Raphael and the Pantheon’s Interior: A Pivotal Moment in Architectural Representation

Abstract

Raphael’s drawing of the interior of the Pantheon is situated halfway between the forms of perspective and section. Yet, in a time when neither of these drawing categories was stable, what does this liminal positioning actually explain? This paper re-examines Raphael’s sketch and suggests that the Pantheon’s interior presented a complex problem for the representational conventions of the time. Raphael’s drawing adheres to no known graphic or projective system, and yet it shares qualities with orthography, perspective and cartography. It mediates between conflicting systems of architectural knowledge and seeks a resolution between the geometry of representation and the geometry of architecture. Further, in light of Raphael’s avocation in 1519 for the combined use of plan, section and elevation in his letter to Pope Leo X, I argue that the drawing marks the moment when architectural representation began its transformation from image to system: when it grew out of its role as a tool of execution and became architecture’s conceptual medium.

First published as: Kristina Luce , “Raphael and the Pantheon’s Interior: A Pivotal Moment in Architectural Representation”, pp. 49–62 in Nexus VII: Architecture and Mathematics, Kim Williams, ed. Turin: Kim Williams Books, 2008.

Appendix: Was Uffizi 164 A.r. the Primary Drawing? A Summary of the Arguments and Another Suggested Resolution

The question of dates and, by extension, the establishment of a model for this series of drawings was raised in 1956 by Wolfgang Lotz in his article “Das Raumbild in der Architekturzeichnung der italienischen Renaissance” (1956). Lotz proposed Raphael as the designer of the drawing, but a conflict exists with the date of the arrival of the Codex Escurialensis in Spain, which makes it nearly impossible for Raphael to have constructed the model given our current understanding of his arrival date in Rome.

John Shearman (1977) offers one resolution to this conflict, hypothesizing that Uffizi 164 A.r., as it stands now, is a second, extended state of Raphael’s original drawing, which was not in error. By identifying differences in the quality of ink and line, Shearman argues that the right most tabernacle and vestibule portion of the drawing, among other features, are later additions that sought to transform Raphael’s working drawing into something that resembled a veduta. The reduced angle of view of Shearman’s proposed original state for Uffizi 164 A.r. eliminates many of the perspectival irregularities that are apparent in the final drawing. Shearman believes that the artist who was later responsible for extending Raphael’s drawing had not seen the Pantheon, but had in his possession another view that captured the right-most two recesses and the vestibule and that overlapped with Raphael’s drawing. When fusing the two drawings together, the artist assumed that the drawings presented the same two recesses, rather than there being only one recess in common. This assumption resulted in an interior view of the Pantheon with only two recesses between the altar-niche and vestibule. Shearman’s theory also explains the incorrect rhythm of the tabernacle pediments depicted in the final drawing. If the artist did indeed work with two overlapping drawings as Shearman thinks, the belief that only two recesses existed would consequently eliminate one of the segmental pediments, thus producing the incorrect alternating rhythm that Uffizi 164 A.r. demonstrates.

I find Shearman’s theory intriguing, particularly because, through logical extension, it establishes that Uffizi 164 A.r. was the model copied by the other drawings, since those demonstrate only one state, not the two that Shearman sees. However, Gustina Scaglia (1995) argues that the opposite is the case. She believes that the Escurialensis drawing served as model to a now lost drawing, possibly by the artist of the Chinnery Album, which was subsequently copied by the others. Her argument is based on the use of abbreviated fluting seen in Uffizi 164 A.r. and all other copies. She sees these abbreviations as derivative of the complete fluting depicted in the Escurialensis version. However, Shearman points out that Raphael’s abbreviated fluting also indicated the cabling at the bottom of the columns, an observation more accurate than the consistent fluting shown by the Escurialensis artist. Additionally, because the Escurialensis drawing maintains the segmental, triangular rhythm of the tabernacle pediments, I believe it must be a copy of Uffizi 164 A.r.

When considering these arguments together, it becomes significant that Shearman fails to acknowledge the copy of Uffizi 164 A.r. found in Salzberg. Scaglia quite convincingly argues that this drawing was also authored by Raphael, and the attribution complicates Shearman’s theory. Even if a later artist altered Raphael’s original version of the Pantheon interior, Raphael saw fit to make a copy of these alterations. There must have been something compelling about the new construction that made it worth recording, even in light of its documentary errors. If Raphael did not author Uffizi 164 A.r. in its entirety, his replication of it in the Salzberg drawing certainly legitimates his engagement with the unique features of the altered composition.

Further, after examining the actual drawings in the Uffizi , and high quality facsimiles of the drawings in Austria and Spain, I tend to believe that Uffizi 164 A.r. was the model for the other drawings. If the entire composition is not original to Raphael, I believe that Raphael drew his version in tandem with visits to the Pantheon. His drawing alone seems to engage in a process of sketching and correction as he matches the image to his conceptions. Other drawings seem to replicate his pentimenti and even attempt to resolve the ambiguities. The left-most aedicule is one area where these features are apparent. The other versions, including Raphael’s copy of his own work in Salzberg, appear as simplifications of Uffizi 164 A.r., and given this observation, I believe logic dictates that Uffizi 164 A.r. should be considered the model. As Shearman suggests, it may be our understanding of Raphael’s travels that need some slight alteration, perhaps allowing for a visit to Rome on his journey to Florence.