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.