fame can almost certainly be dated to 1664, for in that
year Bernini's assistant, Ercole Ferrata, was paid for the
stucco figures.41 And since Bernini was in the habit of
employing both sides of a sheet to study the same or
contemporary projects, a date of 1664 for the Leipzig
studies seems evident.42 The design of the monument, as
seen in the Vatican drawing, also suggests a date of ca.
1663-64. As Brauer and Wittkower and others have
observed, the perspectival effect created by the converging columns corresponds closely to Bernini's conception
for the Scala Regia as designed by 1663. Similarly, the
' For a
ground plan of the Pauline Chapel and its adjacent rooms, see
K. Schwager, "Die architektonische Erneuerung von S. Maria Maggiore
unter Paul V," RdmischesJahrbuchfir Kunstgeschichte,xx, 1983, fig. 7.
Document 1.
3 See Appendix,
Atti
Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 99v: "Die 3.a Junij [1664]. Cum
36ACSMM,
Rev.mus D'nus Berninus Scripturam attulerit in qua adnotata erant
pacta, et conventiones pro conficienda statua Cattolico Hispaniarum
Regi inter nostrum Capitulum et D. Hieronymum Lucenti, iam pridem
D'no AEquite Bernino, data fuit facultas
recognita, et approbata
Rev.mis D'nis Boccapadulo, et Bernino nomine Capituli publicum
instrumentum conficiendi." See also "Memoria," fol. 7.
39ACSMM, Atti Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 100v: "Die 13.a Julij [1664]. Ut
quisque Rev.morum Canonicorum pro rata concurrat ad summam
scutorum quattuor millium, quae retineri debent pro conficienda statua
erigenda Cattolicae Maiestati Regis Hispaniarum, decretum fuit, quod
huiusmodi retentio non protrahatur ultra mensem 7bris venturi anni
1665." See also "Memoria," fol. 7r-v.
See Appendix, Document II.
received 2500 scudi for his bronze statue of
38 For comparison, Algardi
Innocent X in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, carried out from 1646 to
1650. See Montagu, 1985, n, 428, cat. no. 152.
37
On the dates of Bernini's departure from and return to Rome, see
Chantelou, xvii. Further on the date of the Vatican drawing, see below.
41 Brauer and Wittkower, and Wittkower, 246.
42 A few examples among the Leipzig collection of Bernini drawings
may underscore this point: inv. nos. 7881r-v, 7882r-v, all studies for the
Saint Teresa;inv. nos. 7892r- v, both studies for the Daniel; inv. nos.
7813v, a study for the LodovicaAlbertoni (1672) and 7813r, a study for
Baciccio's Gesi~ dome fresco (1672). See Lavin, et al., cat. nos. 10, 13, 35,
36, 86, 88.
40
intended placement of the statue at the far end of the
portico, with a concealed source of light to one side,
parallels Bernini's idea for the installation of the statue of
Constantine, as conceived by 1662. Thus, conceptually,
the Philip monument, as envisioned in the Vatican
drawing, may be seen as a synthesis of the solutions
reached in the preceding years with the Constantineand
Scala Regia.43
Following the decree of July 1664, except for brief
archival notices pertaining to the financing of the project,
no more was heard about the statue for over a year and a
half." The next significant notice came in early 1666, in a
capitular decree dated 14 February. It declares that a
canon of the basilica will seek the decision of the Spanish
nuncio, Pedro de Arag6n, whether the statue of the king
should be gilded.45 It is evident that by this date the
statue had been modeled and cast, ready for finishing. All
the work on the statue must have been accomplished by
Lucenti during Bernini's trip to Paris, during which time
Philip IV had died.46
However, just three months after his return to Rome,
Bernini again became involved in the project. We learn
from a decree of 14 March that Pedro de Arag6n had
accepted the advice of Bernini-whose opinion, it states,
"should be highly considered in these matters"-not to
gild the statue but only to clean and varnish it in order to
maintain the beauty of the cast.47And several weeks later,
on 2 May, the canons, by a vote of twelve to two, agreed
See Brauer and Wittkower, 160; Borsi, 341; Cipriani (as in n. 5), 207;
Klinger, 251, n. 5. The chronologies of the Scala Regia and statue of
Constantine are summarized in Wittkower, 245-246, 251-254; and
Lavin, et al., 136-145, 241-246. As Brauer and Wittkower noted (p. 63),
the design for the base of the statue of Philip may be compared with
that of Alexander VII in the Cathedral of Siena, completed in 1663. For
the Bernini workshop drawings of the statue and its base, see Brauer
and Wittkower, pl. 160a and b.
43
"4See ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Registro de' Mandati
dell'opera pia di Spagna 1646-78, unpag.: mandati no. 14 (2 Sept. 1664);
no. 35 (19 Jan. 1665); no. 43 (7 Sept. 1665); no. 48 (2 Nov. 1665); no. 16 (6
Sept. 1666) no. 46 (6 Sept. 1667); no. 52 (20 Oct. 1667).
45ACSMM, Atti Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 106v: "Die 14 Feb. [1666]: fuit
resolutum quod D. Mutus exponet voluntatem Exc.mi Nuntij Hispaniarum D. Petri ab Aragonia an Simulacrum Aeneum Ser.mi Regis
Philippi 4 recol. mem. debeat aureis folijs in aere candenti applicatis
exhornari vel potius [?] ut dicitur grattabugiare et colore quodam ut
moris est depingi."
46 Philip IV had died on 17 September 1665. Chantelou, 232, recorded
the death of the Spanish king in his diary on 27 September.
47ACSMM, Atti Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 107v: "Die 7 Martij [1666]: R.mus
Mutus retulit Exc.mus Petrum ab Aragonia Nuncium Hispan. nec non
Regium Argentem approbasse consilium D. Equitis Bernini eiq[ue]
multum esse deferendum in hac materia scil[ic]et quod statua ;anea
Philippi 4. f[el]. R[ecord]. non expoliatur seu aureis folijs exhornetur
sed tantum ut solet dici si cuoca,e si grattabugicon darli la verniceeo quod
magis appareat pulchritudo Statueae eiusq[ue] integritudo si remaneat
prout est post fusionem, et Capitulum ita fieri mandavit." See also,
"Memoria," fols. 7v-8.
The date of this decree, as is made evident in the following document
(see n. 48), is in fact 14 March. The underlining that appears in the
document (here designated by italics) and the switch to Italian suggest
that the passage is a direct quotation.
97
to follow Bernini's advice concerning the finishing of the
statue-that it should be cleaned, polished, and given a
patina.4
The decrees of 1666 introduce a new protagonist to the
story, Pedro de Arag6n, who played a prominent part in
the debate about whether or not to gild the statue. Born
of an aristocratic Castilian family, Don Pedro Antonio de
Arag6n (1610-1690) was closely allied to the Spanish
royal family. He served his king as commander of the
Spanish cavalry in the battle of Perpignan, where he was
taken prisoner by the French. After several years of
imprisonment Arag6n returned to Madrid and became
the tutor of Prince Baltasar Carlos, Philip and Isabella's
first male child. Upon the premature death of the prince
in 1646, he left the court for a number of years until his
appointment as ambassador to Rome. He remained in
this position from 1664 until April 1666, when he replaced his brother, Don Pascual, Cardinal of Arag6n, as
Viceroy of Naples. He ruled there until 1672, and during
his vice-regency, Arag6n, no doubt with memories of his
imprisonment, worked actively against French interests
in Italy. He was also an active sponsor of artistic undertakings, erecting several notable public monuments throughout the city of Naples.49
While a good amount is known about Pedro de
Arag6n's artistic patronage as viceroy, his involvement
with the statue of Philip IV, while ambassador to Rome,
has gone unnoticed. Although little can be gleaned from
the documents about Arag6n's ideas concerning art, it is
clear that he took a strong interest in the statue's
completion. This might be explained as Arag6n fulfilling
his ambassadorial duties, promoting a monument honoring the recently deceased Spanish king. However, the
48 Ibid., fol. 108: "Die 2.a Maij [1666]: Non obstante quod sub die 14
Martij fuit resolutum quod iuxta mentem Ex.mi Petri Ab Aragonia
[...]Nuntij Hispan. statua enea Phi. 4. f.r.ut d[icitu]r si cuocassesolam.tee
si grattabugiassecon darsi ii colore, e non altrim.ti si repulisce o indorasse
placuit uti ex R.mi dd. denuo audire sup[ra] hoc mentem dd. Canonicorum et maior pars p. secreta sufragia p.duodecim fabas albas voluit
quod sequeret[ur ?] consilium d. Equitis Bernini nempe che la statua
non si repulisse o indorasse, ma s[o]la[men]te si ricocesse, e si grattabugiasse con darci il colore, due tantem fabae nigrae fuerunt."
The term grattabugiare-to clean and prepare the metal surface before
gilding or varnishing-is used by Benvenuto Cellini in his treatise, Del1'oreficeria.See B. Cellini, Opere,ed. G.G. Ferrero, Turin, 1971, 740: "Fa
che la tua opera, dove tu vuoi dorare, sia benissimo pulita e grattapugiata, che cosi si dice nell'arte: le qual grattapuge si fanno di fila di
ottone. ....."
49On Pedro de Arag6n, see V. Pradera Gortizar, "Arag6n, Pedro
Antonio de," in Bleiberg, ed. (as in n. 24), 307-308; G. Coniglio, II
viceregno di Napoli nel sec. XVII, Rome, 1955, 302-306, 310, 319, 322;
Galasso (as in n. 24), 121-141; Kamen, 292, 330-331, 378, n. 66; On
Arag6n's artistic patronage, see R. Pane, "Il vicere Pedro de Aragon e
l'ospizio di S. Gennaro dei poveri," in R. Pane, ed., Seicento napoletano:
Arte, costume e ambiente,Milan, 1984, 139-141, 528; Civiltd del Seicentoa
Napoli, exh. cat., Naples, 1984, II, 165-166. James D. Clifton kindly
provided me with the last two references.
Don Pedro de Arag6n succeeded his brother, Don Pascual, the
Cardinal of Arag6n, as ambassador to Rome. After his return to Spain,
he was raised to the rank of grandee in 1677 by Charles II and in 1681
was given membership in the Council of State.
98
1
LXXIII
NUMBER
MARCH
1991VOLUME
THEARTBULLETIN
specializednatureof his concern-his desireto see the
statuegilded-suggests thathe had ratherspecificartistictastes.
The debate that developed over the gilding of the
statue, with the Spanish ambassadorin favor of gilding
and Berniniopposedto this action,may be cast in the
broadercontextof Spanishversus Italiantaste in the
seventeenthcentury.Lightis shed on this debate,albeit
froma particularand biasedpoint of view, by remarks
made by Bernini during his stay in Paris in 1665, as
converrecordedby Chantelou.50
Recountinga particular
sationamongBernini,the papalnuncioto France(Carlo
Robertide Vittorij),and himselfaboutantiqueart and
one'sabilityto appreciateit, Chantelouwrotethat"the
Cavaliereintervenedwith an anecdote... in Naples,he
said,onlytriflesandgildingareappreciated... [and]the
Cavaliereadded,Spaniardshave no tasteor knowledge
It is unclearto what extentthese remarks
of the arts."51
reflect a general seventeenth-century Italian attitude
toward Spanish taste; and Bernini himself was not averse
to working for Spanish patrons, including Philip IV.52
However, his comments are particularly noteworthy in
the context of the debate over the gilding of the statue
and help explain the position that he took. It seems
apparent that, to Bernini, to gild the statue was to
trivialize it, to make it overly precious and to detract both
from the beauty of the cast and the overall effect of the
idea of the monument. Gilding was appropriate, in
Bernini's eyes, for certain parts of larger monuments, but
he shunned the complete gilding of his large figurative
bronzes, and of all his portrait busts.53 It was thus a matter
of decorum on the one hand and aesthetic preference on
attitudes toward Spanish patrons and taste form the subject of
an unpublished paper by James D. Clifton, "Spanish Patrons in
Seventeenth-Century Italy: Perception and Reality." I am grateful to
the author for allowing me to read his essay, for bringing to my
attention the passages in Chantelou, and for discussing this issue with
me.
been to Naples (since his
51 Chantelou, 23. Although Bernini had neither
birth) nor Spain, he may well have been familiar with the tradition of
highly realistic, polychromed, and gilded works by sculptors such as
Alonso Cano, Pedro de Mena, and Juan Martinez Montafits.
50 Italian
52Bernini executed an over-life-sized bronze crucifix for Philip IV,
which, according to his biographer, Filippo Baldinucci, (p. 42), was
made "at the request of the King of Spain." Bernini also designed the
tomb of Cardinal Domenico Pimentel, a Spanish Dominican, and that of
the Spanish jurist, Mons. Pedro de Foix Montoya. See Wittkower, 181,
227-229, cat. nos. 13, 56, 57.
Bernini's (now lost) S. FrancescaRomanaand the
53 The one exception is
which stood atop the saint's sarcophagus in
ca.
executed
1648,
Angel,
the confessioof S. Maria Nova. I. Lavin, Berniniand the Unity of the Visual
Arts, 2 vols., New Haven and London, 1980, I, 59, notes that Bernini's
use of gilt metal for this work was "perhaps ... in reference to the
tradition of metal reliquaries."
One is reminded of the anecdote in Pliny (Natural History xxxIv. xix,
trans. H. Rackham, Cambridge, Mass., 1952, 175) about Emperor Nero's
decision to gild a statue of Alexander the Great. This "addition to its
money value, " Pliny writes, "so diminished its artistic attraction that
afterwards the gold was removed, and in that condition the statue was
considered yet more valuable." Evonne Levy kindly brought this
passage to my attention.
the other; Bernini clearly favored preserving and not
detracting from the natural beauty of the bronze.
Once the decision not to gild the statue had been
accepted by the canons, Lucenti, it must be assumed,
followed Bernini's counsel and completed the cleaning
and patination of the statue. Just over one month later,
on 6 June 1666, a capitular decree declared the statue
finished and stated that Lucenti should be paid the
remainder of his money.54 And although the statue was
more than nine months late, Lucenti nevertheless received the final 400 of the total 2,200 scudi stipulated in
the contract. 55
Bernini, Lucenti and a Consideration of Artistic
Collaboration and Style
The statue of Philip IV is highly unusual, if not unique,
among seventeenth-century Roman monumental bronzes
in that it is known solely by the name of its founder,
Girolamo Lucenti.56Despite the fact that the Vatican and
Leipzig drawings attest to Bernini's role in the design of
the statue, and in contrast to all his other bronzes which,
although cast (and sometimes modeled) by others, are
universally considered as works by Bernini, the Philip IV
has never been thought of as a Bernini sculpture. The
statue is omitted from Baldinucci's catalogue of Bernini's
works and the early guidebooks consistently name only
Lucenti as the artist.57The newly discovered contract and
other archival materials that document the statue's manufacture afford an opportunity to assess the validity of
this traditional attribution and to examine afresh the
creative roles played by Bernini and Lucenti. Such an
examination will serve to clarify the authorship of the
statue and contribute to our understanding of an impor54 ACSMM, Atti
Capitolari 1652-1682, fol. 108v: "Die 6 Junij [1666]. fuit
in loc. Capit.o decretum quod D. Lucenti uti de fusili opere iam perfecto
Philippum 4. Hispaniarum Regem representante egregie merito solveretur totum residuum libere absque aliqua exceptione quod illi debetur,
eo quod totum opus p[er]fecerit, et munus suum adimpleverit." See
also "Memoria," fol. 8.
55ACSMM, Instrumentorum 1664-84, xxIx, fols. 19v-20: "Die 3. Julij
1666 ... D. Hieronymus Lucentes fil. q. Ambrosijs Romanis ... scuta
quatuor centum m.ta Julij X per scuto p[er] ultimo, finali ac integra
solut[io]ne et pagam[en]to mercedis seu facturae statuae rapresentan[de] bo:ne mem. Philippus 4.us Hispaniar[um] Regem per eum
constructe et fabricaeomnibus suis sumptibus et expen ...."
"Sub die 14 Julij 1666 D. Philippus Berninus Can.cus ... S. S.ta Basilica
S.M. Magiore m[anda]to n[umer]o 7" Sig.re Provisore del Sac. monte
della Pieta li piacera pagare a Sig.re Girolamo Lucenti scudi quattrocento m[one]ta p[er] resto di scudi due mila, e due cento p[er] l'intero
sua sodisfat[io]ne e prezzo della statua di metallo fatta a tutte sue spese
alla ... mem. del Re di Spagna Filippo 4.' in conformita dell' Instro[mento], conventioni e de[cre]to sud[dett]o dell' Ill.mo e Rev.mo
Capitolo, e Canonici e con quietanza nel atto del pagam[en]to p[er]
gl'atti del Gerardino n[ost]ro Not[ai]o senz'altro fede di d[ett]a quietanza saranno di S. M. Magiore li 20 Giugno 1666....................V 400:
m[one]ta."
A final capitular decree, dated 3 October 1666, states: "Item quod
Statua Enea Rec: Mem: Philippi 4 Regis Hispaniarum, ut dicitur, si
ripulisca." ACSMM,Atti Capitolari 1652-82, fol. 110. See also "Memoria,"
fol. 8.
56Montagu, 1989, 60.
57 See
Baldinucci, 112-117; and above, nn. 1 and 2.
BERNINI,LUCENTI,AND THESTATUEOF PHILIPIV
tant issue in Bernini studies-the nature of the collaboration between "master" and "pupil."58
In 1659, when plans for the statue got underway,
Girolamo Lucenti was little known as an independent
sculptor. He had collaborated with Bernini from 1647 to
1649 on the decoration of the piers of St. Peter's basilica,
for which he carved a putto, and he had served as a
founder in Alessandro Algardi's studio. In 1654 he was
named in Algardi's will as one of the master's giovani and
as the recipient, along with Domenico Guidi, Ercole
Ferrata, and Paolo Carnieri, of the contents of his foundry.
Lucenti's primary activity at the time was as a bronze
founder for the Reverenda Camera, casting artillery
pieces for the Castel S. Angelo.59 Thus at the time he
offered his services to the canons of S. Maria Maggiore
and was selected to execute the statue, he had produced,
as far as is known, no independent sculptures.
Lucenti, however, was an exceptional figure among
the founders of Rome. Not only had he been reared in
the foundry of his father, Ambrogio (t. 1656), who had
collaborated with Bernini on several occasions, but he
also would go on, in the course of this career, to
transcend the usual limitations of the craftsman-founder.
As Jennifer Montagu recently stated, he "straddled the
line between founders and sculptors."" Indeed, that he
was more than just an artisan-founder is reflected in the
contract for the Philip IV, in which Lucenti is called both
scultore and fonditore. Cardinal Giulio Rospigliosi, who
was responsible for proposing Lucenti for the project,
must have been aware of Lucenti's talents. And although
Lucenti may have lacked experience in designing such a
work as the canons had in mind, the cardinal had sound
reasons for his choice of artist.
Rospigliosi, as is well known, was a highly sophisticated patron of the arts. A gifted poet and librettist, he
was an admirer of Pietro da Cortona and Francesco
Borromini, and had commissioned several works from
Poussin.61 He was also a close friend of Bernini, with
whom, as has been noted, he had collaborated on
theatrical productions for the Barberini; and as Pope
On this issue, see R. Wittkower, Sculpture,Processesand Priciples,New
5s
York, 1977, 178-181; J. Montagu, "Bernini Sculptures Not by Bernini,"
in Lavin, ed. (as in n. 16), 25-43; H. Tratz, "Werkstatt und Arbeitsweise
Berninis," R6mischesJahrbuchfiir Kunstgeschichte,xxIII-iv, 1988, 195-483.
59 Girolamo Lucenti
(ca. 1625-1698) was the son of Ambrogio Lucenti, a
bronze founder who worked for the Fabbrica di S. Pietro. Little
scholarly attention has been directed to his work, but see esp. the
anonymous entry in Thieme-Becker, eds., Allgemeines Lexikon der bildendenKiinstler,xxIII,Leipzig, 1929, 436; Riccoboni (as in n. 8), I, 206-207;
M. Weil, TheHistory and Decorationof the Ponte S. Angelo, University Park
and London, 1974, 80, 110, nn. 18-19, 125-126, 144-145 (with additional
bibliography on Lucenti's work as a cannon-maker); Montagu, 1985, I,
186-187, 208, 218, 231, 265, n. 50; and Montagu, 1989, 48, 60, 195-196,
219, n. 86. The entry in Thieme-Becker mentions that Lucenti became a
member of the Accademia di S. Luca in 1654.
Montagu, 1989, 60.
Blunt, Nicolas Poussin (The A.W. Mellon Lecturesin the Fine Arts), 2
vols., New York, 1967, I, 153-154.
6
6' A.
99
Clement IX he patronized Bernini extensively. Furthermore, Bernini was himself closely connected to, and was
a kind of adopted son of S. Maria Maggiore. He lived
until 1639 next to the basilica in the house of his father,
Pietro, who had worked in the Pauline Chapel.62In 1621
he contributed stucco figures to adorn the catafalque of
Paul V erected in S. Maria Maggiore, and in 1628 he
carved a (now lost) marble Piet' for the basilica.63His
eldest son, Monsignor Pier Filippo, was a canon there;
and like other members of his family, Bernini too would
be buried in the basilica.
In addition to certain political considerations (which
are discussed below), Rospigliosi's selection of Lucenti, I
believe, was conditioned to a large extent by his friendship with Bernini and by that sculptor's close ties to S.
Maria Maggiore. It is possible that the astute cardinal
advanced Lucenti for the job, hoping, perhaps even
assuming, that his old friend and Lucenti's maestro,
Bernini, would furnish the design. The chapter would
thus obtain a statue executed by a lesser (and less
expensive) artist schooled, at least in part, by Bernini, but
most important, designed by the master.64A more likely
possibility, however, is that in 1659, when the project for
the statue was proposed, Rospigliosi consulted with
Bernini, who recommended Lucenti for the commission
on the basis of his experience in casting bronze. Lucenti
then offered his services to the chapter assured of both
Bernini's and Rospigliosi's support. And Bernini, I propose, went one step further, offering to guarantee the
success of the project, just as he would later do in 1672,
when he recommended the young Baciccio for the
commission to decorate the church of the Gesi.65 What
remains open to question, however, is whether Bernini
himself was offered the commission and, if he was, why
he declined it in favor of Lucenti.
With the decree of 16 September 1663, Bernini's role in
the project begins to emerge with greater clarity. Called
upon to select a site for the statue, he proposed placing
the work in the portico of the basilica, a location that
would afford ample space and light. Bernini had become
an active participant, giving thought to where and how
the statue should be installed. He also must have begun,
in consultation with Lucenti, to give some thought to the
design of the statue itself, since for Bernini, who deeply
believed in an optical approach to art, the site of a work
On the house of Bernini, see C. D'Onofrio, Romavista da Roma,Rome,
1967, 122-128.
63 For the catafalque, see Berendsen (as in n.
7), 196-198; for the Pietd,
see Wittkower, 268.
" For a parallel situation relating to a project for the Spada Chapel in S.
Andrea della Valle, see Montagu (as in n. 58), 34-36, whose analysis
forms the basis of my own.
65 See my "Intercession of Christ and the
Virgin," in Lavin, et al., 310,
313, nn. 1-2. On Bernini's support of younger, often little-known artists
and his assistance in gaining them commissions, see A.S. Harris "La
dittatura di Bernini," in Gian Lorenzo Bernini e le arti visive, ed. M.
Fagiolo, Rome, 1987, 55-56, 56, n. 46.
62
100
and the distance from which it was to be seen were
intimately related to its size and scale.66
The capitular decree of 3 June 1664 and the contract
with Lucenti of 10 June further clarify Bernini's role in
the project and lend support to the idea that he was
acting as a guarantor to the success of the statue. Not
only was he asked to review the terms of the agreement
with Lucenti, but also to approve Lucenti's modello, in
which the iconography, dictated by the contract, would
be given form, and, later on, to approve the gilding of the
statue as well. Bernini again appears as a consultant,
overseeing the negotiations between the chapter and
Lucenti and providing counsel with regard to both the
iconography and finish of the bronze.
The contract, however, also raises two questions: what
kind of modello did Lucenti produce and who was
actually responsible for the statue's iconography? The
term modellomay have many meanings; it can refer to a
preparatory drawing, or a small terra-cotta, gesSo, or wax
model, or, as is often the case with bronze sculpture, a
full-scale model from which a mold would be produced.67
The language of the contract, with its references to
making the modello,then "le cere," and finally "la forma
per gettarla di Bronzo," might suggest a small terra-cotta
model in which the artist established the basic design
and iconography of the statue. I am convinced that this is
what was meant, based on our knowledge of Bernini's
working procedure and, more generally, seventeenthcentury studio practice.68
As for the iconography of the statue--"armato conforme l'Imperatori con manto Reale e scettro"-although
Lucenti was certainly capable of such an invention, it is
far more probable, based on the close correspondence
between the iconography of the Philip IV and that of
other works by Bernini, that it is he who invented the
statue. One need only consider Bernini's Equestrian
Statue of Louis XIV (Fig. 5), conceived in 1665, which the
statue of the Spanish king anticipates conceptually and
formally.69Both kings appear in an "attitude of majesty
Cf. Bernini's remarks to Chantelou during his stay in Paris about
whether to carve a bust or a statue of Louis XIV. Chantelou, 39, 39, n.
119. See also Lavin (as in n. 53), I, 10-11, for a discussion of Bernini's
theory of i contrapposti.
Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, x, Turin, 1978,
67 S. Battaglia, ed.,
646.
66
See I. Lavin, "Bozzetti and Modelli, Notes on Sculptural Procedure
from the Early Renaissance through Bernini," in Stil und Uberlieferungin
der Kunst des Abendlandes.Akten des 21 Internationalen Kongressesfiir
Kunstgeschichte (Bonn, 1964), III, Berlin, 1967, 93-104, esp. 102-104;
Montagu, 1985, I, 182; P. Dent Weil, "Bozzetto-Modello: Form and
Function," in O. Boselli, Osservazionidella scolturaantica (Dai manoscritti
Corsinie, Doria e altri scritti), ed. P. Dent Weil, Florence, 1978, 113-144.
69 Although first conceived in 1665, the Louis XIV was not
begun until
1669/70. See Wittkower, 254-256. The basic study of the monument is to
be found in Wittkower, "The Vicissitudes of a Dynastic Monument:
Bernini's Equestrian Statue of Louis XIV," in De artibus opuscula XL.
Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, ed. M. Meiss, New York, 1961,
497-531. Further on Bernini's Equestrian Statue of Louis XIV, and his
other works for the French king, see I. Lavin, "Le Bernin et son image
68
.......,....
:iiilip
5 Bernini,Equestrian
Statueof LouisXIV,terra-cottabozzetto.
Rome,GalleriaBorghese(photo:Alinari/ArtResource)
and command"-as Bernini characterized Louis-wearing a cuirass and billowing cloak, holding a baton in an
outstretched right hand; and both works present the
upper body in torsion and the head turned, the gaze
directed over the right shoulder. Furthermore, Bernini
would later repeat this formula in 1669 in his design for
the statue atop the catafalque of the Duke of Beaufort.70
Of the two surviving drawings for the project, the
Leipzig sheet is the more important with regard to the
iconography. The two quickly drawn pen sketches provide our only visual evidence for Bernini's earliest ideas
concerning his image of the Spanish monarch.71 They
give form to the iconography established in the contract
and may well have served, along with more detailed
studies, as the basis for the modellomade by Lucenti.72 In
fact, although the completed statue departs from Berni-
du Roi-Soleil," in 'IIlse rendit en Italie,' Etudes offertesa' Andre Chastel,
Rome, 1987, 441-478, esp. 447-451.
70 See Brauer and Wittkower, 161-162,
pl. 121. The pose of the Philip IV
also reflects Bernini's statue of the Maiestas from the catafalque of Paul
V. See M. Worsdale in Bernini in Vaticano(as in n. 5), 250-251, cat. no.
251. On the meaning of the outstretched hand with baton, see I. Lavin,
"Duquesnoy's 'Nano di Crequi' and Two Busts by Francesco Mochi,"
Art Bulletin, LII,1970, 145-146, n. 78.
" See
Klinger, 248.
72Brauer and Wittkower, (p. 160), to whom only the Vatican sheet was
known, assumed that Bernini would have made additional detailed
studies. On Bernini's preparatory method, see P. Gordon and S.F.
Ostrow with a contribution from S. Cather, "On Function and Style in
Bernini's Drawings," I. "Function," in Lavin, et al., 6-16.
101
ni's designs in certain ways, the contrapposto stance,
position of the right arm, scepter, ancient armor, and
cloak of the bronze are all to be found in the studies in
Leipzig.I believe that these drawings may also be seen as
evidence in supportof Bernini'sguaranteeof the project;
it would be a success precisely because the "master"
formulatedthe iconographyand provided the design for
Lucenti to follow. This closely parallels what we know
about the role Berniniplayed in 1672in the designing of
the dome fresco in the Gesii: he guaranteed Baciccio's
success, took part in the invention of the program,and
provided the young painterwith a series of drawings.73
The function of the Vatican presentation drawing is
more difficult to assess. We have already observed that
the architecturalsetting for the statue, that is, the deposito,
is its primary focus. In typical Bernini fashion, he conceived a recessed niche flanked by pairs of converging
columns and illuminated by a concealed window that
would have created a dramatic effect of chiaroscuro.74
The degree to which the sole autograph part of the
drawing-the statue-deviates from the Leipzig studies
may provide some clues as to the date and purpose of the
sheet. Klinger believed it to represent an intermediate
stage in Bernini's conception, postdating the sheet in
Leipzig.7 But given that in the Leipzig studies Bernini
establishedalmostall of the majorfeaturesthat appearin
the finished statue, it is difficult to place the Vatican
drawing after them. I suspect that the sheet in the
Vaticanwas, instead, made prior to the contractof June
1664,that is, before Berninihad formulatedthe iconography. It is indeed tempting to associate it with the decree
of 16 September1663concerning Bernini'srole in selecting a site for the statue. The drawing might then be
understood as the means by which Berninipresented his
ideas to the chapter for installing the Philip IV in the
portico. At that point, he had given little thought to the
statue itself; its size (about thirteen palmi high) was
established in relation to its proposed context, but its
iconography remained unresolved. The statue as it appears in the Vaticandrawing, with its shroud of drapery
and pointed crown, is more comparable, in fact, to
Bernini'sConstantine,
which the sculptorwas engaged on
from the summer of 1663, than to the designs for the
statue on the sheet in Leipzigin which he abandonedthe
In assessing the collaborationbetween Bernini and
Lucenti up to this time (June 1664), several points
emerge. Bernini was responsible for the basic invention
of the statue, as seen in the Leipzig sketches, as well as
for its proposed architecturalsetting. It is also evident
that he acted as a general consultant to the project.
However, we should not assume that Bernini was the
sole creative artist and Lucenti merely the executor
founder. That the contract was drawn up exclusively
with Lucenti, and that he is called, as noted earlier,
scultoreand fonditore,clearly suggest that he was expected to play a creative role. Had he been viewed only
as an artisan,it is most improbablethat he alone would
have been commissioned for the statue, since no major
bronze monument in seventeenth-century Rome was
commissioned directly from a founder.7 Moreover, the
fact that Lucenti, not Bernini, was responsible for the
modello,the subsequent history of the statue, and the
style of the completed bronze all speak in favor of a
considerableartisticrole for Lucenti.
From the time of the contract in June 1664 until 14
February 1666, the date of the decree concerning the
gilding, there is no documentation about the making of
the statue. What took place between June 1664 and
Bernini's departure for Paris in late April 1665 remains
uncertain. It must be assumed that Lucenti made the
modello,as the contract stipulated, that Bernini and the
canons approved it, and, perhaps in consultation with
Pedro de Arag6n and Bernini,that details of the iconography were determined.It can also be concluded that the
decree of 14 Februaryprovides a terminusante for the
casting of the statue;it must, therefore,have been during
Bernini'sabsence from Rome that Lucenti modeled and
cast the bronze.
On the whole, in the completed statue Lucenti remained faithfulto Bernini'sintentions, achieving a sense
of heroic grandeur through the pose and spiraling play
of drapery.The sway of the body to the side, the winding
drapery that swirls around the figure, and the fluttering
shoulder strapsconjureup an image of the king standing
in the wind ready to face any challenge. Like the master,
Lucenti captures a heightened moment; Philip stands at
rest, yet we sense a potential for action.And through the
concentrated stare directed over his shoulder and the
crown and radically altered the costume.76
emphatic gesture of the baton-wielding arm, Philip
becomes part of the surrounding space and engages the
spectator physically and psychologically.
Notwithstanding the underlying Berninesque conception of the statue, the Philip IV displays several features
indicative of Lucenti's personal style. Whereas in Bernini's Leipzig drawings for the statue and in his nearly
contemporary bozzetto for the Equestrian Statue of Louis
XIV, for example, the drapery has an almost autonomous
character, billowing up and around the figure without
3See above n. 65. Further, see P. Dreyer, "Eine unbekannte Zeichnung
von Gianlorenzo Bernini," in Per A.E. Popham, Parma, 1981, 161-163;
and M.B. Mena Marques, "Un dibujo de Giovanni Battista Gaulli para
los frescos de la cupula del Gesui," in ibid., 205-211. Another (as yet
unpublished) Bernini drawing for Baciccio's dome fresco was advertised (with photograph) by Pietro Scarpa (Venice) in the Burlington
Magazine, cxxvIII,1986, xix.
74 See esp. Brauer and Wittkower, 160.
7 Klinger, 248.
76 For a chronology and illustrations of the Constantine, see
Wittkower,
252-254, pls. 110, 112, 114. Brauer and Wittkower (p. 160) compared
Philip in the Vatican drawing to a Man of Sorrows wearing a crown of
thorns. Fraschetti (as in n. 3, 415) identified it as a "corona reale." The
pointed crown appears more clearly in the copy of the Vatican drawing
in the Uffizi. See above, n. 3.
'
Montagu, 1989, 60. Cf. Montagu, 1985, I, 184, for a discussion of
Algardi's collaboration with founders.
102
114?1
has created an impressive image of an absolute monarch,
commanding, severe, and noble. Supported on a muscular neck, the king's head is erect, imperiously turned to
the side. Lucenti has elongated Philip's already long face,
exaggerating the height and curve of the forehead, and
suppressing the Habsburg jaw. Philip's eyes are enlarged, as are his brows, which emphasize and fix the
intensity of his gaze. His hair falls in a neat mane of curls
framing the head and neck, and his upturned moustache
and goatee frame his thick pursed lips. These idealizing
elements, however, are combined with the more realistic
features of the sixty-one-year-old monarch. Philip's cheeks
are puffy with sagging flesh; his hair recedes; and he has
the beginnings of a double chin. A comparison between
this portrait and an engraving of Philip (which may well
have served as Lucenti's point of departure) by Pedro de
Villafranca (Fig. 6) of 1664, based on Velazquez's "true to
life" portrait of ca. 1656,78underscores the degree to
which Lucenti fused a realistic depiction of an aging king
with an idealized vision of monarchy. It is precisely this
combination of realism and idealism that characterizes
Lucenti's later work in portraiture, exemplified by his
bronze Bust of ClementIX in Detroit of ca. 1678 (Fig. 7) and
his portraits on medals produced during his tenure at the
papal mint (1668-98).79
That in modeling and casting the Philip IV Lucenti was
relatively free of Bernini's personal guidance is supported, I believe, by the ways in which the statue departs
from the Leipzig sketches and from other works by the
master in which he exerted full control. This freedom
may well be attributed to Bernini's absence from Rome.
Just a few years later, in 1668-69, however, when Lucenti
again collaborated with Bernini, he demonstrated even
greater independence-albeit with less success. As Mark
?i '"-":;i:8;---:pl~i
l:~ii-iii~ii?:~~-L;:
~':-''::i~
D
Vi
Lk
i
,S:
W-~.
tilli
Y !I ro:•::N:o
i
Alf+
L
:L~~~~
^i:
('-i A i i" Fi?
I?i:""Bii
k
A
1"4'1
6 Pedro de Villafranca,PhilipIV, 1664,engraved frontispiece,
de la Ordeny Cavalleria
deAlcantara
Difiniciones
The engraving is one of several made by Villafranca between 1657
and 1667 as frontispieces to books. See M. L6pez Serrano, "Reflejo
velazquefio en el arte del libro espafiol de su tiempo," in Varia
Velazquefia, 2 vols., Madrid, 1960, I, 510-513; II, pls. 217-220. The
prototype for the engravings is a portrait in the National Gallery,
London, accepted by most scholars as a work by Velazquez, but
attributed by some to his follower, Juan Bautista del Mazo. See N.
Maclaren, National GalleryCatalogues.The Spanish School,2nd ed., rev. A.
Braham, London, 1970, 108-113, cat. no. 745; Brown, 229. Although the
precise source of Lucenti's portrait is unknown, the Spanish ambassador may well have provided him with a Villafranca engraving. Cf.
Fagiolo dell'Arco and Carandini, I, 212, who state that the portrait of
Philip IV on Rainaldi's catafalque was based on an engraving after a
painting by Mazo.
78
concealing its form, Lucenti's drapery is weightier and
more prosaic, winding around and hiding much of the
figure. Bernini's drapery (in his work of the 1660s) tends
to be turbulent, agitated, and conceived in flat and
broken patterns of folds. In contrast, Lucenti's is more
rational, even sober, reduced to a series of long tubular
folds. These departures from Bernini's style certainly
reveal Lucenti's own artistic vision, but they should also
be seen as reflecting how Lucenti translated Bernini's
designs into a workable and satisfying example of bronzecasting.
Lucenti's personal style is also evident in the head of
Philip IV, which seems to have been designed entirely
without Bernini's guidance. Lucenti's approach to portraiture may be said to combine the lessons of his two
masters, Algardi and Bernini. From the former, he learned
to portray the physiognomy of his subject with an
objective realism; from the latter, that a portrait should
transcend mere likeness and present an image of the
subject's character. The portrait of Philip conflates these
two approaches. As Bernini might have done, Lucenti
79 On the bust in the Detroit Institute of Arts, see the entry by O. Raggio
in Art in Italy 1600-1700, exh. cat., Detroit Institute of Arts and
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1965, 57-58; H.L. Bimm,
"Bernini Papal Portraiture: A Medallion and a Missing Bust," Paragone,
xxv, 1974, 74; J. Spike, Baroque Portraiture in Italy: Worksfrom North
AmericanCollections,exh. cat., The John and Mable Ringling Museum of
Art, Sarasota, 1984, 34-41, 122, cat. no. 40. Bimm argues that the bust
and a series of related portraits (medals and plaques) were all executed
by Lucenti after designs by Bernini. On papal medals by Lucenti, see
Worsdale (as in n. 70), 283, 304, cat. no. 315; N.T. Whitman and J.L.
Varriano, Roma Resurgens:Papal Medalsfrom the Age of the Baroque,exh.
cat., University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, 1983, 133-134,
137, 139; and Spike (as above), 124-127, cat. nos. 41-42.
103
7 GirolamoLucenti,Bustof ClementIX, ca. 1678.DetroitInstitute of Arts,FoundersSocietyPurchase,GeneralEndowment
Fund (photo:Museum)
Weil has shown, among the ten angels on the Ponte S.
Angelo, carried out under Bernini's direction by a team of
nine sculptors, Lucenti's Angel Carrying the Nails (Fig. 8)
departs most radically from the master's design, retaining only the contrapposto pose common to all the
angels." But the pose of the Angel is in fact a virtual copy
of that of the Philip IV; additional parallels can be drawn
between the fussy treatment of folds and the way in
which the right leg of each figure is bound by a swathe of
drapery. The strangeness of Lucenti's Angel may, as
Montagu suggests, be attributed to his unfamiliarity with
the marble medium;81but when viewed in relation to the
Philip IV, a rather distinct artistic personality begins to
emerge.
As the decrees of 14 March and 2 May 1666 indicate,
upon his return from Paris, Bernini resumed his role as
expert consultant and guarantor of the project, advising
the canons not to gild the statue, as Pedro de Arag6n
advocated, but only to have it cleaned and varnished.
The way in which Bernini is referred to, as one whose
opinion "should be highly considered in these matters,"
parallels the reference to him in 1663 as "expert in
architecture," underscoring the fact that the canons
8oWeil (as in n. 59), 46, 80.
81 Montagu, 1985, 218.
I,
8 Lucenti,Angel
CarryingtheNails,
1668-69.Rome,
Ponte S. Angelo
(photo: author)
deferred to him on all artistic decisions. They agreed to
follow Bernini's advice; in June they declared that the
statue had been completed "to perfection"; and Lucenti
received his final payment.
Based on the documents, drawings, and the style of
the statue itself, the Philip IV emerges as a true collaborative enterprise between Bernini and Lucenti. It was
Bernini who provided the designs for the statue, but it
was Lucenti who executed the modello-a step in the
process of making bronzes normally carried out by the
"sculptor" and not left to the specialist in casting because
it required artistic ability, not solely craftsmanship.82
Lucenti then modeled the wax and made the molds,
processes in which, together with the making of the
modello,he put his personal stylistic mark on the statue.
He then cast the bronze and, upon Bernini's advice,
cleaned and finished the surface without the addition of
82
Cf. ibid.,I, 182-183.
104
9 AncientStatue
of Trajanwith a
PortraitHead of
Alessandro
Farnese.Rome,
Palazzodei Conservatori(photo:
author)
10 Colossal
Statueof Mars.
Rome,Capitoline
Museum (photo:
author)
gilding. Throughout the process, from 1659 until 1666,
Lucenti was primarily responsible for the execution of
the statue, and he alone received payment. Although the
technical achievement was Lucenti's, Bernini's role in the
collaboration should not be underestimated. He oversaw
and took part in virtually every step of the project,
providing the invenzione, approving the modello, and
counseling on the gilding. On the one hand, the Philip IV
may be viewed as Lucenti's first major sculptural monument, on the other, as a major addition to Bernini's
corpus of works. In the end, however, neither view is
correct, for the statue is in every way the result of a
process that involved successive aesthetic and technical
contributions from both artists.
Philip IV as Imperator Catholicus
In accordance with the contract, Philip IV appears in the
completed statue in the guise of an ancient Roman
emperor. He wears a cuirass and military boots (caligae)
adorned at the top with lion heads, and holds a scepter,
the traditional symbol of imperial power, in his right
11 Bernini and Lucenti, Philip IV (detail of lion-head boots and
helmet). Rome,S. MariaMaggiore(photo:author)
105
hand. A paludamentum,or militarycloak, fastened with
a fibulaat his right shoulder, sweeps acrosshis chest and
around his back and then envelops his lower body in a
cascade of drapery. The king rests his left hand on the
hilt of a sword hanging from his hip, and his attire is
completed by a helmet adorned with billowing feathers,
which rests upon the statue'sbase behind the left leg.
Both through gesture and costume, Philip is characterized as imperator-as emperor and militarycommander.
The extended right arm with scepter is a potent sign of
imperialpower and, together with the turn of the head,
denotes an adlocutiogesture of address and command.
Above all, Philip appearsas a martialfigure,ready to take
up his sword. The weapon, along with the militarycloak,
boots, cuirass, and helmet, emphasize this persona and,
as in representations of Roman emperors in martial
attire, express the idea that his power and authority
derive from his militarymight.83
In formulating the iconography of the PhilipIV, Bernini drew upon a wide range of sources, from ancient
statuary of Roman emperors to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century statues of rulers and generals. Although
no one ancient work may be cited as the model, numerous imperial cuirass statues in Roman collections presented images of emperors in military attire and in the
act of adlocutio."4
One example, well known to Bernini,
may have provided a point of inspiration,especially for
Philip's massive paludamentum: the statue of Trajan,
fitted with a portraithead of AlessandroFarnesein 1593,
resting on the statue's base (Fig. 11) also depends upon
antique models-not imperial statuary,but representations of Mars,such as the colossalstatue in the Capitoline
Museum (Fig.10), an appropriatesource for a statue of a
king characterizedas a martial figure.87One feature of
the helmet, however, the ram'shead on the visor, has no
specific ancient source. Instead, it should be understood
as an emblem of militarypower and strength."
The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century tradition of
depicting contemporary military and political leaders
all'anticaalso informed Bernini'sconception of the Philip
IV.89The AndreaDoria statue in the Palazzo Ducale,
Genoa, begun by Bandinelli and finished in 1540 by
Montorsoli, Vincenzo Danti's CosimoI in the Museo
Nazionale, Florence (ca. 1573), Leone Leoni's Monument
to FerranteGonzagain Guastalla,completed in 1564, and
Simone Moschini'sApotheosisofAlessandroFarnese(159498) in the Palazzo Reale, Caserta, are a few notable
cinquecento examples of the type from which the Philip
IV descends.90 In the seventeenth century, the tradition
continued with Nicolas Cordier'sHenryIV at the Lateran
Basilica(1609),an important source, as will be seen, for
the Philip IV, and Francesco Mochi's EquestrianMonuments of Alessandroand RanuccioFarnesein the Piazza
Cavalli, Piacenza (1612-25), in which both riders are
represented "armate all'anticha,"as stipulated in the
contract."Bernini too had contributed to this tradition
in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 9).85This figure,
ArchdologischenInstituts, cIII, 1988, 401-464. Goette refers to the lionheaded boots as mullei (see esp. 446-447), although I prefer to identify
them as caligae. I am grateful to Christine Havelock for providing me
with this reference.
This type of boot became ubiquitous in Renaissance representations
of ancient military figures. See, for example, Perino del Vaga's frescoes
in the Sala Paolina, Castel Sant'Angelo, and the Cavalier d'Arpino's
frescoes in the Palazzo dei Conservatori.
much like Philip, wears an elaborate,ankle-length military cloak over his cuirass;and in both works the cloak
hangs acrossthe left wrist, drawing attention to the hand
on the sword's hilt. For the boots worn by the king (Fig.
11), numerous sources were available, including the
Trajan-Farnesestatue just mentioned. As symbols of
majesty and power, lions figure prominentlyin imperial
iconography, and cuirass statues of Trajan, Hadrian,
Antoninus Pius, and other emperorsfeaturecaligaedecorated with lion heads.8s6The elaborate plumed helmet
On the Capitoline Mars, frequently identified as Pyrrhus in the 16th
and 17th centuries, see V. Bush, The ColossalSculptureof the Cinquecento
(Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1967), New York and London, 1976,
68-69; and P.P. Bober and R. Rubenstein, RenaissanceArtists and Antique
Sculpture,London, 1986, 66-69.
87
We may note, in this context, that the ancient statue restored as
Marcantonio Colonna (in 1595) in the Capitoline series (see above, n.
85) includes, among its restored parts, a helmet adorned with a ram's
head. The ram's head may also refer to the Order of the Golden Fleece
(on which, see below); as an attribute of Alexander the Great, it
associates Philip with the Greek general.
89Klinger, 248; H.
Keutner, "IUberdie Entstehung und die Formen des
Standbildes im Cinquecento," MiinchnerJahrbuchderbildendenKunst, vii,
1956, 136-168.
88
83R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in RomanArt, New Haven, 1963, 58-59.
On the imperial and military associations of the paludamentum, see
L.M. Wilson, The Clothing of the Ancient Romans, Baltimore, 1938, 100ff.
See also above n. 70.
See Stemmer, passim,but esp. pls. 67 and 75; Brilliant (as in n. 83), figs.
2.28, 2.29, 2.92; and H.G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischenDarstellung
der r6mischenKaiser, Berlin, 1968, pl. 18. See also Klinger, 251, n. 8, for
additional comparisons and bibliography.
85 On this statue, see C. Pietrangeli, "La sala dei
capitani," Capitolium,
xxxvII, 1962, 640-648, esp. 643 and 648, n. 14; Stemmer, 29, pl. 15, nos.
1-2. The Trajan-Farnese statue is one of a series of five representing
military commanders of the Church erected in the Palazzo dei Conservatori. All were created by fitting out ancient marble torsos with new
portrait heads. On Bernini's contribution to the series, see below and n.
92.
84
86See Niemeyer (as in n. 84), pls. 12, no. 2, 14, no. 2, 16, 17, 20, 21, no. 2;
Stemmer, pl. 67. For an exhaustive study of this and other types of
ancient footwear, see H.R. Goette, "Mulleus-Embas-Calceus. Ikonografische Studien zu r6mischem Schuhwerk," Jahrbuch des Deutschen
For a discussion and illustrations of these works, see ibid.,143-148, fig.
8 (Andrea Doria), 149-150, fig. 10 (Cosimo I), 155-156, fig. 16 (Ferrante
Gonzaga), 164-176, figs. 24-28 (Alessandro Farnese). I cite only civic
monuments of this type and exclude funerary statues all'antica such as
Michelangelo's Giuliano and Lorenzo de'Medici (completed ca. 153334) in the Medici Chapel, Florence, and Leone Leoni's Gian Giacomo
de'Medici (1560-63) in the Duomo of Milan.
91For Mochi's
equestrian statues, see J. Pope-Hennessy, Italian High
Renaissanceand BaroqueSculpture,2nd ed., London and New York, 1970,
104-105, 444-445, figs. 139-140; M. De Luca Savelli, "Le opere del
Mochi," in FrancescoMochi 1580-1654, exh. cat., Florence, 1981, 51-57,
60-64. Cordier's Henry IV in the Lateran is discussed below.
9
106
12 Taddeo
Landini,
CharlesV,
1589,engraving
from R.
Gualterotti,
Descrizione
delregale
apparato
(photo:
Paris,Bibliotheque
Nationale)
13 Taddeo
Landini,
PhilipII,
1589,engraving
from R.
Gualterotti,
Descrizione
delregale
apparato
(Paris,Biblioth"que
Nationale)
earlier in his career. In 1630 he, along with Algardi,
restored an ancient cuirass torso of Julius Caesar, transforming it into a commemorative statue of Carlo Barberini, the commander of the papal armies. It was the fourth
in a series of sculptures commemorating generals of the
Church to be erected in the Sala dei Capitani of the
Palazzo dei Conservatori (the first was the TrajanFarnese statue discussed above) and, as in the other
statues of the series, Barberini appears as a victorious
general of antiquity.92As has been noted, Bernini would
also later reiterate this iconographic formula in his
Equestrian Statue of Louis XIV and in the statue of the
Duke of Beaufort.
It becomes evident that the Philip IV descends from a
well-established artistic tradition. However, when viewed
in relation to other images of Philip, the statue appears
highly unusual: Philip was, as far as I can discern, never
92 See Wittkower, 196;
Montagu, 1985, II,402, cat. no. 123; and I. Lavin,
"Bernini's Memorial Plaque for Carlo Barberini," Journalof the Societyof
ArchitecturalHistorians,XLII,1983, 6-7.
otherwise portrayed in the guise of an ancient general or
emperor. Among the numerous painted, engraved, and
sculptured portraits of the Spanish king, it is not uncommon to find Philip represented as a military commander,
an image he and his ministers wanted to project. In
Vela"zquez's Philip IV on Horsebackof 1634-35 (Madrid,
Museo del Prado) or Pietro Tacca's Equestrian Statue of
Philip IV, dated 1640 and set up in the Buen Retiro in
1642, two well-known examples, the king displays the
attributes of the captain general-sash, armor, and baton.
The works convey the ideas of kingly power and military
prowess; but the imagery is modern, the armor contemporary.93
see Brown, 112-116, fig. 133; on
93 On Velazquez's PhilipIV onHorseback,
Tacca's equestrian monument, see J. Brown and J.H. Elliott, A Palacefor a
King:TheBuenRetiroandtheCourtofPhilipIV,New Haven and London,
1980, 111-113, fig. 58. See also Brown and Elliott's fig. 29, which
reproduces Jean de Courbes's engraving of Philip IV on Horsebackin
which the king is similarly portrayed.
The only other example that I have been able to locate in which
Philip appears in ancient military attire is an engraving by I. Sauli after
40
u
la"~
AALt~r
~
ili
;.?~ia~t
~ lr"P~ .~f?IsI
3;
t0%~
?Iaa~VW
14 Anonymous,PhilipIV Enthroned,
engraving (photo:Archivo Espasa-Calpe)
Imperial imagery, of course, was anything but foreign
to Philip IV, and although he was not himself Holy
Roman Emperor, as a Habsburg he could lay direct claim
to be successor to the ancient Roman imperium.94Charles
V, Philip's great-grandfather, had been a Holy Roman
Emperor, a title that asserted his role as successor to the
ancient Caesars. Moreover, as Orso has observed, "one of
Charles's considerable political accomplishments had
been to revive the use of ancient imperial imagery to
glorify his own regime and to proclaim his link with his
Antonio Picchiatti's catafalque of Philip IV, erected in Naples. On the
second story of the temporary monument stands a statue of the king;
he wears a cuirass and cloak, and holds a baton. This image of the king,
which must date to late 1665, may well be based on the Bernini-Lucenti
statue, which was virtually finished at that time. For Picchiatti's
catafalque, see Fagiolo dell'Arco and Carandini, I, 212.
94See Orso, 149-150. Much of Orso's discussion centers on Philip's
cultivation of imperial imagery. Further on Philip's imperial associations, see B. von Barghan, Philip IV and the "GoldenHouse" of the Buen
Retiro;in the Traditionof Caesar(Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1979),
New York and London, 1986, passim.
95 Orso, 151. On Charles V and imperial themes, see Yates, 1-28; E.
Rosenthal, ThePalaceof CharlesV in Granada,Princeton, 1985, passim;H.
Trevor-Roper, Princesand Artists: Patronageand Ideologyat FourHabsburg
Courts1517-1633, New York, 1976, 11-45.
107
antique predecessors."95 Another of Philip's illustrious
ancestors, his grandfather Philip II, maintained Charles
V's aspirations to the imperium; although he did not
inherit the Imperial crown, Philip II nevertheless exploited imperial associations through imagery, as Charles
had done before him.96
Although portraits of Philip IV's Habsburg ancestors in
the guise of ancient generals are relatively rare, some
were produced,97 and one image of Charles V and
another of Philip II are particularly noteworthy in this
context. In 1589, on the occasion of Ferdinando I
de'Medici's marriage to Christine of Lorraine, a series of
colossal stucco statues of the Medici rulers and various
imperial personages was created for the temporary decorations in Florence. Among this series were Taddeo
Landini's portrait statues all'anticaof Philip II and Charles
V which adorned the Canto de' Bischeri. Recorded in
drawings and engravings (Figs. 12 and 13), these statues
are remarkably similar to that of Philip IV and may well
have served as models. The stance, the position of the left
hand on the hilt of the sword, the cuirass, and the
extended, baton-wielding right arm of the Philip II are
closely paralleled in the statue of Philip IV, and the long
military cloak and feathered helmet of the CharlesV find
counterparts in our work.98
It is apparent, then, that in conceiving the statue of
Philip IV, Bernini bypassed the visual tradition of representing that Spanish king as a contemporary military
commander and turned instead to the ancient Roman
imperial tradition associated with his Habsburg ancestors. Philip is thus glorified as the true heir to that
tradition, as the Habsburg Imperatorpar excellence. In
addition, two particular features of Philip IV's costumethe lion heads that adorn his boots and the chain of the
Order of the Golden Fleece displayed across his torsofurther advertise his descent from the imperial Habsburg
dynasty.
As noted above, the lion figures prominently as a
symbol of royalty and power in ancient imperial iconography and can be found adorning the military boots of
numerous imperial cuirass statues. But the lion was also
an heraldic symbol of the Habsburgs, and as such
See M. Mezzatesta, "Imperial Themes in the Sculpture of Leone
Leoni," Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1980, 108ff.; and idem,
"Marcus Aurelius, Fray Antonio de Guevara, and the Ideal of the
Perfect Prince in the Sixteenth Century," Art Bulletin, LXVI,1984,
630-631. On the reign of Philip II, see A. Dominquez Ortiz, The Golden
Age of Spain 1516-1659, trans. J. Casey, New York, 1971, 64-83; J.H.
Elliott, Imperial Spain 1469-1716, London, 1963, 204-278; P. Pierson,
Philip II of Spain, London, 1975.
96
97 On portraits of Charles V in ancient armor, see Mezzatesta, 1980 (as in
n. 96), 53-59, 328-331. Yates, fig. 36, reproduces an engraving by Martin
van Heemskerck from Divi Caroli V Victorix (1556), in which Charles V
wears ancient military attire.
98 Landini's statues are discussed in Bush
(as in n. 87), 198. The source of
the engravings is R. Gualterotti, Descrizione del regale apparatofatto in
Firenzeper le nozze della serenissimaMadamaCristina di Lorenomoglie del
serenissimo Don FerdinandoMedici III Gran Duca di Toscana, Florence,
1589. Klinger, 252, n. 14, first compared the statue of Philip IV to
Landini's statue of Philip II.
108
appears on the boots of Leone Leoni's full-length bronze
statue of Philip II in the Prado, as well as on Leoni's
statue of CharlesV and Fury Restrained,also in the Prado.99
Philip, in turn, exploited the lion as one of the emblems
of his monarchy, as can be seen in a contemporary
portrait engraving (Fig. 14), and his decoration of the
Octagonal Room of the Alcazar incorporated the lion and
the other Habsburg symbol, the eagle, into the furnishings. As Orso has observed, the lion was a general
allusion to royal status and also symbolized the Kingdom
of Le6n, an integral part of the Spanish domain.'"
Furthermore, the lion, or more specifically, the lion skin,
was also an attribute of Hercules, with whom the Habsburg monarchs, as well as many other princely rulers,
associated themselves. Upon Philip IV's coming to the
throne, in fact, the city of Seville struck a commemorative
medal with a portrait of the new king on the obverse and
Hercules strangling serpents on the reverse, with the
accompanying motto: HerculiHispano S.P.Q.H. Herculean
symbolism figured prominently, as well, in the decorations of Philip's palaces.1'1
The chain of the Order of the Golden Fleece provides
another dimension to the symbolic connotations of the
statue. The Order, founded by Philip the Good of
Burgundy in the fifteenth century, was the most prestigious chivalric order of the Holy Roman Empire. Following the passing of the grandmastership of the Order to
the house of Habsburg in 1477, it was Charles V, above
all, who revived the prestige and influence of the Order
on affairs of state and made it the most illustrious
confraternity of knights in Spain. Upon becoming grandmaster in 1516, Charles attached great importance to the
Order in the realization of his imperial goals and ardently believed in the Order's original mission to recover
the Holy Land and to defend the Catholic faith. Charles
left the grandmastership to his son, Philip II, to whose
successors it was confirmed in 1600 by Pope Clement
VIII; thus the command of the Order passed to Philip III
and then to Philip IV.102
As in imagery of Charles V and Philip II, Philip was
often depicted wearing the chain of the Order of the
Golden Fleece. In portraits of the king by his court
painter Velizquez, the golden chain is Philip's most
The statues are illustrated in Orso, figs. 79 and 82. See also Mezzatesta,
1980 (as in n. 96), 1ff. and 108ff.
'00Orso, 92.
10' On Philip IV as Hercules Hispanicus and, more generally, on
Herculean symbolism in the Habsburg Court, see Brown and Elliott (as
in n. 93), 156-161, 272-273, nn. 34-41, with additional bibliography. See
also G. Bruck, "Habsburger als 'Herculier,' " Jahrbuchder kunsthistorischenSammlungenin Wien, n.s. L, 1953, 191-198; Von Barghan (as in n.
94), 230-235.
102On the Order of the Golden Fleece and its cultivation by the
Habsburgs, see Baron von Reiffenberg, Histoire de l'Ordre de la Toison
d'Or depuisson institutionjusqu'dcessationdes chapitresgne'raux, Brussels,
1830; Yates, 22-24; Rosenthal (as in n. 95), 258-259; Orso, 17-19; idem,
Art and Death at the Spanish HabsburgCourt. The Royal Exequiesfor Philip
IV, Columbia, Mo., 1989, passim.
frequent attribute. What is so striking and new about the
inclusion of the chain in the statue, however, is that it is
combined with ancient military attire, unprecedented in
portraits of Philip. As a potent sign of Christian virtue
and as the insigne of the Order whose mission it was to
defend the faith, the chain of the Order of the Golden
Fleece proclaims Philip as the Catholic king-il Re Cattolico-and the true heir to the Habsburg imperium. In
combination with the ancient military garb, it transforms
the statue from a representation of Philip IV as ancient
pagan military leader to one of Philip as Imperator
Catholicus, a militant protector of the Church poised to
take up his sword in defense of the Catholic faith.
Moreover, that the Order was dedicated to the Virgin
and her protection made its chain an especially suitable
attribute for a statue designed for the foremost Marian
shrine in Rome.'03
It can be concluded, therefore, that the statue of Philip
IV expressed a carefully formulated and unmistakable
propagandistic message. The costume worn by the king
not only makes an obvious allusion to ancient Roman
emperors, but also to Philip's exalted ancestors, Charles
V and Philip II. The Habsburg king was presented, for all
of Rome to see, as the militant Re Cattolico and as a
prominent force in the papal capital. The statue proclaimed Spanish imperial power and military strength
and, in the context of S. Maria Maggiore, it could only be
read as a clear statement of the basilica's close ties and
allegiance to the Spanish crown.
The History of the Statue, 1666-1749: Spain, Rome, and
the Politics of Art
I have noted that the project for the statue of Philip IV,
first proposed in 1643, dragged on for twenty-three
years, that is, until 1666. And with the death of the
Spanish monarch prior to the completion of the statue,
the nature of the monument was fundamentally transformed. What had been conceived, initially, as an honorific statue to a living king became, in the end, a commemorative memorial. But even after his death, Philip would
have to wait to be honored, for Bernini's architectural
setting was never executed and, more surprisingly, the
statue was only erected twenty-five years later, in 1691. It
is unclear why the architectural scheme was not carried
out, and the documents provide no clues. Was it due to a
99
the patron saint of
103 The Order was also dedicated to Saint Andrew,
the dukes of Burgundy. Klinger, 250, briefly discusses the implications
of the chain. To my knowledge, the only precedents for the combination of ancient military attire and the chain of the Order of the Golden
Fleece are the Bandinelli-Montorsoli statue of Andrea Doria in Genoa;
Francesco Mochi's Equestrian Monuments of Alessandro and Ranuccio
Farnese in Piacenza; medals of the two Farnese by the same sculptor
(1625); and Mochi's stucco sculpture of Duke RanuccioFarneseKneelingin
Prayer in the church of S. Maria di Campagna, Piacenza (1616). Both
Doria and the Farnese had close ties to the Habsburgs. Whether Bernini
(and/or Lucenti) had knowledge of these works is not clear, but they
constitute significant formal and conceptual precedents for the Philip
IV. On Mochi's works, see De Luca Savelli (as in n. 91), 49, 65-66, and
see above, n. 91.
lack of funds, or was the scheme intentionally abandoned upon Bernini's departure for Paris? Or perhaps
Bernini's numerous papal projects-the Colonnade of St.
Peter's, the Scala Regia, the Cathedra Petri, etc.prevented him from executing it after his return to Rome.
More perplexing is why the statue was not erected upon
its completion. What factors impeded its placement in
1666 and what were the circumstances a quarter-century
later that gave rise to its installation? To what extent are
the issues surrounding the original commission, the
iconographic message of the statue, and the fact that it
was not erected in 1666 interrelated? The solution to this
complex web of questions must be sought within the
historical and political context of the statue; underlying
the story is the special relationship that existed between
S. Maria Maggiore and Spain.
This bond began in the late fifteenth century with
Alexander VI, who served as archpriest of the basilica
from 1483 to 1492. During his papacy (1492-1503), he
commissioned the gilt-coffered ceiling over the nave and,
according to a tradition popularized in the seventeenth
century, had the coffers adorned with the first gold from
the New World, presented by Ferdinand and Isabella to
their fellow Spaniard, the Borgia pope.104 This rich donation would lead to the establishment of the kings of
Spain as the protectors of S. Maria Maggiore and as
proto-canons of the basilica's chapter.'05
One hundred years later, in 1603, the bonds between
Spain and S. Maria Maggiore were strengthened by
Philip III. After having received from the canons a piece
of one of the basilica's most prized relics, wood from the
crib of Christ, accompanied by a supplication to protect
and defend the basilica, Philip declared his royal protection through his ambassador, the duke of Escalona, and
bestowed on the chapter an annual donation of two
hundred barrels of wine (tax-free) drawn from the
Kingdom of Naples.'06 This was followed in 1606 by
another gift from Philip and his wife, Margarita: an
ornate gold and silver reliquary, valued at 3,000 scudi, to
house the basilica's relic of the crib of Christ. These
generous benefactions prompted the chapter to place the
104For the history of the ceiling and a consideration of the 17th-century
sources of the tradition, see P.J. Jacks, "Alexander VI's Ceiling for S.
Maria Maggiore," Rimisches Jahrbuchfiir Kunstgeschichte, xxII, 1985,
65-82. Recently J. Fernindez-Alonso (as in n. 11, 31) has spoken in
support of the tradition. Alexander VI was born Rodrigo Borgia, ca.
1431, near Valencia into a noble Catalan family.
050 . Iozzi, Storia della Basilica di S. Maria Maggiore, 1904, 14, n. 1;
Taccone-Gallucci (as in n. 15), 77; Martinelli, 66, n. 24. Contrary to
published statements, however, the donation of gold did not immediately lead to the establishment of the Spanish kings as protectors and
proto-canons. The basilica officially came under Spanish royal protection under Philip III, and it was only in 1647 that the king received the
honorary position of proto-canon. I am grateful to Mons. FernandezAlonso for this information.
of the act of donation can be found in ACSMM, Fondo Opera
06 A copy
Pia di Spagna, 1649-90. The donation is discussed in A.M. Santarelli,
Memorie notabili della Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, 1647,
102-103; Staffa, 370, n. 3. See also below n. 116.
109
arms of Philip III above the doors of the basilica as a sign
of his protection, and to erect portraits of the Spanish
monarchs-with accompanying inscriptions lauding their
gifts-in the canons' sacristy amidst other portraits commemorating the basilica's most generous patrons."07
The founding of the Opera Pia di Spagna by Philip IV
in 1647 must be seen, therefore, as a continuation of the
Spanish patronage of S. Maria Maggiore that was initiated in the late fifteenth century. Philip IV, like his father,
took his role as royal protector seriously; in a letter of
1645 the king declared that he was creating the Opera Pia
"debaso de mi Real proteccion" of S. Maria Maggiore.•'8
And as already noted, once established, the Opera Pia
constituted the richest source of income for the basilica
and further advertised Spain's royal protection of one of
Rome's foremost churches.
The counterpart to the connection between Spain and
S. Maria Maggiore, and certainly a key motivating factor
in the formation of that relationship, was the longstanding association between S. Giovanni in Laterano and
Spain's political rival, France. From the ninth century on,
the Lateran basilica was the focus of French influence
within the Roman Church, and the king of France was
entitled to the position of hereditary head of the Lateran
chapter. The Lateran's close ties to France grew stronger
over time, and during the sixteenth century, the Lateranits chapter and canons-became
the center of proFrench, anti-Spanish sentiment in Rome.109
The rivalry between the two greatest European powers, France and Spain, and between their monarchs, the
Most Christian King (RexChristianissimus)and the Catholic King (Rex Catholicus),which centered on their respective claims for imperial leadership of Europe,110was
deeply felt in Rome. On one side, the pope unceasingly
attempted to contain French and Spanish hegemony,
and on the other, ambassadors and cardinals from each
side sought to influence papal policy and, at conclaves, to
foster the election of new popes who would favor their
respective ambitions. The Papacy's struggle to balance
power between France and Spain, and its ongoing efforts
to stem the spread of Protestantism, were complicated in
the second half of the sixteenth century by rising Spanish
domination and by the ascent to the throne of France in
1589 of the Protestant Henry of Navarre. But, in 1593,
when Henry converted to the Catholic faith, and two
years later was given complete absolution by Clement
'07 The donation of the reliquary is documented in full in ACSMM, Atti
Capitolari 1596, 1606, 1609, 1610, fols. 54-55v. See also Santarelli (as in n.
106), 101-102.
The portraits are cited in B. Mellini, Dell' Antiquita di Roma,Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, cod. 11905, fols. 331v-332r; see also ACSMM,
Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, 1647-90, unpaginated memorialeof Philip
III's donations.
08See above n. 14.
09P. Lauer, Le Palais du Latran,Paris, 1911, 343ff. In the year 800 Pope
Leo IIIcrowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor, an event commemorated in the Triclinium mosaic of Leo III at the Lateran.
"10On the Franco-Hispanic rivalry, see Yates, 21, 121-126, 208-214.
110
AZU..""l
'Ur
-4."
n-,
r7"s
15 Nicolas Cordier,HenryIV,ca. 1605-09.Rome,S. Giovanni
in Laterano(photo:Anderson/ArtResource)
VIII, the Papacy could claim a political victory and once
again support the French monarch as a means of keeping
Spanish power in check.
With the king of France once again a Catholic, the
Lateran could openly display its pro-French sentiments.
The chapter placed Henry IV's coat of arms above its
central portal and sent two of its members to Paris to pay
homage to the king."11Henry declared his special favor
for the Lateran, and in 1604 ceded the Abbey of Clairac to
the chapter in compensation for properties lost during
the religious wars.112Moreover, soon after receiving this
gift, in 1605 or 1606, the canons of the Lateran commissioned the French sculptor Nicolas Cordier to execute an
over-life-sized bronze statue of Henry IV to be erected in
the lateral portico of the basilica (Fig. 15).113
E. Maser "The Statue of Henry IV in Saint John Lateran: A Political
.1'
Work of Art," Gazettedes beaux-arts,vI per., 56, 1960, 153.
112Harwood, 350; Lauer (as in n. 109), 343.
Harwood (p. 356) dates the inception of the project to 1605. Cf.
Pressouyre, II,401, who assigns it to 1606.
13
The statue of Henry IV was created with a specific
political message in mind. To erect a statue of a foreign
monarch at a Roman patriarchal basilica was an unprecedented and highly conspicuous act, especially because
the monarch was a former "heretic" and the basilica the
seat of the Bishops of Rome. As Edward Maser has
convincingly argued, the gift of the Abbey of Clairac was
not the reason the Lateran chapter decided to erect the
monument to Henry. Rather, as the inscription below the
statue makes evident, the French king was being honored as the new Charlemagne, and just as the first Holy
Roman Emperor freed the Church from Byzantine domination, so Henry IV freed the Church from Spanish
tyranny."4 Once he had returned to the Catholic faith,
Henry could serve the Papacy in curtailing Spanish
pretensions in Rome and in Europe. The Holy See was no
longer under a Spanish yoke. "It is for his aid in
achieving their new freedom," Maser writes, "that the
Lateran may be said to have honored Henry with a great
bronze monument.""' The statue was thus clearly meant
to be understood in political terms, with the king-cast as
the new Charlemagne-appearing as the benefactor and
militant protector of the Lateran and, more important, of
the Roman Church itself.
In the seventeenth century the political antagonism
between the French and Spanish monarchies continued
unabated, and this rivalry was vividly expressed in Rome
between the chapters of the Lateran and S. Maria
Maggiore. It was certainly not coincidental that Philip
III's donations to S. Maria Maggiore and declaration of
royal protection came at virtually the same moment that
Henry donated the abbey to the chapter of S. Giovanni
and affirmed the special relationship between the French
monarchy and the Lateran.116 Not to be outdone by their
rivals at the Lateran who placed Henry IV's arms above
the basilica's entrance, the canons of S. Maria Maggiore
responded by erecting the arms of Philip III.
It becomes increasingly apparent, then, that the decision to create a monument to Philip IV at S. Maria
Maggiore was deeply rooted in the continuing political
rivalry between the satellite churches of Spain and
France in Rome. The founding of the Opera Pia di
Spagna certainly contributed to the decision, but even
the founding itself has to be understood as having been
politically motivated. The statue of Philip IV was clearly
meant to compete with the Henry IV at the Lateran"7;and
Maser (as in n. 111), 147ff.
155.
Ibid.,
15
An
avviso
of 3 April 1604 reads: "Havendo il Capitolo di Santa Maria
16
Maggiore procurato che il Cattolico, ad esempio del Christianissimo che
ha la protetion di S. Gio. Laterano, volesse accettare quella di Sta. Maria
Maggiore come ha fatto, fit percio Sabbato mattina da questo Ambasciatiore Cattolico preso possesso di tal protettione a nome del suo Re."
Quoted in Pressouyre, I, 153, n. 154.
117 Harwood (371, n. 27) and Klinger (p. 250) both
suggested that the
Philip IV was intended to vie with the Henry IV. Indeed, the form and
iconography of the Philip IV owe much to Cordier's statue. Further on
the iconography of the Henry IV, see Harwood, 361-364; Pressouyre, I,
"4
AND THESTATUEOF PHILIPIV
BERNINI,LUCENTI,
to balance it politically as well. Spanish power in the
papal capital would be reasserted through the monument to the Catholicking. The founding of the OperaPia
and the project for the statue were, as we have seen,
carefullynurturedby a group of individuals closely tied
to the Spanish Crown: CardinalAlbornoz,Juan Chumacero, and the Conde de Ofiate were instrumental in
establishingthe Opera Pia, as was Giulio Rospigliosi,the
papal nuncio to the court of Philip IV;and later Rospigliosi, along with Cardinal Camillo Astalli, Giovanni Battista Borghese, and the Spanish nuncio, Pedro de Arag6n, contributed fundamentally to the creation of the
statue. Moreover,that the Opera Pia was first conceived
and the statue first proposed in 1643 takes on particular
significance, for it was in that year that Louis XIII of
Francedied. It is more than likely that Philip IV and his
supporters,on one side, and the Hispanophile chapterof
S. MariaMaggiore,on the other, seized that moment to
reassertSpanishinfluence in Rome.
The impetus on the part of the Spanish faction to see
the statue carriedout once it had been proposed anew in
1659must have been increasedby the changing political
fortunes of Spain and France.Despite the civil strife of
the Fronde, which followed the death of Louis XIII,
France was fast emerging as the dominant European
power. Simultaneously, the tide was turning against
Spain. Once the most powerful nation in Europe, Spain
was losing ground. Defeat after defeat in the Spanish
Netherlands culminated in 1648 with the Treaty of
Miinster, at which Spain recognized the United Provinces as an independent state. In 1659, after fourteen
years of war with France,Spain finally signed the Peace
of the Pyrenees. Spain was forced to cede several territories to France and to give the Spanish Infanta Maria
Teresa to Louis XIV as a bride; Spanish hegemony in
Europecame to an abruptend."s
In the face of these new politicalrealities,the statue of
Philip IV took on even greater symbolic meaning. Although Philip had virtually lost the empire, and had
relinquished to France the role of European power
broker,he could at least be seen in Rome-through the
statue-as a still great imperial general, a peacemaker,
and the protector of one of the most important Roman
basilicas."' This would be accomplished through the
154-156; I, 404. As early as 1608 concern was expressed that in order to
"balance politically" the Henry IV a comparable statue would have to be
erected to the Spanish king. See the letter from Denis-Simon de
Marquemont, the French Auditore di Rota, to the French Secretary of
State, Pierre IV Brulart, quoted in ibid., I, 274-275, Doc. 126.
11sFor an insightful summary of the history of this period, see H.
Kamen, Spain 1469-1714. A Society in Conflict, London and New York,
1983, 205-210. See also Dominguez Ortiz (as in n. 96), 98-111. On the
Peace of the Pyrenees, see Pastor, xxxI, 82-83.
119 The chapter of S. Maria
Maggiore attempted to portray Philip IV as a
peacemaker after the Peace of the Pyrenees. See ACSMM, Fondo Opera
Pia di Spagna 1647-1690, a copy of a letter dated 13 December 1660 from
the canons to Philip, inscribed "Ringraziamento al Re di Spagna, per la
pace ristabilita colla Francia."
111
carefully formulatediconography of the statue asserting
Philip's Habsburglineage as well as his historical,if not
realistic,claimto the imperium.
By 1666,however, the politicalsituation in Rome and
in Europe had changed again. Philip IV had died in
September of 1665, leaving Spain in crisis and the
four-year-old Charles II as the prospective king. Marianna of Austria, the Queen Mother, was to serve as
regent. And in the papal capital, the pro-Spain faction
was on the defensive and Pope Alexander VII was
continuouslyforcedto appease the ever-powerfulFrench
ambassador,the Duke of Cr6qui,who actively carried
In mid-1666,just
out LouisXIV'spolicy of intimidation.'20
when the statue of Philip IVwas ready to be put in place,
the once influential Spanish nuncio, Pedro de Arag6n,
who had taken an active role in the completion of the
statue, left Rome to become Viceroyof Naples. At almost
the same time, the Duke of Cr6qui was replaced as
French ambassadorby the Duke of Chaulnes, who was
expected, as Pastor notes, to continue his predecessor's
"systemof intimidation."'121
Against this political background,the decision not to
install the statue of Philip IV in 1666 appears far more
understandable. With the departure of Arag6n, the
projectlost perhaps its most powerful advocate, and for
the chapterof S. MariaMaggioreto have erected a statue
to the recently deceased Spanish king, a work invested
with so much politicalsignificance,would have compromised Alexander VII's policy of nonalignment and
amounted to a directaffrontto Louis XIV.
The political implications of the statue may also explain why Lucenti,and not Bernini,initially took on the
projectand received the officialcommissionin 1664.The
exclusion of the pope from the Peace of the Pyrenees in
1659 represented a clear defeat for Alexander VII and a
weakening of his political leverage in Europe. Relations
between France and the Vatican grew increasingly
strained,and the year 1664markeda particularlow point
for the pope. Following the infamous Crequi affairresulting from a street brawl in August 1662 between
Corsicansoldiersand the entourageof the Frenchambassador, the Duke of Cr6qui-Franco-papal diplomatic
relationsradicallydeteriorated.In an attempt to humiliate AlexanderVII,Cr6quiinflamedLouis XIVagainst the
pope; in early 1663 the papal city of Avignon was
occupied by French troops and the French king readied
an army to march against the Papal States. Finally, after
eighteen months of threats, Alexander VII yielded and a
peace agreement was reached at Pisa in February 1664.
The agreement called for a formal apology from the
'20In response to this intimidation, even Giulio Rospigliosi began to
establish closer ties with the French. Pastor, xxxI, 78, 96, 322.
121
Ibid., 114-115. Chaulnes arrived in Rome in July of that year. Don
Pedro replaced his brother Don Pascual of Arag6n, who left for Madrid
in April. Kamen, 330-331.
112
pope, and Cardinal Flavio Chigi was sent to Paris as
papal legate to submit an official apology to the king.'"
Just at the moment of Chigi's peace mission to Paris in
July 1664, Bernini's first plans for the Louvre arrived in
the French capital. Bernini had been invited to submit
designs earlier in the year and, after he himself had
written to Colbert on 4 May accepting the commission,
the summer of 1664 was a period of active negotiations
concerning the Louvre project. Although Bernini was
engaged on several large undertakings for the pope,
Alexander VII nevertheless gave his approval to Bernini's departure for Paris. He could not afford to offend the
French king, and his consent may also have been part of
his peace initiative toward Louis.123
Considering the sensitive diplomatic situation between France and the Holy See during the years 1659-64,
and in light of the Louvre negotiations of mid-1664, it
would appear that Bernini was in no position to take on,
at least officially, a commission for the statue of Louis
XIV's political adversary, Philip IV. Such an action, as
Giulio Rospigliosi, the pope's Secretary of State, certainly
recognized, would have further damaged Alexander
VII's relations with the French monarch, just at the time
the pope was attempting to placate him, and jeopardized
Bernini's involvement in the Louvre project. Bernini
could safely remain a consultant on the Philip IV project,
allowing Lucenti to carry out and complete his ideas, but
he would keep his distance from any official role so as to
avoid embarrassment for himself and Alexander VII.
It may, in fact, have been Alexander who prohibited
the installation of the statue in 1666, just as he resisted
Mazarin's attempts to build the Scalinata (the so-called
Spanish Steps) on the Pincian hill a few years earlier. As a
study by Tod Marder has shown, the Scalinata project
proposed by Mazarin in 1660, the central feature of
which was to be an equestrian statue of Louis XIV, was a
transparent act of "aggressive statesmanship in the guise
of architectural patronage," and Alexander VII firmly
resisted the cardinal minister's attempts to create such a
blatantly monarchic monument.124 The pope's concerns
were certainly different from those surrounding the
Philip IV, but it is clear that he wanted to prevent the
appearance in Rome of any explicitly political monument, whether pro-Spanish or pro-French.125
the Duke of Cr6qui to Rome, the
22 On the ambassadorial mission of
Cr6qui affair, and its devastating impact on Alexander VII (culminating
in the Treaty of Pisa), see Pastor, xxxi, 91-108.
to Bernini's Louvre
23 The negotiations and preparations leading up
commission and departure for Paris are summarized in C. Gould,
Bernini in France.An Episode in Seventeenth-CenturyHistory, Princeton,
1982, 7-11. See also Chantelou, xvii.
'" T. Marder, "The Decision to Build the Spanish Steps: From Project to
Monument," in Projects and Monuments of the Roman Baroque,ed. H.
Hager and S.S. Munshower, University Park, 1984, 85-86.
25A chronicle written between 1667 and 1669 explains Alexander's
primary concern about the Scalinata project: "Dicesi che per porsi
mano prima della Scalinata della Trinita dei Monti, con l'erettione a
capo d'essa della statua del Re di Francia, che era la difficolta per la
Over the course of the next three decades the political
conflict between Spain and France continued unabated,
and the Holy See found itself in the middle of this rivalry,
walking a tightrope of nonalignment. Louis XIV and his
expansionist policies continued to be a source of anxiety
and fear for the Papacy, which could no longer rely on
Spain to keep French power in check. Rome's fear of
offending Louis may well explain why the statue of
Philip IV remained out of sight. Yet it may seem surprising that no action was taken to install the statue during
the pontificate of Alexander VII's successor, Cardinal
Giulio Rospigliosi, who was elected to the papal throne
in July 1667 and took the name Clement IX. It was
Rospigliosi, after all, who had played such a pivotal role
in securing the Opera Pia di Spagna for S. Maria Maggiore and in initiating the project for the statue in 1659.
But Rospigliosi was a politically astute man, who as
nuncio to Spain and then as Alexander VII's Secretary of
State had learned the art of diplomacy and had established good relations with the French and Spanish kings.
At the conclave of 1667 he was supported by both the
Spanish and French factions, and throughout his short
pontificate managed to remain on good terms with the
two great powers.26 It is therefore likely that Clement's
desire to maintain cordial relations with France prevented him from encouraging the erection of the statue.
During the 1670s and eighties the statue of Philip IV
appears to have been largely forgotten. We hear nothing
about the project from the canons of the basilica; interest
in the statue seems to have been lost by all but the
Spanish faction in Rome, for whom it still held symbolic
meaning. Suddenly, early in 1691, the idea to erect the
statue was revived. We learn from a capitular decree of
18 February that Monsignor Emanuel, the Spanish Auditore di Rota, together with other ministers of the Spanish
king, approached the canons of S. Maria Maggiore,
strongly urging them to install the statue. It is "not
proper," they argued, that the statue, commissioned by
the chapter in gratitude for the king's royal beneficence,
"should remain abandoned, and neglected as it has been
for so many years in the corner of the very foundry
where it was cast." The statue, Monsignor Emanuel
submitted, should instead be "placed and conserved in a
location more suited to the dignity of the personage
represented." The canons, the decree states, finding this
request "reasonable," with the consent of Cardinal Norfolk, archpriest of S. Maria Maggiore, unanimously voted
to transport the statue from the foundry to the basilica; to
erect it in the courtyard behind the canons' palace; and to
have made whatever "shelter and covering that will be
judged necessary for its rightful conservation." They
ordered the secretary of the chapter to write to Cavalier
Lucenti informing him of their decision and requesting
him to consign the statue to Monsignor Gottifredi, a
quale Alessandro 70 mai volle a consentirvi." Quoted in W. Lotz, "Die
Spanische Treppe. Architektur als Mittel der Diplomatie," Romisches
JahrbuchfiirKunstgeschichte,xii, 1969, 79.
1t See Pastor, xxxI, 318-319; Magnuson, 11,255.
113
canon of the basilica, and to the sagrestanomaggiore,who
were specially appointed to oversee the transport.'27And
on 20 February 1691 Secretary Fonseca wrote the letter to
Lucenti.'2
Why, at this particular moment, twenty-five years after
the statue's completion, the project was taken up again is
a puzzling question. The answer, however, may be a
rather simple one: it was the period of the Vacant See,
the interregnum between the death of Alexander VIII (tl
February 1691) and the election of Innocent XII (12 July
1691).
The Vacant See was a unique period in papal politics: it
was a time when no papal courts functioned, no new
laws could be enacted, and the curial offices were closed.
In other words, during the Sede Vacante the papal
government ceased. It was a time of public protests and
pasquinades, and of intrigues and power struggles among
members of the College of Cardinals and representatives
of foreign courts. As a recent study of this phenomenon
has shown, not only ecclesiastics, but the Roman people
and foreign governments too "looked to the Vacant See
as an opportunity to get even and an occasion to get
ahead."'29 The Sede Vacante of 1691 was a particularly
chaotic time. Eleven days after the death of Alexander
VIII, the conclave to elect his successor began. The
various factions in and out of the Sacred College promoted their favorite candidates, but no one party was
completely united. Moreover, both the French and Spanish-Imperial parties controlled enough votes for an exclusion. A lengthy conclave was forseen by all, though no
one anticipated its being the longest conclave since the
fourteenth century. It was not until 12 July, five months
after it began, that the conclave ended, with the election
of Antonio Pignatelli as Innocent XII.130
The coincidence of timing between the death of Alexander VIII and the proposal to erect the statue was
certainly not accidental. Given the traditional political
anarchy that reigned during the interregnum, the opportunities afforded foreign governments by this absence of
power, and the expectation that the conclave would not
be resolved quickly, the Spanish faction in Rome ex127 See Appendix, Document
III.The date of the decree is established by
the letter quoted in the following note.
1"ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Dalla Fondazione a tutto il
1690, unpaginated copy of the letter: "Sig.re Cav: Lucenti, Havendo il
N'ro Capitolo di S. Maria maggiore risoluto di far trasportare al Cortile
di d.a Chiesa nel luogo destinato la statua di bronzo gia fatta fare da
esso della gloriosa mem: del Re Cattolico Filippo Quarto potra V.S.
Consegnarla a Mons.re Gottifredi Canonico della med.a Chiesa, che
havera cura di d.o trasporto ad effetto di conservarla in conformita del
decr'o fattone sotto il di 18 del corr.e, che con sua ricevuta sara ben
consegnata e questo sara firmato con il sigillo del med.o Capitolo, e con
la sottoscrittione propria di me infrascritto Cano e Segretario questo di
20 Febraro 1691."
129 L. Nussdorfer, "The Vacant See: Ritual and Protest in
Early Modem
Rome," The SixteenthCenturyJournal,xvII, 1987, 173-189; I quote from p.
174. I would also like to express my gratitude to Laurie Nussdorfer for
discussing this subject with me.
130 Pastor, xxxii, 561-570.
1
I
-
I
*
I
*
Cort-le
*?
rSunmer
I
Choir
4
SCanns
Portico
01
1
o
2t
2I
16 Sequenceof intended and actuallocationsof the Statueof
Philip IV in S. MariaMaggiore.1. Portico(left side, 1663);2.
CortileGrande(1691-92);3. Portico(left side, 1691);4. Vestibule of Canons'Sacristy(1692-1743);5. Portico(rightside,
1743-present)
ploited the moment. They made their proposal precisely
at a time when a papal veto could not be issued, and the
canons of S. Maria Maggiore immediately responded
with a favorable decision. It was a somewhat risky action
in light of the uncertainty about the conclave; but when
the Neapolitan Antonio Pignatelli was elected pope, the
Spanish faction and the canons must have welcomed the
relief."'
Within a week of the chapter's resolution to erect the
statue, it was transported to S. Maria Maggiore and
placed in the cortile along the northeast flank of the
Antonio Pignatelli was born in Basilicata, in the Kingdom of Naples.
131
His father, Francesco, was a Spanish grandee. Ibid.,571.
114
b
;....:
??.
Ail:
n
kip,
?~
?s
.
??r:
,*
.
,:l
..;
,
i
*:.
"",
,i
:
.:?r
?,~a:?
...
,...
..04.
'"
*?:
:
j
?;
r'J""
.?
.
....
.
.
,, ,
wzet
'
'I
1""
/''
I~~~~~.
Iva.
.
..,,
-..
"!
'
i
"
A,,;
......
......
WAY
17 Workshopof Matthiade'Rossi(attrib.),Projectfor the installationof the Statueof Philip IV, elevation, 1691,pen and
purplishwash. Rome,ArchivioCapitolaredi S. MariaMaggiore
basilica (Fig. 16).132In the following months, an area in
the courtyard was cleared of debris, the statue placed on
a base, and a protective covering erected over the
monument. The work was carried out under the direction of the chapter's architect Matthia de'Rossi, a new
protagonist in the story.'"33
12
ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Dal 1691 a tutto il 1710; "Sig.e
Domenico Salvi esattore del opera pia di Spagna si contentera di pagare
scudi venti quattro m.ta a Bronoro Orcio.o quali sono per la portatura e
pagamento di tutti quelli che hano fatigato in condurre la statua di
Bronzo di Filippo IV Re di Spagna nel Cortile di S.a M.a Magg.re
dichiarando con questo pagamento restare intieramente sodisfatti che
con rice'uta saranno ben pagati di casa li 25 Febraro 1691.
Filippo Gottifreddi Can.o dep.0
Io sottoscritto ho riceuto per Brunoro mio Padre li sopradetti scudi
ventiquattro moneta in fede questo 26 di Febraro 1691.
Io Andrea Brunoro per Brunoro mio padre"
See also ACSMM, Opera Pia di Spagna, Libro Mastro 1647-1697, fol.
143, for the corresponding entry.
133ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Dal 1691 a tutto il 1710,
unpaginated: "Misura, e stima delli lavori di muro, et altri simili fatti a
tutta robba spesa, e fattura di M.ro Pietro Giac.o Borghini Capo ma.o
muratore p[er] ponere in opera la Statua di Bronzo dl: Retratto del Re di
Spagna nel Cortile di S.a Maria mag.re nell'Anno 1691"; the work was
assessed at V12:74, and the misura signed by Matthia de' Rossi. See also
Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Libro Mastro, fol. 143: "a 19 detto [October
1691] V12:70 [sic] ... pag. a Borghini Mur. p[er] saldo di un suo conto d
haver posto nel Cortile la Statua Sud.a." De' Rossi was elected capitular
18 Workshopof Matthiade'Rossi(attrib.),Projectfor the installationof the Statueof Philip IV, plan, 1691,pen and purplish wash. Rome,ArchivioCapitolaredi S. MariaMaggiore
The placement of the statue in the courtyard, however,
was clearly meant to be provisional, as is made evident
by a project, conserved in the archive of S. Maria
Maggiore, in which an elaborate installation is envisaged
in the portico of the basilica. The proposal appears in
elevation and plan (Figs. 17 and 18), accompanied by a
written "Scandaglio del Presente ornamento."'34As seen
in the drawings, the project consists of a square room,
preceded by a shallow vestibule, to be built at one end of
the portico. The vestibule, with an Ionic column at each
side, has a coffered vault and converging walls embellished with hanging garlands. A "crown" of drapery
swags adorns the entrance to the vestibule. Four additional Ionic columns stand in the rear chamber in which
the statue is placed. It stands atop a high pedestal in front
of a hanging cloth of honor, and a window cut into the
left wall of the rear room provides a concealed source of
illumination. The accompanying description indicates
that the materials would consist of marmorustico, traver-
architect in January 1675. See ACSMM, Atti Capitolari 1652-1682, fol.
179.
~4The drawings and written "scandaglio" appear as loose sheets in
ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Dal 1691 a tutto il 1710. The plan
measures ca. 11 x 10 in.; the elevation ca. 21 x 14/2 in. Two inscriptions
on the back of the elevation read: "Disegno della Statua del Re Cattolico
Filippo IV" and "Per la Statua del Re Catt.co." Both plan and elevation
are executed in pen and purplish wash.
tine, and stucco; and excluding the costs of material and
labor for metalwork, the project would cost 1,043 scudi.135
Neither the drawings nor the "scandaglio" are dated;
it is probable, however, that the project was conceived in
February 1691, some time after the idea to erect the statue
was proposed to the canons. And given the discrepancies
between the actual statue and its appearance in the
elevation, it may be conjectured that the author of the
project had not yet seen the statue and that the drawing
was made prior to its arrival in S. Maria Maggiore.
Although the capitular decree of 18 February stated the
canons' intention of placing the work in the courtyard,
which is precisely what they did, the project is vivid
testimony to the fact that they planned both a more
conspicuous location and a more grandiose installation.
As to the author of the project, I would tentatively
attribute the invention of the scheme to Matthia de'Rossi,
and the drawing to an artist-a fairly unaccomplished
draftsman-working
closely with him. It has already
been noted that de'Rossi was the architect responsible for
overseeing the installation of the statue in the courtyard
and that, as will be discussed shortly, he continued to
work in conjunction with the project. De'Rossi is well
known as a proteg6 of Bernini and as the master's closest
collaborator and assistant on architectural projects.36 He
accompanied Bernini to Paris, where he worked extensively on the Louvre, and played a significant part in
many other of Bernini's best-known architectural enterprises. He fully absorbed his teacher's architectural style,
which lived on in his independent works after Bernini's
death. Many features of the 1691 project for the statue's
installation recall Bernini's earlier scheme for the architectural setting of the monument as seen in the Vatican
drawing (Fig. 3). Both projects consist of a recessed
chamber at the left side of the portico, converging walls
and columns, and a concealed source of light to heighten
the dramatic presentation of the statue. The use of Ionic
columns (to harmonize with the preexisting Order of
Gregory XIII'sportico) is common to both, and the shape
of the pedestal is nearly identical.
Beyond the fact that de'Rossi was capitular architect,
he may have been selected by the canons to oversee the
installation of the statue specifically because of his affiliation with Bernini. They had failed to secure Bernini's
scheme; now they could see it revived in the hands of
Matthia de'Rossi. Moreover, de'Rossi had achieved considerable fame in 1684 as the author of the design for the
pedestal of Bernini's EquestrianStatue of LouisXIV, and as
recently as the first week of February 1691 he had
The "scandaglio" refers to the cloth of honor as "il panno dietro
'35
d[ett]a statua"; the coffered vault is called the "baldacchino"; and the
drapery swags on the entrance arch the "corona sopra d[ett]o
baldacchino."
136 See L. Pascoli, Vite de' pittori, scultori, ed architetti moderni, 2 vols.,
Rome, 1730-36, I, 322-330; A. Menichella, Matthia de'Rossi. Discepolo
predilettodel Bernini, Citta di Castello, 1985.
115
designed the catafalque for Alexander VIII.'37In light of
de'Rossi's involvement with the erection of the statue,
his close connections with Bernini, the parallels between
the two schemes and de'Rossi's recent publicity, it is not
unreasonable to ascribe the invention of the project of
1691 to him.'38
This project, however, was not carried out, perhaps
because it was deemed too expensive. Nevertheless, the
canons were determined to place the statue in a more
prominent and accessible location than the courtyard
behind the canons' palace. On 23 March 1692 Canon
Filippo Gottifredi, who had been in charge of transporting the statue to the basilica the previous year, proposed
the relocation of the monument. The canons agreed
unanimously with the proposal, and declared that they
would seek Pope Innocent XII's permission.139Presumably the pope gave his consent, for by June of that year
work was under way on a new installation of the statue
under de'Rossi's direction.
The new location was the large vestibule contiguous
with the summer choir (the present anteroom of the
baptistry), to the side of the door leading into the canons'
sacristy (Fig. 16).'" It was a considerable improvement
over the site in the courtyard-protected
from the
elements and conspicuously located near the entrance of
the basilica. Moreover, the room was already a kind of
showcase for the basilica's patrons; it was in the same
vestibule, against the wall opposite the sacristy, that in
1619 the canons erected Paolo Sanquirico's statue of Paul
V. And in response to the aedicular framing of the Paul V
statue, the canons commissioned Matthia de'Rossi to
construct a similar setting for the Philip IV. Although
de'Rossi's project no longer survives,'41 the documents
reveal that it consisted of a large niche excavated in the
wall, with decorations in stucco and other ornaments.
The statue was placed on an alabaster socle, which in
turn stood atop a square marble pedestal bearing the
'37On the pedestal for the EquestrianStatue of LouisXIV, see ibid., 23-24,
78. On the catafalque, see Fagiolo dell'Arco and Carandini, 329.
38That de'Rossi was an accomplished designer of ephemeracatafalques, prospettive,and macchine-lends support to the attribution
to him of the invention of the drawing, which gives the impression of
an ephemeral work.
139ACSMM, Atti Capitolari
1683-1721, fol. 98: 23 March 1692. "Ill'mus
Fel: Mem:
D'nus Gothifredus proposuit collocationem
Statua• enea
Philippi IV. Regis Catholici, et responsum unanimiter fuit, ut ad hoc
peteretur, et obtineretur licentia SS'mi D.N. Innocentii XII." Cf.
"Memoria," fol. 10v.
'40It is in this location that the statue is first recorded in guidebooks.
Posterla (as in n. 2, 110), for example, describing the "andito che
introduce [al] ... coro," writes: "sta alla mano destra .., una statua in
piedi gettata dal Cavalier Lucenti, rappresentante Filippo IV. Re di
Spagna... ."
141
1 have found no visual record of de'Rossi's setting. For that of the
Paul V statue, see P. de Angelis, BasilicxaS.
Maioris de Urbea Liberio
Maria
Papa I usque ad Paulum V Pont. Max. Descriptioet Delineato, Rome, 1621,
77.
116
dedicatory inscription.142The cost of the project-both
for labor and materials-totalled just over 284 scudi, or
less than one-third of the price of the 1691 project.143
Finally, nearly half a century after the project had first
been proposed, and twenty-six years after the statue had
been completed, Philip IV received his long-promised
honor. The inscription placed on the pedestal reads (in
translation):
To Philip IV, Catholic King of Spain, because this holy
patriarchal basilica was honored, in imitation of his
ancestors' piety, with the multiple benefaction of four
thousand gold pieces annually, collected by the authority of the Holy See from the abundant wealth of the
churches of Catania and Mazzara for the amplification
of the divine cult, the chapter and canons in gratitude
have erected this monument, in the year of salvation
1692 [in the presence of] Luis, Duke of Medinaceli, the
Royal Orator."'4
It was a fairly neutral dedication, devoid of overt
political overtones. Philip was honored simply for his
beneficence, which is likened to that of his predecessors
on the Spanish throne. There are no records of elaborate
ceremonies accompanying the dedication; we only know
that the Duke of Medinaceli, the Royal Orator and
Spanish ambassador to Rome, was present.'45 The once
potent and politically charged symbol of Spanish power
and influence in Rome had become by 1692 a littlenoticed commemorative monument to a now long-dead
former king-or so it seemed.
If, in approving the official installation and dedication
is documented in extenso in ACSMM,
42The construction of the setting
Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Dal 1691 a tutto ii 1710. The majority of the
work is accounted for in three misure e stime, all signed by Matthia
de'Rossi: the first, of 17 June 1692, accounts for the marble pedestal
made by Andrea Fucigni, for which he received V 67 on 9 August 1692
(cf. Libro Mastro 1647-97, fol. 143); the second, of 28 June 1692, accounts
for the alabaster socle carved by Jacomo Bertioli (capomaestroscarpellino),
for which he received V12:85 on 20 August 1692; the third, dated 23
July 1692, accounts for "lavori di muro, stucchi et altro" (preparing the
site, excavating the niche, the stucco decoration, moving the statue
from the courtyard, and recleaning "la statua di metallo ch'era schizzata in piti luoghi di calce e stucco, come anco ripolito l'altra statua di
metallo di Papa Paolo Quinto") carried out by Pietro Giacomo Borghini,
and for which he received V 100. Cf. Libro Mastro 1647-97, fol. 143.
The scarpellino Jacomo (or Giacomo) Bertioli had worked with
de'Rossi on numerous occasions (projects for the Pamphili, S. Francesco
a Ripa, etc.), and had been a scarpellinoin the employ of Bernini. See
Menichella (as in n. 136), 113, 113, n. 1.
143 In addition to the moneys accounted for in the three misure e stime,
V 104.50 was paid out for carpentry, marble, transport of materials, and
other miscellaneous expenses. ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna,
Libro Mastro 1647-97, fol. 143.
in Klinger, 251, n. 1. For the Latin inscription,
44 I quote the translation
see V. Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edificii di Roma dal secolo XI
fino ai nostrigiorni, xI, Rome, 1877, 84, no. 163.
145On Don Luis, the Duke of Medinaceli, see Kamen, 378, n. 66; Pastor,
xxxII,625-626.
of the statue, Innocent XII believed it would not provoke
the French, he was mistaken. The political overtones of
the monument were not forgotten and were soon felt by
the French Cardinal, Emmanuel de la Tour Bouillon, who
on 14 December 1699 wrote from Rome to J.-B. Colbert,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in Paris. Bouillon informed Colbert that the recently unveiled statue of Philip
IV was more favorably located in S. Maria Maggiore than
the statue of Henry IV at the Lateran, which, he argued,
was hidden in a corner of the portico. This situation,
Bouillon felt, was humiliating for France, and he urged
Colbert to obtain permission from Louis XIV to have the
statue of Henry displayed as nobly as that of Philip."4
Clearly, the rivalry between France and Spain as manifested through the Lateran and S. Maria Maggiore and
the statues of their monarchs lived on. And in Colbert's
response to Bouillon, dated 14 January 1700, the minister
expressed Louis's agreement that something had to be
done, but cautioned that the matter was so important
that the French ambassador in Rome would have to look
into it.147However, it was not until 1733, and only in
conjunction with Galilei's new faqade at the Lateran and
with the intervention of the Duc de Saint-Aignan, France's
ambassador to Rome, that the statue of Henry IV received a more felicitous setting in the portico."14
The last chapter in the history of the Philip IV is a short
but appropriate one. Upon the election of Benedict XIV
in 1740, the canons of S. Maria Maggiore, no doubt
motivated by their continuing rivalry with the Lateran,
convinced the pope that the portico of their basilica was
crumbling and the church as a whole in need of major
renovations. Benedict immediately allocated 20,000 scudi
for the work and appointed Ferdinando Fuga as the
architect. The old portico of Gregory XIIIwas torn down
in January 1741, and the foundation stone of the new
portico and faqade was placed on 4 March. By the middle
of 1743 Fuga's portico was complete,'49 and among its
sculptural decorations was the statue of Philip IV, which
was removed from the vestibule of the sacristy and
placed in a niche at the right end of the portico (Figs. 1
and 16). It received a new marble pedestal (adorned with
the inscription of 1692) carved by Fuga's scarpellino,
Pietro Blasi, and in 1749 the statue was cleaned by
Francesco Giardoni.1" Bernini's original idea of placing
46A. de Montaiglon, ed., Correspondancedes Directeurs de l'Academiede
Francea Rome,18 vols., Paris, 1887-1912, III,24-25, no. 1017. The letter is
discussed in Harwood, 355-356; and Pressouyre, I, 157; II,404.
147 Montaiglon (as in n. 146), III,34, no. 1027. See also Harwood, 356.
See Pressouyre, I, 157, 357-362, II,404-405.
149On Fuga's portico, see G. Matthiae, FerdinandoFuga e la sua opera
romana, Rome, 1952, 29-30, 33-38; R. Pane, FerdinandoFuga, Naples,
1956, 84-92; and E. Kieven, FerdinandoFugae l'architetturaromano del
settecento,Rome, 1988, 61-63.
'50For the new pedestal, see Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Sacri Palazzi
Apostolici, Computisteria 1002, Conto di Pietro Blasi Scarpellino, fols.
216v ff; for the cleaning of the statue, see ibid., Computisteria 998, fol.
487. I am grateful to Jennifer Montagu for bringing these documents to
my attention.
148
the statue in the portico was finally carried out, albeit at
the opposite side,l51 and at long last, one hundred years
after the statue was first proposed, Philip IV stood before
the entrance of S. Maria Maggiore as benefactor and
protector of Spain's basilica in Rome.
Steven F. Ostrow receivedhis Ph.D.from Princeton University
in 1987. His researchfocuses on late sixteenth-and seventeenthcentury Roman art. He was a contributor to Drawings by
Gianlorenzo Bernini from the Museum der bildenden
Kiinste Leipzig (Princeton, 1981) and IL 60. Essays Honoring Irving Lavin on His Sixtieth Birthday (New York,
1990); his articles have appeared in Ricerche di storia
dell'arte and the Burlington
Magazine.
His current project
is a book on Counter-Reformationart and ideology in papal
Rome [Departmentof Art, VassarCollege,Poughkeepsie,N.Y.
12601].
117
patti modo, tempo e forma contenuti et espressi nelli Capitoli
concordati tra ambi le parti, et da detti Signori Canonici
Deputati e Signore Girolamo sottoscritti di loro propria mano,
quali consegnorno a me Notario ad effetto d'inserirli nel
presente Instromento del tenore.f Promettendo tutto il Contenuto di essi Capitoli attenderlo, et inviolabilmente osservarlo, e
contro quello in alcun modo e tempo fare, e venire sotto
qualsivoglia pretesto, altrimente vogliono esser tenuti a tutti li
danni & perche in detti Capitoli si contiene, che detti Signori
Canonici debbono sborsare scudi cento di moneta Romana di
giulij dieci l'uno a detto Signore Girolamo nell'atto che si
stipulava il presente Instromento percio recedendo da questo
particolare solamente detto Signore Girolamo si contento che
detti Signori Canonici deputati promissero nel termine di otto
giorni prossimi qui in Roma liberamente. [fol. 138r: The full
is witnessed.]
Chapterthenagreesto thepact,andtheagreement
Document II. Contract with Girolamo Lucenti
ACSMM, Instrumentorum 1658-64, xxvIII,fols. 138r-139v
Appendix
In transcribing the following documents I have resolved most
of the abbreviations and regularized the punctuation for clarity.
A question mark in squared brackets [?] indicates the omission
of a single undeciphered word.
Document I. Preliminary Contract with Girolamo
Lucenti
ACSMM, Instrumentorum 1658-64, xxvIII,fols. 137r-138r
[fol. 137r] In Nomine Domini. Amen
Die 3 Junii 1664
Eisdem Anno Indictione, mense et Pontificatu quibus supra, die
vero octava. In mei Notarii publici. testiumque infrascriptorum
ad haec omnia et singula vocatorum habitorum specialiter
atque rogatorum [fol. 137v] presentia presens et presentialiter
constitutus D. Hieronymus Lucenti filius quondam Ambrosii
Romanus mihi Notario cognitus [?] omni meliori modo in
executionem tractatorum inter ipsum et Illustrissimus et Reverendissimus Dominos Capitulum et Canonicos Sanctae Basilicae
S. Mariae Maioris Urbis initorum promissit et se obligavit
eisdem Illustrissimis et Reverendissimis Dominis Capitulo et
Canonicis licet absentibus et pro eis Illustrissimis et Reverendissimis Dominis Octavio Buccapadulio et Petro Philippo Bernino
Utriusque Signaturae Sanctissimi D. N. Papae Referendario
Canonicis ad hunc actum specialiter constitutis deputatiis
docuerunt per fidem Illustrissimi Domini Canonici secretariis in
pede infradicendorum capitulorum in serta presentibus acceptantibus vulgari sermone loquendo faciliori verborum aptatione videlicet: Di fare la statua della Sua Maestd del R
Cattolico di Spagna Atutta sua Robba, e spesa, tanto di metallo,
come di fornaci stigli, et ogni altra materia e spesa per il prezzo,
"' As initially conceived by Bernini and according to the 1691 project for
installingthe statue, Philip would have directedhis gaze out from the
portico,toward the statue of the Virgin atop the column in Piazza S.
Maria Maggiore. This may explain why the king has removed his
helmet-as a sign of respect to the Virgin. The addition of the second
canons' palace at the left of the portico, completed by Fuga in 1743,
precluded the placement of the statue at that side, for it would have
blocked the entrance into the new palace from the portico.
[fol. 138r] Die 10 Junij 1664
Eisdem Anno indictione mense die, et Pontificatu quibus supra
Capitulariter congregati in infrascripto loco ubi congregari
solent omnes infrascripti Illustrissimi et Reverendissimi Domini
Canonici Sanctae Basilicae S. Mariae Maioris videlicet: Lutius
Micinellus, Julius Caesar Marsella, Balthassar Fonseca, Franciscus de Rubeis, Antonius Princivallius, Dominicus Salvettus et
Horatius Matthaeius asserentes esse maiorem partes totumque
eorum Illustrissimum Capitulum rapresentare et nihil per alijs
absentibus et infirmis si qui de rato in formas promitt. ita quod
[?] alias asserentes ultra habere notitiam plenamque scientiam
et informatione et nihil. ad plenum per me certiorati de
obligatione facta a D. Hieronymo Lucenti de conficienda Statua
Regis Catholici modis et formis contentis. in retroscripto Instrumento eorum nomine celebrato ab Illustrissimis et Reverendissimis Dominis Buccapadulio et Bernino Canonicis deputatis
quod cum toto tenore praesentorum Capitulorum eisdem de
verbo ad verbum perlegi [?] ac omni meliori modo Instrumentum et Capitula cum omnibus in eis contentis [fol. 138v] et
expressis inhilo penitus excluso ad singula singulis congrue
referendo, ratificarunt approbarunt acceptarunt et omologarunt per inde ac si stipulationi supradicti instrumenti presentes et personaliter interfuisent, promitentes omnia in eis
contenta actendere et inviolaviter observare, contraque non
facere quovis pretextu ... Tenor praenominatorum capitulorum, talis et scilicet Capitoli patti e conventioni da farsi tra
l'Illustrissimi et Reverendissimi Signori Canonici de' Santa
Maria Maggiore, e Girolamo Lucenti scultore, e fonditore per il
gettito di Metallo della Statua del Re Cattolico di Spagna, quale
s'obliga il detto Girolamo Lucenti farla a tutta sua robba e spesa,
tanto di metallo, come di fornaci, stigli, et ogni altre materie, e
spese. Prima il detto Girolamo s'obliga fare detta statua di
Metallo come sopra di misura di palmi dodici di passetto senza
il zoccolo, che sara alto mezzo palmo, che assieme saranno
palmi dodici, e mezzo d'altezza. 2.? S'obliga fare il modello di
detta statua armato conforme l'Imperatori Romani con manto
Reale e scettro tutto A sodisfattione delli suddetti Signori
Canonici, e del Signore Cavaliere Bernino. 3.? S'obliga [fol. 139r]
fare, formare e rinettare le Cere, far' la forma per gettarla di
Bronzo, celarla, cocerla, gettarla di bronzo e doppo gettata
tagliar li getti, spianarli, curar'li brigli 6 altri stavi, che potessero
venire, e venendo detto getto con bona pelle basterA gratta
bugiarla tutta il lustro Asue spese come sopra & 4.? S'obliga, che
118
non venendo bene detto getto, la qual cosa a Iddio non piaccia
dire, fare tutte le sopra dette spese, e fatture una, 6 pidi volte
quanto bisognasse a tutte sue spese, et interesse per regettare
detta statua & 5.o S'obliga di gettare detta Statua di metallo
buono atto ad indorarsi a fuoco a giuditio come soprascritto.
6.0 S'obliga di fare la detta Statua con tutte le sue spese, e
metallo per prezzo di scudi duemila e duecento moneta. 7.o Che
nell'atto dell' Instromento che si dovra fare se gli debbano dare
scudi Cento moneta a conto del detto prezzo finito il modello se
gli debbano dare alla mano quelli denari, che saranno necessarij
per le spese che bisognaranno, e quando si dovera gettare se gli
debbano dare li denari che bisogneranno per comprare il
metallo, e gettata la statua, e compita l'opera a sodisfattione di
detto Capitolo, e consegnata, se gli debbano dare il compimento
delli denari fino alla somma delli suddetti scudi Duemila e
duecento. 8.0 Che detto Girolamo sia tenuto consegnare perfettionata la statua nel termine di quindici mesi da principiarsi
quando gli saranno dati li primi scudi Cento moneta. Congregato Capitulo die 3.a Junij 1664 in solita Domo Capitulari
Sanctae Basilicae S. Mariae Maioris in quo intervenerunt Illustrissimi et Reverendissimi Domini Canonici videlicet: [fol. 139v]
Micinellus, Marsella, Mutus, Buccapadulius, Fonseca, de Rubeis,
Princivallius, Matthaeius, Salvettus, Berninus, data fuit auctoritas, et facultas Illustrissimis et Reverendissimis Dominis Buccapadulio, et Bernino recognoscendi supradictas scriptas conventiones et pacta et quatenus approbaverint conficiendi publicum
Instrumentum cum D. Hieronimo Lucenti, quam si ipsi intervenire non valeant eorum loco substituere possint PerIllustrem
AEquitem Berninum cui libentissime capitulum plenam facultatem concedit. Ita est Julius Caesar Marsella Canonicus et
Secretarius. Io Ottavio Buccapaduli affermo li suddetti Capitoli
mano propria. Io P. F. Bernino affermo ii suddetti Capitoli mano
propria. Io Girolamo Lucenti affermo li suddetti Capitoli mano
propria.
Document III. Capitular Decree Concerning the
Transport of the Statue
ACSMM, Fondo Opera Pia di Spagna, Dalla Fondazione a tutto
ii 1690, unpaginated
Havendo Mons[igno]re Ill[ustrissi]mo emanuel Auditore di
Ruota Spagnolo, unito con altri ministri del Re Cattolico
vivam[en]te rappresentato ad alcuni delli SS.ri Can[oni]ci della
n[ost]ra Basilica non esser decente, che la statua di Bronzo della
Gloriosa mem[o]ria del Ri Filippo Quarto, fatta fare dal n[ost]ro
Cap[ito]lo p[er] gratitudine della Regia beneficenza usata in pidi
modi da S[ua] M[aesta] a favore e benefizio della n[ost]ra
Chiesa, si lasciasse abbandonata, e negletta come si e fatta p[er]
tanti anni in un'angolo dell' istessa fonderia, dove &stata fusa,
hA fatte e pii volte replicate efficaciss[i]me instanze, che sia
riposta, e conservata in luogo pii conveniente p[er] decoro del
Personaggio che rappresenta e riconoscendosi tal richiesta
molto ragionevole, e degna d'haversi da noi p[er] pii rispetti in
part[icola]re considerazione (added in margin: e concorrendovi
anche il giusto motivo, che p[er] essere la med[esi]ma statua
propria del n[ost]ro Capitolo stia molto meglio in poter nostro,
che d'altri) si &risoluto con i voti di tutti, e con l'antecedente
consenso, et approvatione tanto del' Emm[inentissi]mo Sig[no]re Card[ina]le Norfolke n[ost]ro Arcip[re]te come de
gli'altri SS.ri Can[oni]ci che per indispositione pier] altro
impedim[en]to son [sic; non] sono potuti esser presenti in
questo Capitolo, di far trasportare la sud[ett]a Statua dalla
d[ett]a Fonderia al Cortile della n[ost]ra Canonica, et ivi nel
luogo a ci6 destinato riporla col farvi fare quei riparri, e
copertura che saranno giudicati pii a proposito pier] la dovuta
conservazione di essa e per porre tutto cib ad effetto si e
ordinato al Sig[no]re Can[oni]co Fonseca Segret[ari]o che in
nome n[ost]ro invij un'ordine da esso sottoscritto, e segnata col
sigillo Capitolare, al Sig[nor] Cavalier Lucenti, in potere del
quale la prefata statua si ritrova, che la consegni a Mon[signo]re
Gottifredi n[ost]ro Concanonico, et uno de Sagrestani mag[gio]ri da noi specialm[en]te deputato per presiedere al soprad[ett]o trasporto, a cui diamo tutte le facolta necessarie, et
opportune di farne quietanza in forma al soprad[etto] S[igno]r
Cavaliere, e di ordinare ogn'altra operazione, ch'egli giudichera
doversi fare in tale congiuntura.
Dato dalla n[ost]ra sacros[an]ta Basilica nel luogo solito Capitolare.
Frequently Cited Sources
Baldinucci,F., TheLifeof Bernini,trans.C. Enggass,UniversityParkand
London,1966.
Borsi,F., Bernini,with catalogue raisonn6by F. Quinterio,trans.R.E.
Wolf,Milan,1980.
des Gianlorenzo
Bernini,
Brauer,H., and R. Wittkower,Die Zeichnungen
Berlin,1931.
PainterandCourtier,
New Haven and London,1986.
Brown,J.,Veldzquez.
Bernini'sVisitto France,ed.
Chantelou,P. Freartde, Diaryof theCavaliere
and intro. A. Blunt, annot. G.C. Bauer, trans. M. Corbett,Princeton,
1985.
Basilica
Piadi FilippoQuartoRedi SpagnanellaPatriarcale
Cinti,A.,L'Opera
di SantaMariaMaggiorein Roma,Rome,1882.
Barocco.
Strutturedella
Fagiolodell'Arco,M.,and S. Carandini,L'Effimero
festanellaRomadel'600,2 vols., Rome,1977.
Harwood, B.R., "Nicolo Cordieri:His Activity in Rome 1592-1612,"
Ph.D. diss.,PrincetonUniversity,1979.
Kamen,H., Spainin the LaterSeventeenth
Century,1665-1700,London
and New York,1980.
Klinger,L.,"Statueof PhilipIV of Spain,"in I. Lavin,et al. (see below).
Berninifrom the Museumder
Lavin, I., et al., Drawingsby Gianlorenzo
exh. cat.,Princeton,
Bildenden
KiinsteLeipzig,GermanDemocratic
Republic,
1981.
Magnuson,T., Romein theAge of Bernini,2 vols., Stockholm,1982 and
1986.
Rome,1975.
Martinelli,A., SantaMariaMaggioresull'Esquilino,
Algardi,2 vols., New Haven and London.
Montagu,J.,1985,Alessandro
Montagu,J., 1989, RomanBaroqueSculpture.TheIndustryof Art, New
Haven and London.
Orso,S.N.,PhilipIVandtheDecoration
of theAlcdzarofMadrid,Princeton,
1986.
Pastor,L.von, TheHistoryof thePopesfromtheCloseof theMiddleAges,40
vols., St. Louis,Mo.,1893-1953.
Pietrangeli,C., ed., SantaMariaMaggiorea Roma,Florence,1987.
a Romeautourde
surla sculpture
Recherches
Pressouyre,S.,NicolasCordier.
1600,2 vols., Rome,1984.
Staffa,D., "De Pio Opere Hispaniaein PatriarchaliBasilicaS. Mariae
xxix,1956.
Maioris,"Apollinaris,
undIkonographie
zur Typologie,
Stemmer,K., Untersuchungen
Chronologie
derPanzerstatuen,
Berlin,1978.
Wittkower,R., GianLorenzoBernini.TheSculptureof theRomanBaroque,
3rd ed., Ithaca,1981.
Yates,F.A.,Astraea:TheImperialThemein theSixteenthCentury,London
and Boston,1975.

Gianlorenzo Bernini, Girolamo Lucenti, and the Statue of Philip IV in

Transcription

Similar documents

Mark Ruffalo (Moving Pictures, 2011)

Carta topografica di Roma. From the collection of the

PDF press quality - Dejan Bogdanovich

Donatello timeline

the pressbook

Roam in today`s chariot

copertina e sovracoperta

Untitled

Bernini`s Borghese Sculptures: Another View

Fontana di Trevi - Deckard Press