THE TEMPIETTO AND THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE 3

The units used by architects such as Giuliano da Sangallo, Antonio da Sangallo the
younger, Peruzzi and Palladio are clearly documented in numerous autograph draw-
ings - but no such corpus exists for Bramante. It is thus not surprising that scholars
have yet to agree which unit of measure Bramante, who was brought up in Urbino and
had previously been working in Milan, adopted for the design of the Tempietto in
Rome. Only a generation later Serlio believed the appropriate unit to be the (Roman)
piede while his near contemporary Pietro Cataneo assumed it to be the (Roman)palmo.
In our own time Giinther also has favoured the palmo, while Tiberi has proposed a
braccio equivalent to 2% palmi and Bruschi has highlighted the column diameter as a
basic module, at least for design purposes.'
With the exception of Tiberi's choice, there are cogent reasons why the other three
units might have been relevant. The idea that the column diameter could be the basis
for design goes back to antiquity, as is evident from a number ofpassages in Vitruvius's
influential treatise. Thepalmo (along with its multiples the passo and the canna) was the
standard construction unit for centuries in Rome, being derived from the ever so
slightly shorter ancient palmus maior or half cubitus. The piede became popular with
sixteenth-century architects and antiquarians - albeit mainly for surveying ancient
monuments -because they realised that its precursor thepes was in fact the base unit of
the ancient system, and certainly more important than the ancient p a l m ~ s . 'These
~
various measures compare as follows:
Ancient I cubitus I pes I palmus
( = I % pedes, 2 palmi) (= % palmi) ( = 3/4 pedes)
"444 mm = 296 mm = 222 mm
Modern 2 palmi I piede I palmo
( = I % piedi) (= % palmi) ( = 3/4 piedi)
'447 mm :298 mm
' " 223.5 mm
In the case of the design of the Tempietto, the palmo or the piede or the column
diameter might have been used as its measurements frequently yield multiples of each
of them (see Figs 3 , 4 and Table I ) . In particular, the cella has an internal radius of 10
palmi and an external radius of ~opiedi,while the interaxial radius of the colonnade is 10
modules. Alternatively the salient measures may be thought ofas diameters, of 20 units
respectively. These same dimensions seem to regulate the elevation as well as the plan:
the height of the external order (column plus entablature) is 20 palmi, that of the
complete lower storey (including the pedestal band and balustrade) is 20 piedi and that
of the upper and lower storeys combined is 20 modules (see Figs 5 and 6).11
Furthermore, some important architectural elements measure whole numbers in terms
ofall three units: the column height, for example, is 16palmi, or ~apiedi,or 9 modules.
Bramante may have used only one of these units, in which case the presence of
multiples of the others might be coincidences resulting from the simplicity of the ratios
between different pairs of units as the column module equals 413 piedi, and the piede
equals 413 palmi. Alternatively, Bramante may have envisaged the three units in
concert, deliberately repeating the 4:3 ratio so as to set up numerical correspondences
between different parts of the building. But even if he had in mind all three units
simultaneously, he probably would have instructed the workmen who built the
Flg. 4 (opposite) T h e Tempietto, plans, i:ioo, overlaid with geometrical schemes:
(a) ad quadraturn progression based on a circle dejned by faces ofthe columns and the line of
the entablature above
(b) ad quadraturn progression based on a circle defined by the column centres
 m o m
m e n
n e o

Fig. 5
u

T h e Ternpietto, lorlcqitudinal section, 1:1oo, with survey measurement.$

Fig. 6 (opposite) ?'he Trtnpietto:
(a) cross-section
(b) plan, 1:1oo with 1:1 relationships and simple dimerlsions overlaid (author). T h e broken
line on the cctpola shows its probable original profile
8 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 3 3 : 1990
TABLE I

HYPOTHETICAL PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS OF THE TEMPIETTO IN TERMS OF PALMI, PIED1 A N D COLUMN

DIAMETERS OR MODULES (see Appendix for metric measurements)

Code Element Palmi Piedi Modules

Plan
r Internal radius of cella (pilasters) 10 7% 5 S/K
R External radius of cella (pilasters) 13% 10 7%
RC1 Radius of colonnade (to column centres) I 77/9 13% 10
RC Radius of colonnade (to column faces) 182/3 -14 - 10%
RP Radius of ring of steps 25 18Y4 -14
RCT Radius of courtyard? 50 37% 28%

Supplementary dimensions ojthejoor pattern

f~ setting out of central discs
f2 setting out of central field
f3 distance between axial discs
f4 overall diameter (to pedestal bases)
t nominal width of square tesserae

External elevation
C Column height
Hent Height of entablature
H Height of order
Hls Height of lower storeys
Hbs Height of both storeys

Internal Elevation
C1 Column height 16 12 9
Hentl Height of entablature 3% 2% 2
HC1 Height of columns off floor 20 15 I I I/,
Hu Height of upper cornice 32 24 I8
HDd Height of crown of dome above floor 42% 32 24
HT Height of summit above ground, originally so? 37%? 28%?

Tempietto in terms of one alone. For example if the piede was chosen, as Serlio
suggests, then 20 palmi would have been specified as 15 piedi, and 20 modules as ~ 6 ' / ~
piedi. Conversely, if the more commonpalmo was used, then zopiedi would have been
specified as 265'3 palmi, and 20 modules as 3 5% palmi.
Along with 4:3 several other arithmetical ratios were used; Table 2 shows I: I and 1:2
were especially favoured. As has been mentioned, successive multiples of 20 units
governed important limits both in plan and elevation, hence the cross-section may be
interpreted as an ascending progression of squares or I:I relationships (see Fig. 6a).13
Significant elements in the building are linked together by a web of simple ratios. For
example, the height of the columns is three-fifths that ofthe lower storey, one-half that
 10 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 3 3 : 1990

Fig. 8a) Alternative ad quadratum

progressions:
-- SP
-7 P
­-
I ) inscribed squares and circles 8b) Temple ofHadrian, Rome,

2 ) rotating squares analysis ofcolumn and base 1:45 with

In each case the sequences of squares are measurements in pedes (author)

related to each other as 1:qz:z in terms

ofwidth, and as 1:z:q in terms of area

the interaxial radius of the colonnade (see Fig. 4b). zAs' % (1.4142 to four decimal
places) is incommensurable, setting out such relationships would have depended on
scaling from geometrically constructed plans or on calculations based on approxi-
mation, probably either 7:s (I .4) or 225:160 (1.40625).l7
The suitability of V2 derives from its association with the superimposition of circles
and squares, forms which are implicit in the plan of the Tempietto and its courtyard. It
follows from ad quadratum procedures in drawing with rulers and compasses (V2being
the ratio between the diagonal of a square and the length ofits sides or the diameter of an
inscribed circle, see Fig. 8), which were widely used by ancient and medieval architects,
compare Figures 4, 8, 9 and 16.ls The layout of the cloister of S. Maria della Pace,
which Bramante designed about the same time, also conforms to a v2
or 7:s
development: the limiting dimensions of the arcade being 70 piedi and 50 piedi (see
Fig. 9). Here again other integral dimensions, such as IIL, 9, 12, and 48piedi (or 2, 12,
16 and 64palmi), reverberate throughout the building.19 It is also of note that another
contemporary centralized project by Bramante, the spiral ramp in the Vatican Belve-
dere called the 'Chiocciola', was set out to simple dimensions in piedi and/or palmi ­
being 3 0 piedi or 40 palmi (8.88 m) in diameter.20
Corroborative evidence for the use of the ad quadratum method in the Tempietto's
design is also provided by its own floor pattern. This is a distinctive composition made
of bands of pale stone which frame fields of coloured marble tessevae in a conscious
revival of the Cosmatesque style (Figs 4 and In addition to focusing the eye on the
centre, on the very spot where St Peter was believed to have been crucified, the design
fits perfectly the overall proportional scheme. It is based on a geometrical pattern of
rotated and superimposed squares and circles.22Furthermore, the floor's dimensions
 THE TEMPIETTO AND THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE

Fig. 9 S , Maria della Pace, Rome, Cloister c . 1505, plan, 1:2oo, with
geonzctvical schenze overlaid (after Basso and Cappella)

echo those of the overall structure. The central field is set out using 5 palmi and 5 piedi,
and while the overall width of the floor (measured to the base moulding of the wall) is
not a simple dimension, it is half the diameter of the platform of the surrounding
colonnade. 23
Bramante's willingness to use the irrational v2
ratio as well as a range of rational
ratios in designing the Tempietto says much about his approach to the whole issue of
architectural proportions. There is no evidence of a 'proportional system' of the sort
advocated by some modern critics, that is to say a system whereby parts of a building
are related to each other by successive multiples of one or perhaps two special ratios.
For example, were %'2 to be the key to such a system then important dimensions would
coincide with the following series:
2% 2% V2 5 5 V2 10 10V2 20 etc.
= 3% =7 = 14
 THE TEMPIETTO AND THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE I3

TABLE 2
(see Table I and
H Y P O T H E T I C A L P R I N C I P A L INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN P A R T S O F THE TEMPIETTO
Appendix for measurements)

The columns containin the bold vertical lines indicate the relation between the dimensions given in the

rows where the verticaflines begin and end.

Relationships
1:v2
Abbr Element Piedi io:g 6:s s:4 4:3 7:s 3:2 8:s 5:3 2:1 I:I

fi S.O.of dlscs in floor 1%

f2 1.0. ofcentral floor field I

r Internal radius of cella 7%

R External radlus of cella

Hu Helght of upper ext storey 10

I
C Column he~ght 12

RC'
f3
Radlus ofcolonnade (cent.)
8.0 of axla1 dlscs of floor 13%
I I

RC Radlus of colonnade (faces)

f4 D~amcterof floor pattern -14

HC' Hclght ofcolumn t pedestal 15

I I

RP Radius of nng of steps I 8 '1,

I I
II
II II
HIS Helght oflower storey 20 1 I

Hu Height of upper cornice 24

1
Hbs Helght of both storeys 26% I I I
HDf Helght ofdomc from floor 32 I
HT He~ghtof summ~tof dome 37%' I I

Hcc He~ghtof dome from crypt 412/1

DCRT D~ameterof Court 75

A

 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 33: 1990

+----
- -- 20 h i
40hi

Fig. 12 S . Maria dell? Carceri, Prato, 1484-

G ~ u l t a n oda Sangallo, 1:joo (after Conti and
Morsell~j

Fig. I I S . Maria del Calcinaio, Cortona,

1484-, Fvancesco di Giorgto Martini, plan, i:500
(after Papini)

an approach is of considerable value given that the design of a building has to respond
also to structural, functional and aesthetic constraints. 25
Onc measure, then, of the success of Bramante's design is the tally of relatively
elegant relationships between important elements (see Table 2 ) . Another measure of
success is the extent to which whole number dimensions are involved. While the
importance of proportion to Renaissance architects is a commonplace of architectural
criticism, that of measure has been less appreciated - and it is one of the aims of the
present study to help to redress this imbalance. One indication of the importance of
dimensions is the way in which their selection could influence the associated propor-
tions. For example, the columns of the Tempietto display a relatively slim slenderness
ratio of 1:9 (as opposed to the Vitruvian norm of 1:8) partly because the chosen height
produces simple relationships with respect to other elements of the building and partly
because of the simplicity of the dimensions themselves (9 modules = 12 piedi = 16
palmi). However, here the argument is in danger of becoming a circular one, and hence
it is necessary to demonstrate that the type of dimensions seen in the Tempietto are
16 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 3 3 : 1990

Florentine braccia in the Tuscan churches just mentioned, of 10 canne in Giuliano de

Sangallo's St Peter's, of ~opiediinRaphael's S. Eligio degli Orefici in R ~ m e , ~ ~ ofa n10d
palmi in the still smaller Tempietto, presumably suited the particular requirements of
their patrons and sites.
In Quattrocento buildings significant dimensions are usually measured to the main
wall surface, rather than to pilasters. For example, Brunelleschi's Old Sacristy mea-
sures 20 braccia from wall to wall, and consequently only some 19% from pilaster to
pilaster (see Fig. I S ) . In agreement with Alberti's theoretical ideas, the wall was
essential to the organization of the design while the orders were seen as applied
ornament.30In the Cinquecento, or for Peruzzi at any rate, the placement of pilasters
took on more importance. In his plan of S. Domenico a small arrow indicates that the
20 braccia required inscribes the faces of pilasters - the span of the structure being
greater (Fig. 13). This slight difference signifies an unmistakable shift of emphasis in
favour of the architectural orders. Bramante already seems to have been thinking in this
vein when he designed the Tempietto given the way simple dimensions are married to
the pilasters. The critical span of the interior is surely 20 palmi to the surface of the
pilasters, rather than 20% palmi to that of the wall as a whole. Indeed the fact that the
pilasters' importance in this context has been overlooked probably explains why the
dimensional and proportional simplicity of the Tempietto has hitherto gone unnoticed.
The stress on the pilasters rather than the wall has particular merits in the case of the
Tempietto. Assuming that Bramante wished to relate the positioning ofthe cella to that
of the colonnade, he would have tried to relate like to like. The wall surface itself has no
equivalent in the colonnade. Thefaces of the pilasters, however, have a direct formal
correspondence with the faces of the columns. Furthermore, the faces of both pilasters
and columns are plumb under the faces of the trabeation they support.
The practice of setting out buildings to simple dimensions is convenient and
common sense, as it reduces the possibility of error in communication, and execution.
There is thus always the possibility that simple dimensions occur merely for the sake of
convenience. However, when whole dimensions are assigned to pilasters a suitable
allowance would have had to be made when the wall was set out, necessitating the
initial use of non-integral dimensions. The impetus for proceeding in this less direct
manner is thus all the more likely to stem from conviction as opposed to expediency.

The foundation of the convictions of Renaissance architects regarding the use of

appropriate dimensions and the mathematical ordering of design lies in the combined
influence of several different sources. Written sources include antique texts (both
Christian and pagan) and architectural or philosphical treatises produced during the
Renaissance itself. Then there were lessons to be learnt from the practice of architec-
ture. Architects inherited traditional medieval methods via successive generations of
masters and apprentices, and they augmented their knowledge by studying the
surviving ancient Roman remains which were accessible to them.
Clearly influential for Christian readers were the descriptions of legendary archi-
tectural monuments in the Bible. The account of the Temple and Palace of Solomon is
the example par excellence of the perceived link between ideal dimensions and the
creation of perfect or sacred architecture. The planning of both buildings is achieved
 THE TEMPIETTO AND THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE 17

almost entirely through multiples of 10 or 1 2 cubits. The Holy of Holies, the sanctuary
housing the Ark of the Covenant, was described as a perfect cube, 20 cubits in width,
depth and height -a point that may not have been missed by some of the Renaissance
architects who designed ecclesiastical spaces 20 units wide.31
Vitruvius' treatise was of course the most important single document for Renaiss-
ance architects and theoreticians. It gave them a basis for the discussion of design
theory, and gave glimpses oflost works from Greek and Hellenistic cultures. Vitruvius
repeatedly affirmed the need to give architecture a mathematical order, although it is
true that his text leaves room for different interpretations as to how this might be
achieved.32 Architectural treatises of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries revived
Vitruvius's ideas, and championed anew the cause of theory and of analytic definitions
of beauty and harmony.33 Many justifications were advanced to demonstrate that
buildings should be invested with mathematical harmony. This harmony could be
achieved by an appropriate interplay of dimensions and ratios, and the numbers
involved in them.34There were also reasons to prefer certain numbers above others,
and the writers of treatises consistently return to those which Vitruvius mentioned as
'perfect': 6, 10 and their sum 16. The number 10 had a special appeal.35Other favoured
numbers could be derived from 6 and 10, for example 12 (6 x 2), 60 (6 x IO), and IOO
( I 02).
Modern scholarship has tended to over-emphasize the contribution of contemporary
theory while minimizing the continuity in different periods of architectural history.
Buildings which exhibit simple relationships between simple dimensions date from
long before the appearance of treatises by Alberti, Filarete, Pacioli and others. Some
scholars believe that simple dimensions and ratios were the stock-in-trade of medieval
architects; a conclusion supported by the occasional documented record (such as the
arguments about the designs for Milan ~ a t h e d r a l )The
. ~ ~ layout of S. Lorenzo and
S. Spirito according to integral dimensions in bvaccia is prefigured to some extent in
their Florentine predecessors, S. Croce, S. Maria Novella, S. Trinita and SS Apostoli. 37
Thus the preference for whole dimensions of Brunelleschi and his successors can be
understood in part as the legacy of traditional practices.
Similar concerns can be traced in surviving buildings at least as far back as the fourth
century B . c . ~An~ examination of antique Roman monuments that are broadly
comparable with the Tempietto (ones that are simple, free-standing and centralized)
and that Bramante would have known, reveals analagous qualities, and suggests that
Vitruvius's discussion of theory stands in a context of accepted practical procedures.
Working Roman architects tended to favour multiples of ten or twelve pedes and
dimensional coincidences unite numerous ancient buildings in or near Rome: the tombs
of Caecilia Metella, of Gaius Cestius, of Munatius Plancus and those called Tovvione di
Micava and Casal Rotondo are all IOO pedes wide; the Pantheon and the so-called Teatvo
Mavittimo in Hadrian's villa are 150 pedes (100 cubiti) wide, while the inner ring of S.
Stefano Rotondo and the overall span of S. Costanza are 75 pedes (50 cubiti) wide.39
Simple proportions can also be detected in many better preserved antique buildings;
note, for example, the 1:2:3 relationship between the three rings of S. Stefano, and the
I : 1 : 2 relationship between the column height, the interior diameter and the stylobate
diameter of the Temple of the Sibyl at Tivoli. Sometimes both geometrical and
 I8 ARCHITLCTURAL HISTORY 33: 1990

11.67 (braccra 20)--------1

I
i
I

Fig. r j Old Sacristy, S . Lovenzo, Fiovence,

1429, detail sfction (de Angelis d10ssat)

h g . r6 The Pantheon, Rome, 118-125,

plan, r :8oo, wtth pometrical cchewre ovc~vlaiii
(autlzo~)

arithmetical principles can be seen operating at the same time, just as they do in the
Tempietto, The plan of the Pantheon is based on a simple geometrical scheme
involving a circle and inscribed square (see Fig. 16). The building also displays several
simple arithmetic relationships, including the equality of its span to its height and the
4:3 ratio between the heights of its two main orders.40 The evidence points to the
widespread relevance of mathematical principles - those .essentially consistent with
the ancients' concept of symmetvia - to architectural design.41
It hardly needs to be said that ancient Roman monuments such as these were of
immense importance for Renaissance architects, who diligently drew and measured
them- or at least were supposed to have done Vasari tells us that Bramante 'made
measurements of all the ruins at Tivoli and at Hadrian's villa . . . of which he made
much use'.43 While it might be objected that Vasari was bound by biographical
convention to mention something to this effect, Bramante's keen awareness of the
details of ancient buildings suggests that he indeed would have been thorough in his
approach to surveying them.
In the Tempietto Branlante created a novel synthesis which referred to famous
antecedents, without directly imitating any of them. He must have studied carefully
those Roman remains which appeared to him particularly relevant. Foremost among
these must have been the Pantheon, the rotunda ofwhich has a tripartite elevation and a
 THE TEMPIETTO AND THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE

Fig. 17 T h e so-called Teatro Marittimo,

Hadrian's villa, Tivoli, 125- , plan, 1 :400,
with geometrical scheme overlaid (after
Ueblacker)

plan articulated by four, eight and sixteen accents (see Fig. 16), the Teatro Marittimo,
which has a circular peristyle court (see Fig. 17), the Temple of the Sibyl, the best
preserved accessible ancient peripteral temple (see Fig. I 8), and S. Stefano Rotondo and
S. Costanza, both of which have a drum rising above a surrounding ambulatory (see
Figs 19and 20). The recurrence of IOO units, in all but the Temple ofthe Sibyl, either as
a radius or as a diameter, may have inspired, or at least reinforced, Bramante's intention
20 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 3 3: 1990

24 - ­
I

- 24
­
C I-
1
I I
L-_- _ - _ _ _ _ -.-.
.J. 48
Fig. I 8 T h e so-called Temple ofthe Sibyl, Tivoli, jo-10s. c.
i:zoo, dimensions in pedes (author)

to give the same number to the Tempietto's courtyard, and its root, 10, to the building
itself.
In ancient monuments such as those just mentioned significant integral dimensions
tend to be associated with the exterior of a building when this is more important than
the interior, and vice versa. Thus an externally orientated building such as the tomb of
Caecilia Metella is laid out so that IOO units locates the external wall, while an internally
orientated building such as the Pantheon is laid out so that IOO units locates the internal
ring of the structure. In buildings such as S. Stefano Rotondo where the interior and
exterior are in relative equilibrium, round dimensions locate both the inner and outer
limits.44It is appropriate then that the unity of the Tempiettc, is manifest through the
assignment of simple dimensions to the interior, the exterior and the colonnade.
Bramante may also have derived the 12 piedi column height of the Tempietto from the
columns of ancient monuments, for many of them also measure multiples of 6 or 12
pedeslpiedi (18 for those of S. Costanza, 24 for those of the Temple of the Sibyl and
S. Stefano Rotondo, 36 for 48 for those of the Pantheon's interior and portico
respectively). 45
For Bramante and his fellow architects, then, there were three chief sources which
inspired their adherence to mathematical principles: ancient and contemporary written
texts, inherited medieval practices, and the evidence of ancient buildings. These were
not necessarily in the same order of importance, nor did they exclude the sway of other
 THE TEMPIETTO AND THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE 2I

Fig. 19 S . Costanza, Rome,

c. 320, plan, i:400 (author)

factors such as number s y m b ~ l i s mNotoriously,

.~~ there was room for considerable
conflict between different areas of influence, the subject of proportion not e ~ c l u d e d . ~ '
But regarding dimension a happy state of harmony existed: the dimensions suggested
by theory coincided with those sanctioned by precedent.
Against this background Bramante's design can be reconsidered. There were few
contextual constraints governing the dimensions of the Tempietto. Although it is
reminiscent of each, it is not strictly a chapel nor a martyrium, nor a temple, indeed it is
unclear what liturgical requirements the building may have served.48Its function was
primarily symbolic and celebrative and did not demand a particular size. Nor are its
dimensions governed by the site: it stands at the centre of an open courtyard, and it
could have been bigger (though not too big without appearing cramped) or smaller
(though not too small if its interior was to be usable). In these circumstances the
question of size was no doubt considered in the same light as other aspects of the
Tempietto's design - as a manifestation of the ideal and of the striving towards
perfection. The coincidentjustifications for the particular dimensions that were chosen
must have seemed overwhelming: by giving the inside of the cella a radius of opal mi,
the outside one of ~ o p i e dand
i the colonnade one of 10 column modules, Bramante was
distilling the perfect number according to theory and precedent and binding the plan
into a satisfying rational scheme.
 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 3 3: 1990
Fig. 20 S . Stefano Rotondo, Rome,
4th-5th centuries, plan, 1:800 (author)

In marvelling at the exceptional coherence of the Tempietto's design one is reminded

of Alberti's famous definition of beauty, which, as paraphrased by Wittkower in the
context of a building, consists of 'a rational integration of . . . all the parts of the
building in such a way that every part has its absolutely fixed size and shape and nothing
could be added or taken away without destroying the harmony of the whole'.49 This
definition encompasses actual size, of the whole and ofindividual elements, and not just
the relative size of different parts with respect to each other. Indeed, neither the
measurements nor the proportions of the Tempietto could have been significantly
modified without disrupting the rigour of its compostion and violating the principles
upon which it was founded. While architectural critics have sometimes over-stated the
importance of such a connection between an actual building and the world of abstract
ideas, in this case it seems amply justified.50 The Tempietto stands as a Renaissance
ideal, the embodiment of the harmony between macrocosm and microcosm as
expressed in the words ofPico della Mirandola which introduce this paper. Firstly there
is the harmony that reverberates through the building itself, and secondly the harmony
between it and a long lineage of familial buildings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was begun during residence at the British School at Rome from 1982 to 1984. I am
most grateful for the assistance of its members and staff, and also for the advice and encourage-
 THE TEMPIETTO A N D T H E ROOTS O F COINCIDENCE 23

ment of Deborah Brown, Paul Davies, Peter Draper, Eric Fernie, Paolo Fiore, David Hemsoll,

Richard Schofield and Robert Tavernor.

Fig. I T . Benton, by courtesy of the Courtauld Institute of Art.

Fig. 7 Courtauld Institute of Art, by courtesy of the trustees of Sir John Soane's Museum.

Fig. 9 by courtesy of the Courtauld Institute of Art.

NOTES

Abbreviations
P forpiedi, p forpalmi, br for Florentine braccia, c for cubits, dg for digiti, m for metres and M for columnar modules
(diameters).
I Pico dell Mirandola, Opera Omnia (Basle, 1557)~ p. 40, f. 2 as translated in A. Koestler, T h e Roots of Coincidence
(London, 1972), p. 106.
2 S. Serlio, Tutte l'opere d'architettura et prospettiva (Venice, 1584)~111 (first published, separately, in 1540)~
pp. 18-19, and A. Palladia, I Quattro LibridellJArchitettura (Venice, 1570)~ IV,ch. 17, both honoured the Tempietto
by including it alongside ancient examples of good architecture. There are arguments for dating the building as
early as 1502 (E. Rosenthal, 'The Antecedents of Bramante's Tempietto', Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, 23 (1964), pp. 55) but a later date seems more likely, see A. Bruschi, Bramante architetto (Bari, 1969),
p. 481.

3 P. Delorme, L e premier tome de l'architecture (Paris, 1567), V,I , fol. 13I; D . R. Coffin, 'Pope Marcellus I1 and

architecture', Architectura, 9 (1979), p. 12.

4 M . Wilson Jones, 'Principles of Design in Roman architecture: the setting out of centralised buildings', Papers of

the British School at Rome, 57 (1989), n. 8 and n. 38; L. Vagnetti, 'Architettura e Metrologia', Quademi del Istituto di

Elementi di Architettura e Rilievo dei Monumenti, 6 (Genoa, 1971)~pp. 69-126.

5 W. Lotz, 'Sull'Uniti di misura nei disegni di architettura del Cinquecento', Bolletino del Centro Internazionale di

Studi di Architettura, 21 (1979), pp. 223-32; D. F. Zervas, 'The Florentine braccio da panna', Architectura, 9 (1979)~

pp. 6-11; E. Fernie, 'Pegolotti's cloth lengths', T h e Vanishing past: Studies of Medieval Art, Liturgy and Metrology

presented to Christopher Hohler (British Archaeological Reports International Series, III (1981), pp. 13-28.

6 Serlio, Tutte l'opere, nI, 18v; P. Cataneo, L'Architettura (Venice (2nd ed.), 1567). 111,ch. xi, pp. 72-73. For the

sake of clarity Cataneo drew out the relevant piede (296mm in length) in the margin. Usually he gave

measurements in Florentine braccia orpiedi half as long, i.e. of 292 mm.

7 H. Giinther, Die Memorialanlange der Kreuzigung Petri in S . Pietro in Montorio, Rom (Diss. Munich, 1973); idem,

'Bramantes Hofprojekt um den Tempietto und seine Darstellung in Serlios dritten Buch', Studi Bramanteschi

(Rome, 1970)~p. 483 ff; C. Tiberi, 'Misure e contemporaneiti di disegno del Chiostro di S. Maria della Pace e del

Tempietto di S. Pietro di Montorio', ibid., 437ff.; Bruschi, Bramante architetto, p. 465, Fig. 307.

8 Tiberi chose a braccio of 2 % even ~

though the Roman braccio is equated to 3p by authorities such as A. Martini,
Manuale di Metrologia (Rome, 1976), p. 396, and H . Doursther, Dictionnaire universe1 despoids et mesures anciens et
modernes (Amsterdam, 1965), p. 72. The Tempietto does yield some multiples of 2'/2p, but no more than might
reasonably result from measurement inpalmi and a preference for numbers such as 10,20and 50. Tiberi derives his
unit in part from a supposed parallel with the mensuration of Leonardo da Vinci's famous man in a circle and
square. The logic of this idea escapes me completely.
9 Vitruvius, 111, 3; 111, 5; IV,I; IV,3; IV,8; v, 9.
10 H. Giinther, 'Die Rekonstruktion des antiken romishen FuBmasses in der Renaissance', Kunstgeschichtliche
Gesellschaftzu Berlin. Sitzungsberichte, 30, (1981-82), pp. 8-12; M. Wilson Jones, 'Palazzo Massimo and Baldassare
Peruzzi's approach to architectural design', Architectural History, 13 (1988), pp. 64-65. See also C. Thoenes,
'Proportionsstudien an Bramantes Zentralbau-Entwurfen', Romisches Jarbuch fur Kunstgeschichite, I 5 (1975), p. 57.
11 Compare also the height above the floor of the springing of the cupola, that of its crown, and the same
measured from the floor ofthe crypt, each 32 units (respectivelypalmi, piedi and columnar modules). For the source
of these and all other dimensions cited, see the Appendix.
12 The same subdivisions are common to both units, with thepiede andpalmo divided into either 16 and 12 digiti of
18% mm, or 12 and 9 onciddigiti of 24% mm. The possibility that Bramante intended ancient (that is slightly
shorter) as opposed to contemporary values forpalmi/piedi remains an open question, as the measurements of the
Tempietto suggest unit lengths that fall between the norms for each version (see the Appendix).
I3 The system of squares is highlighted by Bruschi, Bramante architetto, p. 513, Fig. 335. However not all his
proposals are borne out; for example the internal radius of the cella is not 6M and nor is the cella wall 2M thick
( P 4653 Fig. 307).
24 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 33: 1990

14 Ideal ratios such as these were sometimes modified if there was a conflict of intentions. Consider the following
possibilities: (i) that the height of the dome's springing be 24P (32p), % the total height of the interior (32P), (ii)
that the part heights of the interior elevation are simply related to other significant dimensions in the building as
follows:

hypothetical dimensions
height of'tlement piedi palmi proportional relationship
pedestal height 3 4 riqC, 2i5r
column height (C) 12 I6 8/5r, 6i5R
entablature height 2% 35/u 2M, 2i9C
attic height 6% 8% 2!3R
These produce a total of for the height ofthe springing, rather than the ideal 24P ofthe first premise. It seems
that 24P was achieved by reducing the pedestal height to 2P, 14dg and the attic height to 6%P.
I 5 Kosenthal, 'Antecedents', pp. 55-56 Judging by the section in the Codex Coner, the present dome is probably
about o.5m thicker than the original.
16 As Giinther, ('Hofprojekt', pp. 490, 498 and Figs 12. 13 and 18) has shown, a circular court IOO palmi in
diameter centered on the Tempietto would fit snugly into the dimensions of the original quadrangular courtyard.
17 The actual ratios between these pairs of measurements are respectively I .404 and I ,408. For the first pair a ratio
of 2251160 follows if the intended dimensions were 25p (14%6M) and IOM. For the second pair a ratio of 7i5
follows if the external radius ofthe cella was intended as IOP,the interaxial radius ofthe colonnade intended as IOM
( I ~ Y ~ Pand
) , the radius of the columns intended as 2i3P, thus making the radius to the column faces 14P.
I 8 O n the heritage ofthe use of q 2 see P. Gros, 'Nombres irrationels et nombres parfaits chez Vitruv', Melanges de
I'Ecolejan~aisedu Rome: Antiquiti, 88 (1976),pp. 6 6 ~ 7 0 4and, references cited in Wilson Jones, 'Palazzo Massimo',
n. 5.

19 The following are averages (author's survey). See also P. Basso, E. Cappella, I1 Chiostro di S . Maria della Pace

(Rome, 1987), and Letarouilly, Edifices de Rome moderne, (Paris, 1869-74), I, pp. 63-66:

metres piedi palmi

Overall width of arcade, wall centres ~ 2 1 . 5, ='72.4 (72') "96.5 (96')
Overall width of arcade, stucco face 20.710 69.73 93.24
Overall width of arcade, wall face 20. goo? 70.03 (70) 93.38
Inner width of arcade, piers I 4.860 50.03 (50) 66.71
Interaxial width of courtyard 14.290 48. 11 (48) 64.15 (64)
Width of bay 3.540 11.94 (12) 15.91 (16)

H e ~ g h of
t impost 3.590 12.09 (12) 16.12 (16)

Width between piers 2.680 9.02 (9) 12.03 (12)

Width of pilaster 0.444 1.49 (I%) 1.99 (2)

Bruschi, Bramante architetto, p. 246 ff. notes such interrelations as I:I, 1:2, 1:3 and 3:4. O n the use of q 2 in other

projects of the period by Bramante see Thoenes, 'Proportionsstudien'.

20 P. Letarouilly, L e Vatican et la Basilique de St.-Pierre de Rome (London, 1963, facsimile ofthe Paris I 882 edition),

pl. 123. A separate study of this structure is being prepared by this author.

21 Comparable floors are found in the chapel of the Cardinal of Portugal in S. Miniato in Florence, the Sistine

chapel, Raphael's Stanze, and the palace attached to SS Apostoli in Rome. See Bruschi, Bramante architetto, p. 473,

n. IS, and A . Vanegas Rizo, 'I1 Palazzo Cardinalizio della Rovere ai SS. Apostoli a Roma', Quaderni dell'lstituto di

Storia dellJArchitettura, 139 (1978), pp. 3-12.

22 Bramante may have been aware that the ratios I:I, 4:3 and d 2 : 1 were frequently used in the original Cosmati

designs, see D. Glass, 'Studies on Cosmatesque pavements', British Archaeological Reports (1980), p. 40 ff..

23 Appendix, compare RP and f ~For . ancient precedents for this 2:1 relationship, see Wilson Jones, 'Principles',

n. 20.

24 Similarly the interval 5:2 between the sop diameter ofthe steps and the 2op interior diameter ofthe cellais made

up of the progression 4:3-4:3-V2:1, or alternatively 4:3-V'2:~-4:3. via the external diameter of the cella and the

diameter of the colonnade, measured in the first case to column centres and the second case to their faces. 5:2 is in

fact matched exactly if 225:160 is used as an approximation for V'2:1.

25 Bramante would have had to check that the dimensions chosen produced satisfactory rhythms around the

circumference. The external circumference of the cella (to the face of the pilasterslfrieze) works out at 84p

assuming a diameter of 2 6 % ~(2op) and 3.15 for n;this produces 5 % per ~ hay
and approximately a 1:2 rhythm
between the width of the pilasters and the distance between them. Similarly the interaxial circumference of the
colonnade works out as I 12p, and this produces 7p per bay and an approximate rhythm of 1:3 between the columns
and the intercolumnations. The resulting circumference of the external frieze of the colonnade nearly approaches
 T H E TEMPIETTO A N D T H E ROOTS O F COINCIDENCE 25

7 % per
~ bay and thus almost 2 % intervals
~ for the triglyphs and a (suitably Vitruvian) rhythm of ~ p : ~ % p
between the width ofthe triglyphs and metopes (my thanks to DavidHemsoll for this observation). None theless,
the fact that none of these relationships are accurately realized, confirms the primacy of the radial dimensions.
26 The following are centralized spaces 20 braccia wide, or thereabouts (zobr equals I I .68m given a unit ofo. 584m,
see Zervas, 'The Florentine braccio').
Building Source Average widths in metres
S. Lorenzo, Old Sacristy a I 1.57 (wall surfaces, I 1.67 to structure!)
S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy b I I .69 (wall surfaces)
S. Lorenzo, chancel c I 1.45 (wall surfaces, I I .6 to structure?)
S. Spirito, crossing d I I. 72 (to piers of crossing)
S. Spirito, Sacristy e c. I I . 70 (opposing corners of octagon)
Courtyard of Palazzo Medici f I 1.67 (to columns/wall above)
S. Salvatore, chancel g c. I 1.65 (to centre lines of walls)
S. M . del Calcinaio, crossing h I I .71 (wall surfaces, I 1.48 to pilasters)
S . M. delle Carceri, crossing i I I . 72 (wall surfaces, I I .43 to pilasters)
The sources for these measurements are:
a-h: author; C. v. Stegmann and H. v. Geymuller, Die Architektur in der Toscana, 12 vols (Munich 1885-1907). See
also for a: G. De Angelis D'Ossat, 'Brunelleschi e il problema delle proporzione', in Filippo Brunelleschi, La sua
opera e ii suo tetnpo (Florence, 1977)~p. 222 ff,; for b: H. Saalman, 'The New Sacristy of San Lorenzo before
Michelangelo', Art Bulletin, 67 (1985), pp. 199-228, esp. p. 212; f o r d and e: L. Benevolo, S. Chieffi, G. Mezzetti,
'Indagini sul S. Spirito di Brunelleschi', Quaderni dell'lstituto di Storia dell'Architertura, 85 (1968), pp. 1-52; for g:
L. Bartoll, 'L'Uniti di Misura e il modulo proporzionale nell'Architettura del Rinascimento', Quaderni del Istituto di

Elementi di Architettura e Rilievo dei Monumenti, 6 (Genoa, 1971)) pp. 127-37; for h: R. Papini, Francesco di Giorgio

Martini architetto (Florence, 1946), 3 vols and H. Millon, 'The Architectural Theory of Francesco di Giorgio', Art

Bulletin, 40 (1958), pp. 257-61 (clearly related to 2obr are the depth of the transepts, 15br (8.77m), the overall

internal width, ~ o b r(29.25m), the external width of the arms, 28br (16.34-16.4om) - note that 28.20 is

approximately t/2:1), the width of the main door-frame, ~ o b r( 5.86m) and the height of the crossing's cornice,

4obr (23.40m); for i: P. Morselli and G. Conti, La chiesa di Santa Maria delle Carceri in Prato (Florence, 1982),

p. 38 ff., who note ratios such as I:I, 1:2 and 3:2 between dimensions such as 10, 20, 30 and qobr.

27 F. Wolff Metternich, 'uber die Massgrundlagen des Kuppelentwurfes fur des Peterskirche in Rom', Essays in

the History ofArchitecture presented to Rudolf Wittkower (London, 1967), p. 40 ff.

28 Wurm, Baldassarre Peruzzi Architekturzeichnungen (Tiibingen, 1984), figs 229 and 291. For other comparable

dimensioned schemes see 9, 11, 164, 205, 292, 293 and 345).

29 The average width of the arms (to pilaster faces) of S. Eligio is 5.94m o r zopiedi of o.297m (author). The plan

thus resembles a half-scale S. Maria delle Carceri, with principal dimensions transposed from braccia to piedi. See

S. Valtieri, 'Sant' Eligio degli Orefici', in Rafael10 architetto, ed. C. L. Frommel, S. Ray and M. Tafuri (Milan,

1984), pp. 143-56, especially Fig. 2.4.5.

30 R. Tavernor, Concinnitas in the theory andpractice of L . B . Alberti (Cambridge University PhD, 1985), pp. 66 ff.

and 135 ff illustrates this argument with S. Andrea in Mantua, the nave of which measures 40 by 120 Mantuan

braccia, to wall faces (see also J. Rykwert and R. Tavernor, 'Sant Andrea in Mantua', Architects'Journal(1986), XXI,

pp. 36-57. Millon, 'Architectural Theory', n. 14, has also observed that Francesco di Giorgio's grid lines coincide

with walls rather than pilasters.

3 I Kings, I, 6 and 7.

32 Vitruvius, especially I, 2; 111, I ; VI, 2. O n difficulties of interpretation see P. Gros, 'Vitruve et sa theorie, i la

lumi6re des etudes ricentes', Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romishen Welt, 30. I (1985), pp. 660-95, and references in

Wilson Jones, 'Palazzo Massimo', n. 24.

33 Les Trait& dd4rchitecture de la Renaissance, Actes de la Centre d'Etudes Superieurs de la Renaissance, Tours, ed.

J . Guillaume (Paris, 1987 (1981)); Vitruve, D e architecture Concordance, ed. L. Callebat, P. Bouet, P. Fleury and
M . Zuinghedan, (Hildesheim, 1984), with comprehensive bibliography, 11, vii-xli; P. N. Pagliara, Vitruvio da testo
a canone, Memoria dell'antico nell'arte italiana, 3 (1986).
34 See R. Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (London, 1949); G. L. Hersey, Pythagorean
Palaces: Magic and Architecrure in the Iralian R~naissance(Ithaca and London, 1976) and references in Wilson Jones,
'Palazzo Massimo' n. 27-30.
35 10 is the base ofthe Roman/Arabic system of counting, the hands and feet have 10digits, and 10is I + 2 + 3 + 4
while 10' = roo = 1' + 23 + 33 + 4'. O n the almost mystical significance for the Greeks of the decad, a triangle made
up of 10 points in rows of I,2,3 and 4 points, see J . J. Pollitt, T h e Ancient View ofGreek Art: criticism, history and
terminology (New Haven, 1974), p p 14-22. As Tavernor, Concinnitas, p. I 82, has pointed out, Vitruvius's value for
the circumference of the earth, 3, 150,ooo passi (I, 6, 9) was no doubt calculated from an assumed diameter of I
millionpassi or ~ o , o o omiglia (miles) and 3. 15 as an approximation to ?i.
26 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 33: 1990
36 P. Frankl, 'The Secret of the Medieval Masons', A r t Bulletin, 27 (1945)~p. 46 ff. See also E. Fernie, 'Historical
Metrology and Architectural History', A r t History, I (1978), pp. 383-99. However, for F. Bucher, 'Medieval
Architectural Design Methods 800-1560', Gesta, XI (1972), pp. 48-49, 'measurements are dirty within the context
of geometry which is an affair of the mind'. He argues that the paucity of medieval standard units of measure
supports his interpretation -but this also renders it more difficult to detect whole dimensions if they were used.
37 The following measurements have been taken by the author:
S. Croce, width of transept crossing I I . 74m (zobr)
S. Maria Novella, width of transept 11.81m (zobr)
S. Maria Novella, width of nave between bases 11.78111 (zobr)
S. Trinita, interaxial width of nave c. 8.74111 (15br)
S. Trinita, width of nave bay (interaxial) c. 5.8zm (robr)
S. Trinita, off-set of aisle wall from nave wall 5.85m (robr)
SS Apostoli, width of nave 5.83111 ( ~ o b r )
It has also been noted that the plan of the Old Sacristy is the same width (some I I % plus) ~ as the Trecento
Baptistry of Padua which it resembles in other ways (see E. Battisti, Filippo Brunelleschi (Milan, 1976), p. 355 and
H . Saalman, 'Carrara Burials in the Baptistry of Padua', A r t Bulletin, 69 (1987), p. 386). However this not to say
that the Florentine braccio must have been used in setting out of the earlier building.
38 The designer ofthe fourth century B. c. Monument to Lysicrates in Athens, like Bramante here, may have more
than one unit in mind - the width of the podium is 2.94m, o r 10 Attic feet of o.zgqm, while that of the tholos
platform is 3 , 2 7 ~ mor
, 10 Ionic feet of 0,326111. See Wilson Jones, 'Principles', Appendix 11.
39 In Wilson Jones, 'Principles', the plans were analysed of a comprehensive group of centralized buildings that
are large, free-standing, well-preserved and constructed in o r near Rome between 200 B.C. and $00A.D. Selected
measurements are as follows:
metres pedes cubiti
S. Stefano Rotondo (ext. diameter of outer ring) 66.06 225 150
S. Stefano Rotondo (ext. diameter of middle ring) 44.06 150 I00
S. Stefano Rotondo (int. diameter of inner ring) '22. I0 75 50
The Pantheon (interaxial diameter of column ring) 44.55 150 I00
Teatro Marittimo (external diameter) 44.20 150 I00
The tomb of Caecilia Metella (ext. width of podium) 29.64 I00 66Y3
The tomb of Munatius Plancus (overall diameter) 29.55 I00 66%
The tomb of Gaius Cestius (overall width) 29.49 I00 66%
Torrione di Micara (overall diameter) '29.43 I00 66%
Casal Rotondo (overall diameter) '29.40 I00 66%
So-called Temple of Diana at Baia (interior diameter) 29.68 100 66%
S. Costanza (overall interior diameter) 22.28 75 50
So-called Temple of Romulus (interior diameter) 14.70 50 33%
Mausoleum at Portus (interior diameter) '14.77 50 33%
So-called T o m b of the Horatii and Curiatii (ext. width) '14.90 50 33%
40 P. Davies, D . Hemsoll and M. Wilson Jones, 'The Pantheon: a triumph of Rome o r a triumph of compro-

mise?', A r t History, 10 (1987), pp. 133-53. For proportional studies of other Roman buildings, see P. Gros,

'Vitruve et sa theorie', p. 689.

41 Wilson Jones, 'Principles'; E. Panofsky, 'History of the Theory of Human Proportions' in Meaning and the

Visual Arts (New York, 1970), pp. 83-138, esp. n. 19.

42 H . Giinther, Das Studium der antiken Architektur inden Zeichnungen der Hochrenaissance (Tubingen, 1988); Wilson

Jones, 'Palazzo Massimo', pp. 64-65.

43 G . Vasari, L e Vite deipili eccellenti Pittori, Scultori e Architettori, ed. Milanesi (Florence, 1878-85), p. 146,

44 See notes 23 and 39 supra.

45 M . Wilson Jones, Designing the 'Corinthian Order', Journal o f Roman Archaeology, 2 (1989), pp. 35-69.

Furthermore, the Doric columns of the Theatre of Marcellus - particularly important models for the Tempietto

- are about 24P (6.95m or 23.6P) tall, see F. Saponieri, A. Visconti and V. Feoli, Teatro di Marcello (Rome,

1822).

46 Bruschi, Bramante (1973)~P. 143,

47 For perspectives on this issue before modern times see Serlio, Tutte I'opere, IV, fols 33r, 34v and 3 7 ~ ;

W. Herrman, T h e Theory o f C l a u d e Pewault (London, 1973), p. 31 ff.

48 S. Sinding-Larsen, 'Some functional and iconographic aspects of the centralized church of the Renaissance',

Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia, 2 (1965), p. 236.

49 Wittkower, Architectural Principles, p. 7; L. B. Alberti, D e re aedificatoria, VI, 2.

 THE TEMPIETTO AND THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE 27

50 See, for example, of the last chapter of Hersey, Pythagorean Palaces; A. Ritz, The Supreme Creation of the Past,
Present and Future: The Everlasting Temple of S . Stefano Rotondo in Rome, the NewJerusalem and the Book ofRevelarion
(Rome, 1980); T . Brunes, The secrets of Ancient Geometry (Copenhagen, 1967), and other publications on 'sacred
geometry'; and F. Tiberi, 'Misure e contemporanieti' on the Tempietto in particular. These tend towards
unnecessarily clever, complex or abstruse interpretations; inaccuracies can be also quite considerable.

APPENDIX
MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPIETTO IN METRES,PALMI OF 0 . 2 2 2 7 5 ~P, IEDI OF 0 . 2 7 9 0 ~AND
, COLUMN
DIAMETERS OR MODULES OF 0 . 3 9 6 ~ .Survey by the author, with the help ofDeborah Brown and
David Hemsoll. Measurements generally agree with those of P. Letarouilly, ~dijicesde Rome
moderne (Paris, 1869-74), I, pp. 103-0s.

Code Element Metres Palmi Piedi Modules

Plan
M Column diameter

r1 Internal radius of cella (wall)

r Internal radius of cella (pilasters)

R External radius of cella (wall)

R External radius of cella (pilasters)

RC1 Radius of colonnade (to column

centres)
Radius of colonnade (to column faces)
Radius of platform
Radius of ring of steps

Supplementary measurements of thejoor pattern

t Nominal width of square tesserae 0.740 0.33 0.24 0.18
f~ Diagonal width between central discs I. 105 4.95 3.71 2.78
f2 Width of central field (mid. band) 1.475 6.62 4.97 3.73
f3 Distance between axial discs 4.000 17.96 13.47 10.10
f4 Diameter of floor (to pedestal bases) 4.200 18.85 14.14 10.61
f5 Overall diameter offloor (base of wall) 4.300 19.30 14.47 10.85

External elevation, principal measurements

C Column height 3.580 16.07 12.05 9.04
Hent Height of entablature 0.850 3.82 2.86 2.15
H Height of order (C Hent) + 4.430 19.89 14.92 11.19
Hls Height of lower storey (H hp hb) + + 5.860 26.31 19.73 14.80
Hbs Height of both storeys* (Hls Hus) + 7,950 35.69 26.77 20.07

Supplementary measurements
hp Height of plinth 0.510 2.29 1.75 1.29

hst Height of steps 0.550 2.47 1.85 1.39

hf Height of floor off ground (hp + hst) I. 060 4.76 3.57 2.67

hb Height of balustrade 0.920 4.13 3.09 2.32

HuS Height of upper storey*

2.090 9.38 7.03 5.28
28 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 3 3 : 1990

Internal elevation, principal measurements

C Column height
HC1 Height of columns off floor (C* + hpd)
H1 Height oflower cornice (HC1 hentl) +
Hu Height of upper cornice (HI+ hatt)
H D f Height of crown of dome above floor*
H D g Height of crown of dome above
ground*
Height of summit above ground,
(HDg + T )
Height of summit above ground,
originally
Supplementary measurements
hp Height of pedestals 0.850 3.82 2.86 2.15
hentl Height of entablature 0.800 3.59 2.69 2.02
H1 Height of order 4.3 80 19.66 14.75 11.05
hatt Height of attic 1.940 8.71 6.53 4.90
hd Height of dome* 2.320 10.41 7.81 5.86
T Assumed thickness of dome 0.5-6
* Being unable to measure the dome, these dimensions are taken from Letarouilly, or are calculated by adding his
measurements to my own. Eagerly awaited is a new survey ofthe building under the direction of T. Carunchio, to
be published by I1 Ventaglio in Rome.