CHARACTER OF
RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE
[Illustration]
CHARACTER OF
RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE
BY
CHARLES HERBERT MOORE
AUTHOR OF “DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE”
_WITH TWELVE PLATES IN PHOTOGRAVURE AND ONE HUNDRED
AND THIRTY-NINE ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT_
New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.
1905
_All rights reserved_
COPYRIGHT, 1905,
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Set up and electrotyped. Published October, 1905.
Norwood Press
J. S. Cushing & Co.--Berwick & Smith Co.
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.
TO MY DAUGHTER
E. H. M.
PREFACE
In the following attempt to set forth the true character of the
architecture of the Renaissance I have endeavoured to reduce
mere descriptions of buildings to a minimum, and to give graphic
illustrations enough to make the discussions clear. The illustrations
in the text are mainly from my own drawings, for the most part from
photographs: but in a few cases I have reproduced woodcuts from the
works of old writers, indicating, in each case, the source from which
the cut is derived. The photogravure plates are from photographs by
Alinari, Moscioni, Naya, Wilson, and Valentine. The right to reproduce
and publish them has been obtained by purchase.
With the best intentions and the greatest care, it is almost inevitable
that a writer on such a subject should make some mistakes, and I cannot
affirm that no inexact statements will be found in these pages, but I
believe that no fundamental errors occur.
I am again indebted to my almost life-long friend, Professor Charles
Eliot Norton, for valuable criticism, and painstaking revision; but
Professor Norton is not responsible for anything that I have said. I am
indebted, also, to my publishers for their courteous compliance with my
wishes as to the style and manufacture of the book, and to Mrs. Grace
Walden for the care and thoroughness with which she has prepared the
index.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.,
October, 1905.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
PAGE
Character of the Fine Arts of the Renaissance not hitherto
correctly set forth--The Fine Arts always an expression of
the conditions and beliefs of a people--Mediæval Christianity
as a source of artistic inspiration--Conditions that gave
character to the Fine Arts of the Middle Ages--Artistic
productions of the Renaissance qualified by the immoral
tendencies of the time--Luxury and extravagance of Florence
at the close of the fifteenth century--The Fine Arts made to
minister to sensuous pleasure--Best classic art unknown in
the Renaissance time--Mixed influences actuating the artist
of the Renaissance--The Renaissance and the Middle Ages
compared as to development of the individual--Lack of aptitude
for construction among the architects of the Renaissance--The
Italian genius for painting--The painter’s habits of design
shown in the Renaissance use of the orders--Classification of
architectural styles--Painting the best art of the
Renaissance--Yet Italian painting of the sixteenth century
is not all of exemplary character--Best art of the Renaissance
founded on the earlier Christian art--A retrospective movement
not a vital force in artistic development 1
CHAPTER II
THE DOME OF FLORENCE
Exhibits a wide departure from older dome constructions--Sources
of the architect’s inspiration--General character of earlier
domes--Remarkable construction of the dome of the Florentine
Baptistery--It probably supplied the chief inspiration to both
Arnolfo and Brunelleschi--Brunelleschi’s departures from the
Baptistery scheme--His structural system and his own account of
it--No Gothic character possible in a dome--The dome of Florence
a daring innovation--Its general dimensions--Brunelleschi’s
great ability as a constructor--His achievement of the work
without the usual centring--Consideration of the dome as a work
of art--The inherent weakness of its form--This not appreciated
by the early Italian writers--Precautions taken for its
stability--Signs of disintegration--Uncertainty as to its
duration--Opinions of the early Italian writers as to its
security--Structural integrity essential to good
architecture--No classic character in Brunelleschi’s
dome--Inferior character of the classic details of the lantern 10
CHAPTER III
CHURCH ARCHITECTURE OF THE FLORENTINE RENAISSANCE
The Pazzi chapel--Gothic character of its central
vault--Architectural treatment of the interior--Impropriety of
a classic order in such a building--Awkward result of an
entablature passing through an arch impost--Incongruities of
design and construction in the portico--Use of stucco--Sources
from which the façade may have been derived--Other church
architecture by Brunelleschi--San Lorenzo and Santo
Spirito--Use of the entablature block in these
churches--Survival of mediæval features and adjustments--Church
architecture of Leon Batista Alberti--The façade of Santa Maria
Novella--The façade of San Francesco of Rimini--The church of
Sant’ Andrea of Mantua--Return to Roman models in the
structural forms of this building--Sant’ Andrea foreshadows St.
Peter’s at Rome--Its west front an adaptation of the Roman
triumphal arch scheme--Such fronts peculiar to Alberti--The
designers of the Renaissance worked unconsciously on a
foundation of mediæval ideas 26
CHAPTER IV
THE DOME OF ST. PETER’S
Bramante in Rome--His early training--Character of the
Tempietto of San Pietro in Montorio--Its likeness to a Roman
temple of Vesta--Bramante’s project for St. Peter’s--Uncertainty
as to his scheme for the whole building--His design for the
great dome--Sources of his inspiration--Comparison of his dome
with that of the Pantheon--Structural merits and defects--The
architect’s probable intention to use a great order for the
interior of the church--Michael Angelo’s appointment as
architect--His scheme for the great dome--Its statical
defects--Its supposed Gothic character--Comparison with the
dome of Salamanca--Its illogical buttress system--Its ruptures
and the alarm which they occasioned--Commission appointed to
examine the fabric and report on its condition--Poleni’s
opinion and his binding chains--The grandiose character of the
dome--In following Brunelleschi, Michael Angelo went farther in
a wrong direction--Such a scheme cannot be safely carried out
without resort to extraneous means of support--The proper mode
of constructing a dome settled by the ancient Roman and the
Byzantine builders--Condition of the dome ignored by recent
writers--The ruptures attributed by the early Italian writers
to carelessness on the part of Bramante--The beauty of the
dome exaggerated--Its violation of structural propriety
incompatible with the highest architectural beauty 44
CHAPTER V
CHURCH ARCHITECTURE OF THE ROMAN RENAISSANCE
Other parts of the church of St. Peter--Beauty of its
plan--This plan could not be carried out with a good result in
classic Roman details--Awkward makeshifts to which Michael
Angelo was led--The colossal order of the interior--The
magnitude of the structural parts of the church unavoidable--The
real character of the building contradicted by the external
order--Makeshifts which this order necessitated--The real
character of St. Peter’s has been rarely analyzed--Its grandeur
due to its magnitude and to what it derives from the design of
Bramante--Its incongruity and extravagance--Use of stucco in
the ornamentation of the interior--Extravagant laudation of the
building by the earlier Italian writers--Antonio San Gallo’s
project for St. Peter’s--Earlier examples of Roman Renaissance
church architecture--Sant’ Agostino a mediæval building with
Renaissance details--Its façade--Santa Maria della Consolazione
at Todi--Its attribution to Bramante--Irrational treatment of
its interior--Merit of the exterior in its larger features--San
Biagio at Montepulciano--The order of the interior--The
Renaissance use of a pilaster coupled with a column on the corner
of a building--Roman treatment of the corner--Instance of the use
of a corner pilaster described by Serlio--The exterior of San
Biagio--Its campanile and lantern--The evolution of this form of
tower--System of Santissima Annunziatta at Arezzo--Vignola, and
Milizia’s remarks on him--His book of architecture--His advocacy
of ancient Roman art and his disregard in practice of its
principles--His design for Sant’ Andrea di Ponte Molle--Its
derivation from the Pantheon--Vignola’s design for the church of
Santa Maria degli Angeli at Assisi--His design for the Gesù at
Rome--Aberrations of design in this work--The façade by Della
Porta--Palladio, and his great influence on modern art--His
book of architecture--His design for the church of San Giorgio
Maggiore at Venice--The Redentore and San Francesco della
Vigna 66
CHAPTER VI
PALACE ARCHITECTURE OF THE FLORENTINE RENAISSANCE
The neo-classic ideas most extensively carried out in palatial
houses--Domestic architecture of the Middle Ages in Italy--The
Palazzo Riccardi--Its mediæval features--Its general form--Its
court arcades--General character of the interior--Vasari’s
remarks on the Riccardi--The Palazzo Pitti--The Strozzino--The
Strozzi--The Pazzi--The Quaratesi--The Guardagni and its
reasonable character--The Rucellai--Introduction of orders in
the façade of the Rucellai--The architect Alberti--His
archæological and literary tastes--Alberti’s initiative in the
use of the orders not immediately followed--Further neo-classic
innovations introduced by Baccio d’Agnolo--Milizia’s remarks on
these innovations--Increase in the spirit of display in
domestic architecture--Decline of Florentine ascendency by the
beginning of the sixteenth century--Artistic activities
transferred to Rome--Erection of sumptuous palatial houses in
Rome 102
CHAPTER VII
PALACE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ROMAN RENAISSANCE
The Cancellaria--Its attribution to Bramante--Exhibits features
in further conformity with the Roman antique--Its pilasters in
pairs--Its projecting bays--Its portals--Arcades of its
court--The Palazzo Massimi--The functional order of its
portico--Treatment of the upper façade--The Palazzo
Farnese--Application of orders and pediments to the
windows--The broken entablatures of these windows--An ancient
example of similar treatment--Orders of the court--Awkward
result in the angles--Rhythmical scheme of the cloister of
Santa Maria della Pace--Lack of reason for this scheme--The
architect Sansovino--His design for the Library of St. Mark
at Venice--Treatment of the angles of the Doric
order--Free-standing column in the order of the upper
story--Sansovino’s design for the Loggetta of the
Campanile--His design for the Palazzo Cornaro--Sanmichele--His
design for the Porta del Palio at Verona--His design for the
Palazzo Canossa--The Palazzo Pompei alla Vittoria--The Palazzo
Bevilacqua--Its singular aberrations of design--Vignola’s
design for the Palazzo Caprarola--Influence of its circular
court on De l’Orme and Inigo Jones--The civic and domestic
architecture of Palladio--The Portico of Vicenza--Its derivation
from the town hall of Padua and from the Library of St.
Mark--Syrian instance of the free-standing column in connection
with the arch--Palladio’s own estimate of the merits of this
design--Use of poor materials by Palladio--His versatility in
meaningless composition--His palace fronts--Palladio a
grammatical formalist--The art of Scamozzi--His use of an
entablature broken by an arch 112
CHAPTER VIII
CHURCH ARCHITECTURE OF THE RENAISSANCE IN NORTH ITALY
Various other phases of the architecture of the
Renaissance--The façade of San Bernardino of Perugia--The
façade of the Certosa of Pavia--Its combination of local
mediæval and distorted neo-classic features--The church and
sacristy of San Satiro--Evidence that both were designed by
Bramante--Santa Maria delle Grazie--Its dome--Architectural
treatment of its exterior--Its attribution to Bramante--The
chapel of St. Peter Martyr attributed to Michelozzi--The
Monastero Maggiore--The cathedral of Como--Evidence of
Bramante’s hand in the east end--Its details of mediæval
Lombard character mixed with neo-classic elements--The south
portal--The windows of the nave--Architecture of the Venetian
Renaissance--The church of San Zaccaria--Peculiar column of its
interior--The church of San Salvatore--Its piers--Attic of the
interior--The church of Santa Maria dei Miracoli--Architectural
treatment of its exterior--Excellence of its mechanical
execution--The façade of Santa Maria Formosa 135
CHAPTER IX
PALACE ARCHITECTURE OF THE RENAISSANCE IN NORTH ITALY
Marked local character of the palace architecture of
Venice--Façade of east side of court of the Ducal
Palace--Irregularities of its composition--North side of the
same court--The Giant’s stair--Façade of the Scuola di San
Marco--Composition of the main portal--Notable refinements of
execution in this portal--Façade of the Scuola di San
Rocco--Unique architectural character of the palaces of the
Grand Canal--Those of the mediæval period alone have the
distinctive Venetian character--Neo-classic details used
sparingly in the early Renaissance palaces of Venice--The
Palazzo Corner-Spinelli--Disposition and character of its
windows--Questionable propriety of the panelling of its
pilasters--The beauty of the façade independent of its
neo-classic details--The Palazzo Contarini--The varied
proportions of its pilasters--The Palazzo Vendramini--The
distinctive Venetian character altered by the application of
complete orders--This character largely lost in the palaces
of the Roman Renaissance--The Palazzo del Consiglio of
Verona--Its mediæval scheme--The Palazzo Comunale of
Brescia--The Ospedale Maggiore of Milan--Its lack of distinctive
character--The later palace architecture of north Italy 154
CHAPTER X
ARCHITECTURAL CARVING OF THE RENAISSANCE
Little architectural character in the sculpture of the
Renaissance--Close imitation of Roman models--Great delicacy
of design and execution in much carving of the
Renaissance--Lack of vital beauty in this carving--Comparison
with Greek conventional ornamentation--Exceptional beauty of
foliation in the reliefs of the Lombardi--Lifeless character
of the scroll leafage of Filarete--Artificial convolutions of
Renaissance ornamental designs--Artificial and inorganic
composition in the works of Benedetto da Maiano--Representation
of artificial objects in Renaissance ornamentation--Disordered
composition in the borders of the Ghiberti gates--Comparison of
Greek leafage with that of the Renaissance--The grotesque in
Renaissance ornamentation 167
CHAPTER XI
ARCHITECTURE OF THE EARLY RENAISSANCE IN FRANCE
The Renaissance had not the same meaning north of the Alps that
it had in Italy--A fundamental change in French architecture
effected by the Renaissance influence--Survival of the Gothic
style--Conditions which favoured the change from Mediæval to
Renaissance forms--The transformation of the feudal castle into
the Renaissance château--Factitious character of the French
Renaissance château--Peculiar mixture of pseudo-Gothic and
neo-classic details in early French Renaissance
architecture--The château of Azay le Rideau--Survival in this
building of the larger mediæval forms--Its ornamental portal
based on that of Châteaudun--Analysis of this portal--A
different manifestation of Flamboyant ideas in the portal of
Chenonceaux--The château of La Rochefoucauld--The eastern wing
of Blois--The staircase tower of the court--The garden side of
the eastern wing--The château of Chambord--Its florid upper
part--Fontainebleau--Écouen--Bullant’s portico--Exceptional
character of the château of St. Germain en Laye--Further
transformation of French architecture in the later sixteenth
century 179
CHAPTER XII
LESCOT AND DE L’ORME
French architecture further changed by Lescot and De l’Orme,
yet still without elimination of native
characteristics--Lescot’s design for the Fountain of the
Nymphs--The sculptures by Goujon--Possible derivation of the
design from a drawing by Serlio--Lescot’s design for the
Louvre--Capricious treatment of neo-classic details in this
design--The traditional logic of French design ignored by
Lescot--Excessive ornamentation of the Louvre--The
architectural work of De l’Orme--Paucity of extant examples--His
design for the palace of the Tuileries--De l’Orme’s column--His
claim that this column was his own invention--Earlier instances
of the same--A conscious effort to be original gave rise to
most of the artistic aberrations of the Renaissance--Noble
architecture not a personal, but a communal and national,
product--Analysis of the façade of the Tuileries--De l’Orme’s
other architectural aberrations--The château of Charleval--The
freakish character of this design--Discussion of Viollet le
Duc’s comments on it--The church architecture of the French
Renaissance--The church of St. Eustache--Its unmodified Gothic
structural system--Its neo-classic details--St. Étienne du
Mont--SS. Gervais and Protais at Gisors--The apse of St. Pierre
of Caen--The Portal of St. Maclou at Pontoise 194
CHAPTER XIII
ARCHITECTURE OF THE RENAISSANCE IN ENGLAND
I. _Elizabethan Art_
Derivation of the Elizabethan domestic architecture from the
native mediæval art--The reasonable character of the early
Elizabethan house in its integrity--The ostentatious character
and pseudo-classicism of the great English houses of the
sixteenth century--Use of flimsy materials in ornamental
details--General excellence of construction in the main body of
the building--Employment of foreign craftsmen in
ornamentation--Kirby Hall--Its lack of native English
character--Peculiar aberrations in the use of structural forms
without structural functions--Fantastic ornamentation of the
gables--Longford Castle--Its resemblance to Chambord--Manifold
forms of capricious design in Lower Walterstone Hall, Cranborne
Manor-House, Tixall, Stanway, and other buildings--Fantastic
composition of the gate at Caius College, Cambridge--Aberrations
of design in Wollaton Hall--Ungrammatical and tasteless misuse
of distorted classic elements in Elizabethan architecture
largely due to Flemish and Dutch workmen--No professional
architects in Elizabethan times--The classic orders foreign to
the genius and the needs of the English people 216
CHAPTER XIV
ARCHITECTURE OF THE RENAISSANCE IN ENGLAND
II. _Jones and Wren_
The architecture of England in the seventeenth century
properly called Renaissance only by extension of the term--Jones
and Wren the only architects of importance at this
time--Walpole’s extravagant estimate of Inigo Jones--The early
career of Jones--His design for the Banqueting Hall of the
palace of Whitehall--Its lack of English character--Analysis of
the design--Kent’s exaggerated estimate of Jones’s genius--The
scheme for the whole palace--Jones’s design for the façade of
old St. Paul’s--Thoughtless laudation of the art of Inigo
Jones--Sir Christopher Wren--Artistic notions of the English
dilettanti in the seventeenth century--Wren’s architectural
training--His visit to France--The Sheldonian Theatre--Wren’s
project for repairs of old St. Paul’s--His commission to
rebuild--His first scheme for the new edifice--Sources of
inspiration for the great dome--Rejection of the first
scheme--The so-called warrant design--The existing edifice--The
structural system of the dome--Character of the interior of the
church--The masking of the buttress system--Wren’s city
churches 226
CHAPTER XV
CONCLUSION
The architecture of the Renaissance not based on consistent
principles--Incorrectness of the notion that the Renaissance
aberrations in the use of the orders was but a free adaptation
of the old elements to new conditions--The ancient
architectural forms do not lend themselves to new
conditions--Adaptation involves creative changes which wholly
transform original elements--Influence of the writings of
Vignola and Palladio in recent times--Modern recognition of the
arbitrary character of the rules of the formalists--Genuine
works of art not produced from rules--A juster sense of the real
character of the architecture of the Renaissance shown by a few
recent writers 247
ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
1. Hagia Theotokos. From Dehio and Bezold 11
2. Aachen. From Dehio and Bezold 11
3. Dome of Pisa 12
4. Dome of Arnolfo 13
5. Section of the Baptistery of Florence 14
6. Dissection of the vault of the Baptistery 15
7. System of the dome of Florence 17
8. Section of the dome of Florence. From Sgrilli 18
9. Part plan of the dome of Florence. From Sgrilli 18
10. Plan of the chapel of the Pazzi 26
11. Section of the vault of the Pazzi chapel 27
12. Interior of the Pazzi chapel 28
13. Façade of the Pazzi chapel 30
14. Badia of Fiesole 32
15. Impost of San Lorenzo 33
16. Crossing pier of San Lorenzo 34
17. Façade of Santa Maria Novella 36
18. Plan of Sant’ Andrea, Mantua 39
19. Façade of Sant’ Andrea, Mantua 40
20. Arch of Septimius Severus 41
21. Temple of Vesta, Tivoli. From Serlio 45
22. San Pietro in Montorio. From Serlio 46
23. Bramante’s dome for St. Peter’s. From Serlio 48
24. Section of the Pantheon. From Fontana 50
25. Plan of Bramante’s dome. From Serlio 51
26. Michael Angelo’s model for the dome of St. Peter’s 54
27. Diagrams of vault construction 56
28. Interior of dome of Salamanca 57
29. Diagrams of vault construction 58
30. Dome of St. Peter’s. From the Report of the Mathematicians 61
31. Plan of St. Peter’s. From Fontana 67
32. Section of aisle of St. Peter’s. From Fontana and
Letarouilly 69
33. Pier of Sant’ Agostino 72
34. Façade of Sant’ Agostino 73
35. Exterior of Todi 75
36. Interior of Todi 76
37. Plan of San Biagio 77
38. Interior of San Biagio 78
39. Arcade. From Serlio 79
40. Exterior of San Biagio 80
41. Tower of Santo Spirito 82
42. Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo 83
43. Vignola’s entablature. From Vignola 85
44. Half plan of Sant’ Andrea. From Vignola 86
45. Section of Sant’ Andrea. From Vignola 87
46. Sant’ Andrea 88
47. Order of Santa Maria degli Angeli 90
48. Plan of the Gesù. From Vignola 91
49. Façade of the Gesù. From Vignola 93
50. Façade of the Gesù, Della Porta. From Vignola 94
51. Pediment of Baalbek 95
52. Tablet from Vignola 96
53. Orders of San Giorgio 98
54. Façade of San Giorgio 99
55. The Redentore 100
56. Window-head of the Mozzi, Florence 103
57. Window-head of Perugia 103
58. Court of the Riccardi 105
59. Façade of the Rucellai 108
60. Window of the Bartolini 110
61. Façade of the Cancelleria 113
62. Portico of the Massini 115
63. Window of the Farnese 117
64. Portal. From Serlio 118
65. Part of façade of the Library of St. Mark 120
66. Corner of the Parthenon 121
67. Roman corner. From Serlio 122
68. Corner of Library of St. Mark 123
69. Window of Palazzo Cornaro 124
70. Part of façade of the Porta del Palio 125
71. Detail of Palazzo Bevilacqua 127
72. Part of the Portico of Vicenza. From Palladio 129
73. Plan of supports, Portico of Vicenza. From Palladio 130
74. Arch of St. Simeon Stylites 131
75. Loggia Bernarda, Vicenza 132
76. Window of Palazzo Branzo 133
77. Niche of the Basilica of Shakka 134
78. Window of the Certosa of Pavia 137
79. Sacristy of San Satiro 139
80. Santa Maria delle Grazie 141
81. East end of Como 143
82. Portal of Como 145
83. Porch of San Zeno 146
84. Portal of San Pietro in Cielo d’Oro 147
85. Window of nave of Como 148
86. Column of San Zaccaria 150
87. Plan of pier of San Salvatore 151
88. Plan of pier of St. Mark’s 151
89. Façade of Santa Maria dei Miracoli 152
90. Part of window of court of the Ducal Palace 155
91. Portal of the Scuola di San Marco. 157
92. Part of the façade of the Scuola di San Rocco 158
93. Window of the Palazzo Contarini 162
94. One bay of basement of the Ospedale Maggiore 164
95. Window of the Palazzo Martinengo 165
96. Roman Arabesque relief 168
97. Renaissance Arabesque relief 169
98. Greek coin, magnified 170
99. Arabesque by Filarete 171
100. Console of pulpit in Santa Croce 172
101. Leafage from the Ghiberti gates 173
102. Pilaster in the National Museum, Florence 174
103. Greek leafage 175
104. Roman leafage 175
105. Leafage of Brunelleschi 176
106. Leafage of Brescia 176
107. Leafage of San Gallo 177
108. Relief of the Scala d’Oro 177
109. Grotesque mask 177
110. Cornice of Blois 181
111. Azay le Rideau 182
112. Portal of Azay le Rideau 183
113. Portal of Châteaudun 185
114. Part of the portal of Chenonceaux 187
115. Part of the court façade of Blois 189
116. Du Cerceau’s print of the Fountain of the Nymphs 195
117. Roman arch. From Serlio 197
118. Part of Du Cerceau’s print of Lescot’s Louvre 198
119. Plan of the Tuileries. From Du Cerceau 201
120. Elevation of the Tuileries. From Du Cerceau 202
121. De l’Orme’s column. From De l’Orme 203
122. De l’Orme’s doorway. From De l’Orme 204
123. Doorway. From Serlio 205
124. Doorway of De l’Orme. From De l’Orme 208
125. Façade of Charleval. From Du Cerceau 210
126. Interior façade of Charleval. From Du Cerceau 212
127. Chimney of Burghley House 217
128. North side of court, Kirby Hall. From Gotch 219
129. Gable of Kirby Hall. From Gotch 220
130. Window of Walterstone Hall. From Gotch 222
131. Impost of Cranborne Manor-House. From Gotch 222
132. Portal of Wollaton Hall. From Gotch 224
133. Basement of Whitehall. From Kent 230
134. Front of old St. Paul’s. From Kent 231
135. Section of Wren’s rejected scheme for St. Paul’s. From
Bloomfield 236
136. Section of the dome of St. Paul’s. From Longman 240
137. Vaulting of St. Paul’s 242
138. Crossing pier and impost of St. Paul’s 244
139. Half section of the nave of St. Paul’s. From Longman 245
LIST OF PLATES
PAGE
I. The Dome of Florence 16
II. Interior of Sant’ Andrea, Mantua 38
III. The Dome of St. Peter’s 63
IV. The Riccardi Palace 103
V. San Bernardino, Perugia 135
VI. Ducal Palace, Venice 154
VII. Palazzo Corner-Spinelli, Venice 160
VIII. Palazzo del Consiglio, Verona 163
IX. Relief of the Lombardi 169
X. The Banqueting Hall, Whitehall 228
XI. The Dome of St. Paul’s 239
XII. Interior of St. Paul’s 242
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The great change in ideas and ideals which, after the remarkable
intellectual and artistic life of the Middle Ages, was manifested
in the so-called Renaissance, is not always correctly conceived or
fairly stated; and the character and merits of the Fine Arts of the
Renaissance, as compared with those of mediæval times, have not, I
think, been often set forth in an entirely true light. Of the merits
of the best Italian art of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there
can be no question, but the belief that this art is altogether superior
to that of the Middle Ages will not bear examination in the light of
impartial comparison.
The Fine Arts are always an expression of the historical antecedents,
the intellectual, moral, and material conditions, and the religious
beliefs of the peoples and epochs to which they belong. They derive
their whole character from these antecedents and conditions, and cannot
be rightly understood or appreciated without reference to them. Thus a
brief consideration of these conditions in the Middle Ages on the one
hand, and in the period of the Renaissance on the other, may help us
to understand the nature of the above-mentioned change, and to gain a
more discriminating appreciation of the real character of the artistic
productions of the latter epoch.
During the Middle Ages ideas and imagination were governed by a
religious faith which, though in many ways mistaken and misguided, was
for the most part firm and unquestioning. Mediæval Christianity was
a living power with the masses, and an inspiration to men of genius.
The mediæval Christian mythology was well fitted to stimulate artistic
invention, and the ideals which it maintained were full of beauty. It
is true, indeed, that human conduct was not wholly governed by this
faith; but the precepts of the Christian religion, as defined and
interpreted by the Roman church, were generally held as of supreme
authority, and to them most people acknowledged that they ought to
conform. This Christianity gave the chief motive power for the best
activities of the time, and the social relations of men were, in
theory at least, based upon its teachings. The history of the Middle
Ages abounds in evidence that popular habits of life were in many
ways exemplary. Villani tells us that the citizens of Florence lived
in sobriety and frugality, that they had loyal hearts, were faithful
to one another, and that they required the same fidelity in the
administration of public affairs.[1] Florence in the fourteenth century
was alive with industry, and the open country around the city was
prosperous with agriculture. Of such conditions her Fine Arts were an
outgrowth and expression.
But the mediæval faith began at length to weaken. The church, as an
ecclesiastical establishment, had grown corrupt and oppressive, so
that men of spirit were moved to reject its dogmas and to resist its
intellectual tyranny. Independent thought began to widen the range
of ideas, and the reading of ancient authors gave a fresh incentive
to philosophical speculation, and awakened a spirit of scientific
investigation, as well as a taste for ancient poetry and mythology.
The desire for intellectual freedom, and the thirst for new knowledge,
which were thus stimulated in the fifteenth century constitute the good
side of the Renaissance movement, the side which has hitherto been
most emphasized by writers, and to which the modern world is indebted
for a strong stimulus in the direction of some of its most fruitful
activities.
But there were other conditions that must not be ignored if we would
rightly understand the spirit of the Renaissance, by which the ideals
and aims of this brilliant epoch were materially qualified and
weakened. Influences were at the same time at work that were not in
harmony with what was best. The humanist learning bred a Neo-pagan
spirit which favoured and strengthened a growing indifference to moral
principles and religious beliefs. The strong feeling of opposition
to the church was in part due to this. In fact, the Renaissance was
by no means an entirely noble movement in the interest of spiritual
and intellectual emancipation, or an unqualified advance in ideas and
attainments beyond those of the Middle Ages. With all of its abuses
the church still stood for moral order and spiritual aspirations.
The revolt against it was in part a revolt against both religion and
morals. The animating spirit of the movement contained much that was
unchristian and destructive of high ideals.
It is true that noble, and even pious, feelings survived in the minds
of many men, especially during the early Renaissance time. Generous
acts were still common among the merchant princes of Florence. In
the early part of the fifteenth century the lives of Florentine
patricians continued to be simple, and many of them recognized the
responsibilities which their wealth imposed.[2] But toward the close
of that century a different spirit prevailed. Luxury and extravagance
took the place of plainer living, the pursuit of pleasure without
regard to justice or morality engrossed the minds of men, and vice and
crime flourished in high places until the prophetic denunciations of
Savonarola were called down upon the wickedness and vanity of the upper
classes.
Into the service of this luxurious and immoral life the Fine Arts were
now called, and of the motives which animate such life they become
largely an expression. The mediæval endeavour to embody the beauty
of Christian ideals in works of art gave place to the desire to make
the Fine Arts minister to sensuous pleasure and to mundane pride. In
the height of its splendour the vicious life of Florence, the chief
centre of literary and artistic productions, was appalling. Men now
not only sought to escape from all forms of ecclesiastical and ascetic
restraint; they went further, and freely proclaimed the sufficiency of
intellectual, æsthetic, and sensuous enjoyments to satisfy the whole of
man’s nature. They mistook the illusive pleasures of self-indulgence
for the true joys of life. In abandoning himself to mundane pursuits
and gratifications, the man of the Renaissance fancied that he got the
utmost good out of this life, and took little thought of any other.
In a corresponding spirit the architect now set himself to the task
of producing a luxurious and specious style of palatial architecture,
drawing his inspiration from the monuments of imperial Rome, and the
sculptor and the painter sought to portray physical beauty as the
primary and sufficient end of their art. Their conceptions of this
beauty were in part drawn from the remains of the art of classic
antiquity that were then accessible. But the ancient works of art known
at that time were not those of the best periods of ancient artistic
culture. They were, for the most part, works of the decadent Greek
schools as represented in Roman copies. Many of these have, indeed, a
great deal of sensuous charm, and display much technical refinement;
but they are wanting in the nobler qualities that characterize the
finest arts of Greece. From the Roman copies of fauns, Apollos, and
Venuses that had been preserved in Italy, it was impossible that high
inspiration and true guidance should be drawn.
The Fine Arts of the Renaissance are in part a reflection of this
decadent art of classic antiquity, and in part an expression of
something quite different which was peculiar to the Italian genius at
this time. To the man of the Renaissance the classic inspiration was
necessarily different from what it had been to the man of antiquity.
To the ancient Greek and Roman the pagan ideals had been real, and
their inspiration was genuine; but to the Italian of the fifteenth
century these ideals could not have the same meaning, or supply a true
incentive. After the intervening centuries of Christian thought and
experience it was impossible for men to approach the ancient themes in
the spirit of the ancients. Thus the Neo-pagan Art of the Renaissance
is not wholly spontaneous and sincere. It contains elements that are
foreign to the pagan spirit, and not compatible with it. The art of
the Renaissance is, in fact, an embodiment of heterogeneous ideas and
conflicting aims.
Much has been said of the importance of the Renaissance movement in
developing the individual man, and it is true that one of the most
marked characteristics of the artistic productions of this time, as
contrasted with those of the Middle Ages, is a distinctly individual,
or personal, stamp. This is especially marked in architecture. Whereas
before, and during, the Middle Ages in particular, architecture had
been a communal art, the joint product of companies of men working
together on traditional lines, with common aims and aspirations, it
was now become very largely an expression of the personal tastes of
individuals working independently of each other. The architects of the
Renaissance were scholars and artists, newly acquainted with the Roman
antique, animated with desire to appropriate what they apprehended of
its principles, and at the same time ambitious to achieve personal
fame. A building of the Renaissance is thus always the product of the
fancy of a particular designer, as a building of the Middle Ages is
not. But architecture of the highest excellence can hardly be produced
by an individual working independently. The noblest architecture of
the past has always been an evolution of a people, the joint product
of many minds, and the natural expression of many conditions. The
importance of the opportunity for the development of the individual
opened by the Renaissance has been exaggerated, and the conditions
conducive to such development which had existed before have been too
much overlooked. We are apt to forget that the mediæval communal life
stimulated the faculties of the individual in many noble ways, and we
do not always enough consider that individuality may be exercised in
harmful as well as in salutary directions. The individuality that had
been developed by the institutions and the intellectual life of the
Middle Ages was vastly different from that which was produced by the
influences of the Renaissance, and it was in many ways more excellent.
The individuality of the Middle Ages was obedient to the demands
of corporate and coöperative life, while that of the Renaissance
was independent and capricious. Conditions favourable to individual
development had arisen early in the Middle Ages in connection with
organized monastic life. The cultivation of literature, philosophy, and
the Fine Arts in the monasteries had given considerable range to the
exercise of individual powers,[3] though in limited directions, and
the rise of the great communal organizations tended still further to
stimulate an admirable individual development. But the individual of
the Middle Ages felt himself a part of an organized body from which he
derived moral support, and with which he felt that he must coöperate.
It was the strong communal spirit, giving unity of purpose to the
varied faculties of individuals, that made possible the production of
the noble arts of the Middle Ages; and it is as the expression of this
unity of purpose coördinating the fine artistic energies of the time,
that these arts are preëminently notable. In so far as the development
of the individual in the period of the Renaissance differed from that
of the Middle Ages, it did so mainly in favouring individual caprice
at the expense of harmonious collective effort. The capricious and
irresponsible individuality of the time, together with the confused
complexity of ideas and aims, gave rise to most of that which is open
to criticism in the Fine Arts of the Renaissance.
Nearly all of the architects of this epoch were sculptors and painters.
Few of them had ever had a thorough training in architectural design
and construction, such as had been general with the members of the
great mediæval building corporations; and hardly any of them were
endowed with a natural aptitude for logical construction. The artistic
genius of the Italian people has, in fact, always been essentially a
genius for painting, and the painter’s habits of mind are constantly
manifested in the Italian architecture of all epochs. This is
especially noticeable in their use of the Orders, which is rarely
based on any structural need, but is governed only by the fancy of the
designer in seeking to produce a pleasant surface composition. Columns
and pilasters, answering to nothing in the real structural scheme of
a building, are disposed with no thought save for agreeable lines and
rhythmical spacings. Thus they soon came to be used in many novel ways.
They were set in pairs, stretched through several stories, embraced
by pediments, and varied in countless fanciful ways. In this way the
architecture of the Renaissance even more than that of imperial Rome,
became a mere surface architecture differing fundamentally from all of
the great architectural systems of ancient times, and of the Middle
Ages. This is a consideration of capital importance of which too little
account has been taken. The unqualified and short-sighted laudation of
this architecture by the sophisticated writers of the sixteenth century
has been too readily accepted, and a more discriminating judgment
cannot fail to alter materially the esteem in which it has been held.
In surveying the history of architectural design with attention to
its fundamental principles we shall find that there have thus far
existed in Europe but three entirely consistent and distinctive styles;
namely, the Greek, the Byzantine, and the Gothic. All other varieties
of architecture may be broadly divided into two classes, the one
consisting of buildings of transitional character, and comprising all
organic and progressive types of Romanesque, and the other composed
of styles made up of mixed elements not in process of organic fusion.
The first architecture of the second class is that of imperial Rome
with its off-shoots, the Christian Roman and the numerous subsequent
forms of the basilican type, and the second is the architecture of
the Renaissance. When, after studying the architecture of Greece, we
come to examine that of Rome, we are at once struck by the incongruous
mixture of elements which it exhibits; and although we may be impressed
by its grandeur, we are unable to give it our unqualified admiration.
In Byzantine art we find Greek, Roman, and Oriental elements, logically
modified in adaptation to new uses, and fused into a radically new
and distinctive style of entire consistency and great nobility.[4] In
the transitional art of western Europe we see the creative genius of
Northern races gradually evolving the Gothic style, in which elements
derived from the older systems are wholly recreated and assimilated
in a wonderful manner, and when we turn from the beauty, and the
structural logic, of the consummate Gothic Art[5] to the architecture
of the Renaissance, a similar contrast is again apparent.
In one branch of art, however, the best achievements of the Renaissance
period command our unqualified admiration; namely, the art of painting.
As before remarked, the Italian genius appears to have been primarily
a genius for painting, and in this field the conditions all conspired
to produce results that were without precedent for excellence, and that
still remain unrivalled. Yet here, too, we shall need to discriminate.
Italian painting of the sixteenth century presents a variety of phases
that are by no means of equal merit, and the noblest forms of it
show the least of the essentially Renaissance spirit. The Christian
painters of the fourteenth century had laid a foundation on which their
successors could build, and this gave a character to much of the art
of the Early Renaissance which the dominant influences of the time
itself could not give.[6] But the spirit of the sixteenth century was
unfavourable to the highest ideals and the most exemplary practice,
and, save for the works of a few exceptional men, there were no high
achievements in painting after about 1520, except in Venice, where more
than elsewhere natural and wholesome conditions had been maintained.
Among the many influences that were stirring the artistic minds of the
Renaissance there were two of chief importance, the Neo-pagan revival,
and the true intellectual life of the people which was independent of
the retrospective movement, and had been growing up through the Middle
Ages. The most sterling qualities of the artistic products of the
period are due to this intellectual life, and Florentine and Venetian
painting, the two most admirable phases of the supreme art of Italy,
are the finest expression of this. In other words, it was not the
revival of interest in ancient thought and feeling, nor the influence
of classic models, so much as the ripened development of the native
Italian genius itself, that produced what is most excellent in the Fine
Arts of the Renaissance. A consciously retrospective motive can hardly
be a vital force in artistic development, and the direct attempt, in so
far as such attempt was made, to shape the arts after classic models
was an unmixed evil. The native traditions and innate tendencies of
the Italian people were enough of themselves to give a strong classic
quality to their art. In architecture what of classic feeling was
natural to them needed only in the fifteenth century to be freed from
the elements which had been misappropriated from the mediæval art of
the North to allow it true expression in forms adapted to their needs.
In normal human progress each successive stage of development creates
its own appropriate forms; but peoples, like individuals, sometimes
pass through periods of partial aberration, and while genius may
still find scope enough, as in the Renaissance, to produce much that
is admirable, the noblest forms of art are not an outgrowth of such
conditions.