IKON Casopis za ikonografske studije Journal of lconographic Studies Broj 5 Volume 5 Rijeka 2012. E. E éf VLADAR I IKONOGRAFIJA MOCI SOVEREIGN AND ICONOGRAPHY OF POWER |K0 Nakladnikl Publisher N Filozofski fakultet Sveu<“:ili§ta u Rijeci / CASOPIS ZA IKONOGRAFSKE STUDUE Faculty _of Humanities and Social Sciences, JOURNAL OF ICONOGRAPHIC srumss Univemy °f Rijeka Za nakladnika I For the publisher Predrag Sustar BROJ5/2012. re mca 1 or VOLUME 5 I 2012 Marina Wcelja-Matijaié UDK / UDC 7'04 '55" 1 8453551 Pomoénice urednice I Editorial assistants Iva Brusié, Monika §titié Casopis izla:i jedanput godisnje The juurna] is pub|i5||ed annually Uredniéki odbor i znanslveni savjet éasopisa I Editorial and Advisory Board Barbara Baert (Leuven) . Xavier Ba rral i Altet (Veqezia) Veronika Nela Ga§par (Rijeka) Martin Germ (Ljubljana) Emanuel Hoiko (Rijeka) Bianca Kuehnel (Jerusalem) Heinrich Pfeiffer (Roma) Debra Strickland (Glasgow) Jeziina savjetnica za hrvatski jezik I Lector for Croatian Mirna Vaupotié-Murati Naslovnica I Cover lgor Grietié Graéko oblikovanje i priprema za tisak I Design and text preparation Tamara §panjol, Maja Brajkovié Prijelom i zavrina priprema za tisakl Prepress Tamara §panjol Tisak I Print Denona d.0.o., Zagreb Naklada I Edition 400 primjeraka I copies Adresa uredni§tvaI Address of editor Centar za ikonografske studije, Filozofski fakultet Sveuilista u Rijeci / Center for lconographic Stu— Naslovnica: dies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Prikaz kralja na reljefu krstioniékog bazena Sveucilisna avenija 4, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia Splitske katedrale Distribucija I Distribution Coven Brepols Publishers, Begijnhof 67, Representation of a king on a relief on the B-2300 Turnhout, Belgium baptistry font in the Cathedral of Split periodicals@brepols.net _Sad riaj Contents UvodnarijeE.... .. . .. . . . . . . . .. Foreword......... .. .. .. . . . . ....7 Vladimir P. Goss Political iconography: Poster, Icon, Badge. An Introductory Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Dino Milinovié Writing History, Shaping Images in Later Roman Empire .. r r . . .. . .. 15 Davide Longhi Regalita di Cristo e regalita di Teodorico nei mosaici di Sant'Ap0l|inareNuov0aRavenna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Marianne Séghy Vests Regia Indutus: Representations of the Emperor in the Vita Martini . . . . . . . . . . 47 Galit Noga-Banai Between Rome and Jerusalem:The Cross at the Center OfaHerrsch€rbildC0mp05itiOn r . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. 57 Barbara Baert The Antependium of Nedstryn and the Exultation of the Cross ..... . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 65 Igor Fiskovié Come identicare il re sul rilievo della iconograa regale del 11 secolo . . . . . . . . . .. 85 Devis Valenti lliconograa del potere imperiale: Carlo Magno come "Novus Constantinus" . . . . 115 Xavier Barral i Altet Edward rex: il contesto architettonico nella prima scena del ricamo di Bayeux 139 Laura Cleaver Kings Behaving Badly: Images of Rulers in Gerald ofWales'Works onIre|and(C.1200).....,................................... . . . . . . .. . . . . ..15i Marta Serrano Coll Art as a Means of Legitimization in the Kingdom of Aragon: Coronation Problems and Their Artistic Echos During the Reigns oflarnes I and Peter IV . . 4 . 161 Olga Karaskova Saint Bavon au service de l'héritage bourguignon: Philippe le Beau et sa propagande politique. ,. _ . _ _ . .. . . . . .. 173 Branislav Cvetkovié Sovereign Portraits at Mark's Monastery Revisited .. 185 Olga Vassilieva-Codognet The lconography of the Last World Emperor: A Study ofa Late Fifteenth-Century Prophetic Image . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 199 Gyiirgy E. Sznyi Concepts and Representations of Sovereignty on the English Renaissance Emblematic Stage . . . . . .. .... 207 Steven Thiry From Royal Representation to Scientic Aspiration: Charles V's Colurnnar Device and the Dynamics of Appropriation (i6"‘—1 8*‘ Centuries) ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Pedro Paulo Palazzo Architecture as Portrait: Exotism and the Royal Character of the Louvre (13804668) . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....235 Q?“ Lex Hermans Dynastic Pride in the FarneseTheatre at Parma . .. . . . . .. . . . . 247 Dubravka Botica iconography of the Holy King Ladislaus in Zagreb Diocese in Late 17“‘ and Early 18"‘ Century: New Reading of the Past in Central European Context . . . . . . . 263 Milan Pelc The Kaiser and His Spouses Marriage and Political Propaganda on the Illustrated Broadsheets During the Reign of Leopold I (1658-1705): Examples from the Valvasor Collection inZagreb............... .... . . . . .... ...... Stefania Biancani Quando Ia regina lascia la corona e vain giardino: alcune osservazioni sul_ritratto della sovrana da Maria Antunietta ai Windsor e su|l‘eredita diEIisabethVigéeLeBrun 281 Robert Simonisek The Monarchic Cult of the Emperor Franz Joseph I in the Slovenjan ArtandLiterature..... . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ..293 Marko Spikié Titus Novus: Emperor Francis I's iconography of Power and Its Reception in Croatia and Dalmatia . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. 305 Prilozi - Prikazi — Dodabakl Contributions — Reviews — Appendix Maja Cepetié - Danko Dujmovié St Peter at Novo Mesto Zelinskoz New iconography for Claiming Po|iticalContinuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . ..323 Isabel Escandell Proust The Illuminated Codex Book of Franchises and Privileges of the Kingdom of Majorca (Arxiu del Regne de Mallorca, cod.1): Portraits ofthe King under His Subjects'Gaze . 331 Iva Brusié Antonio Wnciguerra: The Ideological Initiator ofthe Venetian Appearance ofthe City of Krk . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 345 Péter Bokody Secularization and ReaIisticTurn in Italy: Antonio Fissiraga's Funerary Monument in Lodi . . .. . . . . . . .. .. ........ .. 351 Ivana Podnar — Marina Vicelja Representation of Sovereign and Public Space in Zagreb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,4 363 Lisa Rafanelli mVNoIimerangere:AnInquiryintothevisualCulture . . 373 Marina Vicelja DanseMacabre-|tsManifo|d Facets . 375 Peti medunarodni znanstveni skup ikonografskih studija I Fih International Conference of lconographic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 377 Uputeautorima . 380 GuidelinesforAuthors.... .. _ .. .. __ .. .........,.381 Pedro Paulo Palazzo _ Architecture as Portrait Exotism and the Royal Character of the Louvre,1 380-1 681 i UDK: 72.044(44O ParizJ"'|4/16" Pedro Paulo Palazzo University of arasilia, Brazil palaZZO@unb.br Thearchitectural evolution of the Louvre between the 15"‘ and 11* century is characterized by systematic attempts to distin- - guish the building within the broader context of French styles. In the 15* and early 15'" century, this IS achieved by pr0duc— ing grander and more elaborate versions of the C0nterrlp0raI')QFrench architectural solutions. From the late 16'" century on, the affectation of an ltalian rnanner becomes the rnost signicant way of achieving this distinction. This article reviews and examines the interventions On the Luuvre under Charles V, Francis l, and Henry l\/, then stresses the importance of resorting ‘ to an Italian style in the pr0CesS Ofbuildlng Louis XlV's Eastfacacle. its famous culcnnade, before coming to be seen as a hall- mark Of French (lassicism, Owes its existence to the intent of differentiating the King's palace from'the prevalent standards of French aristocratic architecture, thus marking the monarch's uniqueness. Keywords: Louvre, l.auis xiv, architectural iconography, strangemaking iconographic studies demand a methodological approach that is particularly open to social and political history. Architectural iC0rl0graphy, unlike its counterpart in painting, is often taken for granted as a result of the interplay between the spirit of the age and the artist's autonomy. Even when politics comes into play, as in the case of a rclyal palace, the resulting architectural form tends to be ascribed not so much to the specic requirements of a particular imagery, but rather to a broadly outlined artistic-historical context. A precise de- nition of this political iconography in architecture nevertheless does much to supplement the usually specic pinpointing of motifs and inuences. The architectural history ofthe Louvre is one such case where built form is closely related to the political image of the French sovereign as it evolved through time. The royal architecture of the Louvre, in Renaissance and Classical France, demonstrates a steady transformation in architectural form and a remarkable ccntinu— ity in political intent ~ yet one can see that architectural form has been through the time determined by the political iconography of the ruling king. In fact, these shifting architectural expressions, from charles V's semi— residential fortress to the desertion ofthe Louvre by Louis XIV in favor ofVersailles, form a revealing succession of portraits of royal patronage that are sharply distinct from the general architectural tendencies oftheir times. In this case, the long—term perspective is particularly effective to uncover the continuing political intents un- derlying changing architectural motifsr A common trait of royal patronage in France from the late 15"‘ to the mid-17'“ century is its xenophilia. FOreign artists - Flemish and Italian for the most part A were invited to the court, and native artists affected foreign stylisms. This fact has been, if not sufciently proved. at least widely deplored by French writers and architects since the 16"’ century.‘ Political importance of this taste for the exotic, and the meanings that can be attributed to the resulting formal repertoires, have not, however, been subject to much scrutiny from the disciplinary standpoint of architectural history. Z35 IKON, 5-2012 We argue here that this "xenomania" has been the common denominator not only of French cultural poli- tics, but also of architectural images at the Louvre as diverse as the 16"‘-century west wing and the 17‘"—century colonnade. The importance of this denominator can be traced to Wktor Shklovsky's stmngemaking.Z1'his concept attempts to dene the formal character of a work of art in opposition to that of trivial forms, echoing Aristotle's denition of poetic language, by the intrinsic differences in formal structures of the arbobject and the trivial- object rather than by today's nihilistic notion that an artwork is that which is granted such a status by being displayed in a gallery or museum. Likewise, I intend to show that the royal character of the Louvre, as it was being redesigned for such purpose from the 15"‘ up to the 17"‘ century, was achieved not by the mere presence ofthe King, but by the conscious handling of architect ural devices at each step in the process. The aspect of these devices is manifold and encountered several changes during the period in question, yet they all displayed the king’s intention or making an exceptional display of architecture. whatever the King built at the Louvre was thus meant to set him apart from the rest of the nobility.This could be achieved by either besting the aristocracy's achievemens - as in Charles V's or Francis l's grander versions of common castles - or by introducing radical dierences from what the nobility could or would build — as in Henry ]l’s and Louis XlV's ltalianizing drives. From the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance r The medieval Louvre The beginnings of the Louvre under Philippe-Auguste and Saint Louis were modest, and not particularly distinct from the average castle—building of the time. Starting with Charles V's monumental staircase, built by Raymond du Temple from 1330 on (g. 1), though, what was to be witnessed at the Louvre was a Continuum of image~driven interventions. Aside from their utilitarian functions, all transformations at the Louvre since that time sought primarily to represent the King in his Parisian residence. Francis I and Henry ll It is not known whether the Louvre's staircase was the earliest of its kind; the type was frequent in late Medieval architecture, particularly in smaller urban sites. For our purposes, though, the origin ofthe model is less signicant than its later fortune. indeed, the construction of staircases as free-standing accretions to the built fabric was on the wane in the 16th century. Yet, what was already such an archaic motif by 1515, when Francis l began his addition to the chateau of Blois (g. 2), still gured prominently on this project, alongside the dernier cri in Renaissance architecture, such as ltalianate loggias and Flemish dormer windows. Even though Francis l did not spend much of his time in Paris in the early part of his reign, or perhaps precisely because ofthat, he seemed to attempt a transfer of the royal imagery from the Louvre's spiral staircase to the Blois. At this point the Louvre was certainly we|l—known as a seat ofthe French royalty, having been deemed signicant enough to be pictured in the Limbciurg Brothers‘ Ties riches heures du duc de Berry several decades before. lt was of course Francis I himself who was responsible for tearing down Raymond du Temple’: staircase together with its keep, in the interest of transforming the Louvre from a fortied castle into a modern-styled residential palace. The remodeling, entrusted to the abbot and gentleman Pierre Lescot, was realized over sev- eral years, between 1527 and 1542 (g. 3), has stood since the nineteenth century as the“agship monument"of French Renaissance architecture for a variety of reasons, only a few of which have actually to do with the archi— tectural style of the building? The leading among the reasons is the anecdote, widespread in the 19“ century nationalist discourse, according to which Lescot's design was preferred to a proposal by the Italian Sebastiano Serlio, the King's favorite architect at the time.‘ The Lescot's wing at the Louvre has been often used as a yardstick against other parts of the palace in order to ascertain their respective degree of 'Frenchness," the relationship of the architectural orders to the interior Z36 ' Palazzo, Architecture as Portrait: Exorism oi-id the Royal chomcrerofthe Louvre v levels being the single most—recalled criterion.Yet it is useful to distinguish between the political intent and the aesthetic resources employed to that end. The architectural history of Europe is rife with buildings designed "in the style of such—and—such" that bear little resemblance to their purported eXOtiC models; Louis XlV's Chinese- themed Porcelain rianon in Versailles (designed by Louis Le Vau, 16684 672) was but one of these.’ Francis l's Louvre should thus be put in perspective with the other building projects the King undertook since his release from captivity in Spain, in I526, especially with the Castle of Madrid, a telling name, the design of which he entrusted to an Italian architect. Both enterprises, the construction exnihilo of the Castle of Madrid _ ' in 1528 and the remodeling of the Louvre strated in 1527, are examples that the King wished to make French royal architecture a match not only to the obvious models of the contemporary Italian palazzi, but also to those of his most prominent competitor for continental hegemony, Charles V of Habsburg. Even though the opposition between France and Italy has long been a stock theme in art history and criticism, Spain was a more likely rival for the French court in the 16"‘ and early 17"‘ century, because ofthe enormous expanses of land and population ruled by the Hapsburgs. Evidence ofthis cultural rivalry is expressed in the early 17*“ century by Henry IV as he gloats about the Louvre Grande GaIerie's size (O the Spanish ambassador: "le roi t arpenter ses galeries 51 don Pé— dre, ambassadeur d’Espagne, en lui demandant si son maitre avait a l'Escurial des promenades de cette longueur avec un Paris au bout.“‘The recurrence of Spanish literary themes adapted into French drama, as in Corneille's Le Cid and MoIiere's Dom Juan to name only a few, further strengthens this point, _ » Henry IV The Grands Galerie (g. 4), built under Henry IV and mostly reconstructed in 3 different design under Nae ‘ , poléon III, was, in nineteenth—century French criticism, among the favorite antitheses to Francis |'s Louvre. The Ga|erie's original design by Jacques ll Anclrcluet du Cerceau, featuring colossal pilasters and windows set into the entablature, was then ascribed to an Italian Mannerist corruption of taste opposed to the “rationalism” of the su— perimposed orders and continuous trabeation of Lescclt‘s agade.’ Nowadays, on the other hand, the Grcmde cor erie's colossal order is seen as unmistakably representative of a French style — not the least because of its accent of the vertical axes, as opposed to a balance of verticals and horizontals identied with the Italian manner. A facile conclusion to this tale could be that earlier commentators were supercial and missed the differ ences between French and Italian uses of the giant order in the 16°" century. Yet, this leads to a further prob~ lem: if 19"‘ century critics missed these differences, would 16°‘ century observers be aware of them? French architecture certainly did not stop evolving after the time of Francis I, and while distinctly autochthonous ways of handling the classical elements are present, there was, nevertheless, a constant parallel between the emergence of new motifs or usages in Italy and their adoption, albeit transformed, in France. Again, this is not to deny French architecture any sort of autonomy, but rather to stress the importance of these exchanges as part of the cultural politics of the time. Still, regarding the Grande Galerie, it is signicant to note the striking differences to the contemporary designs for two of Henry lV's major Parisian building projects, the continuous facade ofthe Place Roycile (now Place des Vosges, g. 5) and that of the Place Duuphine. The use of brickwork with stone quoins, as well as small orders, in these two ensembles, recall a long tradition of French facades, exemplied in Louis Xll's chateau at Blois and in Henry ll's Fontainebleau, leaving to the King's new palace the privilege of displaying the ultimate novelty, namely, colossal orders derived from Italian Mannerism. The Louvre nrf Louis XIV Precedents and context The main thrust of development at the Louvre was set by Henry lV's grand dessein. Louis Xlll's extensive but unoriginal interventions at the Louvre are admittedly diicult to classify in terms of the political implications Z37 IKON, 5-10l1 - of architectural style. The premier architecte du roijacques Lemercier provided a self-effacing design for achieving Henry lv's idea ofa much larger courtyard at the Louvre, which included modest inventions dwarfed by his repeti— tion of Lescot's facade motifs into the enlargement. This, of course, was an aesthetic statement in its own right. The Burbon dynasty was still in its infancy, and continuing the work ofVa|ois kings Francis l and Henry ll was a means of placing Louis Xlll in the long line ofFrench kingsThis matter was later to be a major preoccupation also for Louis XIV, The most distinctive monuments built during that time are indeed to be seen in Jesuit church architecture rather than in the King's palace, perhaps owing to the monarch's relative weakness compared to the afrmation Of his eminence grise, the Cardinal Richelieu. There, BS well as in the Queen Mother's Chdreau 0fLuxEmb0ul’g - which was an evident Parisian interpretation of Palazzo Pitti » and in the interior decoration at the Louvre, Italian inuence was pervasive although easily explained by the Tuscan and Roman connections oftheir patrons. Alto— gether, more interesting are the aesthetic controversies regarding the work carried out or planned at the Louvre under Louis XIV, particularly the famous colonnade on the east facade of the palace (g. 6). After the deaths of Richelieu and Louis Xlll in 1643, the Cardinal Mazarin, who was already overseeing the education ofthe heir ap— parent Louis, took a keen interest on the completion of the Louvre. Yet, the renewal ofltalian inuence atthe Louvre cannot be simply ascribed to the peninsular roots ofyoung Louis XlV's regent. First, the decisive push towards atharacteristically ltalian design came several years after the Cardinals passing. second, the taste for ltalianate architecture continued for the remainder of the 17'“ century, even as French culture came to be seen - or at least portrayed in his court ~ as shining over all of Europe rather than receiving inuences from other countries.'A decisive break in the so far uneventful history of the enlargement Of the Louvre Courtyard occurred when, after the death of Lemercier, his successor Louis Le Vau was charged by Mazarin to execute several major projects, including the Louvre and the neighboring college des Quatre-Nations (g. 7). Unlike Lemercier's sielf—effacing solution, all of Le Vau’s designs departed from the scale and style of the Renaissance Louvre with the introduction of Baroque aesthetic then at the height of its prestige in France. As it can be seen in the only extant element of Le Vau’s monumental complex, the College, this aesthetic relied heavily on the Italian Baroque, albeit employing, in secular buildings, architectural motifs and elements which in Rome would have characterized religious buildings: a curved facade composed of several tightly assembled colossal pilasters or halfacolumns rising from a low plinth, topped by a tall dome over a colonnaded drum. Le Vau’s work was, however, put on hold in ‘I664 when Jean—Baptiste Colbert was appointed Surintendunr des barimenrs. This resulted in one of the most famous architectural controversies in history, that of the selection and development of the design for the east front of the Louvre, that unfolded over the next ten years, yet it was ultimately critically received. The rst blow against Le Vau’s design development was the call, in early iso4, for countenproposals among French and, a few months later, ltalian architects. Not that French architects had waited for this moment to make their suggestions; certain Antoine-Léonor Houdin, urchitecte ordinaire des biitiments dll roi, put forward his own design as early as 1651 . Most of these competing solutions from Le Vau’s fellow country- men have not survived, but of the few that did, most, such as Marot's proposal and Mansarrs early designs, were strongly reminiscent ofthe style of the previous reign. Both of Houdins proposals, that of 1661 and another one from the competition, were singular in displaying a strong Palladian avor, misleading Anthony Blunt into mak- ing the assumption that that architect was in fact Italian.’ The French designs may have seemed to colbert to be old rashioned, or not sufciently dignied. Shortly afterthe exposition of these designs, he requested proposals from the foremost Roman architects: Bernini, Pietro da Cortona, Carlo Rainaldi, and Bcirromini, who declined to contribute. In spite of this semblance of competi- tion, however, the French court seemed to have been bound from the start on securing the services of Bernini, and paid hardly any attention to the other architects'drawings. After several months of courier exchanges and a number ofchanges to Bernini's designs, Louis XIV and Colbert resolved to send for the Fope’s most distinguished artist. He arrived in Paris in June, 1665, and remained there until November ofthe same year. 238 Palazzo, Architecture or Portmit Exorism and the Royal Character ofthe Louvre ' During this period, Bernlni overhauled his design in response to Colbert's and the premier commis des ba- tirrlerits, Charles Perrault’s, objections. Ground was broken to carry out Bernini's denitive project (g. B) in early i666, but by the middle of that year construction seemed all but abandoned,Word had it at the time that since r late 1665 a parallel commission, made up of Francois Mansart, Louis Le Vau, and the painter Charles Le Brun, was working discretely under Colbert’s patronage to devise an alternative proposal. in the spring of ‘I667, even as the King readied to wage war in Flanders, the team submitted one or two Q pairs of competing drawings (the number of drawings remains controversial), after which a nal design was ‘z worked out. claude Perrault, appointed to the commission arter Mansart’s death in 1666, was charged with ren— j, ing the design, probably with the help of Francois d'Orbay, Le Vau's chief draftsman. Construction began in ‘I668 and proceeded until funding cut in 1676.The facade itself, mostly complete by 1672 - even though the interiors ' stood unnished for nearly a centuiy afterwards - has remained ever since a point ofaesthetic contention in the - writings of nationalist commentators and more disinterested scholars alike. * Historiography as a source for iconography , This ongoing controversy over the Louvre colonnade's aesthetic merits is, in my view, crucial to the under- standing its original conception. Reading the historiography is certainly no substitute for looking at the Work of ~ art, but the changes of viewpoint that affect artists also have their effect on historians, and each effect can shed light upon the other. To the same extent recent historians have advanced our current knowledge of documentary sources and particularly of the authorship of the Louvre colon nade, they have cast aside the equally important mal:— ter of the Louvre's iconography as a representation of political power in the European context of the 17th century. indeed, recent scholarship has disproportionately emphasized the link between the Louvre colonnade and classical temples. This link arises from a belief that there was a direct architectural expression Of Louis XlV's alter ego as Apollo and thac therefore, antiquarian and mythological analogies would have been paramount in the design of the Louvre facade.” it is preposterous to doubt that the solar imagery did play a major role in the cul- ‘ tural politics ofthis King; nevertheless, architecture is farfrom being as literal an art foras painting, sculpture, or encomiastic poetry. Recent studies have assumed the architectural expression of Louis XlV's palace to be more of a direct take on Apollonian mythology a a Palace of the Sun, as goes the title of Robert Berger's book on the subject — than a result of the interplay between architectural knowledge and political persuasion. In so doing, we have become blind to the much more down-to-earth political motivations that shaped the actual form of the colonnade, and gave it its character. ' The solution to this shortcoming nevertheless can be garnered from looking further back at 19"‘ and even 18" century scholarship. since the second quarter of the 20-“ century, the East facade or the Louvre has been widely acknowledged to be as quintessential an example of French classical architecture as Lescot's earlier west wing." such was not the case in the 19'“ century, however. Commentaries abounded disparaging the East rront of the Louvre as vitiated, facile yet irrational, in other words, a far cry from what at the time was considered good French architecture." Of cou rse, several historical reasons explain this attitude, not the least the rise of a class consciousness among architects that made them ill disposed to accept the achievement of a physician, Claude Perrault, then believed to be the sole author of the colonnade, and the nationalist interest in establishing a characteristic French style, in op— position to the ltalian-inspired Empire style of the early century." A late, but still telling, testimony to this frame of mind is William Henry Ward's The Architecture of the Renaissance irl France, nishing its broad historical swoop with the Empire style, which the author dubs the"end"- and then the ”sir\king"- ofthe Renaissance in France.“ in addition to this, the l9*"—century polemic against the East facade of the Louvre was of course related to an operative interest in dening, not so much what French classicism was like during the grand siecle, but Z39 IKON, 52012 |T.'Y_ " »: _""v"':’»,7‘_V_. 5\.Fl.1";»§;:§;: / $.79 _!/ v; 0! . 4. ' ‘*7’ I1”W. A~V-aw: W---._>‘~*<. ( "5E\— ‘ ‘ ‘ 1. Reocnstruttiun of the Medieval Louvre, from Wallet-|e—Duc's Dictlonnmre 3. Pierre Lescut, west Wing ofthe Louvre courtyard, 154249 4. Percier and Fonraine, Galerie de Rlvoli, after Jacques (photn: Palazzo R, 2005) Androuel du Cerceau'$ Grands Gnlerie du bordde Veau (photo: PEIBZZO P. 2009) ‘W . - ‘ , . f//—~'= ‘ . ~. :_—'— "if L 5;, _':a:>:5§*=.‘,=;_; 5. Jean Andmuel du Cerceau and Clément Métezeau, Place des 5, an fagade Ofihe Louvre, 155146, anrlhuted to Voges, Paris (phwm: Palazzo P.. 2009) Claude Perrauk, Louis Le Vau, Charles Le Brun, and 240 Frangois d'Orbay (photo: Palazzu P.. zoos) Pala71n.Ar | I ' * fl” g~;i;.Q,;:,-~ LouvveCo|onnade(C|aude Perrau|L1668).andw— W ~ . ft‘ Beminfsfcurth pro|ect€or(hesamefa;ade. ?_,.,=‘g{,-’_ 1 A (1655) J___ 4 TE! 3751 s\l\xA '‘W :__jj7_;; ‘ , _;,—;§ Q 'T-=V.»;¢.:-F;\ iF.=,"-"72" hm ,";.-_=- I A“ M =,,‘ """ ' i Ti? “ ff or 1557, Louvre Museum, RF 26077,-and"' "" '"**" ’* '1 * “" Berninfslourlh proje (elebmling peace, to Ié .._%. ' be lucated between the ‘J _- -1 =~-_¢,;,,_".':_';;, , -="-in - _;-§ Louvre and theTuileriES, ‘' ‘ -' §—.“;§l 1722. LouvreMuseum. P" 1 _ , . .2 ,1‘?-. ,.!:‘iZ@;.I6'¥ Kg‘ ._~_;W i % '55?‘ J F =-.—§=é:£=t“ 7 ,_,. -13Ti3G=1:11_g~ 1'11 =,__- . = houseandaplaza 5 ». ~ - .:,g_¢1nv&i_;7,@?;.=-""~=.;{':wf'“, an ‘W “F‘F ,Ir-Q; lF%=§“ IL ,-?*=-..= 5I QB’ ; J;Y~*'°”"‘4‘* _g:.'/?.@L'.’4==,-s 5» ' ~ ~ . , Laf!erI,1549, »> " - Bibliotheca Ir» 1. 1;! illii by Antonio RF40963 1 :1 “" *“ ' ' -~ 1'-"1 -.1."-J-'1-_-' 3' ' ‘ 'T Heziana I , 5 u. Comparison between a design iorthe Louvre fagade. amibuted m Louis LeVau,1665 _!_L 4 13 Dcnatnramanve, ‘Ex-11:12:“,-f5§\ Palazzn Caprim, ' ' Rome, engraved 241 IKON, s—2n1 2 really what was to be made of contemporary French architecture. Yet, precisely because critics from that period regarded themselves as partaking in a continuing national architecture stretching back to the early Renaissance, they were uniquely attentive to iconographic and stylistic issues to which later writers paid less attention. Indeed, many prominent writers in the second half of the 19°‘ century agreed that the Louvre colonnade had a distinctly foreign avor. '5 Now, one can react to this statement in different ways. lt can of course be sus» tained that these authors held a view of what constituted French architecture that was deliberately narrow and self-senring, l-lowever, it can also be acknowledged that the Louvre colonnade was at a variance with historically prevalent design solutions. It was arguably the earliest example of the Neoclassical monumentality that was to thrive in 18'“-century France — no wonder major architects and critics of that time, such as Jacques~Francois Blondel, Patte and Soulot, were strongly impressed by its conception.Yet this met alone by no means establishes a French origin for the design. The latter problem is particularly relevant to my point here, as it hints that the Louvre colonnade was con- sidered, in the 19"‘ century, something of a mist among French classical monuments. On the other hand, the 2o"'— century rehabilitation of the East facade drew largely on the laudatory writings of 1 8"‘-century authors such as Patte and Blondel, regarding its simplicity and rationality. Clearly there was something about the Louvre colonnade that attracted Neoclassicists and Modernists which did not'strike a chord with the Romanticse What was it, then? Characterization of the Louvre facade The formal analysis of a classical facade can be divided into two major features: the architectural motifs such as the classical orders, windows and roofs, and the compositional devices such as proportions and distri— butions of the elements. The former were common in Classical Europe, with little variation in their basic forms except for those elements, such as roofs, that depend on local climate.The latter. however, exhibited considerable variation and are key to identifying national styles. For example, colossal orders on pedestals were a staple of the ltalian Baroque, whereas French hotels ofthe 17* century often displayed ground»floor loggias with small orders, and colossal orders, where they exist, usually spring directly from the ground. A close look at the Louvre designs between 1661 and 1668 shows that Le Vau’s projects up until 1664 were thus somewhat French in their reinterpretation of Roman Baroque, even though the insistence on the use ofthe colossal order and the presence of balustrades hinted at an interest in an ltaliamthemed monumentality. The picture changed somewhat after Bernini's contributions in 1664 and 1665, though. Francois Mansart's last designs for the Louvre East front, probably produced in ‘I655, are evidence of the evolution of the French architects’ search for an ltalian expression in the palace facade. one drawing displayed the characteristic French Baroque solution of applying church motifs to secular buildings, already evidenced in Le vau's college des Quatre»Nati0ns. An entry pavilion topped by a tall dome over a circular drum was the centerpiece of a composition donned with tall roofs and colossal pilasters springing from a low plinth. Another drawing restricted the visible roof to the outer reaches of the wings, giving prominence in the inner stretches to a balustrade topped with statuary and coupled pilasters (g. 9). The development of the nal design by the commission in 1666-1667, including Le vau's own c0ntribu— tions, went a step further in the ltalian direction. The use of a colossal order over a gr0und—0or plinth and the total disappearance of the roof bore witness to a concerted move of the design commission towards a clearly ltalianate solution. Also, the nal proportions of the basement and ground oor, as rened by claude Perrault in 1668, were even closerto those of Bernini's fourth project (g. 10) than in the design development phase one or two years before (gs 11), which would have been quite surprising considering charles Perrault‘s invective that Bernini's design did not look like architecture, if this had not been part of the general effort towards an Italian style in the Louvre colonnade. 242 . r Palazzo, Architecture as Portrait: Exorism and rhe Royal Character ofthe Louvre lfthat was the intent, then, why did Bernini get evicted from the design process, even though he was the one most likely to imprint that ltalianate image that was the guiding thread ofthe design process?The objections to Bernini's proposals are mostly known through the memoirs of charles Perrault, who had strong quarrels with \ the ltalian artist, and should thus be taken with a grain of salt. The practical issues with the size and anticipated cost of the project notwithstanding, it is possible that aesthetic considerations did indeed play a role. This does ‘, not, however, implythat the Colbert or Perrault, much less the King, who was reportedly very pleased with aer- J nini's monumentality, rejected ltalian inuence altogether, as early 20"‘ century writers such as Hautecoeur and e Laprade asserted.“ Still, just as French architecture was not the same in the 1 7'” century as it had been in the 16“ so the Italian i architecture that the French had in mind at that time might not have been the state-of—the-art baroque Bernini delivers. French interest in Italy had come a long way since the early Renaissance, but by the mid—i7"' century French architects such as Lemercier and the early LeVau were still largely drawing on the style of Madernds gen- ‘ eration, that is, about half a century before. Conversely, up until the publication of Desgodetz's survey of Roman ruins and of Balthasar de Monconys' description ofthe shrine at Baalbek," knowledge of Antique architecture in France was for the most part medi- ated by ltaly- and by this I mean both published surveys'such as i>a|ladio's, translated by Roland Fréart de Cham— bray in ioso, and High Renaissance interpretations of classical architecture.“This means that French architects of the mid—17"‘ centurywould have had no means of bypassing modern Italy as a mediator in the formation ofa Classical tradition. It is this ltaliammediated Antiquity that began coming to the fore during the design process of the East *1 facade of the Louvre, even as the secondrhand knowledge of Italy characteristic of most French architects of the , grand siécle" came to be supplemented by the rst-hand contributions of Bernini and his fellow countrymen. Whatever opinion the French court held for Bernini's work, for example, was certainly shaped to a great extent by the colonnade on Saint Peter’: Square, which, like most of his Roman facades, displayed a very conservative aes- thetic, to which he reverted in his later designs for the Louvre. Saint Petefs square remained an important theme i in the French picture of monumentality long after Bernini's departure (g. 12). In the nal stages ofdesign development, arter Bernini's grand project was rejected in favor ofa more mod- est intervention, one could still see the movement of the French architects towards the Italian manner, albeit in a compromise of sorts between the monumentality of Bernini's last solution and the regularity of Palladian and Biamantesque precedents. The similarity between the Louvre colonnade and Palazzo caprini is striking indeed (g_13).The facade design that was eventuallycarried out thus distanced itselfas much as possible from standard > French practices, in an attempt to set apart the image ofthe royal palace from the solutions that the nobilitywere able, or willing, to adopt at that time. The process of singling out the royal castle, later the palace, of the Louvre as a unique building among the residences of the French nobility was a continuous movement begun in the late Middle Ages. The Louvre Colon- nade was perhaps the crowning point of this process. ln spite of Bernini's ultimate failure to bring about his de— sign, the unmistakable combination Of ‘l6"'— and 17"'~century Roman compositions in the executed facade bears ' witness to this process. This was, of course, very different from anything the French nobility would have dared to build in a time of rising national pride — and quite intentionally so. The perception of the Louvre colonnade as a "typical'example of French classicism was an image construed long afterthe fact, during the nationalist rampage of the early 20"‘ century. ~ The key point in all these interventions, from charles v to Louis xlv, is that they were in fact never rneant to be ~typicai~. Here, Wktor Shl