ARCH 84312

Site, History, Type, and Allegory: 

The Poetics and Rhetoric of the Classical Tradition in Rome 

Arch. 84312 

Italian Classicism 

Tues./Thurs. 9:00—12:00 

Prof. David Mayernik 

SEMESTER THEMES 

[I ] t seems to be a lesson of history that the commonplace may be understood as a 

reduction of the exceptional, but that the exceptional cannot be understood by 

amplifying the commonplace. 

—Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, W.W. Norton, 1968, p. 238 

Historia, according to Cesare Ripa’s 

Iconologia, 1603 

Donna alata, & vestita di bianco, che 

guardi indietro, tenga con la sinistra 

mano un libro, sopra del quale mostri 

di scrivere, posandosi col piè sinistro 

sopra d’un sasso quadrato, & a canto 

le sia Saturno, sopra le spalle del 

quale posi il libro, ov’ella scrive. 

A winged woman, dressed in white, 

who looks backward, holding in her 

left hand a book upon which she is 

shown writing, resting her left foot on 

a square stone, and next to whom is 

Saturn, on whose back is set her book 

where she writes. 

THE LESSONS OF ROME ARE COMPLEX, AND VARIED. 

Each era has, indeed, found in Rome what they were 

searching for (or were prepared to find). If there is a 

common underlying approach, however, that explains 

how architects operated in Rome within the context of 

the classical tradition before the beginning of the 

modern era (the later eighteenth century), it could be 

characterized as “rhetorical,” shaped in the context of 

humanist studies, which saw architecture and the urban 

realm as articulate spaces. Therefore, formal studies 

make little sense here without reference to the 

underlying meaningful ends to which they have been 

historically directed, and it can be argued there are 

effectively four broad rhetorical themes that informed 

the formal choices architects of the past made. In 

seeking to articulate the meaning of their projects, 

architects drew upon some or all of the following as 

sources of inspiration: Site, History, Type, and 

Allegory. In fact, all of the great architectural 

compositions of Rome are informed by some aspect of 

all of these sources; for the purposes of organizing our 

walks in Rome, we will rather summarily discuss 

exemplary Roman buildings and urban spaces 

according to the most overt of the four sources. You are 

expected to understand how the other sources may be 

integrated factors in these places’ success. 

Since we are studying the subject of their 

rhetoric by virtue of its formal means, we will analyze 

these sites in several ways: planimetric organization, 

volume and section, facade composition, and language. 

All of these places will reward each of those 

investigations; while I will present them on our visits in 

the context of those four sources or themes, it will be 

your task to engage with the most compelling aspects to 

you, and document them for your future use. However, 

you must come to understand how each of these aspects depends upon the other, and how the 

particulars here are always a consequence of the general. To help you distinguish the four 

thematic sources of the rhetoric of Roman classical architecture, please consider the following 

brief summary: 

SITE: the particular, embedded characteristics or residue—geological, historical, formal, 

mythological, poetic, etc.—of a specific place or area; as an example, Lanciani documented 

the architectural stratification of Rome in his Forma Urbis Romæ



HISTORY: the stories and events that have been associated with a particular patron, 

founder, institution, building type, place, etc. 

TYPE: those general associations and characteristics of a particular building form allied to 

function that transcend specific patrons and places 

ALLEGORY: those metaphorical allusions to transcendent meaning that became associated 

especially with the mythological and Christian traditions in the Renaissance; please note 

that it is the nature of allegory to be multivalent, literate, and somewhat obscure. 

Again, it should not be assumed that only one of these themes obtain in the places we will visit 

to illustrate them—indeed, it is the particular pleasure of Rome that virtually every place is 

complex and layered in its meanings—bur rather that I would like you to consider how these 

themes might have furnished the primary intent of the rhetoric of the place. At the same time, I 

expect your analyses of these places to investigate the ways in which these themes become 

intertwined, noting that, for example, a site’s embedded characteristics include the historical 

or mythological, history cannot be divorced from place, etc. What is essential in every case is 

that you not see the forms as ends in themselves, but rather rhetorical means toward creating a 

more articulate urban and rural environment. 

[If] a work of art does not instruct overtly through morals, maxims, or demonstrations 

of poetic justice, it should be harmoniously well proportioned, reflecting in its own 

order and harmony the harmony God created in the universe. In this way, a work of 

art, the microcosmic reflection of the macrocosm, expresses and appeals to the most 

rational part of the mind, as well as to the highest emotions, and in its total effect 

induces in the whole soul and body that balance, harmony, and proportion the soul 

ideally should possess in itself, should impose on and share with the body, and should 

take pleasure in perceiving and receiving. 

— H. James Jensen, The Muses’ Concord: Literature, Music, and the Visual Arts in the 

Baroque Age, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976, p. 3 

CHRONOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 

It must be kept in mind that the usual intent of High Renaissance architects was not to 

copy specific Roman buildings but to arrive at their own general canons based on a 

composite of Roman examples, canons which were generally [only with regards to the 

orders] more rigid than those of Vitruvius himself, and much more rigid than those 

illustrated by actual Roman buildings. Since French academic architects tended to adhere 

to the principles laid down in the writings of these Renaissance authorities even more 

closely than did most Italian architects themselves, the French academic canons of 

“classic” design in turn tended to become even more rigidly fixed than those of 

Renaissance Italy. 

—Donald Drew Egbert, The Beaux-Arts Tradition in French Architecture, Princeton, 

1980, p. 106 

The broad current of Renaissance architecture in Italy, which started to flow slowly in early 

quattrocento Florence and disappeared after a brilliant coda in Piedmont midway through the 

eighteenth century, was always anchored on the Idea and experience of Rome. Indeed, what 

was produced in Rome from its heyday during the Empire through the eighteenth century 

arguably has had more of an impact on the trajectory of Western architectural traditions than 

any place on earth. As you are here to specifically study the “classical” tradition, and as the 

merits of that tradition as it is manifested in Rome are that it is decidedly whole, integrated, 

and meaningful, we cannot simply focus on issues of classical “language” without 

understanding context (physical, intellectual, cultural), nor can we study “composition” if we 

do not know the rhetorical ends to which these compositions were directed. Thus, the urban 

realm, the history of the city and the Church, the culture of Renaissance humanism, the allied 

arts, etc. are all essential sub-components of what is ostensibly a seminar dedicated to grasping 

the formal principles of classical architecture as it is manifested here.



The Renaissance as it is here defined, spanning roughly 350 years from Brunelleschi to 

Vittone, is the ideal point of departure for understanding the whole spectrum of the classical 

tradition from antiquity to neo-Classicism, since it offers the greatest variety of approaches to 

engaging with the past, and the most thoughtful examples of dealing with that most 

challenging problem of classicism, the relationship of column and wall. Moreover, the 

Renaissance’s ability to arrive at new forms and types out of the raw material of the past 

offers us an important model for developing our own approaches to our inheritance. It was in 

part the understanding of all art as rhetorical, and therefore driven by its message, that yielded 

the fertile variety of approaches to the classical tradition in Rome. 

To grasp the Renaissance’s approach to classicism we must therefore resort to the 

somewhat problematic idea of “language.” Now, while no visual media can replicate the 

structure and meanings of words, the analogies between language and built form in the 

classical tradition are close enough to help us unlock the mind of Renaissance architects. 

Indeed, they were not merely satisfied to dispose their work with competent grammar and 

syntax, they were aiming at a meaningful architecture that was rhetorical and poetic, i.e. that 

could explain, convince, exhort, and metaphorically re-present ideas from beyond architecture 

itself. It was precisely the aspiration to raise the visual arts to the intellectual standing of the 

liberal arts that directed Renaissance artists to adopt the aims and methods of rhetoricians and 

poets. 

Arguably, the fundamental formal challenge of working with the classical language lies 

not in the refinement of the Orders themselves, but in the complex ways in which columns and 

walls interact. From the moment ancient Roman architects adopted the post and lintel system 

of the Greeks and wed it to their development of a wall-based architecture, the complexities, 

ambiguities, and contradictions of that marriage challenged and inspired architects to resolve 

the potential conflicts into an ever richer whole. Palladio’s “fugal system of proportions” (in 

Wittkower’s words) and Borromini’s contrapuntal compositions were only possible because of 

their embrace of the challenges of composing with pilasters, half-columns, and colossal orders 

(and, because they could consider the bounds of the canon of the Orders fairly fixed). 

Moreover, the license exhibited by the greatest architects of the classical tradition was almost 

exclusively rhetorical in impetus: in classical rhetorical theory, one is allowed—even 

expected—to depart from the rules in order to reach for greater expressive effect (within the 

bounds of decorum, of course). 

In addition to the Orders and their deployment, we will study the broader issues of 

classical composition, or what an early twentieth century writer might have called the “Grand 

Manner,” from antiquity through the era of the Grand Tour. Since the elements of the 

classical language serve to order the world, the ways in which they occupy and shape space are 

fundamental to understanding the very raison d’être of the classical language—its ability to be 

rhetorical, to speak coherently and eloquently of the issues that have occupied the concerns of 

thoughtful people and societies for millennia. 

In so far as a tradition in architecture can be called classical, it must rest on two 

analogies: of the building as a body, and of the design as a re-enactment of some 

primitive—or if you would rather—of some archetypal action to which our procedure 

might refer. From Vitruvius to Boullée, the texts suggest something of the kind, always 

in different contexts, since such ideas do not contain, or even imply, the repertory of 

norms and procedures which the constant alteration of circumstances forces you to 

renew, to rethink and to alter…. 

—Joseph Rykwert, “The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Classical Tradition,” The 

Beaux-Arts and Nineteenth Century French Architecture, ed. Robin Middleton, MIT 

Press, 1982, p. 17 

In concert with our approach of examining the driving themes of Roman classical 

architecture, it must also be noted that, at the levels of morphology (form), typology (kind), 

and rhetoric (language) there have been, over time, diverse approaches to the inheritance from 

the past. One could talk about continuity, inversion, and invention as strategies for dealing 

with the legacy of past achievements. When you examine and analyze the places you see this



semester, you should reference and seek to document the following very schematic list of how 

those strategies might have played out: 

CONTINUITY 

Morphologies and Typologies: 

Insula and Palazzo 

Basilica and Church 

Temple and Chapel/altar 

Triumphal Arch 

Villa 

Roman Forum and Piazza 

City gates 

Bridges 

Rhetoric: 

Orders as genera or types 

Disposition of the Orders: Engaged orders, stacked orders 

INVERSION 


Theater, Colosseum 

Temple and Church; Pan-theon vs. Domus Dei 

Bath and Church 

Imperial Forum and Piazza 

Stadium and Piazza 

Obelisks 

Rhetoric: 

meaning of Doric (see Onians) 

meaning of the Composite Order 

Temple/Church:Inside/Outside (rich/simple) 

Rustication 

INNOVATION 


Palazzo (combining insula and domus elements) 

Figural Piazza 

Centrally planned church 

Nested typologies: e.g. triumphal arch/temple pediment in church facades 

Rhetoric: 

Orders as a system 

Colossal Order; Major/Minor order 

Michelangelo’s Ionic 

Broken entablatures and pediments; stacked orders and vertical continuity 

Illusionistic painting 

Bel composto 

Fountains 

Stairs



YOUR TASKS 

There is first the archaeological impulse downward into the earth, into the past, the 

unknown and recondite, and then the upward impulse to bring forth a corpse whole 

and newly restored, re-illuminated, made harmonious and quick. 

—Thomas H. Greene, “Resurrecting Rome: The Double Task of the Humanist 

Imagination,” Rome in the Renaissance: The City and the Myth, Binghampton, NY: 

Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, p. 41 

Your overarching task will be to actively engage with these themes and begin to make the city 

of Rome your own, by documenting and analyzing some key sites. To begin, one must come to 

terms with the way in which Rome continually built upon itself, not ignoring but 

incorporating the past in new construction (the “past” here is understood as everything from 

physical spolie to abstract classical ideals). This consciousness of the past can help unlock the 

ways in which the builders of this compelling landscape understood what they were doing, but 

more importantly can also give you a credible approach to your own interventions in the city. 

To operate in any urban context, but especially in Rome, you must know the 

ground—physical, cultural, historical—upon which you are building. 

To engage with this project you will have to do thorough research, the resources for 

which will often need to be found outside our library (the faculty and staff can begin to point 

you in the right directions) and in the city itself. You are strongly encouraged to take 

advantage of the library card for the American Academy in Rome’s Biblioteca that the School 

will endeavor to help you secure (please note that you are ultimately responsible for getting it). 

The course will be organized around walks in the city (weather permitting), 

occasionally preceded by an introductory presentation in class; we will generally include time 

for you to draw (whether documentarily or analytically) on site, and you will be expected to 

make similar drawings outside of class. These exercises will be done in notebooks that will be 

reviewed periodically over the course of the semester. My expectation is that our semester will 

be a long conversation about what we are seeing, which entails each of your contribution in 

every class and field trip; your vocal participation, or lack thereof, will affect your final grade. 

You will, finally, present the results of a major semester-long assignment to the School. More 

specifically about each of these tasks: 

1. preparation for each class and field trip 

read ahead 

research/visit site 

prepare to discuss the principles in evidence 

2. sketchbooks/journals (must be approximately A4 format, vertical preferred), to be 

reviewed periodically over the course of the semester and at the end; 

notebooks must include: analytical drawings (graphics and notes), documentary 

drawings and reconstructions, lecture notes, and supplemental historical information 

(written, redrawn or pasted in) 

NB: the primary purpose of the sketchbooks for this class is to develop your skills in 

analytical drawing; these will be given the most weight in grading 

3. semester project: 

Architects in Rome have built upon the four themes—site, history, type, allegory—that 

will structure our site visits, and it is expected that you will form over the course of the 

semester the ability to analyze and document that process in other sites that we will 

not visit. To do this project you will need to do significant research in our library and 

elsewhere, not to mention on site, in order to unlock the ideas, intentions and 

references of the building you choose to focus on. 

Choose a significant structure or space in Rome ( only one student per subject, please) 

and present an analytique that documents its sources, references, and any unbuilt 

projects in ways that explain the intention of its author(s). You must choose a subject 

for study by the fourth class of the semester; be prepared at that time to explain why 

you choose a particular place. Preferred subjects include (you may propose others but



you must explain why in writing, and they are subject to my approval by the end of the 

second week): 

1. Porta Santo Spirito and/or the Zecca (Banco di S. Spirito) 

2. Porta Pia 

3. Acqua Paola 

4. Ponte Sant’ Angelo 

5. Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne 

6. Palazzo and Piazza Montecitorio 

7. Villa Lante (Janiculum) 

8. Villa Medici 

9. Orti Farnesiani 

10. Accademia degli Arcadi 

11. S. Ivo and the Sapienza 

12. S. Maria dell’ Orazione e Morte 

13. S. Maria Maggiore 

14. S. Maria degli Angeli 

15. Ospedale di Santo Spirito 

16. Ospizio di S. Trinità dei Pellegrini 

The final project will be due in Week 10 (see schedule, following). 

There will be assigned readings each week, which will be on reserve either in the form of 

photocopies or books; these are meant to supplement the talks we will do on site. Some of 

those books which you should be referencing this semester include: 

Joseph Connors and John Wilton-Ely, Piranesi Architetto 

Amato P. Frutaz, Le Piante di Roma 

Krautheimer, Frankl, Corbett, Corpus Basilicarum 

Marcia Hall, ed., Rome 

Richard Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City 

The Rome of Alexander VII 

Rodolfo Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romæ 

Paul Letarouilly, Edifices de Rome Moderne 

William L. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I and II 

David Mayernik, Timeless Cities 

John Onians, Bearers of Meaning 

Loren Partridge, The Art of the Renaissance in Rome 1400—1600 

Paolo Portoghesi, Roma del Rinascimento 

Roma Barocca 

John Stamper, The Architecture of Roman Temples 

Mark Wilson-Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture 

Rudolph Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism 

Art & Architecture in Italy, 1600-1750 

Sources of Readings by Week (subject to change): 

General: David Mayernik, Timeless Cities (esp. pp. 53–58 for the first class) 

1. Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, pp. 254–264 before the first class; 

264–282 for second class 

2. Joseph Connors, “Alliance and Enmity in Roman Baroque Urbanism,” Römisches 

Jahrbuch der Bibliotecha Hertziana [parts 1 and 2] 

3. idem [parts 3 and 4] 

4. John Onians, “Serlio’s Venice,” Bearers of Meaning 

5. David Coffin, The Villa in the Life of Renaissance Rome, Farnesina and Madama 

6. John Onians, “Bramante,” Bearers of Meaning 

7. Joseph Connors “Virtuoso Architecture in Cassiano’s Rome,” Cassiano Dal 

Pozzo’s Paper Museum 

8. Rudolph Wittkower, “Bernini,” Art & Architecture in Italy 1600—1750



ANALYSIS: WHAT IS IT 

analysis noun (pl. -ses): detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, 

typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation 

• the process of separating something into its constituent elements. Often contrasted 

with synthesis . 

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek analusis, from analuein 

‘unloose,’ from ana- ‘up’ + luein ‘loosen.’ 

—OED 

There seems to be a general confusion at our School about what is expected in an analysis 

exercise. Like any “creative” act (and analysis is, perforce, “creative” or inventive), it cannot 

be precisely codified. At the same time, some of its essential approaches and techniques can be 

spelled out, which will follow. But, a priori, my overall expectation is that you will pursue 

analysis with a creative, investigative mind, under one guiding rule: you are trying to puzzle 

out what is going on that was intended, or at least comprehended, by those who made 

whatever it is you are analyzing (it is therefore “objective,” directed toward the object and not 

the subject—i.e. you and what you “feel” about it). To be rigorous and rational, analysis 

cannot be as subjective as a Rorschach test; it demands, therefore, an understanding of the 

context within which the forms were created, or the why of them. 

It can be argued that all of the places we will explore this semester attempt to be 

synthetic environments, i.e. they strove in one way or another to not be recognized as 

composed of discrete pieces. At the same time, each manifests a clear (albeit sometimes 

contradictory within the group) attitude toward the disposition and expression of the parts of 

which they are composed (from programmatic to architectonic elements). Therefore, to be 

credible here your analyses must both pull apart and show how these buildings synthesized 

their components. 

Some Tactics 

Comparison and contrast: look at similar types that take on different forms, or similar 

forms for different types 

Graphic juxtaposition: to what extent is the same story being told in plan, section and 

elevation 

Compositional structure: document sequence, rhythm, hierarchies, positive ambiguities 

(or multiple readings) 

Some Techniques (remember, analysis is graphically reductive by nature) 

figure/ground (Nolli), primary/secondary/tertiary, axial/symmetry lines, sequential 

overlay, exploded axons, axons generally, juxtaposing two different kinds of graphic 

info (e.g. plan and vignette), keyed/”scanned” 1 dwgs. (e.g. ABCBA), etc., etc. 

Some Approaches 

Process (Design in reverse): try to work out what was intended by the maker(s), or 

how they got to the final product (e.g. by assembly, synthesis, transformation, etc.); 

not all buildings or places are composed in an additive process (i.e. “buildings made of 

other buildings”), but they often do have discrete components (functional or 

otherwise); it is a fact in Rome that most of the best architects tried to synthesize, not 

distinguish, the diverse parts of which their compositions were made (think of the parts 

of the body to the whole) 

Relationships: document physical/spatial relationships like bay rhythms, bilateral or 

local symmetry, alignments/axes, etc.; remember, in the urban realm these relationships 

are as much between buildings as proper to any one building 

References: try to work out the sources for the ideas the buildings or spaces depend 

upon (typologies, precedents/models from near and far, etc.) 

1 scansion noun: the action of scanning a line of verse to determine its rhythm. 

• the rhythm of a line of verse. 

ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Latin scansio(n-), from scandere ‘to climb’ ;



FIELD TRIP SKETCHBOOK ASSIGNMENTS 

You are of course welcome to explore anything that interests you in your sketchbooks on our 

field trips, but the following list is meant to provide an investigative datum upon which you 

can build. I will therefore evaluate your sketchbooks first on the basis of the topics that 

follow, then on the ones of your choosing. 

Field Trip Analysis Topics: 

Scenography in Bologna 

Sanmichele’s Decorum and Syntax in Verona (City Gates and Palazzi) 

Palladio’s Urban Approach in Vicenza 

Palladio’s Churches: Theories of Composition 

Sansovino’s Rhetoric in the Piazzetta di San Marco 

The Palazzo and Its Transformations in Florence: Ruccelai, Strozzi, Medici, Giugni, 

Nonfinito, etc. 

The Piazza and Its Transformations in Florence: Ss. Annunziata, Sta. Croce, Uffizi 

Sacred and Secular Public Space (inside and out) in Siena 

SEMESTER GRADES 

Class participation (preparation, discussion) 20% 

Notebooks (investigation, curiosity, thoroughness) 30% 

Project 50% 

quality of drawing 15% 

quality of information 35% 

NAAB CRITERIA 

1. ability: Speaking and Writing Skills 

2. Ability: Critical Thinking Skills 

3. Ability: Graphic Skills 

4. Ability: Research Skills 

5. Understanding: Formal Ordering Systems 

6. ability: Fundamental Design Skills 

8. Understanding: Western Traditions 

10. Understanding: National and Regional Traditions 

11. Ability: Use of Precedents 

15. understanding: Sustainable Design 

17. ability: Site Conditions 

27. understanding: Client Role in Architecture



Notes on attendance and out of class visits: since each class will involve a substantial amount 

of walking, we need to begin on time; some classes may not begin at via Monterone but 

instead at one of our sites; therefore, it is incumbent on you to confirm where the next class 

will meet before we end the previous class; late arrivals will count as absences, and after three 

unexcused absences you will be subject to a failing grade for the semester. Out of class visits 

are required both for your notebooks and for research toward your final project. 

ORGANIZATION OF SITE VISITS IN AND OUT OF CLASS BY THEMES: 

SITE 

in class 

out of class 

I. Campidoglio Pza. Navona (Pal. Pamphilj), S. 

Maria della Pace, S. Ignazio 

Roman Forum 

Theater of Marcellus 

II. Pza. dei Cavalieri di Malta San Clemente, Lateran 

III. Cavalieri di Rodi, Palazzo Scalinata di Spagna, Fontana di Palatine 

Venezia 

Trevi 

HISTORY 

in class 

out of class 

I. Imperial Fora, Markets 

(Museum) 

S. Peter’s Domus Aurea and/or 

Colosseum 

II. Roman Oratory, Casa 

Professa 

Collegio Romano, 

Propaganda Fide 

III. Gesù, S. Andrea della Valle S. Maria in Campitelli, Pal. Baths of Diocletian 

Mattei 

TYPE 

in class 

out of class 

I. Palazzo Farnese, Spada Palazzo Baldassini, di Firenze, 

Borghese 

Palazzo Muti-Bussi, 

D’Aste 

II. Cloister of S. Maria della 

Pace, Cancelleria 

Sapienza, S. Maria in 

Campo Marzio 

III. Pantheon and S. Ivo 

Tempietto; S. Eligio degli 

Orefici 

S. Teodoro, S. Agnese, 

others 

ALLEGORY 

in class 

out of class 

I. Villa Farnesina, Pal. Corsini Villa Madama Villa Giulia and/or 

Palazzo Barberini 

II. S. Andrea al Quirinale and 

S. Carlino, S. Susanna, S. 

Maria della Vittoria 

Chigi Chapel, S. Maria and 

Piazza del Popolo 

S. Giacomo degli 

Incurabili 

SCHEDULE OF IN-CLASS SITE VISITS BY WEEK: 

15/17 Sept. 1. SITE I. Campidoglio; Pza. Navona (Palazzo Pamphilj), S. Maria della Pace, 

Pza. S. Ignazio 

22/24 Sept. 2. HISTORY I. Imperial Fora, Trajan’s Markets (Museum); St. Peter’s 

29 Sep./1 Oct. 3. TYPE I. Palazzo Farnese, Spada; Palazzos Baldassini, di Firenze, Borghese 

6/8 Oct. 4. ALLEGORY I.A Villa Farnesina, Pal. Corsini SITE II. Pza. dei Cavalieri di 

Malta 

27/29 Oct. 5. ALLEGORY I.B Villa Madama HISTORY II. Roman Oratory; Casa Professa 

3 Nov. 6. TYPE II. Cloister of S. Maria della Pace, Cancelleria 

10/12 Nov. 7. SITE III. Cavalieri di Rodi, Palazzo Venezia; Scalinata di Spagna, Fontana 

di Trevi 

17/19 Nov. 8. HISTORY III. Gesù, S. Andrea della Valle; S. Maria in Campitelli, Pal. 

Mattei 

24 Nov. 9. TYPE III. Pantheon, S. Eligio degli Orefici, Tempietto 

1/3 Dec. 10. ALLEGORY II. S. Andrea al Quirinale and S. Carlino, S. Susanna, Porta Pia; 

Chigi Chapel. S. Maria and Piazza del Popolo 

NB: Final projects are due this week; day and time of presentation t.b.d.

ARCH 84312

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?