Character of Renaissance Architecture
CHAPTER XV
CONCLUSION
I think it must be clear, in the light of the foregoing considerations, that the architecture of the Renaissance is an art without consistent principles. We have seen that it assumed a great variety of phases at different times and in different localities; but that it was never either really classic or structurally truthful. While professing to aim at restoring the “good ancient manner,” the neo-classic designers rarely conformed to any ancient standards save, at most, in some details of their compositions. They designed for the most part, as we have seen, on a basis of mediæval forms, and overlaid their structures with a facing of details derived, indeed, from classic sources, but altered, mixed, and misapplied in all manner of unclassic ways. Of true classic art, _i.e._ Greek art of the best time of Greek culture, they had, as before remarked (p. 4), no knowledge. By the “good ancient manner” they meant the imperial Roman manner. But even this they did not faithfully follow. The wide departure from ancient modes of design so constantly manifested in the neo-classic architecture has not escaped notice by modern writers, who are wont to speak of it as showing that the revivalists were not servile copyists, but inventive designers adapting the ancient elements to new conditions. But there is no justification for this view. As to essential forms of building there were no new conditions to be met. In seeking to change architecture superficially by an application of classic details the neo-classicists erred. They ought to have seen that classic details do not lend themselves to new uses. Their very perfection for classic use unfits them for any other. To distort and misadjust them, as the architects of the Renaissance did, is not to adapt them. There was no true adaptation of classic elements in Renaissance design. Such adaptation involves creative modifications which so transform original elements that to a superficial view they are not recognizable in the resulting forms. The mediæval architects, through a long series of logical changes, growing out of their remarkable structural evolution, magnificently transformed the classic orders in a creative way. This the neo-classicists failed to perceive, and because the mediæval details and adjustments did not conform with those of Roman antiquity, they felt justified in calling them barbaric, while it was they themselves who were guilty of architectural barbarism.
The architects of the Renaissance were strangely inconsistent. While in practice constantly violating the principles of classic design, they were in theory ardently advocating these principles; and finding strict canons of proportion laid down in the writings of Vitruvius, they attached, as theorists, great importance to such canons. Thus arose the elaborate systems of rules for the orders embodied in the writings of Vignola, Palladio, and many others.
The influence of these short-sighted and mechanical Italian rules has been great in modern times. The formidable body of architectural dogma, contained in the literature of the Renaissance on this subject, has been so widely accepted as authoritative that modern art has been largely shaped by it. The so-called Palladian style of the seventeenth century was derived mainly from the Italian books, and the more recent teaching has been so implicitly based on the writings of Vignola and Palladio that few architects of academic training have thought of questioning the belief that the formulas of these writers constitute the only true basis of correct design. Yet the fact that these rules are arbitrary, and not in accord with the true principles of ancient art, has occasionally been recognized. Thus in a book of the eighteenth century, devoted in the main to the inculcation of the Palladian doctrines,[178] the following remarks occur: “As it was from the works of the antient architects that the several orders were deduced, those who had studied and found their different characters then became desirous of establishing from the same source their proportions.... Perceiving consummate beauty in what they saw, they sought to build upon that perfection certain fixed and invariable rules, by the observing of which others might be sure of attaining the same excellence.... But when they came to examine more of those works, they found the antients had not confined themselves to any such laws; and therefore that it was impossible to build such rules upon their works.... The young student is confused by reading a variety of authors on the subject. Among a number of the best of these each delivers what he esteems to be the most true and perfect proportion, but in each this differs. All have founded their maxims upon something in the antique, but, some having taken in the same order one piece, and some another, these proportions vary extremely; for the antients so varied in their works. Palladio is understood to be the best and greatest of these authors, we shall therefore deliver his as the general and received proportion in each order; but upon a general review of the several remains in which that order is preserved, we shall add what is the mean or middle proportion of the several parts, calculating from them all. The modern architects too strictly and scrupulously follow these antients; they did not so closely or servilely copy one another.”[179] Such recognition of the difference between the theorists’ rules of the orders and the ancient orders themselves is rare in the modern literature of architecture. But the remedy proposed to relieve the student from the confusion arising from the perusal of different authors each of whom “delivers what he esteems to be the most true and perfect proportion” is of little efficacy in practice; for the mean or middle proportion would still impose a fixed rule, and the true artist does not work by rules of any sort. The proportions of a genuine work of art are determined by a sense of proportion that is governed by laws too fine to be formulated, and which no rules can reach. It is his natural sense of proportion, developed by observation and exercise, that more than anything else makes an artist. Prescription may serve in mechanical processes, but not in the production of works of art. We may get Palladian formalism by rules, but no architecture of vital character. A system of proportions that may be good in one case cannot be good in any other, and therefore it is that “the antients” so varied in their works. That rules are useless to an artist the Italian writer Baldinucci, in his book on the proportions of the human figure,[180] has well remarked. He says on this point: “It is true that all these proportions, whether in painting or in sculpture, must be subject to the correction of the eye, so that proportions ought to be adopted always with its approval, notwithstanding all fixed rules, seeing that this has been the custom of all the best artists, confirmed by the memorable saying of the great Buonarroti that it is necessary for the master to have the compass in his eye.”[181]
In the light of what we have seen I think it must appear that the claims which have been advanced for the architecture of the Renaissance as the only architecture of correct principles since that of classic antiquity, and as an architecture in comparison with which the Gothic art of the Middle Ages should be considered as the barbarous product of an unenlightened age, are without justification. The mistaken notions of the Italian writers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (labouring under strange misapprehension of the principles of classic art on the one hand, and ignorance of the true Gothic on the other) have been too much inculcated in our own time; and the belief that classic art offers suitable models for modern uses, and that the architecture of the Renaissance embodies classic principles, has been accepted with too little examination of its grounds. A few of the most competent modern authors, while in the main disposed, by force of custom, to take a favourable view of the architecture of the Renaissance, have occasionally shown a juster sense of its real character. Thus the recent Italian writer Melani says:[182] “We always admire the beautiful productions of the art of the Renaissance, because we are accustomed to value the good wherever it is found; but when we think of the absurdity of this art, and still worse, of the consequences to which it has given rise, we cannot but deplore so much ill-directed energy.”
APPENDIX
CONDITION OF THE DOME OF ST. PETER’S
The mathematicians, after describing the dome and its supports, make the following statement of the condition in which they found it:[183]--
* * * * *
1. La base esteriore A del tamburo si vede piena di spaccature, molte delle quali corrono unite in sù per tutto il tamburo medesimo, e per tutto l’attico, fino a nascondersi in _nd_ sotto i piombi non ancora scoperti. Da dette spaccature si diramano continui peli, che infrangono una quantità grandissima di travertini.
2. Esse spaccature al fondo son piccolissime, e in sù van sempre crescendo. Piegano dagli arconi in giù verso i piloni.
3. Nel Corridore CB, che gira dentro tutta la base si vedono sul muro esteriore BE molte aperture, che parimente venendo in giù piegano verso i piloni.
4. Nello stesso muro esteriore pure dentro il corridore si vedono raddoppiate aperture orizontali verso il fondo B, che nell’alzarsi il pavimento sopra gli arconi, si seppelliscono sotto al medesimo, vedendosi ivi più che altrove lo stesso pavimento separato dal muro esteriore; qual disunione è generale per tutto il corridore.
5. Dette aperture orizontali passano tutta la grossezza BA del muro esteriore della base, come si vede nelle porte, che metton fuora, rialzandosi tutto il muro dalla parte interiore verso B, e rimanendo l’ appoggio solamente verso A; anzi verso B tra una spaccatura orizontale e l’ altra in qualche luogo si levano colle mani senza sforzo considerabile i mattoni non più premuti.
6. Delle spaccature verticali se ne vede una sola nel muro interiore C.
7. La volta E del medesimo corridore è tutta spaccata in mezzo con una generale apertura, che gira attorno da per tutto.
8. Essa apertura passa tutta la grossezza EF della volta, vedendosi generalmente nel mattonato F sotto gli archetti de’ contraforti, e per tutto attorno il ripiano, per cui si gira il tamburo; e perche vi pioveva giù nel corridore, detto mattonato fu rassettato non è un’ anno.
9. Nel luogo di tal rassetto si vedono nuovi distacchi de’ mattoni rimessi; anzi in qualche sito si vedono rotti i mattoni nuovi sopra l’ apertura antica, e in qualche luogo di nuovo piove giù nel corridore.
10. I sedici contraforti FG si vadon rotti con moltissime aperture, che nel salire piegano in dentro; le medesime rompono per mezzo gran numero di travertini di essi contraforti e quelli del cornicione _m_.
11. Sopra l’archetto F sono assai più tenui, e nell’andare in sù crescono notabilmente.
12. Molte di queste aperture, si vede, che sono state stuccate, essendosi poi riaperte le stuccature, e dilatate, e molte altre vi sono, dove non vi è vestigio di stuccatura.
13. In due archetti verso la cima de’ muri dritti F, che li sostengono, si vede la parte superiore venuta in fuora notabilmente, e in un di essi in modo particolare il muro FG distaccato nella cantonata più sensibilmente dal tamburo. Simil moto orizontale di alcuna parte venuta un poco più in fuora, si vede anche nel muro esteriore A della base.
14. Gli architravi _r_ delle sedici finestre son rotti tutti a riserva di uno, o due, ma dove è intero l’architrave, è rotto uno stipite. In tutte poi son rotte le cornici sopra l’architrave, e i travertini de’ muri sopra, e sotto le finestre, e a lato verso i contraforti hanno moltissime aperture, e peli, che li infrangono.
15. In uno stipite di finestra _a_ è degna di considerazione un’apertura verticale, che cominciando al basso nella faccia voltata all’altro stipite, piega un poco in dentro.
16. Tutte le scale a lumaca, per cui si sale dentro al tamburo, sono affatto dissetate, vedendosi rotti e distaccati gli scalini. In una di queste, per cui si sale ordinariamente ben rassettata, si vedono molti stangoni di ferro, e paletti, che reggono gli scalini rotti.
17. Entrando fra le due Cupole per il corridoretto K, si vedono delle aperture verticale negli spicchi fra’ muri T de’ costoloni, e si seppelliscono sotto K, dove le due Cupole son unite; le medesime anche rompono gli architravi e soglie delle porte e finestre. Lo spicchio che corrisponde sopra il pilone della Veronica, principalmente verso il mezzo delle scale T, è dissestato molto. Di tali aperture ci vien detto da chi le ha contate tutte con diligenza, trovarsene 37 nella Cupola esteriore, 39 nell’interiore.
18. Sotto il Cupolino nel corridoretto O si vedono rotte le faccie de’ muri de’ costoloni, seguitando per essi muri le spaccature orizontali OP, dove più alte, dove più basse, e continuando in alcun luogo fra lo spicchio della Cupola esteriore e il muro del costolone.
19. Pure nella volticella di esso corridore si vedono delle aperture, che passano verso _u_ sotto gli archetti de’ contraforti del Cupolino, e in alcune delle finestre del collo della Cupola si vedono rotti gli architravi, con degli altri movimenti nel muro interiore.
20. I medesimi contraforti in Q hanno molte aperture, che terminano verso il mezzo delle finestre.
21. Tutti i pilastrini di dentro tra le finestre in R a mezza altezza in circa si vedono rotti, e alcuni in due luoghi orizontalmente, restando con detta generale apertura tutto il Cupolino diviso orizontalmente per mezzo.
22. Passando ora alla parte interiore della Cupola, in tutti i sedici spicchi si vedono de’ peli, o delle aperture verso S nelle cornici tonde de’ Serafini di mosaico e nelle bislunghe degli Angeli, molte delle quali aprono considerabilmente i mosaici stessi.
23. Nello spicchio sopra il pilone della Veronica si vede una grandissima apertura S_q_YZ. Essa passa sotto il cornicione Z nel fregio, dove è assai tenue; và sempre dilatandosi fino all’impostatura della Cupola in q, indi di nuovo si ristringe morendo in cima sotto il Cupolino stesso. Sopra il pilone del Longino, che resta in faccia, vi è un’altra simile spaccatura assai sensibile, anche a guardarla giù dalla Chiesa. Sopra gli altri due piloni pure, benche alquanto minore è tale, che dalla Chiesa vi passa un vento assai gagliardo, e in varj altri spicchi pur sene vedono. Dette aperture dividono, e distaccano le figure de’ mosaici, fino a farne cader qualche pezzo.
24. Gli architravi di quasi tutte le finestre in X sono rotti.
25. Ne’ Pilastri del tamburo si vedono delle aperture orizontali, in _b_, per cui s’aprono le commessure de’ travertini de’ quali sono incrostati.
26. Ne’ mosaici sopra il cornicione Z si vedono alcuni leggieri peli orizontali, benche non troppo sensibili.
27. I due arconi attorno al pilone della Veronica anno sulla cima in mezzo un leggier pelo, senza però che si discosti una parte dall’altra, o l’una scenda sotto l’altra; e sotto il cornicione tra l’arco de’ SS. Simone e Giuda, e il pilone della Veronica scende un pelo, che muore assai prima di giungere all’arco. Detto pelo si vede dalla parte di fuori sopra la volta della Chiesa nel muro del tamburo inalzato sull’arco stesso, e parimente i peli de’ due arconi nella parte superiore de’ medesimi si riscontrano, ma tenuissimi.
28. In varj luoghi tanto di fuora, quanto fra le due Cupole si vedon rotti, o distaccati alcuni pezzi di marmo a coda di rondine messi in questi ultimi anni attroverso alle spaccature per vedere se la fabrica faceva moto.
29. I paletti de’ cerchi L che cingono la Cupola interiore, si vedono in alcuni luoghi rimossi dal sito verticale per più once.
30. Di fuora nell’ordin’ Attico da _m_ fino ad _n_ si vedono in più siti delle aperture orizontali nelle commessure de’ travertini rialzati un tantino, e un simil moto si riscontra in alcuni stipiti delle finestre esteriori nel corridoretto K, che gira tra le due Cupole.
31. Questo è ciò, che abbiamo veduto cogli occhi nostri. Di più fatti esaminare i pilastri _b_ col piombino si è trovato, che sbilanciano in fuora, altri tre once, altri due e mezza, ed altri meno, e altrettanto in circa sbilanciano pur’ in fuora i pilastri de’ contraforti G, che stanno attaccati al tamburo. Ma de’ pilastri esteriori de’ medesimi contraforti alcuni sbilanciano un tantino in dentro, altri stanno a un di presso a piombo.
32. La gran spaccatura sopra il pilone della Veronica sul cornicioncino dell’Attico in _h_ è di quattro once, e vene sono due vicinissime, in cui essa diramasi di un’oncia e mezza fra tutte due. Quella in faccia sopra il Longino è di due once e mezza. Ivi le spaccature in giro sono in numero 27, e tanto grosse, che messe insieme si trovano di 22 once, e poco più sù di 24.
INDEX
Aachen, dome, 11 (cut).
Abutments, lack of, in the dome of Florence cathedral, 22, 23; of dome of St. Peter’s, 50 (cut), 53.
Agnolo, Baccio d’, his work on the Palazzo Bartolini, Florence, 109; his innovation in framing window openings, 109, 116.
Aisles, treatment of façade over the, in ch. of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 37; in ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 74.
Alberti, Leon Batista, said by Milizia to be regarded as one of the principal restorers of the architecture of antiquity, 35; his use of the Roman triumphal-arch design as a model for his façades, 38, 39–43 (cuts); applied himself to writing on, rather than practising architecture, 107, 108; his influence seen in Bramante’s works, 112; ch. of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 35, 41, 42; ch. of Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 38–42 (cut and plate), 53; Palazzo Rucellai, Florence, 107, 108 (cut).
Angelo, Michael, 90; design for the tomb of Pope Julius II., 46; his work on St. Peter’s, 53–65 (cuts), 237; date of his appointment as architect of St. Peter’s, 53; his alterations of Bramante’s plan, 53, 70; his admiration for the dome of Florence cathedral, 55; quoted on the Pantheon dome, 55; defects in his scheme, 63, 64; his makeshifts, 66; windows of Palazzo Farnese, Rome, 116, 117 (cut).
Angle, Roman treatment of the, 79 (cut); pilasters on the, 78–81 (cut).
Arabesque, Renaissance in imitation of Roman, 167 (cuts).
Arcades, of the court of Palazzo Farnese, use of Roman combination of arch and entablature, 118; cloister of Santa Maria della Pace, Rome, 119; château of La Rochefoucauld, France, Flamboyant arches framed with pilasters, 188.
Arch, the radical nature of the change wrought in architecture by the introduction of, was never grasped by the imperial Roman designers, 37; the Roman triumphal, used as a model of Renaissance façades, 38, 39–43 (cuts); the Roman arch and entablature scheme applied to a continuous arcade, 118, 119; of Flamboyant depressed or three-centred form, 184, 188.
Architectural carving of the Renaissance, 167–178 (cuts). _See_ Carving, Architectural.
Architectural shams, use of, in the Renaissance, 32, 121, 132.
Architecture, the communal and individual spirit in, 4, 5; its division into three distinctive styles and two classes, 6, 7; proper meaning of the term, 15^2; structural integrity a fundamental prerequisite of good, 24; use of structural members without structural meaning violates the true principles of architectural design, 68; mechanical rules cannot reach the law of the proportions of a genuine work of art, 133, 207, 249; conscious effort to be original in, is inevitably disastrous, 206; the noblest, has always been mainly a social, communal, and national, not a personal product, 206.
Arezzo, church of Santissima Annunziatta, 83; nave, 83 (cut).
Arnolfo, his design for the dome of Florence cathedral, 13 (cut), 16.
Artificial elements in architectural ornamentation, use of, 172.
Assisi, church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, 89; date, 89; general plan, 89; chapels, 90; orders, 90 (cut); piers, 90 (cut); ressauts, 90; influence of St. Peter’s in, 90; façade, 90.
Athens, the Propylæa, spacing of the columns of the order, 113; National Museum, leafage of capital from Epidaurus, 174 (cut).
Attic wall, use in an interior as a support for vaulting, 151, 243; of the façade of the chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 31; of Michael Angelo’s dome of St. Peter’s, Rome, 54.
Baalbek, Pantheon of, 29^2; entablature, 29^2; breaking of the pediment, 94, 95 (cut), 117; ressauts, 95.
Baccio d’Agnolo, architect of tower of Santo Spirito, Florence, 82.
Balconies, with balustrades, 160.
Baldinucci, _Lettera di Filippo Baldinucci Intorno al modo di dar Proporzione alle Figure_, etc., 249^2; quoted on rules of proportion in art, 250.
Barley, ear of, in Renaissance and in Greek carving compared, 169 (plate and cut).
Barrozzi, Giacomo. _See_ Vignola.
Beltrami, Luca, _Il Pantheon_, 89^1.
Benedict XIV, Pope, his inquiries as to the safety of the dome of St. Peter’s, 60.
Bernini, Wren’s meeting with him at Paris, 233.
Berty, Adolphe, _Les Grands Architectes Français de la Renaissance_, 194^1, 200^1; quoted on Lescot, 194, 196^1; quoted on De l’Orme, 200^1.
Bettini, Giovanni, his work on the church of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 35.
Blind arcade, forms proper decoration for mediæval interiors, 29.
Bloomfield, Reginald, _A History of Renaissance Architecture in England_, 218, 232^2; quoted on Inigo Jones, 232.
Bologna, Palazzo Bevilacqua, 165; window openings of mediæval form without central shaft, 165.
Bourges, house of Jacques Cœur, a forerunner of the Renaissance châteaux, 180.
Bramante, his birth and early work, 44; the Tempietto of San Pietro in Montorio, 44–46 (cut), 239; his work on St. Peter’s, Rome, 47–53 (cuts), 63, 64, 70, 236; his use of the Pantheon and Basilica of Maxentius as models, 49–52 (cuts); alteration of his scheme by others, 49^3, 53–55, 64, 70; weakness of his scheme, 52; accused of poor workmanship, 64; ch. of Santa Maria della Consolazione at Todi, 74–77 (cuts); his work on the cathedral of Como, 144; ch. of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan, 140, 142; ch. of San Satiro, Milan, 138 (cut); cloister of Santa Maria della Pace, Rome, 119; Palazzo Cancelleria, Rome, 112–114 (cut).
Brescia, Palazzo Comunale, 163, of the broletto type, 163, window openings, 164; Palazzo Martinengo, peculiar and meaningless style of window opening, 166 (cut); Palazzo Municipale, leafage of capitals, 176 (cut).
Brunelleschi, the dome of Florence cathedral, 10–25, 22, 48, 50, 54, 55; his own account of the dome quoted, 18^1, 22^1; his great ability, 21; his scaffolding, 21^3; why he led the way in a wrong direction, 22, 25, 63; character of his work in general, 26; his use of the orders, 26; the chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 26–32 (cuts), 175; ch. of San Lorenzo, Florence, 33; ch. of Santo Spirito, Florence, 33; the Pitti palace, Florence, 106; Palazzo Pazzi or the Quaratesi, Florence, 106; leafage of capital, 175 (cut).
Bullant, _Reigle Géneralle de Architecture_, 192^1; his reproduction of the order of a Roman temple in the portico of the château of Écouen, 192.
Buttresses, in support of domes, 10, 53; of St. Peter’s, Rome, 53 (cut), 55, 56, 59; of a circular Gothic vault, 57^1; concealing of, in St. Paul’s, London, 244, 245 (cut).
Byzantine architecture, 6, 7; term loosely applied, 29^1; the dome on pendentives is the distinguishing structural feature of, 29^1; their domes were properly constructed, 63; scheme prevails in Renaissance architecture, 74.
Caen, church of St. Pierre, exterior of apse with Lombard Renaissance details applied to a Flamboyant structural scheme, 214.
Cambridge, England, Caius College, gate of honor, neo-classic features, 223.
Carving, architectural, of the Renaissance, 167–178 (cuts): Sculpture of the human figure on Renaissance buildings has little proper architectural character, 167; Relief carving, 167–178 (cuts); pictorial treatment of, 158; a great deal is in close imitation of Roman models, 167 (cut), 171, 172; the best is superior to that of ancient Rome, 168, 170, 176; conventionalization of forms, 169 (plate and cut); formal convolutions of, 170, 171; the finish, in many cases, mere surface smoothing, 170, 171; two schemes which are used with wearisome repetition, 171; arrangement of composition and treatment of details often artificial and inorganic, 172 (cut), 173 (cuts); the finest forms those of foliation, 170, 174; leafage of capitals, 175–178 (cuts); artificial convention of the ridges which mark the subdivisions of the leaf surface, 176 (cuts); the grotesque is uniformly weak and characterless, 176–178 (cuts); _Putti_ are without particular merit as design, 178.
Casati, _I Capi d’Arte di Bramante da Urbino nel Milanese_, 138^1, 142^1.
Cecchini, _Opinione Intorno lo Stato della gran Cupola del Duomo di Firenze_, 24^1; cited on the stability of the dome of Florence cathedral, 23^3, 24^1.
Celled vault, a Gothic circular, 20, 21; nature of its construction, 56–59 (cuts).
Chains, binding, 12, 22, 74; of the dome of Florence cathedral, 19, 24^1; of St. Peter’s, Rome, 59, 60.
Chambers, Sir William, _Treatise on the Decorative Part of Civil Architecture_, 134^1.
Chimney-stacks in shape of Doric columns in Elizabethan houses, 217 (cut), 223.
Church, the, in Middle Ages and Renaissance period, 1–3.
Church architecture, of the Florentine Renaissance, 26–43 (cuts); of the Roman Renaissance, 66–101 (cuts); of the Renaissance in North Italy, 135–153.
Clamps, metal, used in masonry, 22^2; of St. Peter’s dome, 60.
Classic inspiration in the Renaissance, 4, 97, 119.
Classic models, the classic style which was followed in the Renaissance was that of the decadent Greek schools as represented in Roman copies, 4, 247; misuse of, 33, 84.
Claudian aqueduct, 106.
Coffering, Roman, in interior of church of Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 39.
Colonnade of Bramante’s scheme for St. Peter’s dome, 51, 56.
Columns, small, free-standing, placed by Sansovino on each side of the pier to bear the archivolt, 123, 130; often spoken of as an innovation of Sansovino and Palladio, but instances of it occur in Græco-Roman architecture of Syria, 131 (cut); peculiar form of, claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 201–206 (cut); practically the same column occurs in Serlio’s book, 203 (cut); an ancient adumbration of this form occurs in the Porta Maggiore, Rome, 205; other Italian examples of the same column, 205, 206; mention of its use in England, 221, 222, 229; notion that the Ionic order was designed after female proportions, 207.
Communal spirit of the Middle Ages, 4, 5.
Como, cathedral, 144–149 (cuts); description of exterior, 144; details are mediæval Lombard modified by neo-classic elements, 144; portals, illogical use of arch and entablature in, 144, 145 (cuts), 149; window openings, variety of illogical forms in, 148 (cut); tapering jamb shafts, 149.
Consoles, reversed over the aisle compartments of an exterior, 37, 74, 95.
Constantinople, Hagia Theotokos, dome, 10 (cut); church of St. Sophia, dome mentioned, 10.
Conventionalization of forms in relief carving of the Renaissance, 168 (cut).
Corinthian capitals, 84.
Corner pilasters, 78–81 (cut).
Cornice, of St. Peter’s, Rome, dwarfs the effect of altitude, 68, 92; breaking of, 93–95 (cut).
Cosimo de’ Medici, 103, 110.
Court, circular, of Vignola, influences De l’Orme and Jones in building the courts of the Tuileries and Whitehall, 130, 131.
Cunningham, _The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors, and Architects_, 217^2, 226 ff.; quoted on the unsubstantial structures of the Renaissance in England, 217.
De l’Orme, Philibert, _Le Premier Tome de l’Architecture_, 200^2 ff., 209; a man with little artistic genius, 200, 209; overestimated by Viollet le Duc, 200^1, 207^3; Adolphe Berty on, 200^1; studied the antique in Rome, 200; his work on the Tuileries, 200–207 (cut); peculiar form of column claimed by him as his own invention, 201–206 (cut); his doorway, with use of the peculiar column, 203 (cut); description of doorway quoted from his book, 209 (cut).
Delaborde, Viscount, quoted, 7^3.
Della Porta, 73; façade of ch. of the Gesù, Rome, 95 (cut).
Dolcebono, architect, Church of Monastero Maggiore, Milan, 142, 143.
Domes, construction of early, 10–15; hidden externally by drum and timber roof, 10, 11 (cut); Byzantine, on pendentives, 10 (cut), 29^1; polygonal, 12, 24^3; pointed in outline, 12, 14, 16, 52; octagonal, 13, 14, 16; hemispherical, 24^3, 52; Arabian, 12^1; binding chains, 12, 241; the thrust, 15^1, 24, 52; why a dome cannot have the character of a Gothic vault, 20, 21, 56–59 (cuts); proper mode of constructing, settled by the ancient Romans and Byzantines, 63; attempt of the architects of the Renaissance to solve the great dome problem, 241, 242; most modern domes modelled after St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s are wooden constructions, 242; of Hagia Theotokos, Constantinople, 10 (cut); of Florence cathedral, 10–25, 65, design of Arnolfo, 13, modelled on dome of Baptistery, 16, details of construction, 16–20, magnitude of the work, 21, stability of, 23; of Florence Baptistery, details of construction, 14 (cut), dome of Florence cathedral derived from, 16, 20; vault of the chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, not a dome, 27 (cut), 28, 56; ch. of San Lorenzo, Florence, 34; vault of ch. of Santo Spirito, Florence, 34; St. Paul’s, London, rejected scheme, 235 (cut), likeness to Bramante’s scheme for St. Peter’s, Rome, 236 (cut), likeness to Michael Angelo’s scheme, 237, present structure, 239 (plate), recalls Bramante’s San Pietro in Montorio, Rome, 239, structural system of, 239–242 (cut); ch. of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan, 140 (cut); vault of the chapel of St. Peter Martyr, ch. of Sant’Eustorgio, Milan, like vault of chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 142; ch. of San Biagio at Montepulciano, 81 (cut); Pisa cathedral, 12 (cut); ch. of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, Rome, 86; Antonio San Gallo’s design for St. Peter’s, Rome, 71; Tempietto, Rome, 44 (cut); cath. of Salamanca approaches the nature of a Gothic vault, 57–59 (cut); Todi, 74 (cut), 77.
Domestic architecture. _See_ Palace architecture.
Doorway, of De l’Orme, 203 (cut); of Serlio, 203 (cut).
Drum, of a dome, raised above the springing of the dome, 10–14, 23; dome set on the top of, 12; of the dome of Florence cathedral, 16; the central vault of the chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 27 (cut); the Tempietto of San Pietro in Montorio, Rome, 44; St. Peter’s, Rome, 50 (cut), 53.
Du Cerceau, engraving of the Fountain of the Innocents, Paris, 195 (cut); work of Lescot on the Louvre, 197 (cut); work of De l’Orme on the Tuileries, 201 (cut), 221^2; project for the château of Charleval, 209.
Durm, _Die Dom Kuppel in Florenz_, 19^1; _Die Baukunst der Renaissance in Italien_, 20^1; cited on domes, 20^1.
East end of the Redentore, Venice, 100, 101.
Elizabethan Art, 216–225 (cuts). _See_ Renaissance in England.
England, Renaissance in, Architecture of the, 216–246 (cuts). _See_ Renaissance in England. Burghley House, chimneys in the form of a Doric order, 217 (cut); Cranborne Manor-House, porch and façade illustrate Elizabethan neo-classic ornamentation, 221, 222 (cut); Hardwick Castle, mention of, 217; Kirby Hall, façades of the court, 218–220 (cut), pilasters supporting nothing but miniature pedestals, 219, window openings said to have been inserted by Inigo Jones, 218, porch, description of, 220, its scheme a variation of Lescot’s Louvre pavilions, 220, gables of Flemish or Dutch origin, 220 (cut); Longford Castle, 221; French influence in, 221; resemblance to château of Chambord, France, 221; Lower Walterstone Hall, window illustrating Elizabethan neo-classic ornamentation, 221 (cut); Stanway House, gatehouse portal, neo-classic features, 223; Tixall Castle, gatehouse, neo-classic ornamentation, 222; Westwood Park, porch in the form of a Roman triumphal arch, 223; Wollaton Hall, neo-classic ornamentation, 223, chimney-stacks in the semblance of Doric columns, 223, portal, 224.
Entablature, passing through the arch impost, 29, 30 (cut); in Roman art, 29, 30, 37; springing of a vault from, 29, 68; Vignola’s, 85 (cut); removing of, between the ressauts, 117 (cut); Roman arch and entablature scheme applied to a continuous arcade, 118, 119; breaking of, 134 (cut), 199 (cut); used with the arch illogically in the portals of north Italy, 144, 145 (cuts); ch. of Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo, 83 (cut); the chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, running through the impost, 29 (cut); façade of ch. of Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 40 (cut); ch. of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, Rome, the two parts which have no _raison d’être_ under a vault have been omitted, 89 (cut); ch. of San Biagio, Montepulciano, Rome, 78 (cut); the Gesù, Rome, has no ressauts except at the crossing, 92; ch. of St. Paul outside the wall, Rome, 30^1; St. Peter’s, Rome, interior, dwarfs the effect of its altitude, 68; façade of ch. of San Francesco della Vigna, Venice, 100; of ch. of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, placed above small pilasters of the archivolts, 98; The Redentore, Venice, 101; Todi, 75, 76 (cut).
Entablature block, in Roman art, 30, 37; in ch. of San Lorenzo, Florence, 33 (cut); in façade of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 36 (cut); in nave of ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72 (cut).
Entasis of columns in church of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, 98.
Façades, of the Badia of Fiesole, 32 (cut); chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 30 (cut); ch. of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 35 (cut); old St. Paul’s cathedral, London, incongruous mixture of, 230–232 (cut); Whitehall, London, banqueting hall, 227 (plate), Westminster front, 229 (cut), circular court, 230; ch. of Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 39–42 (cut); ch. of the Gesù, Rome, Vignola’s, 92–95 (cuts), Della Porta’s, 95 (cut); ch. of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, Rome, 86–88 (cut), 92; ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 74 (cut); Palazzo Cancelleria, Rome, description of, 112–114 (cut), projecting bays at each end, 113, portal of almost Greek purity of design, 114; Palazzo Massimi, Rome, 114–116 (cut); ch. of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, 99 (cut); Scuola di San Marco (Venice), 156–158 (cut); ch. of Santa Maria dei Miracole, Venice, a marvel of excellence in mechanical execution, 151, 152 (cut).
Fiesole, church of the Badia, façade, 32 (cut); likeness to chapel of the Pazzi, 32.
Filarete, Antonio, Ospedale Maggiore, Milan, 164 (cut); window openings, 165 (cut); arabesque on door-valves of St. Peter’s, Rome, 170 (cut).
Fine Arts, of an epoch, the expression of its conditions, 1, 3; of the Renaissance, spirit of, 3, 4, 6; of the Middle Ages, spirit of, 2, 5.
Flamboyant Gothic style of Castle Châteaudun, 184 (cut).
Florence, condition in Middle Ages and in Renaissance, 2, 3; Board of Works of Florence cathedral, 21, 22^1. Badia, façade, 32 (cut). Baptistery, dome, details of construction, 14 (cut); forms inspiration for dome of the Florence cathedral, 16, 20; entablature, 30^1; attic wall, 31; Ghiberti gates, inorganic composition with over-naturalism in details, 173 (cut). Cathedral of, dome, 10–25; design of Arnolfo, 13 (cut); modelled on the dome of the Baptistery, 16, 20, 50; details of construction, 16–20; its rib system gives it nothing of Gothic character, 20; shell, 16, 54; rib system, 16 (cuts), 55; binding chains, 19, 22; magnitude of the work, 21, 22; deliberations of the Board of Works, 21^1, 22^1; scaffolding, 21^3; is fundamentally false in principle, 22, 23, 24; stability of, 23; lantern, 25; has nothing of classic Roman character, 25; its octagonal form, 55^1; its fine features, 65. Chapel of the Pazzi, 26–32 (cuts); its central vault, 27 (cut), 56; interior, 28–30 (cut); Byzantine in form, 29; orders of, 29, 31, 32; entablature, 29, 30 (cut); portico, 30 (cut), 134; panelled attic wall, 31, 81; false use of the orders, 109; leafage of capitals, 175. Church of Santa Croce, pulpit, carving of, 171, 172 (cut); leafage of capitals, 176; _see_ Chapel of the Pazzi. Church of Sant’ Jacopo Soprarno, 32. Church of San Lorenzo, 33; celled vault, 33; mediæval features, 34; piers, 34 (cut). Church of Santa Maria del Fiore, false front of wood mentioned, 120. Church of Santa Maria Novella, 35; façade, 35–38 (cut), 42; orders, 35 (cut), 112; mediæval features, 35, 38; portal, 36 (cut), 41; tower, 82. Church of Santo Spirito, 33; spire-like tower of, 81 (cut); pseudo-classic details, 82; lantern, 83. Museum, Roman arabesque used as model for Renaissance, 167 (cut); pilaster with carving of a meaningless and artificial composition, 173 (cut). Palazzo Bartolini, 109, window openings, 109 (cut), 116; Palazzo Gondi, 107, arcades of the court, 107, leafage of capitals, 176 (cut); Palazzo Guardagni, 107; Palazzo Mozzi, 102; the Pitti palace, its façade as monotonous as the Claudian aqueduct, which it resembles, 106; the Quaratesi, 106; Palazzo Riccardi, 103 (cut and plate), moderation shown in, 103, 110, façade, 103, window openings, 103, arcades of interior court, 104; Palazzo Rucellai, 107, 108 (cut), application of classic orders, 108, 112, window openings, 109, rustication of the masonry, 109, resemblance between Palazzo Cancelleria and, 112, 114; Palazzo Strozzi, 106, cornice, 106, fortress-like character, 106; the Strozzino, 106; Palazzo Vecchio, 102.
Florentine Renaissance, church architecture of the, 26–43 (cuts and plate); palace architecture, 102–111 (cuts and plate); _see_ Renaissance architecture.
Foliation, the finest feature of Renaissance architectural carving, 174.
Fontana, Carlo, cited on dome of Pisa, 13^1; cited on stability of Florence dome, 23^3; quoted on Michael Angelo, 55^1, 24^1; cited on safety of St. Peter’s dome, 59; _Il Tempio Vaticano e sua Origine_, etc., Discritto dal Cav. Carlo Fontana, etc., 71^2; cited on short-sighted admiration of St. Peter’s, 71; cited on binding chains, 74.
France, Châteaux of, _see_ Renaissance in France. Castle Châteaudun, portal and bay in the Flamboyant Gothic style, 184 (cut). Château of Azay le Rideau, 182–187 (cuts); general description, 182–184; portal and bay of characteristic French Renaissance design in which neo-classic details are worked into a pseudo-Gothic scheme, 184–187 (cut); window openings, 186; one of the finest monuments of the early Renaissance in the country, 187; portal, 214. Château of Blois, cornice with neo-classic and mediæval elements combined, 182, (cut); court façade, 188–190 (cut); superimposed orders of pilasters of the court façade ornamented with bead mouldings, 188 (cut); polygonal staircase tower, 190 (cut); garden façade, 190; open gallery of, 191. Château of Chambord, its multiplicity of soaring features resembles a late Gothic building, 191; resemblance of Longford Castle, England, to, 221. Château of Charleval, 209–213 (cuts); exterior façade, pilasters which have no entablature to support, 210; unmeaning variation of the detail of the several bays, 210; interior façade, the division of the building into two stories not expressed on the outside, 211; court of Kirby Hall, England, resembles, 218. Château of Chenonceaux, portal where Flamboyant idea is treated in neo-classic details, 188 (cut). Château of Écouen, architectural scheme is comparatively simple, 191; in the portico of the court is reproduced the order of a Roman temple without admixture of mediæval details or Italian corruptions, 192. Château of Fontainebleau follows the general character of early French Renaissance, 191. Château of La Rochefoucauld, arcades of the court where Flamboyant arches are framed with pilasters, 188; open gallery, 191. Château of St. Germain en Laye, 192, 193; buttresses, 192; window openings, 192. Villers Cotterets, column claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 202 (cut).
French architecture, Renaissance influence upon, 179.
French Renaissance. _See_ Renaissance in France.
Frieze, problem of the arrangement of metope and triglyph at the end of, 121, 122 (cuts); of library of St. Mark, Venice, 123 (cut).
Galleries, open, covered by extension of the main roof in French châteaux, 191.
Genoa, portal containing columns claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 206.
Geymüller, Baron H. von, _Die ursprünglichen Entwürf für Sanct Peter in Rom_, 47^2, 49^2.
Gisors, Church of SS. Gervais and Protais, the west front Flamboyant Gothic with incongruous Renaissance details, 214.
Gotch, _Architecture of the Renaissance in England_, 217^1; cited on Kirby Hall, England, 218^3; on Longford Castle, England, 221; on Tixall Castle, 222; on Stanway, Westwood Park, Wollaton Hall, 223.
Gothic, King James’s, 227.
Gothic architectural carving, has at once an appropriate architectural character and a high degree of excellence in the development of form, 167, 172; foliation, 176; the grotesque, 177.
_Gothic architecture, development and character of_ cited, 7^1; cited on dome of Salamanca, 57^2, 59^2; cited on early stage of apsidal vault development, 59^1.
Gothic architecture, one of the three distinctive styles of architecture, 6; beauty and structural logic of, 7; use of wooden ties, 22^2; why a dome cannot have the character of a Gothic vault, 20, 21, 56–59 (cuts); variety which arises through some new constructive idea, 211^1; French Renaissance châteaux in which distorted neo-classic details are worked into a pseudo-Gothic scheme, 184; Wren’s scheme to reconcile the Gothic to a better manner, 238, 243, 245.
Gothic art forms a new French order, a true evolution out of the ancient orders superbly adapted to new conditions, 206.
Goujon, sculptures of the fountain of the Innocents, Paris, 196.
Greek architectural carving, vitality of, 169 (cut), 171, 174 (cut); beauty of leafage, 174, 176 (cuts).
Greek architecture, the classic style which was followed in Renaissance architecture was that of the decadent Greek schools as represented in Roman copies, 4, 247; the only proper use of the classic order made in, 43.
Greek coin (of Metapontum), conventionalized ear of barley on, compared with Renaissance carving, 169, 170 (cut).
Greek sculpture on buildings is in a measure independent of the building on which it is placed, 167.
Grotesque, the, in architectural carving, the northern races only capable of conceiving it in an imaginative way, 177; in Renaissance architecture uniformly weak and characterless, 176, 177 (cuts).
Guasti, _Santa Maria del Fiore_, 13^2; quoted on Brunelleschi’s account of the dome of Florence, 18^1.
Gubbio, his work on the ducal palace, Venice, arabesque after Roman model, 167 (cut).
Hermæ, of façade of the Gesù, Rome, 93; of the Tuileries, Paris, 207.
Human figure, in sculpture, on buildings, 167; has little proper architectural character in the Renaissance, 167.
Impost, continuous, 188^1.
Individuality, element of, in Renaissance architecture, 4; as developed by Middle Ages and by Renaissance, 5.
Innocent XI, Pope, his inquiries as to the safety of the dome of St. Peter’s, 59.
Intellectual movement in the Renaissance, 2, 8.
Ionic volutes, 84.
Italian domestic architecture, 102; unwise admixture of classic elements in, 107, 109; spirit of display in, 105, 110.
Italian genius for painting, 6, 7.
Jamb shafts, tapering, 137 (cut), 142, 149, 150.
Jones, Inigo, his work on Kirby Hall, England, 218^3; influence of Vitruvius and Palladio on, 226, 227; travel and study in Italy, 227; _Stonehenge Restored_, 227; Whitehall, 227–230 (plate and cut); Banqueting Hall, London, 227 (plate); had no true conception of the principles of classic art, 230; old St. Paul’s west front, 230–232 (cut); the spirit of his architecture theatrical, 232.
Julius II, Pope, the building of St. Peter’s, 44, 46.
Kent, William, _The Designs of Inigo Jones, consisting of Plans and Elevations for Publick and Private Buildings_, 229^2; scheme for the palace of Whitehall, London, 229; old St. Paul’s cathedral, west front, 231 (cut).
Lantern of Florence dome, 25; St. Peter’s, Rome, Bramante’s plan, 52 (cut); ch. of Santo Spirito, Florence, 83.
Leafage, Greek and Roman compared, 174–176 (cuts); Renaissance, 175.
Lescot, Pierre, 194; Fountain of the Innocents, Paris, 194–196 (cut); influence of Serlio, 196; west wing of the Louvre, 196–200 (cut).
Letarouilly, _Edifices de Rome Moderne_, 72^1; cited on ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.
Loftie, W. J., _Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren_, 242^1.
Lombard blind arcade recalled in the ch. of Santa Maria dei Miracole, Venice, 151 (cut).
Lombard Romanesque architecture, towers, 82.
Lombard Romanesque, style modified by neo-classic elements mark the Renaissance architecture of northern Italy, 144; a porch which forms a model from which an illogical Renaissance portal is derived, 145 (cuts).
Lombardi, the, 149; architectural carving of, 169 (plate).
Lombardo, Martino, Scuola di San Marco, Venice, façade, 156.
Lombardo, Pietro, 149; ch. of Santa Maria dei Miracole, Venice, 151 (cut); Palazzo Corner-Spinelli, Venice, 160 (plate).
Lombardo, Tullio, 149; ch of San Salvatore, Venice, 150.
London, St. Paul’s cathedral, west front of old structure by Inigo Jones, 230, 232 (cut); Wren ordered to submit designs for the restoration of, 234; his drawings for the new structure, 235–238 (cuts); rejected scheme with details of its dome, 235, 236 (cut); likeness of dome to Bramante’s scheme for St. Peter’s, 236; likeness to Michael Angelo’s scheme, 237; façade of the second design a close copy of Inigo Jones’s, 238; present structure never embodied in any set of drawings, 239; plan has no beauty comparable to that of St. Peter’s, 239 (cut); comparison of, with St. Peter’s, 236, 239, 241, 243, 245; plan and elevation, 239; dome, 239–242 (plate); recalls Bramante’s San Pietro in Montorio, 239; structural system of, 240 (cut); vaulting of the nave has somewhat the effect of Gothic vaulting, 243; use of attic wall in support of vaulting, 243; neo-classic orders of the interior, 244, 245 (cut); intersecting of archivolt and entablature, 244; concealing of the buttresses, 244, 245 (cut); vaulting of the apse, 245. Whitehall, Banqueting Hall, 227 (plate); of Palladian design, 228; orders of the façade, 228; scheme for the palace illustrated by Kent, 229; plan is French in character rather than Italian, 229; order of the basement has a structural character, 229 (cut); façade of circular court, orders of, 230. Church of St. Stephen’s, 246; ch. of St. Bride’s, 246; ch. of St. Mary-le-Bow, 246; ch. of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, 246.
Longhena, architect, Palazzo Pesaro, Venice, 163.
Maderna, the western bays of St. Peter’s, Rome, 68.
Majano, Benedetto da, the Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, 106.
Mantua, church of Sant’ Andrea, 38–42 (cut and plate); erected and ornamented on Roman models, 38; nave, 38 (plate); piers, 38, 39, 53; its interior one of the finest of the Renaissance, 39; its scheme foreshadows that of St. Peter’s, 39, 53; façade, 39–42 (cut); early use of so-called colossal order, 40 (cut), 53, 66; resemblance of central arch to that of ch. of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 41; panelled pilasters, 41, 160; reflection of, seen in Bramante’s church of San Satiro of Milan, 138.
Martin, _Hist. de France_, 180^1.
_Mathematici, Parere di tre, sopra i danni che si sono trovato nella cupola di S. Pietro, etc._, 60^1.
Mathematicians’ report on the condition of St. Peter’s dome in 1742, 60.
Mediæval art, structural forms of, formed, for the most part, the basis of Renaissance design, 43, 247; considered false and barbaric by the neo-classicists, 97, 248; its architects transformed the classic orders in a creative way, 248.
Melani, _Architettura Italiana_, 150^1, 154^1, 250^2; quoted on architecture of the Renaissance, 250.
Metope, problem of making half a metope fall at the end of the frieze, 121, 122 (cuts).
Michelozzi, The Riccardi, Florence, 103; praised by Vasari, 105; the Strozzino, Florence, 106; chapel of St. Peter Martyr, ch. of Sant’Eustorgio, Milan, 142; his work in Venice, 149.
Middle Ages, conditions of the, 1; spirit of, and that of the Renaissance, 2, 5–6; individuality of, 5.
Middleton, _Ancient Rome_, 52^1; cited on the dome of the Pantheon, 52^1.
Milan, church of Sant’Eustorgio, chapel of St. Peter Martyr, 142; circular celled vault, 142. Church of San Lorenzo mentioned, 140. Church of Santa Maria delle Grazie, 140 (cut); description of exterior, 140; dome, 140; its encircling arcade suggests the encircling colonnade of the dome of St. Peter’s, 142. Church of Monasterio Maggiore, 142; compound window openings, 143. Church and sacristy of San Satiro, 138–140 (cut); reflects ch. of St. Andrea of Mantua, 138; orders of the interior of the sacristy, 139 (cut). Ospedale Maggiore, 164; larger features are of mixed and debased mediæval character with no application of classic orders, 164; window openings, 165 (cut). Palazzo Brera, arches sprung from pairs of columns connected by short entablatures, 166.
Milanesi, cited, 34^1, 35.
Milizia, _Memorie degli Architetti_, etc., quoted, 23^2, 84^1; cited on Alberti, 35, 44; cited on use of entablature block, 36; cited on safety of the dome of St. Peter’s, 58^4; cited on the strengthening of the dome of St. Peter’s, 62; on ch. of Consolazione at Todi, 74; on spire-like tower of ch. of Santo Spirito, Florence, 81; cited on Vignola, 84; on dome of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, Rome, 86; on window openings framed with orders, crowned with pediments, 109; quoted on Sansovino, 119, 121; quoted on Vignola, 128; quoted on De l’Orme, 194.
Montalembert, cited, 5^1.
Montepulciano, church of San Biagio, 77–83 (cuts); interior, 78–80 (cut); ressauts, 78, 90; Doric order, 78; use of pilasters on the angles, 78, 81; exterior, 81–83 (cut); dome, 81; façade, 81; panels of upper story, 81; orders, 81, 83; towers, 81.
Naples museum, composite capital showing Roman leafage, 175.
Nave of ch. of Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo, 83 (cut); Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 38 (plate); ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72; ch. of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, 97, 98.
Nelli, _Discorsi di Architettura_, 21^3; quoted on Brunelleschi’s scaffolding, 21^3; cited on stability of Florence dome, 23^3, 24^1.
Neo-classicists, their confidence in the art of Roman antiquity as the embodiment of all true principles of architectural design, 97.
Neo-pagan spirit of the Renaissance, 2, 4, 8.
Nicholas V, Pope, rebuilding of basilica of St. Peter, 47.
Norton, C. E., _Church Building in the Middle Ages_, 21^1; cited on building of the dome of the Florence cathedral, 21^1.
Openings, mediæval Florentine form, 102 (cut); of domestic architecture in Perugia, 102; reveals are shallow in earlier buildings, 104; cathedral of Como, variety of illogical forms in, 148 (cut). _See_ Window openings.
Order and symmetry of a mechanical kind seen in Renaissance architecture, 133.
Order, colossal, so-called, early use of, 40.
Order, classic, use of without structural meaning in Renaissance architecture, 6, 29, 43, 244; Brunelleschi’s use of, 26; unsuitable for a building of mediæval character, 29, 43; disposition of, in various Renaissance façades, 42; misapplication and distortion of by Italians of the Renaissance, 43; used with propriety by the Greeks alone, 43; the usual size of, compared with that of St. Peter’s, Rome, 67; Vignola’s treatise on the Five Orders, 84; the proportions of the, altered by Vignola, 85; Vitruvius quoted on maintaining the purity of, 86; inappropriate in a church interior, 98; application of, in palace architecture, 107, 109; Renaissance innovation in spacing the columns of, 112, 114; podium introduced beneath, 112; where the columns of, act somewhat as buttresses, 131; aberrations and makeshifts made necessary by efforts to apply the classic orders to uses for which they were not adapted, 244; transformed by the mediæval architects in a creative way, 248; De l’Orme’s claim of having invented a new order, which he called the French order, 202 (cut), 206. Of the Parthenon, Athens, 67; the Temple of the Sun at Baalbek, 67^1; chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 29, 30 (cut); ch. of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 35, 42 (cut); Palazzo Rucellai, Florence, 108, 109 (cut); St. Paul’s, London, interior, difficulties of combining neo-classic style of, with the high vaulting, 243, 244; Whitehall, banqueting hall, London, 228 (plate), 229 (cut), 230; ch. of Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 40 (cut), 42; ch. of San Biagio at Montepulciano, 78, 81 (cuts); Duomo of Pienza, 42; St. Peter’s, Rome, interior, 53, 66, dwarfs the effect of magnitude in the interior, 67, size compared with that of the Parthenon and Pantheon, 67, diminishes the effect of altitude of the vaulting, 68; Palazzo Cancelleria, Rome, podium introduced beneath, 112, innovation in spacing the columns of, 113; court of Palazzo Farnese, Rome, treatment of the capital, 118; ch. of San Francesco della Vigna, Venice, 100; ch. of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, raised on pedestals, 98, 101, placed under the archivolts, 98; library of St. Mark, Venice, 122, 123 (cuts); Palazzo Contarini, Venice, 161; Palazzo Vendramini, Venice, full orders in all three stories of façade, 161, 162, arrangement in lateral bay of façade, 162; town hall portico of Vicenza, the columns of, act somewhat as buttresses, 130, 131. _See_ Columns.
Ornamentation, architectural, use of artificial elements in, 172–174 (cuts); use of forms drawn from organic nature, 174. _See_ Carving, architectural.
Oxford, St. Mary’s Church, porch, mentioned, 227; Sheldonian theatre, Wren quoted on, 234.
Padua, town hall, Palladio’s scheme for town hall of Vicenza derived from, 130, 131.
Painting, Italian genius for, 6, 7; most Renaissance architects were painters and sculptors, 6, 7, 84, 96.
Palace architecture of the Renaissance, Florentine, 102–111 (cuts and plate); Roman, 112–134 (cuts); of North Italy, 154–166 (cuts); Venetian, 154–163 (cuts). _See_ Renaissance architecture.
Palladian architecture, 95; introduced into England by Jones, 227; far from true to classic design, 228, 230; rules are arbitrary and not in accord with the true principles of ancient art, 248.
Palladio, _Quattro libri dell’Architettura di Andrea Palladio_, 96^4; his influence greater than that of any other architect of the Renaissance, 95, 248; quoted on his study of architecture, 96, 97; quoted on his admiration of his own work, 131^1; his compositions based on order and symmetry of a mechanical kind, 133; concerned with the superficial appearance in architecture, 133; ch. of San Francesco della Vigna, Venice, 100; ch. of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, 97–100 (cuts); ch. of the Redentore, Venice, 100 (cut); Palazzo Valmarana, Venice, 133; Loggia Bernarda, Vicenza, 133 (cut); Palazzo Colleone-Porta, Vicenza, 133; Palazzo Porta-Barbarano, Vicenza, 133; the portico of the town hall, Vicenza, 130–132 (cut).
Pallaiuolo, Simone, Palazzo Guardagni, Florence, 107.
Palustre, Leon, _L’Architecture de la Renaissance_, 89^2; quoted on the entablature of St. Andrea di Ponte Molle, Rome, 89.
Paris, Church of St. Etienne du Mont, of Flamboyant Gothic form, with neo-classic west front and central portal, 213, 214; portal with columns modelled after those claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 214. Church of St. Eustache, a Gothic structure overlaid with Renaissance details, 213. Fountain of the Innocents, 194–196 (cut); a reproduction of the scheme of a Roman triumphal arch, 196. Hotel Cluny, a forerunner of the Renaissance châteaux, 180. Louvre, Lescot’s work on the west wing, 196–200 (cut); orders, 198, 199; the salient pavilions, have no function, 198; breaking of the entablature in, 199; sculptured festoons heavy and formal, 199. Palace of the Tuileries, work of De l’Orme, 200–207 (cuts); peculiar form of column claimed by De l’Orme as his invention, 201–206 (cut); basement arcade, 207; attic story, 207.
Parthenon, metal clamps in masonry, 22^2; effect of a dome erected on, 89.
Pavia, Church of the Certosa, general description of façade, 136–137; Lombard Romanesque forms with pseudo-classic elements engrafted on them, 137; window openings, 137 (cut). Church of San Pietro in Cielo d’Oro, portal framed by structural members without structural meaning, 148 (cut).
Pazzi, Chapel of the. _See_ Florence.
Pediment, breaking of the, 93–95 (cut), 117 (cut); one placed within another, 95 (cut); of Baalbek, 95 (cut).
Pellegrini, Palazzo Brera, Milan, 166.
Perugia, domestic architecture, 102. Church of S. Bernardino, general description of façade, 135 (plate); affords a rare instance of the use of colour in Renaissance architecture, 135.
Peruzzi, Baldassare, his plan for St. Peter’s, Rome, 47^2; Palazzo Massimi, Rome, 114–116 (cut).
Piers, pierced transversely and longitudinally, 38, 39, 150 (cuts); ch. of Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo, 83 (cut); ch. of San Lorenzo, Florence, 34 (cut); château of Blois, France, polygonal staircase tower, 190 (cut); ch. of Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 38, 39 (plate); ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, alternate system, 72; St. Peter’s, Rome, 53, 66, 68; Todi, 75, 76 (cut); ch. of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, 97, 98 (cut); ch. of St. Mark, Venice, 150 (cut); ch. of San Salvatore, Venice, 151 (cut).
Pietra Santa, Giacomo da, said to have built the ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.
Pilaster strips, form proper decoration for mediæval structures, 29, 82.
Pilasters, coupling of, 31; use of, in the treatment of the angles of buildings, 78–81 (cut); the panelling of, 160; of Kirby Hall, England, support nothing but miniature pedestals, 219; portico of the chapel of the Pazzi, 31 (cut); façade of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 37, 38; National Museum, Florence, meaningless and artificial design in carving, 173 (cut); château of Azay le Rideau, France, combination of pseudo-Gothic and neo-classic forms, 186 (cut); façade of ch. of Sant’Andrea of Mantua, 41 (cut); San Biagio, Montepulciano, use of, on the angles in interior, 78 (cut); Palazzo Contarini, Venice, grouping of those of three different proportions and magnitudes, 161 (cut).
Pisa cathedral, dome, 12.
Pisan Romanesque architecture, of façade of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 37.
Poleni, _Memorie Istoriche delle Gran Cupola del Tempio Vaticano_, 59^3; his strengthening of the dome of St. Peter’s, 62, 63; quoted on poor work of Bramante, 64.
Pollaiuolo, Simione, called Il Cronaca, court and cornice of Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, 106.
Pontoise, church of St. Maclou, remarkable Renaissance north portal, 214.
Porches, church of San Zeno of Verona, a model from which an illogical form of Renaissance portal is derived, 146 (cut); Cranborn Manor-House, England, illustrates Elizabethan neo-classic ornamentation, 221, 222 (cut); Kirby Hall, England, 220; resemble Louvre pavilions, 220.
Portals, from Serlio, in which the entablature is removed between the ressauts, 117, 118 (cut); illogical use of arch and entablature in the portals of north Italy, 144, 145 (cuts); illogical Renaissance portal derived from the porch of San Zeno of Verona, 146 (cut); unreason of Renaissance portals compared with those of Greek or Gothic art, 156; of cath. of Como, illogical use of arch and entablature, 144, 145 (cut), 149; Stanway House (England) gatehouse, neo-classic features, 223; Wollaton Hall, England, illustrates Elizabethan neo-classic ornamentation, 224 (cut); ch. of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 36 (cut), 41; château of Azay le Rideau, France, neo-classic details worked into a pseudo-Gothic scheme, 184; château of Chenonceaux, France, Flamboyant and neo-classic forms combined, 188 (cut); ch. of San Pietro in Cielo d’Oro, Pavia, 148 (cut); Palazzo Cancelleria, Rome, of almost Greek purity of design, 114; Scuola di San Marco, Venice, 156 (cut); Porta del Palio, Verona, 125 (cut).
Portico, château of Écouen, the order of a Roman temple is produced without admixture of mediæval details or Italian corruptions, 192.
Raphael, plans for St. Peter’s, Rome, 47^2.
Ravenna, ch. of San Vitale mentioned, 140.
Relief carving of the Renaissance, _see_ Carving, Architectural, of the Renaissance.
Renaissance, conditions of, 1; intellectual movement in, 2, 8; neo-pagan revival in, 2, 8; its spirit as manifested in its fine arts, 3, 4, 6, 8; its architects were sculptors and painters, 6; art of painting in, 7.
Renaissance architecture, element of individuality in, 4, 6; the classic style which was followed was that of the decadent Greek schools as represented in Roman copies, 4, 247; architects were generally also painters and sculptors, 6, 96; a surface architecture, 6; little heed given to structural propriety, 23, 64, 66, 116; use of the classic order, 29; passing of the entablature through the arch imposts, 29; use of stucco, 32; alternation of wide and narrow intervals, 38; misapplication of the classic orders, 43, 247; the designers worked on a foundation of mediæval ideas from which they could not free themselves, 43, 247; use of Roman models, 43, 117, 119, 247; breaking of the pediment, 93 (cut), 117; use of structural members without structural meaning, 116, 133, 135, 156, 165; entablature removed between the ressauts, 117; later architecture the work of men of little genuine artistic inspiration, 119, 133; architectural shams extensively produced by later architects, 121, 132; attempt to make half a metope fall at the end of the frieze, 121–122 (cut); barbaric compositions of frequent occurrence in later, 124; based on order and symmetry of a mechanical kind, 133; independent personal effort to be original at the bottom of most of the mistakes of, 206; no architects of, had a true conception of the principles of classic art, 230; theatrical in its spirit, 232; no true adaptation of classic elements in Renaissance design, 247; great influence of short-sighted and mechanical Italian rules in modern times, 248, 250; claims advanced for it as the only architecture of correct principles since that of classic antiquity are without justification, 250; sculpture of, _see_ Carving, architectural, of the Renaissance.
Renaissance architecture, in England, 216–246 (cuts); Elizabethan art, 216–225 (cuts); its best features were of native growth out of the mediæval feudal castle and the latest phase of perpendicular Gothic, 216, 225; use of classic details, 217, 218–225 (cuts); flimsiness of material in interiors and ornamental details, 217, 218; buildings have little foreign character in plan and outline, but neo-classic forms are confined to ornamentation, 218, 221; strange aberrations of design wrought by foreigners and native craftsmen, 218–225 (cuts); fantastic gables features of the more showy architecture, 220; Flemish and Dutch ornamental workers, 220, 224; the design and execution of the buildings were performed by building craftsmen, 224, 225. Work of Jones and Wren, 226–246 (plate and cuts); use of classic details becoming established, 226, 228; acceptance of neo-classic style by the people, 228, 232, 233.
Renaissance architecture, Florentine; church architecture, 26–43 (cuts); palace architecture, 102–111 (cuts and plate). _See_ also Renaissance architecture and Florence.
Renaissance architecture, in France, early, 179–193 (cuts); the French Renaissance château, conditions which gave rise to, 180; evolved from the feudal castle of the Middle Ages, 180, 201; factitious in composition, 179, 181, 211^3; distorted neo-classic details worked into a pseudo-Gothic scheme, 184, 190; a survival of later Gothic habit of design is shown where the continuity of upright lines is obtained in the use of superimposed pilasters with ressauts in the entablatures, 188, 190; has a distinctly French expression, 179, 193, 194; later French Renaissance given a more marked neo-classic dress by Lescot and De l’Orme, 194–215; misuse of structural forms in ornamentation, 199; excessive profusion of ornament, 200; church architecture, Gothic structural forms largely entwined with a misapplication of classic details, 213–215.
Renaissance architecture, Lombard, 135, 136–149; neo-classic influences confined largely to ornamental details, 136; illogical scheme of openings which became characteristic of, 144–149 (cuts).
Renaissance architecture, North Italian, profusion of ornament a marked characteristic of, 136; Lombard Romanesque forms modified by neo-classic features mark the character of, 144; church architecture of the, 135–153 (cuts); mixture of mediæval and pseudo-classic forms, 149; palace architecture of the, 154–166 (cuts); later architecture of the, based on the art of Palladio and Vignola, 165. _See_ Renaissance architecture.
Renaissance architecture, Venetian, 135; church architecture, 149–153; palace architecture, 154–163 (cuts); its most characteristic architecture is that of the palaces of the grand canal, 159; the usual scheme of the front that of a wide central bay wholly occupied by openings flanked by lateral bays with a solid wall on either side of an opening, 162, 163; neo-classic influences confined largely to ornamental details, 136; illogical scheme of openings which became characteristic of, 144–149 (cuts); drew some of its material from Florentine and Lombard sources, 149; later architecture follows the measurably uniform style of Vignola and Palladio, 153, 162; overlaying with heavy orders the typical unequal main divisions of the palace fronts, 162, 163.
Ressauts, irrational use of, 38; of façade of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 37; of San Francesco of Rimini, 38; of ch. of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Assisi, 89.
Rhenish Romanesque style of ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.
Ribs, system of, in Florence dome, 16–19, 55 (cuts); in Gothic vaulting have nothing of the character of dome ribs, 20, 21, 56; of St. Peter’s dome, Rome, 55, 56, 59; of cath. of Salamanca, 57, 58.
Riccio, Antonio, his work on east side of the court of the Ducal Palace, Venice, 154 (plate).
Rimini, San Francesco of, church of, 35; façade, 38, 42; modelled on the arch of Septimius Severus, 38, 42; ressauts, 38.
Roman arch and entablature scheme applied to a continuous arcade, 118, 119.
Roman architecture, furnished models for Renaissance architecture, 38, 40, 43, 97; use of entablature block in, 37; use of the arch in, 37; the ressaut, 38; triumphal arch design a model for Renaissance façades, 38, 39–43 (cut); treatment of the angle, 79 (cut).
Roman architectural carving, furnished models for Renaissance work, 167; tasteless and meaningless designs, 170^1; leafage of, compared with Greek leafage, 174 (cuts).
Roman Renaissance, church architecture of the, 66–101 (cuts); palatial architecture, 112–134. _See_ Renaissance architecture and Rome.
Romanesque architecture, 7; Rhenish Romanesque style of ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.
Rome, its monuments the inspiration of Renaissance architecture, 3, 43, 247. St. Peter’s, rebuilding and demolishing of the old basilica, 47; work of Rossellino, 47; work of Bramante, 47–53 (cuts), 63, 64, 70; date of the beginning of building, 47; general plan, 47, 53, 66 (cut); the plans of Raphael and Peruzzi, 47^2; work of Michael Angelo, 54–65 (cuts), 66; work of Maderna, 66, 245; short-sighted admiration of, 71; design of Antonio San Gallo, 71; influence of, seen in other churches, 90, 92; arabesque on door-valves, 170 (cut); Wren’s scheme for St. Paul’s based on the model of, 236, 237; comparison of, with St. Paul’s, 236, 239, 241, 243, 245. Dome, 44–65 (cuts); use of the Pantheon and the Basilica of Maxentius as models, 49–52 (cuts); drum, 50 (cut), 53; abutments, 50 (cut), 53; colonnade, 51, 56, 142; lantern, 52; piers, 53, 66, 68; buttresses, 53 (cut), 55, 56, 59; design of Michael Angelo, 53–65 (cuts); his alterations of Bramante’s scheme, 53–55, 64; attic, 54 (cut); vault shells, 54 (cut), 55; ribs, 55, 56, 59; binding chains, 59, 60, 62; ruptures in, 59, 60–63 (cut), 64; mathematicians’ report of the condition of the structure in 1742, 60 (cut); violation of laws of stability in, 64, 65; strengthening of Bramante’s work, 64^1; its beauty exaggerated, 65; likeness of Wren’s scheme of St. Paul’s to, 236. Exterior, 68–70 (cut); makeshifts necessitated by the use of the colossal order, 68–70 (cut); aisle walls carried to the height of the clerestory, 68, 245; domes over the aisles, 68–70 (cut), 245. Interior, Bramante’s scheme, 53, 66; Michael Angelo’s work, 53, 66–70; piers, 53, 66, 68; effect of magnitude dwarfed by the colossal order, 53, 67, 68; great size of the structural parts, 68; part of the vault hidden by the cornice, 68, 92; its ornamentation a cheap deception, 71; ressauts, 90, 92. Church of the Gesù, 91–95 (cuts); Vignola’s plan given in his book on the Five Orders, 92; interior, general scheme, 92; orders, 92; entablature, 92; façade, 92–95 (cuts); broken pediments of, 93, 95; scroll work and hermæ, 93; reversed consoles, 95; tablets, 95 (cut). Church of Sant’Agostino, 72–74 (cuts); its architects, 72; date, 72; the general style is Rhenish Romanesque, 72; nave, 72; Renaissance ornamental details, 72 (cut); façade, 73, 74 (cut); truncated pediment, 74; tablets in wall surface, 74; dome, 74. Church of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, 86–89 (cuts); dome, 86; façade, 86–88 (cut), 92, 101; likeness to the Pantheon, 87; entablature, 89 (cut). Church of San Biagio, entablature, 78 (cut). Church of Santa Maria della Pace, cloister arcade, 119. Church of St. Paul outside the wall, entablature, 30^1. The Tempietto, 44–46 (cut); the dome and its drum, 44, 74; resemblance to the temple of Vesta, 44, 45; orders, 45, 83; dome of St. Paul’s, London, recalls, 239. Arch of Septimius Severus used as model of façades by Alberti, 38, 39–43 (cut); treatment of angle in, 79. Arch of the Silversmiths, 39. Arch of Titus, scheme of, used by Sansovino in the Loggetta of the Campanile, Venice, 123. Basilica of Maxentius, columns and arches, 37; as model for St. Peter’s, 49. Baths of Caracalla, entablature, 29. Pantheon, 10, 15^1, 87; said to be taken as model for dome of Florence cathedral, 16; grandeur of, 23; as model for Bramante’s dome of St. Peter’s, 49, 52 (cuts); its internal character, 52^1; abutments, 49 (cut), 52; not a homogeneous structure, 89. Porta Maggiore, form of column similar to that claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 205. Temple of Peace. _See_ Basilica of Maxentius. Theatre of Marcellus, its façade followed by Sansovino for the library of St. Mark’s, 122. Palazzo Cancelleria, façade, 112–114 (cut); window openings, north Italian, 112, 149; podium introduced beneath each order, 112; spacing of the columns of the order, 112, 114; projecting bays at each end, 113; portal of almost Greek purity of design, 114; court, 114. Palazzo Farnese, 116–118; window openings framed by structural members without structural meaning, 116, 117 (cut); removal of entablature between ressauts over window openings, 117 (cut); court, treatment of columns, 118. Palazzo Girand Torlonia, 112; window opening, north Italian, 112, 149. Palazzo Massimi, façade described, 114–116 (cut); wall above basement unbroken by pilasters or string courses, 114; portico, 114, 115; spacing of columns and pilasters of basement, 114; window openings, 115.
Ronsard, his poem on Lescot cited, 196.
Roof, timber, built over early domes, 10, 11.
Rossellino, his use of the orders in the Duomo of Pienza, 42, 43; his work on the basilica of St. Peter, Rome, 47.
Ruptures, in the dome of Florence cathedral, 23, 24; in the dome of St. Peter’s, Rome, 59, 60–63 (cut); not necessarily alarming in a properly constructed vault, 62^2.
Rustication of masonry, 109.
Salamanca, cathedral of, dome, how it approaches and differs in nature from a Gothic vault, 57–59 (cuts).
San Gallo, Antonio, the elder, 90; his work on ch. of San Biagio, Montepulciano, Rome, 78–83; ch. of Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo, 83.
San Gallo, Antonio, the younger, his design for St. Peter’s, Rome, 71; Palazzo Farnese, Rome, 116.
San Gallo, Giuliano da, designed Palazzo Gondi, Florence, 107, 176; leafage of capital, 176 (cut).
San Giovanni, Florence Baptistery, 14, 16.
Sanmichele, Porta del Palio, Verona, 125 (cut); Palazzo Canalla, Verona, 126; Palazzo Pompei alla Vittoria, Verona, 126; Palazzo Bevilacqua, Verona, 126, 127 (cut).
Sansovino (Jacopo Tatti), his predilection for classic forms, 119, 120; library of St. Mark, Venice, 121 (cut), 130; his attempt to make half the metope fall at the end of the frieze, 121, 122; small free-standing column placed on each side of the pier to bear the archivolt, often spoken of as an invention of, 123, 130, 131 (cut); Loggetta of the Campanile, Venice, 123; his use of a form of column claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 205.
Scaffolding said to have been employed by Brunelleschi, 21^3.
Scamozzi, 133, 134; peculiar form of compound window, sometimes called his invention, 134 (cut).
Scrollwork, of façade of the ch. of the Gesù, Rome, 93.
Sculpture, on buildings, has in Gothic art only an appropriate architectural character, and a high degree of excellence in the development of form, 167; Greek, is in a measure independent of the building on which it is placed, 167; of the human figure in Renaissance art, has little proper architectural character, 167; relief carving of the Renaissance, 167–178 (cuts). _See_ Carving, architectural, of the Renaissance.
Sebastiano, architect of ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.
Serlio, _Regole Generali di Architettura di Sebastiano Serlio_, 44^2, 196^2; cited on the work of Bramante on St. Peter’s, Rome, 47^2, 49; quoted on corner pilasters, 79; cited on the removal of the entablature between the ressauts, 117 (cut); influence on Lescot, 196; his column practically the same as that claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 203 (cut).
Sgrilli, _Descrizione e Studj dell’Insigne Fabbrica di S. Maria del Fiore_, quoted, 23.
Siena, Palazzo Pubblico, 102.
Soane Museum, John Thorpe’s drawings, 218^2, 221.
Spavento, church of San Salvatore, Venice, 150.
Spire, Gothic, far removed from anything proper to classic composition, 83.
Steeples, Wren’s, 246; are the outcome of the Renaissance spire-like towers, 82.
Strozzi, Filippo, 110.
Stucco, use in Renaissance architecture, 32, 132, 133.
Syria, St. Simeon Stylites, use of the free-standing column under the archivolts, 131 (cut); Basilica of Shakka, form of window opening reproduced in architecture of the Renaissance, 134.
Tablets, rectangular in façade surface, 74; ugly shapes of, in the façade of The Gesù, Rome, 95 (cut); of Vignola, 95 (cut).
Tatti, Jacopo. _See_ Sansovino.
Thorpe, John, his plans show a French influence, 218, 220; little is known of him, 218^2; Kirby Hall, England, 218–220 (cuts); Longford Castle, 221.
Thrust, the, of a dome, 15^1, 24, 52.
Ties, wooden used in Gothic buildings, 22^2.
Tivoli, temple of Vesta, resemblance of the Tempietto, Rome, to, 44, 45 (cut).
Todi, church of Santa Maria della Consolazione, 74–77 (cuts); the scheme is Byzantine, 74, 77; dome, 74, 75, 77; interior, 75 (cut); orders, 75–77 (cut); piers, 75, 76; exterior, 77 (cut); similarity between the sacristy of San Satiro, of Milan, and, 140; between cath. of Como and, 144.
Towers, spire-like, of the Renaissance, 81; scheme based on the Lombard Romanesque tower and the mediæval campanile, 82; of ch. of San Biagio at Montepulciano, 78, 81 (cuts); of ch. of Santo Spirito, Florence, 81, 82 (cut); Giotto’s, 82.
Triglyph, problem of the arrangement of, at the end of the frieze, 121, 122 (cuts).
Triumphal arch used as a model of Renaissance façades, 38, 39–43 (cuts).
Vanvitelli, his placing of binding chains around the dome of St. Peter’s, Rome, 62.
Variety, unmeaning, different from that which results from an active inventive spirit, 211^1.
Vasari, _Le Opere di Giorgio Vasari_ quoted, 16; cited on Brunelleschi’s account of the dome of Florence, 18^1, 22^1; cited, 33^1, 110; cited on Alberti’s work, 35, 44, 107; cited on rebuilding St. Peter’s, Rome, 47; his short-sighted admiration of St. Peter’s, 71; quoted on Michelozzi, 105, 149; cited on the Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, 106.
Vault, Gothic, why a dome cannot have the character of a, 20, 21, 56–59 (cuts).
Vaults, the nature of the construction of a circular-celled vault on Gothic principles, 56–59 (cuts); of the chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 27, 28, 56; ch. of San Spirito, Florence, 34; chapel of St. Peter Martyr, ch. of Sant’Eustorgio, Milan, 142.
Venetian Renaissance. _See_ Renaissance, Venetian.
Venice, church of The Redentore, general scheme, 100 (cut); east end, 100, 101; orders, 101; façade, 101. Church of S. Fantino, 151. Church of San Francesco della Vigna façade, 100. Church of San Giorgio Maggiore, 97; nave, 97, 98; piers, 97, 98 (cut); orders raised on pedestals, 98, 99; placed under the archivolts, 98; entablature, 98, 99, 101; façade, 99 (cut), 101. Church of Santa Maria Formosa reproduces features of St. Andrea of Mantua with details of the character of the Lombardi, 153. Church of Santa Maria dei Miracoli, 151 (cut), 156; refinement in details, 151; façade a marvel of excellence in mechanical execution, 151, 152 (cut); Lombard blind arcade recalled in decoration of the façade, 151; carving of ear of barley and flower stalks, 169 (plate); carved mask from a pilaster, 178 (cut). Church of St. Mark, piers pierced longitudinally and transversely, 150 (cut). Church of San Salvatore, 150, 151; peculiar pier supports of the barrel vaulting, 150 (cut); use of an attic as support for vaulting, 151; its system is that of the ch. of St. Mark, 151. Church of San Zaccaria, general description of interior, 149, 150; singular column of nondescript character, 150 (cut). Palaces of the grand canal, finest are those of the later mediæval period, 159. Palazzo Contarini, 161; details of façade, 161; window openings, 161 (cut); grouping of pilasters of three different proportions and magnitudes, 161 (cut). Palazzo Corner-Spinelli, 160 (plate); window openings, mediæval features, incompleted circle in the tympanum space, 160; pilasters, panelling of, 160. Palazzo Cornaro, description of the front, 124; unequal main divisions of the front overladen with heavy orders, 162. Ducal Palace, east side of the court, 154 (plate); façade described in detail, 154, 155; window openings described, 154, 155; north side of court, window openings, 155 (cut); giant’s stair, fine execution of, 156; arabesque after Roman model, 167 (cut); grotesque creatures in the relief of the Scala d’Oro, 177 (cut). Palazzo Grimani, façade, 163. Palazzo Pesaro, 163. Palazzo Valmarano, 133. Palazzo Vendramini, 161; full orders in all three stories, 161, 162; grouping of mediæval window openings, 162; balconies, 162; disproportion of topmost entablature, 162. Library of St. Mark, 121 (cut); arrangement of the metope in the frieze, 121, 122 (cuts); orders, 122; frieze and balustraded balconies, 123; free-standing column under the archivolt in the order of the upper story, 123, 130. Loggetta of the Campanile, 123. Scuola di San Marco, description of façade, 156–158 (cut); portal, described, unreason of its composition, 156 (cut); carvings, 157. Scuola di San Rocco, façade described, 158 (cut); portal, 159; window openings with mediæval features and others with pseudo-Corinthian colonnettes, 159 (cut), 160. The Zecca, form of column claimed by De l’Orme as his own invention, 205.
Verona, church of San Zeno, porch and portal, 146 (cut). Palazzo Bevilacqua, description of façade, 126, 127 (cut). Palazzo Canalla, 126. Palazzo del Consiglio, 163 (plate); presents a mediæval broletto scheme dressed out in Renaissance details, 163; in respect to its finest qualities it belongs to the Middle Ages, 163. Palazzo Pompei alla Vittoria, 126. Porta del Palio, description of façades, 125 (cut), 126.
Vicenza, Town hall portico by Palladio, 130–132 (cut); use of free-standing columns under the archivolts, 130; columns of the great orders act somewhat as buttresses, 131. Palazzo Colleone-Porta, 133. Palazzo Porta-Barbarano, 133. Palazzo Valmarano, 133. Loggia Bernarda, 133 (cut).
Vignola, _I Cinque Ordini d’Architettura_, 84, 85, 92; entablature which he calls his own invention, 85 (cut); his unclassic and incongruous combinations, 86, 95; eliminates mediæval forms, 92; tablet from, 95 (cut); great influence of his writings, 248; ch. of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, Rome, 86–89 (cuts), 92; ch. of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Assisi, 89; ch. of the Gesù, Rome, 91–95 (cuts); Palazzo Caprarola, near Viterbo, 128.
Violette-le-Duc, _S. V. Château_, 171^1, 181^1; _Entretiens sur l’Architecture_, 207^3; quoted on French architects of the Renaissance, 179^1; quoted on château of Chambord, 191; quoted on De l’Orme, 200^1; his genius more scientific than artistic, 200^1; quoted on the château of Charleval, 211, 212; errs in his reasoning in his discourse on Renaissance architecture, 211–213.
Villani, quoted, 2.
Villari, cited, 3^1.
Viterbo, Palazzo Caprarola, near Viterbo, general description of, 128–130; a source of inspiration to later architects of trans-alpine Renaissance, 130.
Vitruvius, 85; quoted on the orders, 86; taken by Palladio as his master, 96, 97; later Renaissance architects based their practice on the writings of, 119; cited on meaningless Roman ornamental designs, 170^1; notion that the Ionic order was designed after female proportions, derived from, 207^1.
Walpole, Horace, _Anecdotes of Painting_, 226; quoted on Inigo Jones, 226, 229; quoted on faults of Jones’s façade of old St. Paul’s, London, 231, 232.
Ware, Isaac, _A Complete Body of Architecture_, 248^1, 249^1; quoted on the rules of ancient architects, 248, 249.
Wenz, Paul, _Die Kuppel des Domes Santa Maria del Fiore zu Florenz_, 20^1.
Willis, his term “continuous impost” used, 188^1.
Window openings, framed by structural members without structural meaning, 116; a peculiar form of compound, sometimes called an invention of Scamozzi, 134 (cut), 143; the same form occurs in the basilica of Shakka, 134 (cut); tapering jamb shafts, 137 (cut), 142, 149; illogical scheme of, which became characteristic of Lombard and Venetian Renaissance architecture, 148 (cut); mediæval form of those in Venetian palaces, 159 (cut), 160, 162; Lower Walterstone Hall, England, illustrates Elizabethan neo-classic ornamentation, 221 (cut); château of Azay le Rideau, France, Flamboyant Gothic and neo-classic forms combined, 186 (cut); château of Charleval, France, unmeaning variation of details, 210, 211 (cut); Palazzo Bartolini, Florence, 109 (cut); Palazzo Guardagni, Florence, 107; the Quaratesi, Florence, 106; the Riccardi, Florence, mediæval in their larger features, but with tapering jamb shafts, 103; Palazzo Rucellai, Florence, 109 (cut); Ospedale Maggiore, Milan, 165 (cut); of the Certosa of Pavia, tapering jamb shafts, 137 (cut); Palazzo Cancelleria, 112 (cut); of Palazzo Farnese, Rome, framed by structural members without structural meaning, 116 (cut); Ducal Palace, Venice, east side of court, 154; north side, pseudo-Corinthian order of, 155 (cut); Palazzo Contarini, Venice, grouping of the pilasters, 161 (cut); Palazzo Corner-Spinelli, Venice, mediæval features, incomplete circle in the tympanum space, 160; Palazzo Corneri, Venice, 124 (cut); Palazzo Vendramini, Venice, grouping of, in the bays of the façade, 162; Scuola di San Rocco, Venice, with mediæval features and with pseudo-Corinthian colonnettes, 159 (cut); Palazzo Bevilacqua, Verona, 126, 127; Palazzo Branzo, Vicenza, a peculiar form of compound window, sometimes called an invention of Scamozzi, 134.
Wren, Sir Christopher, _Parentalia, or Memoir of the Family of the Wrens_, 232^3 ff.; professor of astronomy at Oxford, 233; quotations from a letter written during his visit to Paris, 233; quoted on his Sheldonian theatre, Oxford, 234; ordered to submit designs for the restoration of old St. Paul’s cathedral, London, 234; his drawings of plans for the new structure, 235–238 (cuts); building of the present structure, 239–245 (cuts); his scheme to “reconcile the Gothic to a better manner,” 238, 243, 245; he learned his art on the scaffold in close contact with the works, 239; his churches other than St. Paul’s exhibit a medley of elements from spurious Gothic to pseudo-classic in irrational combinations, 245, 246; his spires are hybrid compositions of barbaric character, 246.
Development and Character of Gothic Architecture
By CHARLES HERBERT MOORE
Second Edition, Rewritten and Enlarged. With Ten Plates in Photogravure and more than 200 Illustrations in the Text
_8vo. Cloth. $4.50, net_
The new edition embodies a large amount of fresh material gathered at first hand from the monuments. A considerable number of early Gothic buildings of great importance, hitherto little known, have been examined; and much new light has thus been thrown upon the interesting subject of the early Gothic development. A new chapter on the sources of Gothic art has been inserted; the other chapters have been rewritten and much new matter incorporated. The work is thus much improved both as an exposition of the nature and character of Gothic art, and a comparative illustration of the various pointed systems of the Middle Ages.
Many new illustrations in the text, and a considerable number of full-page plates, executed in the best manner of photographic reproduction, will be included.
THE NATION _says of the new edition_:
“The treatise has evidently been remade from beginning to end, the old material being retained only so far as it was found to meet entirely the new demands.
“As to the illustrations, they also have been minutely reconsidered, and the improvement in this respect is even more striking than in the text....
“Those who have found the first edition of Mr. Moore’s work valuable will find it still more important to possess the second.”
“We welcome Mr. Moore’s book with unalloyed satisfaction ... as of very great importance and value.... A book so comprehensive, so compact, so clear in statement, and so interesting in the treatment of its great subject is well suited not only to increase the general knowledge of Gothic architecture, but to become a text-book for special students.”--AMERICAN ARCHITECT AND BUILDING NEWS.
“It is without question the most noteworthy work upon architecture yet written in America, as well as by one of the foremost contributors to the literature of the subject which has appeared in any country....
“Mr. Moore’s book is an honor to American scholarship and investigation, and deserves the widest circulation among readers who possess any interest in what he succeeds in making a most interesting subject.”--BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER.
“While the more appreciative readers of this volume will be found among students of architecture, no reader of taste or culture will find its pages without interest.”--THE TRANSCRIPT, BOSTON.
“A very intelligent and sufficiently lucid discussion of fundamental principles ... distinguished by a clear, logical precision of statement, and by a boldness, and not unfrequently by an originality of deduction, such as cannot be found in the works of European scholars ... lucid enough to commend themselves even to readers unfamiliar with the technical side of the subject. To such readers, also, the orderly development of the argument, the frequent, graphic illustrations, ... and above all, the exhaustive index, cannot fail to serve at once as an invitation to enter upon a charming field of study, and an inducement to stay until the last words are said.”--THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
64–66 Fifth Avenue, New York
European Architecture
A HISTORICAL STUDY
BY RUSSELL STURGIS, A.M., Ph.D., F.A.I.A.
_President of the Fine Arts Federation of New York; Post-President of the Architectural League of New York; Vice-President of the National Sculpture Society; etc._
8vo. Illustrated. $4.00
OUTLOOK
“To the literature of architecture no American is better qualified to make a contribution of lasting value than Mr. Russell Sturgis.”
THE ARCHITECTS’ AND BUILDERS’ REVIEW
“Mr. Sturgis tells his readers exactly what the purpose of his book is, and raises no expectations that are not fully realized.... It cannot be too widely known or too carefully studied.... Nothing Mr. Sturgis can say on the subject of architecture can fail to be interesting and instructive.... It is not too much to say that this single work forms the best introduction to the serious study of European architecture ever published.”
THE INDEPENDENT
“In Mr. Sturgis’s ‘European Architecture’ rare good taste, simple truth, and great knowledge combine to satisfy eye and mind.”
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
64–66 Fifth Avenue, New York
A DICTIONARY OF ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING
Biographical, Historical, and Descriptive
By RUSSELL STURGIS, A.M., Ph.D.
_Fellow of the American Institute of Architects_
And many Architects, Painters, Engineers, and other expert Writers, American and Foreign
IN THREE OCTAVO VOLUMES--SOLD ONLY BY SUBSCRIPTION
Cloth, $18.00 net per set Half morocco, $30.00 net per set
_COMMENTS OF THE PRESS_
“Ambitious in scope and ample in bulk, the present work bids for wide acceptance among the general as well as the technical public. It is practically the only considerable effort to supply encroaching demands for a compendium which shall be at once convenient as to form and complete in the matter of contents. The aim of its compilers has evidently been to strike an average between that which is popular and that which is for the specialist, and in this they have shown sagacity. Edited under the direct supervision of Mr. Russell Sturgis,--who has contributed a momentous proportion of the material,--the work has enlisted the services of some sixty current authorities.”--CRITIC.
“Mr. Russell Sturgis is the editor of this important work, and has had the coöperation of such men as Dr. Cleveland Abbe, Edward Atkinson, E. H. Blashfield, Henry Van Brunt, ... and others, each of them eminent in some department of knowledge rendering his aid valuable. It is somewhat remarkable that there is in English no other dictionary of architecture, excepting a work in eight volumes said to have been begun about 1850 and to have been completed only ten years ago. There is room, therefore, for a modern, scholarly, and reasonably complete work of this class.
“The present volume, the first of the three proposed, covers the letters A to E, inclusive. It is comprehensive, concise, although sufficiently full, untechnical, and easily used. The desirable line between too scrupulous terseness and too much elaboration of definition or description has been drawn ordinarily with great success. There is no hesitation to give space for desirable comment, as in what is written under ‘Builder,’ for instance, but brevity has been kept in view throughout the work, and its cross-references facilitate its use. The titles are in heavy type and at once catch the eye. Illustrations, numerous and appropriate, some of full-page size, abound, and all in all the work will meet very satisfactorily a real and important public need.”--CONGREGATIONALIST.
“Thanks to Mr. Russell Sturgis and a corps of competent assistants, we now have in ‘A Dictionary of Architecture and Building: Biographical, Historical, and Descriptive’ a much more valuable work than could have been hoped for.... Several things are at once noticeable about this work--the terseness and lucidity of its articles and definitions; the extraordinary range of its subjects, from the arch of Septimius Severus to modern apartment houses and tenements, and from St. Paul’s, London, and the Doge’s palace in Venice, to a crib for hay such as one finds in rural England, and a peasant’s hut in Asia Minor; the beauty of the illustrations, and particularly the readiness with which they elucidate the accompanying definitions and accounts; and the elaborate system of cross-references, through which a glance at an article on any phase of a given subject points the way at once to accounts of other related terms and their uses.
“Perhaps the thoroughly modern spirit which dominates and inspires the whole work is the feature that distinguishes this book most strongly from the works in other languages which the seeker for definitions hitherto has perforce consulted. The writers of these articles are scholarly men, but they are something more than scholars. They are not living in the past; they are doing their work in the world to-day, and their point of view and their tone is a most satisfactory and practical mixture of culture with the recognition of the needs of the average American. An important feature of this work will be the series of articles on the typical architecture of different countries. Some of those in the present volume deal with the architectures of Australia, Denmark, and England, while, to judge from cross-references, the one in the final volume on the architecture of the United States will be ambitious, elaborate, and inclusive. The connection of this work with modern building is shown by the two long articles on the ‘Apartment House’ and ‘Electrical Appliances.’ Modern edifices are as seriously considered as the ancient monuments described and pictured by Viollet-le-Duc.... Now that it has appeared, this dictionary, many of whose articles extend to the dimensions of those in encyclopædias, becomes indispensable in its field.”--BOSTON HERALD.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64–66 Fifth Avenue, New York
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Cronica di Giovanni Villani_, bk. 6, chap. 69.
[2] Cf. Introduction to Villari’s _Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times_, London, 1878.
[3] Cf. Montalembert, _Les Moines d’Occident_, vol. 2, p. 488 _et seq._
[4] Cf. my _Development and Character of Gothic Architecture_, pp. 304–306.
[5] The Gothic of northern France of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, the only true Gothic art, is here meant.
[6] The Viscount Delaborde, in his book _La Gravure en Italie avant Marc-Antoine_, Paris, 1883, p. 32, remarks on this with admirable discrimination as follows: “Certes, sous le pinceau de Botticelli, de pareils sujets [subjects drawn from Classical Mythology] gardent un caractère d’élégance tendre et de mélancolie presque analogue à la physionomie des scènes où figurent l’Enfant-Dieu et la Madone. Il y a loin de cette manière d’interpréter la Fable aux panégyriques violemment ou galamment licencieux que les hôtes les plus mal famés de l’Olympe obtiendront dans les siècles suivants; il y a loin des gracieuses inventions de Botticelli aux _lascivie_ brutales de Jules Romain et d’Augustin Carrache ou aux gamineries mythologiques de Boucher et de ses pareils, et l’on a quelque peine aujourd’hui, en face d’aussi chastes tableaux, à comprendre la véhémence des reproches fulminés jadis par Savonarole.”
[7] The elevated domes of Arabian architecture are in many cases constructed of wood and stucco. When of masonry they are, I believe, either weighted within where the thrusts fall, or are bound with chains.
[8] I have not examined the dome of Pisa closely on the spot, but I suppose it is bound with a chain, as we know was the custom at a later time. Cf. Fontana, vol. 2, P. 363.
[9] There can be little doubt that the dome represented in this fresco embodies the original project of Arnolfo, though this has been questioned. Cf. Guasti, _Santa Maria del Fiore_, etc., Florence, 1887, pp. lx-lxi.
[10] This needs to be qualified. The thrusts of the dome being continuous logically call for continuous abutment, as in the Pantheon, but the intervals between the abutting members are so small that the resistance is practically continuous.
[11] By its architectural character, I mean its character as a work of art. By the term “architecture” we properly mean not building merely, but the fine art of beautiful building.
[12] This has been based on the affirmations of Vasari, who states that it was Brunelleschi’s purpose to “restore to light the good [_i.e._ the ancient Roman] manner in architecture,” and that he had “pondered on the difficulties” involved in vaulting the Pantheon. Cf. _Le Opere di Giorgio Vasari_, Milanesi edition, Florence, 1880, vol. 2, p. 337.
[13] A copy of this document is said to have been preserved for some time in the archives of the Board of Works, but it seems to have disappeared subsequently. It is given, however, by several writers, Vasari and Guasti among them. There are slight differences of wording and of measurements between the transcripts of these two authors. That of Guasti is the most intelligible, and seems to agree best with the monument. It reads as follows: “In prima: la cupola, dallo lato di dentro lunga a misura di quinto acuto, negli angoli sia grossa nella mossa da piè braccia 3¾, e piramidalmente si muri; sicchè nella fine, congiunta con l’occhio di sopra, che ha a essere fondamento e basa della lanterna, rimanga grossa braccia 2½. Facciasi un’altra cupola di fuori sopra questa, per conservarla dallo umido, e perchè la torni più magnifica e gonfiata; e sia grossa nella sua mossa da piè braccia 1¼, e piramidalmente segua, che insino all’occhio rimanga braccia ⅔.
“El vano che rimarrà da l’una cupola all’altra, sia da piè braccia 2: nel quale vano si metta le scale per potere cercare tutto tra l’una cupola e l’altra; e finisca ’l detto vano a l’occhio di sopra braccia 2⅓.
“Sieno fatti ventiquattro sproni, che otto ne sieno negli angoli e sedici nelle faccie: ciascuno sprone negli angoli grosso dappiè braccia sette. Dalla parte di dentro, e di fuori, nel mezzo di detti angoli, in ciascuna faccia, sia due sproni; ciascuno grosso dappiè braccia quattro; e lunghe insieme le dette due volte, piramidalmente murate insieme insino alla sommità dell’occhio inchiuso dalla lanterna, per iguale proporzione.
“I detti ventiquattro sproni con le dette cupole sieno cinti intorno di sei cerchi di forti macigni, e lunghi, e bene sprangati di ferro stagnato; e di sopra a detti macigni, catene di ferro che cingano d’intorno la detta volta, co’ loro sproni. Hassi a murare di sodo, nel principio braccia 5¼ per altezza; e poi seguano gli sproni, e dividansi le volte.
“El primo e secondo cerchio, alto braccia 2; e ’l terzo e quarto, alto braccia 1⅓; e ’l quinto e sesto cerchio, alto braccia 1: ma ’l primo circhio dappiè sia, oltre a ciò, afforzato con macigni lunghi per lo traverso, si che l’una volta e l’altra della cupola si posi in su detti macigni.
“E nell’altezza d’ogni braccia 12, o circa, delle dette volte, sieno volticciuole a botte tra l’uno sprone e l’altro, per andito alla detta cupola; e sotto le dette volticciuole, tra l’uno sprone e l’altro, sieno catene di quercia grosse, che leghino i detti sproni e cingano la volta dentro; e in su detti quercie una catena di ferro.
“Gli sproni murati tutti di pietra di macigno e pietra forte, e le facce della cupola tutte di pietra forte, legate con sprone insino all’altezza di braccia 24: e da indi in su si muri di mattoni o di spugna, secondo che si delibererà per chi allora l’avrà a fare, più leggieri che pietra.
“ ... Murinsi la cupola nel modo di sopra, senz’ alcuna armadura, massime insino a braccia 30; ma da indi in su, in quel modo che sarà consigliato e deliberato per quei maestri che l’avranno a murare: perchè nel murare la pratica insegna quello che si ha da seguire.”--Guasti, _La Cupola di Santa Maria del Fiore_, Florence, 1857, pp. 28–30.
[14] Durm, _Die Dom Kuppel in Florenz_, etc., Berlin, 1887, Plate I, gives an admirable illustration of the internal system of this remarkable dome, and shows the masonry of the solid base with its clamps and chains, as described in the document quoted by Guasti (note, p. 18).
[15] This idea finds expression in the latest work that I have seen on the subject: _Die Kuppel des Domes Santa Maria del Fiore zu Florence_. Von Paul Wenz, Berlin, 1901, p. 52; also in Durm, _Die Baukunst der Renaissance in Italien_, p. 406.
[16] For a full account of the deliberations held, as well as for much else of importance relating to the building of this dome, see Professor C. E. Norton’s _Church Building in the Middle Ages_, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1880.
[17] But while Brunelleschi appears to have had great natural constructive aptitude, he had not had a sound training or experience in construction. Such training would have taught him that it would not do, under any circumstances, to spring a vault from the top of a wall, and he ought to have learned this from his study of the ancient Roman monuments.
[18] Nelli, _Discorsi di Architettura_, Florence, 1753, p. 74, reproduces an old drawing which purports to show the form of the scaffolding that Brunelleschi employed. This drawing bears the following inscription: “Questa Dimostrazione è di Filippo Brunelleschi Architetto fatta per e Ponti della Cupola di S. M’ra. del Fiore di Firenze nell’Anno M.CCCCXIX e fu quella che mostrò quando fu lasciato in libertà di dover esser solo nell’operazione di d.^a cupola senza il Ghiberti suo compagno non avendola voluta dar fuori prima di non essere libero Architetto di d^a Opera; come sentiranno nella sua Vita scritta da Diversi.” Brunelleschi, in his account of his intentions before the Board of Works (note, p. 19), would not explain his scheme for the scaffolding. He said merely that the vault was to be raised, without centring, to the height of 30 braccia, and from that level upwards, in the manner that should be advised by those who might then have the work in charge.
[19] In his explanation of his scheme before the Board of Works, as given by Vasari, Brunelleschi begins as follows: “Considerato le difficultà di questa fabbrica, magnifici Signori Operaj, trovo che non si può per nessun modo volgerla tonda perfetta, atteso che sarebbe tanto grande il piano di sopra, dove va la lanterna, che mettendovi peso rovinerebbe presto.” _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 347.
[20] It may be thought that this would condemn the use of metal clamps in masonry, such as were inserted in the walls of the Parthenon, or the wooden ties that were, in some cases, used in parts of Gothic buildings. But there is a wide difference between such use of clamps and ties, and the binding chains of the great domes of the Renaissance. In the Greek and Gothic work the masonry forms are favourable to stability independently of the clamps and ties. These were inserted either for security against unusual dangers, as from earthquakes, or for temporary security against rupture while the work was in progress, before the interaction of the parts of the system was fully established; but a dome without abutment violates the constant conditions of stability.
[21] _Discrizione e Studj dell’Insigne Fabbrica di S. Maria del Fiore_, Florence, 1733, p. xxi.
[22] _Memorie degli Architette_, etc., Florence, 1785, vol. 1, p. 190.
[23] Fontana, Nelli, Cecchini, and others.
[24] These ruptures were first observed in the year 1693 (Nelli, _op. cit._, p. 13), and it was then advised by the architect Carlo Fontana to add a new chain of iron. Nelli, however, argued that the fissures had not arisen from thrust, but were due to a slight yielding of the foundations, and he urged that no chain be added, but that a bit of marble be dove-tailed into the vault across the opening, in order that any further movement might be detected by the breaking of this marble. For three years no further sign of disturbance was noticed, but a slight earthquake in 1697 broke a portion of the masonry of the outer face of the dome opposite the fissure across which the marble had been placed. It appears, however, to have been concluded that there was still no danger from thrust, and no new chain was inserted. Cecchini (_Opinione intorno lo Stato della gran Cupola del Duomo di Firenze_, published together with Nelli’s _Discorsi_, etc., p. 82) speaks of several cracks in both the inner and the outer shells of the vault, and also in the supporting piers, even down to the ground. But he agrees with Nelli in attributing these to movements of the foundations from which he concludes that no further danger is to be apprehended, and he affirms that the structure is entirely safe.
[25] Cf. Nelli, _op. cit._, p. 73.
[26] The thrusts of a hemispherical dome are, in some degree, restrained by the binding of its continuous courses of masonry under compression, but this is not enough for security, as experience has shown; and in a polygonal dome, like Brunelleschi’s, there is no such binding force, because there are no continuous circles of masonry.
[27] The term “Byzantine” is often applied loosely to buildings in which only the ornamental details have a Byzantine character. But the primary and distinguishing structural feature of Byzantine architecture is the dome on pendentives. The Byzantine features of the Pazzi are involved with others derived from different systems, but they are very distinct. The central vault, though of Gothic form, is supported on pendentives, and the true dome on pendentives occurs, as we have seen, in the sanctuary and the porch.
[28] The entablature does, however, occur under vaulting in some provincial Roman buildings, as in the Pantheon of Baalbek, where it forms the wall cornice from which the vaulting springs. But this, though not defensible, is less objectionable than the Renaissance scheme of an entablature passing through the imposts of archivolts.
[29] As in the arch of the apse of St. Paul outside the wall at Rome, and in the Baptistery of Florence.
[30] The character of these details will be discussed in the chapter on the carved ornament of the Renaissance.
[31] Cf. Vasari, _Opere_, vol. 2, p. 368 _et seq._, and Milanesi’s foot-note, p. 370.
[32] _Op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 200.
[33] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 541.
[34] _Op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 201.
[35] _Op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 201.
[36] Vasari, _op. cit._, vol. 4, p. 152, and Milizia, vol. 1, p. 214.
[37] Figures 21 and 22 are taken from Serlio, _D’Architettura_,