Renaissance architecture, element of individuality in, 4, 6;

the classic style which was followed was that of the decadent

Greek schools as represented in Roman copies, 4, 247;

architects were generally also painters and sculptors, 6, 96;

a surface architecture, 6;

little heed given to structural propriety, 23, 64, 66, 116;

use of the classic order, 29;

passing of the entablature through the arch imposts, 29;

use of stucco, 32;

alternation of wide and narrow intervals, 38;

misapplication of the classic orders, 43, 247;

the designers worked on a foundation of mediæval ideas from which

they could not free themselves, 43, 247;

use of Roman models, 43, 117, 119, 247;

breaking of the pediment, 93 (cut), 117;

use of structural members without structural meaning, 116, 133,

135, 156, 165;

entablature removed between the ressauts, 117;

later architecture the work of men of little genuine artistic

inspiration, 119, 133;

architectural shams extensively produced by later architects,

121, 132;

attempt to make half a metope fall at the end of the frieze,

121–122 (cut);

barbaric compositions of frequent occurrence in later, 124;

based on order and symmetry of a mechanical kind, 133;

independent personal effort to be original at the bottom of most

of the mistakes of, 206;

no architects of, had a true conception of the principles of

classic art, 230;

theatrical in its spirit, 232;

no true adaptation of classic elements in Renaissance design,

247;

great influence of short-sighted and mechanical Italian rules in

modern times, 248, 250;

claims advanced for it as the only architecture of correct

principles since that of classic antiquity are without

justification, 250;

sculpture of, _see_ Carving, architectural, of the Renaissance.

Renaissance architecture, in England, 216–246 (cuts);

Elizabethan art, 216–225 (cuts);

its best features were of native growth out of the mediæval

feudal castle and the latest phase of perpendicular Gothic,

216, 225;

use of classic details, 217, 218–225 (cuts);

flimsiness of material in interiors and ornamental details,

217, 218;

buildings have little foreign character in plan and outline,

but neo-classic forms are confined to ornamentation, 218,

221;

strange aberrations of design wrought by foreigners and native

craftsmen, 218–225 (cuts);

fantastic gables features of the more showy architecture, 220;

Flemish and Dutch ornamental workers, 220, 224;

the design and execution of the buildings were performed by

building craftsmen, 224, 225.

Work of Jones and Wren, 226–246 (plate and cuts);

use of classic details becoming established, 226, 228;

acceptance of neo-classic style by the people, 228, 232, 233.

Renaissance architecture, Florentine; church architecture, 26–43

(cuts);

palace architecture, 102–111 (cuts and plate).

_See_ also Renaissance architecture and Florence.

Renaissance architecture, in France, early, 179–193 (cuts);

the French Renaissance château, conditions which gave rise to,

180;

evolved from the feudal castle of the Middle Ages, 180, 201;

factitious in composition, 179, 181, 211^3;

distorted neo-classic details worked into a pseudo-Gothic scheme,

184, 190;

a survival of later Gothic habit of design is shown where the

continuity of upright lines is obtained in the use of

superimposed pilasters with ressauts in the entablatures,

188, 190;

has a distinctly French expression, 179, 193, 194;

later French Renaissance given a more marked neo-classic dress by

Lescot and De l’Orme, 194–215;

misuse of structural forms in ornamentation, 199;

excessive profusion of ornament, 200;

church architecture, Gothic structural forms largely entwined

with a misapplication of classic details, 213–215.

Renaissance architecture, Lombard, 135, 136–149;

neo-classic influences confined largely to ornamental details,

136;

illogical scheme of openings which became characteristic of,

144–149 (cuts).

Renaissance architecture, North Italian, profusion of ornament a

marked characteristic of, 136;

Lombard Romanesque forms modified by neo-classic features mark

the character of, 144;

church architecture of the, 135–153 (cuts);

mixture of mediæval and pseudo-classic forms, 149;

palace architecture of the, 154–166 (cuts);

later architecture of the, based on the art of Palladio and

Vignola, 165.

_See_ Renaissance architecture.

Renaissance architecture, Venetian, 135;

church architecture, 149–153;

palace architecture, 154–163 (cuts);

its most characteristic architecture is that of the palaces of

the grand canal, 159;

the usual scheme of the front that of a wide central bay wholly

occupied by openings flanked by lateral bays with a solid

wall on either side of an opening, 162, 163;

neo-classic influences confined largely to ornamental details,

136;

illogical scheme of openings which became characteristic of,

144–149 (cuts);

drew some of its material from Florentine and Lombard sources,

149;

later architecture follows the measurably uniform style of

Vignola and Palladio, 153, 162;

overlaying with heavy orders the typical unequal main divisions

of the palace fronts, 162, 163.

Ressauts, irrational use of, 38;

of façade of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 37;

of San Francesco of Rimini, 38;

of ch. of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Assisi, 89.

Rhenish Romanesque style of ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.

Ribs, system of, in Florence dome, 16–19, 55 (cuts);

in Gothic vaulting have nothing of the character of dome ribs,

20, 21, 56;

of St. Peter’s dome, Rome, 55, 56, 59;

of cath. of Salamanca, 57, 58.

Riccio, Antonio, his work on east side of the court of the Ducal

Palace, Venice, 154 (plate).

Rimini, San Francesco of, church of, 35;

façade, 38, 42;

modelled on the arch of Septimius Severus, 38, 42;

ressauts, 38.

Roman arch and entablature scheme applied to a continuous arcade,

118, 119.

Roman architecture, furnished models for Renaissance architecture,

38, 40, 43, 97;

use of entablature block in, 37;

use of the arch in, 37;

the ressaut, 38;

triumphal arch design a model for Renaissance façades, 38, 39–43

(cut);

treatment of the angle, 79 (cut).

Roman architectural carving, furnished models for Renaissance work,

167;

tasteless and meaningless designs, 170^1;

leafage of, compared with Greek leafage, 174 (cuts).

Roman Renaissance, church architecture of the, 66–101 (cuts);

palatial architecture, 112–134.

_See_ Renaissance architecture and Rome.

Romanesque architecture, 7;

Rhenish Romanesque style of ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.

Rome, its monuments the inspiration of Renaissance architecture, 3,

43, 247.

St. Peter’s, rebuilding and demolishing of the old basilica, 47;

work of Rossellino, 47;

work of Bramante, 47–53 (cuts), 63, 64, 70;

date of the beginning of building, 47;

general plan, 47, 53, 66 (cut);

the plans of Raphael and Peruzzi, 47^2;

work of Michael Angelo, 54–65 (cuts), 66;

work of Maderna, 66, 245;

short-sighted admiration of, 71;

design of Antonio San Gallo, 71;

influence of, seen in other churches, 90, 92;

arabesque on door-valves, 170 (cut);

Wren’s scheme for St. Paul’s based on the model of, 236, 237;

comparison of, with St. Paul’s, 236, 239, 241, 243, 245.

Dome, 44–65 (cuts);

use of the Pantheon and the Basilica of Maxentius as models,

49–52 (cuts);

drum, 50 (cut), 53;

abutments, 50 (cut), 53;

colonnade, 51, 56, 142;

lantern, 52;

piers, 53, 66, 68;

buttresses, 53 (cut), 55, 56, 59;

design of Michael Angelo, 53–65 (cuts);

his alterations of Bramante’s scheme, 53–55, 64;

attic, 54 (cut);

vault shells, 54 (cut), 55;

ribs, 55, 56, 59;

binding chains, 59, 60, 62;

ruptures in, 59, 60–63 (cut), 64;

mathematicians’ report of the condition of the structure in

1742, 60 (cut);

violation of laws of stability in, 64, 65;

strengthening of Bramante’s work, 64^1;

its beauty exaggerated, 65;

likeness of Wren’s scheme of St. Paul’s to, 236.

Exterior, 68–70 (cut);

makeshifts necessitated by the use of the colossal order,

68–70 (cut);

aisle walls carried to the height of the clerestory, 68, 245;

domes over the aisles, 68–70 (cut), 245.

Interior, Bramante’s scheme, 53, 66;

Michael Angelo’s work, 53, 66–70;

piers, 53, 66, 68;

effect of magnitude dwarfed by the colossal order, 53, 67,

68;

great size of the structural parts, 68;

part of the vault hidden by the cornice, 68, 92;

its ornamentation a cheap deception, 71;

ressauts, 90, 92.

Church of the Gesù, 91–95 (cuts);

Vignola’s plan given in his book on the Five Orders, 92;

interior, general scheme, 92;

orders, 92;

entablature, 92;

façade, 92–95 (cuts);

broken pediments of, 93, 95;

scroll work and hermæ, 93;

reversed consoles, 95;

tablets, 95 (cut).

Church of Sant’Agostino, 72–74 (cuts);

its architects, 72;

date, 72;

the general style is Rhenish Romanesque, 72;

nave, 72;

Renaissance ornamental details, 72 (cut);

façade, 73, 74 (cut);

truncated pediment, 74;

tablets in wall surface, 74;

dome, 74.

Church of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, 86–89 (cuts);

dome, 86;

façade, 86–88 (cut), 92, 101;

likeness to the Pantheon, 87;

entablature, 89 (cut).

Church of San Biagio, entablature, 78 (cut).

Church of Santa Maria della Pace, cloister arcade, 119.

Church of St. Paul outside the wall, entablature, 30^1.

The Tempietto, 44–46 (cut);

the dome and its drum, 44, 74;

resemblance to the temple of Vesta, 44, 45;

orders, 45, 83;

dome of St. Paul’s, London, recalls, 239.

Arch of Septimius Severus used as model of façades by Alberti,

38, 39–43 (cut);

treatment of angle in, 79.

Arch of the Silversmiths, 39.

Arch of Titus, scheme of, used by Sansovino in the Loggetta of

the Campanile, Venice, 123.

Basilica of Maxentius, columns and arches, 37;

as model for St. Peter’s, 49.

Baths of Caracalla, entablature, 29.

Pantheon, 10, 15^1, 87;

said to be taken as model for dome of Florence cathedral, 16;

grandeur of, 23;

as model for Bramante’s dome of St. Peter’s, 49, 52 (cuts);

its internal character, 52^1;

abutments, 49 (cut), 52;

not a homogeneous structure, 89.

Porta Maggiore, form of column similar to that claimed by De

l’Orme as his own invention, 205.

Temple of Peace. _See_ Basilica of Maxentius.

Theatre of Marcellus, its façade followed by Sansovino for the

library of St. Mark’s, 122.

Palazzo Cancelleria, façade, 112–114 (cut);

window openings, north Italian, 112, 149;

podium introduced beneath each order, 112;

spacing of the columns of the order, 112, 114;

projecting bays at each end, 113;

portal of almost Greek purity of design, 114;

court, 114.

Palazzo Farnese, 116–118;

window openings framed by structural members without structural

meaning, 116, 117 (cut);

removal of entablature between ressauts over window openings,

117 (cut);

court, treatment of columns, 118.

Palazzo Girand Torlonia, 112;

window opening, north Italian, 112, 149.

Palazzo Massimi, façade described, 114–116 (cut);

wall above basement unbroken by pilasters or string courses,

114;

portico, 114, 115;

spacing of columns and pilasters of basement, 114;

window openings, 115.

Ronsard, his poem on Lescot cited, 196.

Roof, timber, built over early domes, 10, 11.

Rossellino, his use of the orders in the Duomo of Pienza, 42, 43;

his work on the basilica of St. Peter, Rome, 47.

Ruptures, in the dome of Florence cathedral, 23, 24;

in the dome of St. Peter’s, Rome, 59, 60–63 (cut);

not necessarily alarming in a properly constructed vault, 62^2.

Rustication of masonry, 109.

Salamanca, cathedral of, dome, how it approaches and differs in

nature from a Gothic vault, 57–59 (cuts).

San Gallo, Antonio, the elder, 90;

his work on ch. of San Biagio, Montepulciano, Rome, 78–83;

ch. of Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo, 83.

San Gallo, Antonio, the younger, his design for St. Peter’s, Rome,

71;

Palazzo Farnese, Rome, 116.

San Gallo, Giuliano da, designed Palazzo Gondi, Florence, 107, 176;

leafage of capital, 176 (cut).

San Giovanni, Florence Baptistery, 14, 16.

Sanmichele, Porta del Palio, Verona, 125 (cut);

Palazzo Canalla, Verona, 126;

Palazzo Pompei alla Vittoria, Verona, 126;

Palazzo Bevilacqua, Verona, 126, 127 (cut).

Sansovino (Jacopo Tatti), his predilection for classic forms, 119,

120;

library of St. Mark, Venice, 121 (cut), 130;

his attempt to make half the metope fall at the end of the

frieze, 121, 122;

small free-standing column placed on each side of the pier to

bear the archivolt, often spoken of as an invention of, 123,

130, 131 (cut);

Loggetta of the Campanile, Venice, 123;

his use of a form of column claimed by De l’Orme as his own

invention, 205.

Scaffolding said to have been employed by Brunelleschi, 21^3.

Scamozzi, 133, 134;

peculiar form of compound window, sometimes called his invention,

134 (cut).

Scrollwork, of façade of the ch. of the Gesù, Rome, 93.

Sculpture, on buildings, has in Gothic art only an appropriate

architectural character, and a high degree of excellence in the

development of form, 167;

Greek, is in a measure independent of the building on which it is

placed, 167;

of the human figure in Renaissance art, has little proper

architectural character, 167;

relief carving of the Renaissance, 167–178 (cuts).

_See_ Carving, architectural, of the Renaissance.

Sebastiano, architect of ch. of Sant’Agostino, Rome, 72.

Serlio, _Regole Generali di Architettura di Sebastiano Serlio_,

44^2, 196^2;

cited on the work of Bramante on St. Peter’s, Rome, 47^2, 49;

quoted on corner pilasters, 79;

cited on the removal of the entablature between the ressauts, 117

(cut);

influence on Lescot, 196;

his column practically the same as that claimed by De l’Orme as

his own invention, 203 (cut).

Sgrilli, _Descrizione e Studj dell’Insigne Fabbrica di S. Maria del

Fiore_, quoted, 23.

Siena, Palazzo Pubblico, 102.

Soane Museum, John Thorpe’s drawings, 218^2, 221.

Spavento, church of San Salvatore, Venice, 150.

Spire, Gothic, far removed from anything proper to classic

composition, 83.

Steeples, Wren’s, 246;

are the outcome of the Renaissance spire-like towers, 82.

Strozzi, Filippo, 110.

Stucco, use in Renaissance architecture, 32, 132, 133.

Syria, St. Simeon Stylites, use of the free-standing column under

the archivolts, 131 (cut);

Basilica of Shakka, form of window opening reproduced in

architecture of the Renaissance, 134.

Tablets, rectangular in façade surface, 74;

ugly shapes of, in the façade of The Gesù, Rome, 95 (cut);

of Vignola, 95 (cut).

Tatti, Jacopo. _See_ Sansovino.

Thorpe, John, his plans show a French influence, 218, 220;

little is known of him, 218^2;

Kirby Hall, England, 218–220 (cuts);

Longford Castle, 221.

Thrust, the, of a dome, 15^1, 24, 52.

Ties, wooden used in Gothic buildings, 22^2.

Tivoli, temple of Vesta, resemblance of the Tempietto, Rome, to,

44, 45 (cut).

Todi, church of Santa Maria della Consolazione, 74–77 (cuts);

the scheme is Byzantine, 74, 77;

dome, 74, 75, 77;

interior, 75 (cut);

orders, 75–77 (cut);

piers, 75, 76;

exterior, 77 (cut);

similarity between the sacristy of San Satiro, of Milan, and,

140;

between cath. of Como and, 144.

Towers, spire-like, of the Renaissance, 81;

scheme based on the Lombard Romanesque tower and the mediæval

campanile, 82;

of ch. of San Biagio at Montepulciano, 78, 81 (cuts);

of ch. of Santo Spirito, Florence, 81, 82 (cut);

Giotto’s, 82.

Triglyph, problem of the arrangement of, at the end of the frieze,

121, 122 (cuts).

Triumphal arch used as a model of Renaissance façades, 38, 39–43

(cuts).

Vanvitelli, his placing of binding chains around the dome of St.

Peter’s, Rome, 62.

Variety, unmeaning, different from that which results from an

active inventive spirit, 211^1.

Vasari, _Le Opere di Giorgio Vasari_ quoted, 16;

cited on Brunelleschi’s account of the dome of Florence, 18^1,

22^1;

cited, 33^1, 110;

cited on Alberti’s work, 35, 44, 107;

cited on rebuilding St. Peter’s, Rome, 47;

his short-sighted admiration of St. Peter’s, 71;

quoted on Michelozzi, 105, 149;

cited on the Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, 106.

Vault, Gothic, why a dome cannot have the character of a, 20, 21,

56–59 (cuts).

Vaults, the nature of the construction of a circular-celled vault

on Gothic principles, 56–59 (cuts);

of the chapel of the Pazzi, Florence, 27, 28, 56;

ch. of San Spirito, Florence, 34;

chapel of St. Peter Martyr, ch. of Sant’Eustorgio, Milan, 142.

Venetian Renaissance. _See_ Renaissance, Venetian.

Venice, church of The Redentore, general scheme, 100 (cut);

east end, 100, 101;

orders, 101;

façade, 101.

Church of S. Fantino, 151.

Church of San Francesco della Vigna façade, 100.

Church of San Giorgio Maggiore, 97;

nave, 97, 98;

piers, 97, 98 (cut);

orders raised on pedestals, 98, 99;

placed under the archivolts, 98;

entablature, 98, 99, 101;

façade, 99 (cut), 101.

Church of Santa Maria Formosa reproduces features of St. Andrea

of Mantua with details of the character of the Lombardi, 153.

Church of Santa Maria dei Miracoli, 151 (cut), 156;

refinement in details, 151;

façade a marvel of excellence in mechanical execution, 151, 152

(cut);

Lombard blind arcade recalled in decoration of the façade, 151;

carving of ear of barley and flower stalks, 169 (plate);

carved mask from a pilaster, 178 (cut).

Church of St. Mark, piers pierced longitudinally and

transversely, 150 (cut).

Church of San Salvatore, 150, 151;

peculiar pier supports of the barrel vaulting, 150 (cut);

use of an attic as support for vaulting, 151;

its system is that of the ch. of St. Mark, 151.

Church of San Zaccaria, general description of interior, 149,

150;

singular column of nondescript character, 150 (cut).

Palaces of the grand canal, finest are those of the later

mediæval period, 159.

Palazzo Contarini, 161;

details of façade, 161;

window openings, 161 (cut);

grouping of pilasters of three different proportions and

magnitudes, 161 (cut).

Palazzo Corner-Spinelli, 160 (plate);

window openings, mediæval features, incompleted circle in the

tympanum space, 160;

pilasters, panelling of, 160.

Palazzo Cornaro, description of the front, 124;

unequal main divisions of the front overladen with heavy

orders, 162.

Ducal Palace, east side of the court, 154 (plate);

façade described in detail, 154, 155;

window openings described, 154, 155;

north side of court, window openings, 155 (cut);

giant’s stair, fine execution of, 156;

arabesque after Roman model, 167 (cut);

grotesque creatures in the relief of the Scala d’Oro, 177

(cut).

Palazzo Grimani, façade, 163.

Palazzo Pesaro, 163.

Palazzo Valmarano, 133.

Palazzo Vendramini, 161;

full orders in all three stories, 161, 162;

grouping of mediæval window openings, 162;

balconies, 162;

disproportion of topmost entablature, 162.

Library of St. Mark, 121 (cut);

arrangement of the metope in the frieze, 121, 122 (cuts);

orders, 122;

frieze and balustraded balconies, 123;

free-standing column under the archivolt in the order of the

upper story, 123, 130.

Loggetta of the Campanile, 123.

Scuola di San Marco, description of façade, 156–158 (cut);

portal, described, unreason of its composition, 156 (cut);

carvings, 157.

Scuola di San Rocco, façade described, 158 (cut);

portal, 159;

window openings with mediæval features and others with

pseudo-Corinthian colonnettes, 159 (cut), 160.

The Zecca, form of column claimed by De l’Orme as his own

invention, 205.

Verona, church of San Zeno, porch and portal, 146 (cut).

Palazzo Bevilacqua, description of façade, 126, 127 (cut).

Palazzo Canalla, 126.

Palazzo del Consiglio, 163 (plate);

presents a mediæval broletto scheme dressed out in Renaissance

details, 163;

in respect to its finest qualities it belongs to the Middle

Ages, 163.

Palazzo Pompei alla Vittoria, 126.

Porta del Palio, description of façades, 125 (cut), 126.

Vicenza, Town hall portico by Palladio, 130–132 (cut);

use of free-standing columns under the archivolts, 130;

columns of the great orders act somewhat as buttresses, 131.

Palazzo Colleone-Porta, 133.

Palazzo Porta-Barbarano, 133.

Palazzo Valmarano, 133.

Loggia Bernarda, 133 (cut).

Vignola, _I Cinque Ordini d’Architettura_, 84, 85, 92;

entablature which he calls his own invention, 85 (cut);

his unclassic and incongruous combinations, 86, 95;

eliminates mediæval forms, 92;

tablet from, 95 (cut);

great influence of his writings, 248;

ch. of Sant’Andrea di Ponte Molle, Rome, 86–89 (cuts), 92;

ch. of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Assisi, 89;

ch. of the Gesù, Rome, 91–95 (cuts);

Palazzo Caprarola, near Viterbo, 128.

Violette-le-Duc, _S. V. Château_, 171^1, 181^1;

_Entretiens sur l’Architecture_, 207^3;

quoted on French architects of the Renaissance, 179^1;

quoted on château of Chambord, 191;

quoted on De l’Orme, 200^1;

his genius more scientific than artistic, 200^1;

quoted on the château of Charleval, 211, 212;

errs in his reasoning in his discourse on Renaissance

architecture, 211–213.

Villani, quoted, 2.

Villari, cited, 3^1.

Viterbo, Palazzo Caprarola, near Viterbo, general description of,

128–130;

a source of inspiration to later architects of trans-alpine

Renaissance, 130.

Vitruvius, 85;

quoted on the orders, 86;

taken by Palladio as his master, 96, 97;

later Renaissance architects based their practice on the writings

of, 119;

cited on meaningless Roman ornamental designs, 170^1;

notion that the Ionic order was designed after female

proportions, derived from, 207^1.

Walpole, Horace, _Anecdotes of Painting_, 226;

quoted on Inigo Jones, 226, 229;

quoted on faults of Jones’s façade of old St. Paul’s, London,

231, 232.

Ware, Isaac, _A Complete Body of Architecture_, 248^1, 249^1;

quoted on the rules of ancient architects, 248, 249.

Wenz, Paul, _Die Kuppel des Domes Santa Maria del Fiore zu

Florenz_, 20^1.

Willis, his term “continuous impost” used, 188^1.

Window openings, framed by structural members without structural

meaning, 116;

a peculiar form of compound, sometimes called an invention of

Scamozzi, 134 (cut), 143;

the same form occurs in the basilica of Shakka, 134 (cut);

tapering jamb shafts, 137 (cut), 142, 149;

illogical scheme of, which became characteristic of Lombard and

Venetian Renaissance architecture, 148 (cut);

mediæval form of those in Venetian palaces, 159 (cut), 160, 162;

Lower Walterstone Hall, England, illustrates Elizabethan

neo-classic ornamentation, 221 (cut);

château of Azay le Rideau, France, Flamboyant Gothic and

neo-classic forms combined, 186 (cut);

château of Charleval, France, unmeaning variation of details,

210, 211 (cut);

Palazzo Bartolini, Florence, 109 (cut);

Palazzo Guardagni, Florence, 107;

the Quaratesi, Florence, 106;

the Riccardi, Florence, mediæval in their larger features, but

with tapering jamb shafts, 103;

Palazzo Rucellai, Florence, 109 (cut);

Ospedale Maggiore, Milan, 165 (cut);

of the Certosa of Pavia, tapering jamb shafts, 137 (cut);

Palazzo Cancelleria, 112 (cut);

of Palazzo Farnese, Rome, framed by structural members without

structural meaning, 116 (cut);

Ducal Palace, Venice, east side of court, 154;

north side, pseudo-Corinthian order of, 155 (cut);

Palazzo Contarini, Venice, grouping of the pilasters, 161 (cut);

Palazzo Corner-Spinelli, Venice, mediæval features, incomplete

circle in the tympanum space, 160;

Palazzo Corneri, Venice, 124 (cut);

Palazzo Vendramini, Venice, grouping of, in the bays of the

façade, 162;

Scuola di San Rocco, Venice, with mediæval features and with

pseudo-Corinthian colonnettes, 159 (cut);

Palazzo Bevilacqua, Verona, 126, 127;

Palazzo Branzo, Vicenza, a peculiar form of compound window,

sometimes called an invention of Scamozzi, 134.

Wren, Sir Christopher, _Parentalia, or Memoir of the Family of the

Wrens_, 232^3 ff.;

professor of astronomy at Oxford, 233;

quotations from a letter written during his visit to Paris, 233;

quoted on his Sheldonian theatre, Oxford, 234;

ordered to submit designs for the restoration of old St. Paul’s

cathedral, London, 234;

his drawings of plans for the new structure, 235–238 (cuts);

building of the present structure, 239–245 (cuts);

his scheme to “reconcile the Gothic to a better manner,” 238,

243, 245;

he learned his art on the scaffold in close contact with the

works, 239;

his churches other than St. Paul’s exhibit a medley of elements

from spurious Gothic to pseudo-classic in irrational

combinations, 245, 246;

his spires are hybrid compositions of barbaric character, 246.

Development and Character of Gothic Architecture

By CHARLES HERBERT MOORE

Second Edition, Rewritten and Enlarged. With Ten Plates in Photogravure

and more than 200 Illustrations in the Text

_8vo. Cloth. $4.50, net_

The new edition embodies a large amount of fresh material gathered

at first hand from the monuments. A considerable number of early

Gothic buildings of great importance, hitherto little known, have been

examined; and much new light has thus been thrown upon the interesting

subject of the early Gothic development. A new chapter on the sources

of Gothic art has been inserted; the other chapters have been rewritten

and much new matter incorporated. The work is thus much improved both

as an exposition of the nature and character of Gothic art, and a

comparative illustration of the various pointed systems of the Middle

Ages.

Many new illustrations in the text, and a considerable number of

full-page plates, executed in the best manner of photographic

reproduction, will be included.

THE NATION _says of the new edition_:

“The treatise has evidently been remade from beginning to end, the old

material being retained only so far as it was found to meet entirely

the new demands.

“As to the illustrations, they also have been minutely reconsidered,

and the improvement in this respect is even more striking than in the

text....

“Those who have found the first edition of Mr. Moore’s work valuable

will find it still more important to possess the second.”

“We welcome Mr. Moore’s book with unalloyed satisfaction ... as of

very great importance and value.... A book so comprehensive, so

compact, so clear in statement, and so interesting in the treatment

of its great subject is well suited not only to increase the general

knowledge of Gothic architecture, but to become a text-book for special

students.”--AMERICAN ARCHITECT AND BUILDING NEWS.

“It is without question the most noteworthy work upon architecture yet

written in America, as well as by one of the foremost contributors to

the literature of the subject which has appeared in any country....

“Mr. Moore’s book is an honor to American scholarship and

investigation, and deserves the widest circulation among readers who

possess any interest in what he succeeds in making a most interesting

subject.”--BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER.

“While the more appreciative readers of this volume will be found among

students of architecture, no reader of taste or culture will find its

pages without interest.”--THE TRANSCRIPT, BOSTON.

“A very intelligent and sufficiently lucid discussion of fundamental

principles ... distinguished by a clear, logical precision of

statement, and by a boldness, and not unfrequently by an originality of

deduction, such as cannot be found in the works of European scholars

... lucid enough to commend themselves even to readers unfamiliar with

the technical side of the subject. To such readers, also, the orderly

development of the argument, the frequent, graphic illustrations, ...

and above all, the exhaustive index, cannot fail to serve at once as an

invitation to enter upon a charming field of study, and an inducement

to stay until the last words are said.”--THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

64–66 Fifth Avenue, New York

European Architecture

A HISTORICAL STUDY

BY

RUSSELL STURGIS, A.M., Ph.D., F.A.I.A.

_President of the Fine Arts Federation of New York; Post-President of

the Architectural League of New York; Vice-President of the National

Sculpture Society; etc._

8vo. Illustrated. $4.00

OUTLOOK

“To the literature of architecture no American is better qualified to

make a contribution of lasting value than Mr. Russell Sturgis.”

THE ARCHITECTS’ AND BUILDERS’ REVIEW

“Mr. Sturgis tells his readers exactly what the purpose of his book is,

and raises no expectations that are not fully realized.... It cannot

be too widely known or too carefully studied.... Nothing Mr. Sturgis

can say on the subject of architecture can fail to be interesting and

instructive.... It is not too much to say that this single work forms

the best introduction to the serious study of European architecture

ever published.”

THE INDEPENDENT

“In Mr. Sturgis’s ‘European Architecture’ rare good taste, simple

truth, and great knowledge combine to satisfy eye and mind.”

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

64–66 Fifth Avenue, New York

A DICTIONARY OF ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING

Biographical, Historical, and Descriptive

By RUSSELL STURGIS, A.M., Ph.D.

_Fellow of the American Institute of Architects_

And many Architects, Painters, Engineers, and other expert Writers,

American and Foreign

IN THREE OCTAVO VOLUMES--SOLD ONLY BY SUBSCRIPTION

Cloth, $18.00 net per set Half morocco, $30.00 net per set

_COMMENTS OF THE PRESS_

“Ambitious in scope and ample in bulk, the present work bids for

wide acceptance among the general as well as the technical public.

It is practically the only considerable effort to supply encroaching

demands for a compendium which shall be at once convenient as

to form and complete in the matter of contents. The aim of its

compilers has evidently been to strike an average between that which

is popular and that which is for the specialist, and in this they

have shown sagacity. Edited under the direct supervision of Mr.

Russell Sturgis,--who has contributed a momentous proportion of the

material,--the work has enlisted the services of some sixty current

authorities.”--CRITIC.

“Mr. Russell Sturgis is the editor of this important work, and has had

the coöperation of such men as Dr. Cleveland Abbe, Edward Atkinson, E.

H. Blashfield, Henry Van Brunt, ... and others, each of them eminent

in some department of knowledge rendering his aid valuable. It is

somewhat remarkable that there is in English no other dictionary of

architecture, excepting a work in eight volumes said to have been begun

about 1850 and to have been completed only ten years ago. There is

room, therefore, for a modern, scholarly, and reasonably complete work

of this class.

“The present volume, the first of the three proposed, covers the

letters A to E, inclusive. It is comprehensive, concise, although

sufficiently full, untechnical, and easily used. The desirable line

between too scrupulous terseness and too much elaboration of definition

or description has been drawn ordinarily with great success. There

is no hesitation to give space for desirable comment, as in what is

written under ‘Builder,’ for instance, but brevity has been kept in

view throughout the work, and its cross-references facilitate its use.

The titles are in heavy type and at once catch the eye. Illustrations,

numerous and appropriate, some of full-page size, abound, and all in

all the work will meet very satisfactorily a real and important public

need.”--CONGREGATIONALIST.

“Thanks to Mr. Russell Sturgis and a corps of competent assistants, we

now have in ‘A Dictionary of Architecture and Building: Biographical,

Historical, and Descriptive’ a much more valuable work than could have

been hoped for.... Several things are at once noticeable about this

work--the terseness and lucidity of its articles and definitions; the

extraordinary range of its subjects, from the arch of Septimius Severus

to modern apartment houses and tenements, and from St. Paul’s, London,

and the Doge’s palace in Venice, to a crib for hay such as one finds

in rural England, and a peasant’s hut in Asia Minor; the beauty of the

illustrations, and particularly the readiness with which they elucidate

the accompanying definitions and accounts; and the elaborate system of

cross-references, through which a glance at an article on any phase of

a given subject points the way at once to accounts of other related

terms and their uses.

“Perhaps the thoroughly modern spirit which dominates and inspires the

whole work is the feature that distinguishes this book most strongly

from the works in other languages which the seeker for definitions

hitherto has perforce consulted. The writers of these articles are

scholarly men, but they are something more than scholars. They are not

living in the past; they are doing their work in the world to-day,

and their point of view and their tone is a most satisfactory and

practical mixture of culture with the recognition of the needs of

the average American. An important feature of this work will be the

series of articles on the typical architecture of different countries.

Some of those in the present volume deal with the architectures of

Australia, Denmark, and England, while, to judge from cross-references,

the one in the final volume on the architecture of the United States

will be ambitious, elaborate, and inclusive. The connection of this

work with modern building is shown by the two long articles on the

‘Apartment House’ and ‘Electrical Appliances.’ Modern edifices are as

seriously considered as the ancient monuments described and pictured

by Viollet-le-Duc.... Now that it has appeared, this dictionary, many

of whose articles extend to the dimensions of those in encyclopædias,

becomes indispensable in its field.”--BOSTON HERALD.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64–66 Fifth Avenue, New York

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Cronica di Giovanni Villani_, bk. 6, chap. 69.

[2] Cf. Introduction to Villari’s _Niccolo Machiavelli and his

Times_, London, 1878.

[3] Cf. Montalembert, _Les Moines d’Occident_, vol. 2, p. 488

_et seq._

[4] Cf. my _Development and Character of Gothic Architecture_, pp.

304–306.

[5] The Gothic of northern France of the twelfth and early thirteenth

centuries, the only true Gothic art, is here meant.

[6] The Viscount Delaborde, in his book _La Gravure en Italie avant

Marc-Antoine_, Paris, 1883, p. 32, remarks on this with admirable

discrimination as follows: “Certes, sous le pinceau de Botticelli,

de pareils sujets [subjects drawn from Classical Mythology] gardent

un caractère d’élégance tendre et de mélancolie presque analogue à

la physionomie des scènes où figurent l’Enfant-Dieu et la Madone. Il

y a loin de cette manière d’interpréter la Fable aux panégyriques

violemment ou galamment licencieux que les hôtes les plus mal famés

de l’Olympe obtiendront dans les siècles suivants; il y a loin des

gracieuses inventions de Botticelli aux _lascivie_ brutales de

Jules Romain et d’Augustin Carrache ou aux gamineries mythologiques

de Boucher et de ses pareils, et l’on a quelque peine aujourd’hui, en

face d’aussi chastes tableaux, à comprendre la véhémence des reproches

fulminés jadis par Savonarole.”

[7] The elevated domes of Arabian architecture are in many cases

constructed of wood and stucco. When of masonry they are, I believe,

either weighted within where the thrusts fall, or are bound with chains.

[8] I have not examined the dome of Pisa closely on the spot, but I

suppose it is bound with a chain, as we know was the custom at a later

time. Cf. Fontana, vol. 2, P. 363.

[9] There can be little doubt that the dome represented in this

fresco embodies the original project of Arnolfo, though this has been

questioned. Cf. Guasti, _Santa Maria del Fiore_, etc., Florence,

1887, pp. lx-lxi.

[10] This needs to be qualified. The thrusts of the dome being

continuous logically call for continuous abutment, as in the Pantheon,

but the intervals between the abutting members are so small that the

resistance is practically continuous.

[11] By its architectural character, I mean its character as a work of

art. By the term “architecture” we properly mean not building merely,

but the fine art of beautiful building.

[12] This has been based on the affirmations of Vasari, who states

that it was Brunelleschi’s purpose to “restore to light the good

[_i.e._ the ancient Roman] manner in architecture,” and that he

had “pondered on the difficulties” involved in vaulting the Pantheon.

Cf. _Le Opere di Giorgio Vasari_, Milanesi edition, Florence,

1880, vol. 2, p. 337.

[13] A copy of this document is said to have been preserved for some

time in the archives of the Board of Works, but it seems to have

disappeared subsequently. It is given, however, by several writers,

Vasari and Guasti among them. There are slight differences of wording

and of measurements between the transcripts of these two authors. That

of Guasti is the most intelligible, and seems to agree best with the

monument. It reads as follows: “In prima: la cupola, dallo lato di

dentro lunga a misura di quinto acuto, negli angoli sia grossa nella

mossa da piè braccia 3¾, e piramidalmente si muri; sicchè nella fine,

congiunta con l’occhio di sopra, che ha a essere fondamento e basa

della lanterna, rimanga grossa braccia 2½. Facciasi un’altra cupola di

fuori sopra questa, per conservarla dallo umido, e perchè la torni più

magnifica e gonfiata; e sia grossa nella sua mossa da piè braccia 1¼, e

piramidalmente segua, che insino all’occhio rimanga braccia ⅔.

“El vano che rimarrà da l’una cupola all’altra, sia da piè braccia 2:

nel quale vano si metta le scale per potere cercare tutto tra l’una

cupola e l’altra; e finisca ’l detto vano a l’occhio di sopra braccia

2⅓.

“Sieno fatti ventiquattro sproni, che otto ne sieno negli angoli e

sedici nelle faccie: ciascuno sprone negli angoli grosso dappiè braccia

sette. Dalla parte di dentro, e di fuori, nel mezzo di detti angoli,

in ciascuna faccia, sia due sproni; ciascuno grosso dappiè braccia

quattro; e lunghe insieme le dette due volte, piramidalmente murate

insieme insino alla sommità dell’occhio inchiuso dalla lanterna, per

iguale proporzione.

“I detti ventiquattro sproni con le dette cupole sieno cinti intorno

di sei cerchi di forti macigni, e lunghi, e bene sprangati di ferro

stagnato; e di sopra a detti macigni, catene di ferro che cingano

d’intorno la detta volta, co’ loro sproni. Hassi a murare di sodo, nel

principio braccia 5¼ per altezza; e poi seguano gli sproni, e dividansi

le volte.

“El primo e secondo cerchio, alto braccia 2; e ’l terzo e quarto, alto

braccia 1⅓; e ’l quinto e sesto cerchio, alto braccia 1: ma ’l primo

circhio dappiè sia, oltre a ciò, afforzato con macigni lunghi per lo

traverso, si che l’una volta e l’altra della cupola si posi in su detti

macigni.

“E nell’altezza d’ogni braccia 12, o circa, delle dette volte, sieno

volticciuole a botte tra l’uno sprone e l’altro, per andito alla detta

cupola; e sotto le dette volticciuole, tra l’uno sprone e l’altro,

sieno catene di quercia grosse, che leghino i detti sproni e cingano la

volta dentro; e in su detti quercie una catena di ferro.

“Gli sproni murati tutti di pietra di macigno e pietra forte, e le

facce della cupola tutte di pietra forte, legate con sprone insino

all’altezza di braccia 24: e da indi in su si muri di mattoni o di

spugna, secondo che si delibererà per chi allora l’avrà a fare, più

leggieri che pietra.

“ ... Murinsi la cupola nel modo di sopra, senz’ alcuna armadura,

massime insino a braccia 30; ma da indi in su, in quel modo che

sarà consigliato e deliberato per quei maestri che l’avranno a

murare: perchè nel murare la pratica insegna quello che si ha da

seguire.”--Guasti, _La Cupola di Santa Maria del Fiore_, Florence,

1857, pp. 28–30.

[14] Durm, _Die Dom Kuppel in Florenz_, etc., Berlin, 1887, Plate

I, gives an admirable illustration of the internal system of this

remarkable dome, and shows the masonry of the solid base with its

clamps and chains, as described in the document quoted by Guasti (note,

p. 18).

[15] This idea finds expression in the latest work that I have seen

on the subject: _Die Kuppel des Domes Santa Maria del Fiore zu

Florence_. Von Paul Wenz, Berlin, 1901, p. 52; also in Durm, _Die

Baukunst der Renaissance in Italien_, p. 406.

[16] For a full account of the deliberations held, as well as for much

else of importance relating to the building of this dome, see Professor

C. E. Norton’s _Church Building in the Middle Ages_, New York,

Harper & Brothers, 1880.

[17] But while Brunelleschi appears to have had great natural

constructive aptitude, he had not had a sound training or experience

in construction. Such training would have taught him that it would not

do, under any circumstances, to spring a vault from the top of a wall,

and he ought to have learned this from his study of the ancient Roman

monuments.

[18] Nelli, _Discorsi di Architettura_, Florence, 1753, p.

74, reproduces an old drawing which purports to show the form of

the scaffolding that Brunelleschi employed. This drawing bears the

following inscription: “Questa Dimostrazione è di Filippo Brunelleschi

Architetto fatta per e Ponti della Cupola di S. M’ra. del Fiore di

Firenze nell’Anno M.CCCCXIX e fu quella che mostrò quando fu lasciato

in libertà di dover esser solo nell’operazione di d.^a cupola senza il

Ghiberti suo compagno non avendola voluta dar fuori prima di non essere

libero Architetto di d^a Opera; come sentiranno nella sua Vita scritta

da Diversi.” Brunelleschi, in his account of his intentions before the

Board of Works (note, p. 19), would not explain his scheme for the

scaffolding. He said merely that the vault was to be raised, without

centring, to the height of 30 braccia, and from that level upwards, in

the manner that should be advised by those who might then have the work

in charge.

[19] In his explanation of his scheme before the Board of Works, as

given by Vasari, Brunelleschi begins as follows: “Considerato le

difficultà di questa fabbrica, magnifici Signori Operaj, trovo che non

si può per nessun modo volgerla tonda perfetta, atteso che sarebbe

tanto grande il piano di sopra, dove va la lanterna, che mettendovi

peso rovinerebbe presto.” _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 347.

[20] It may be thought that this would condemn the use of metal clamps

in masonry, such as were inserted in the walls of the Parthenon, or

the wooden ties that were, in some cases, used in parts of Gothic

buildings. But there is a wide difference between such use of clamps

and ties, and the binding chains of the great domes of the Renaissance.

In the Greek and Gothic work the masonry forms are favourable to

stability independently of the clamps and ties. These were inserted

either for security against unusual dangers, as from earthquakes,

or for temporary security against rupture while the work was in

progress, before the interaction of the parts of the system was

fully established; but a dome without abutment violates the constant

conditions of stability.

[21] _Discrizione e Studj dell’Insigne Fabbrica di S. Maria del

Fiore_, Florence, 1733, p. xxi.

[22] _Memorie degli Architette_, etc., Florence, 1785, vol. 1, p.

190.

[23] Fontana, Nelli, Cecchini, and others.

[24] These ruptures were first observed in the year 1693 (Nelli, _op.

cit._, p. 13), and it was then advised by the architect Carlo

Fontana to add a new chain of iron. Nelli, however, argued that the

fissures had not arisen from thrust, but were due to a slight yielding

of the foundations, and he urged that no chain be added, but that a bit

of marble be dove-tailed into the vault across the opening, in order

that any further movement might be detected by the breaking of this

marble. For three years no further sign of disturbance was noticed,

but a slight earthquake in 1697 broke a portion of the masonry of the

outer face of the dome opposite the fissure across which the marble

had been placed. It appears, however, to have been concluded that

there was still no danger from thrust, and no new chain was inserted.

Cecchini (_Opinione intorno lo Stato della gran Cupola del Duomo di

Firenze_, published together with Nelli’s _Discorsi_, etc., p.

82) speaks of several cracks in both the inner and the outer shells of

the vault, and also in the supporting piers, even down to the ground.

But he agrees with Nelli in attributing these to movements of the

foundations from which he concludes that no further danger is to be

apprehended, and he affirms that the structure is entirely safe.

[25] Cf. Nelli, _op. cit._, p. 73.

[26] The thrusts of a hemispherical dome are, in some degree,

restrained by the binding of its continuous courses of masonry under

compression, but this is not enough for security, as experience has

shown; and in a polygonal dome, like Brunelleschi’s, there is no such

binding force, because there are no continuous circles of masonry.

[27] The term “Byzantine” is often applied loosely to buildings in

which only the ornamental details have a Byzantine character. But the

primary and distinguishing structural feature of Byzantine architecture

is the dome on pendentives. The Byzantine features of the Pazzi are

involved with others derived from different systems, but they are very

distinct. The central vault, though of Gothic form, is supported on

pendentives, and the true dome on pendentives occurs, as we have seen,

in the sanctuary and the porch.

[28] The entablature does, however, occur under vaulting in some

provincial Roman buildings, as in the Pantheon of Baalbek, where it

forms the wall cornice from which the vaulting springs. But this,

though not defensible, is less objectionable than the Renaissance

scheme of an entablature passing through the imposts of archivolts.

[29] As in the arch of the apse of St. Paul outside the wall at Rome,

and in the Baptistery of Florence.

[30] The character of these details will be discussed in the chapter on

the carved ornament of the Renaissance.

[31] Cf. Vasari, _Opere_, vol. 2, p. 368 _et seq._, and Milanesi’s

foot-note, p. 370.

[32] _Op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 200.

[33] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 541.

[34] _Op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 201.

[35] _Op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 201.

[36] Vasari, _op. cit._, vol. 4, p. 152, and Milizia, vol. 1, p.

214.

[37] Figures 21 and 22 are taken from Serlio, _D’Architettura_,

book 3, Venice, 1560, pp. 25 and 40.

[38] _Op. cit._, vol. 7, p. 163.

[39] Serlio, the architect (a younger contemporary of Bramante),

_op. cit._, p. 33, tells us that Bramante, at his death, left no

perfect model of the whole edifice, and that several ingenious persons

endeavoured to carry out the design, among whom were Raphael and

Peruzzi, whose plans he reproduces. That ascribed to Raphael has a long

nave, while that said to be by Peruzzi has the form of the Greek cross

with round apses and a square tower in each external angle. The whole

question of Bramante’s scheme, and of the successive transformations

to which the design for the edifice was subjected before its final

completion, is fully discussed in the work of Baron H. von Geymüller,

_Die ursprünglichen Entwürfe für Sanct Peter in Rom_, Wien and

Paris, 1875–1880.

[40] _Op. cit._, bk. 3, p. 37.

[41] Serlio does not state on what authority this illustration is

based, but there appears no reason to question its correctness. Its

authenticity is discussed by Baron von Geymüller (_op. cit._, p.

240 _et seq._), who accepts it as genuine.

[42] The alterations that have been made at different times since

the original completion of this interior are of no concern here. The

arrangement was practically the same in Bramante’s time as it is now.

[43] Some writers have supposed (cf. Middleton, _Ancient Rome_,

Edinburgh, 1885, pp. 338–339) that the dome of the Pantheon is entirely

of concrete, and without thrusts. We have no means of knowing its

exact internal character, but there is reason to believe that it has

some sort of an embedded skeleton of ribs and arches, with concrete

filling the intervals. But if it were wholly of concrete, as Middleton

affirms, it would not be safe without abutment; for, even supposing

that a concrete vault may be entirely free from thrust in a state of

integrity, there is always a chance of ruptures arising from unequal

settlement, which might at once create powerful thrusts. However this

may be, the fact is that the builders of the Pantheon took care to

fortify it with enormous abutment, which would seem to show that they

did not consider it free from thrust.

[44] Michael Angelo’s model, on a large scale and finished in every

detail, is preserved in an apartment of St. Peter’s.

[45] Michael Angelo’s remark, quoted by Fontana (_Tempio

Vaticano_, vol. 2, p. 315): “Imitando l’antico del Pantheon, e

la moderna di Santa Maria del Fiore, corresse i difetti dell’uno, e

dell’altro,” shows that he regarded as a defect the lowness of the

Pantheon dome, which in point of construction is its capital merit,

and that what he proposed to correct in the dome of Florence was its

octagonal form, which is essential to its peculiar structural system.

[46] A consistent exterior for such a vault would not, of course, be

an unbroken drum, though a perfectly Gothic circular vault might be

thus enclosed within a drum. A consistent external form would require

salient buttresses against the lines of thrust, and the intervals

between these buttresses would be open, as in a Gothic apse.

[47] The outside of this vault is figured in my _Development and

Character of Gothic Architecture_, 2d edition. New York and London.

The Macmillan Co., 1900, p. 287.

[48] Cf. my _Development and Character of Gothic Architecture_, p.

70 _et seq._

[49] The turrets, built upon the supporting piers of the interior, give

the outside of the drum the aspect of a massive lantern.

[50] Cf. Poleni, _Memorie Istoriche delle Gran Cupola del Tempio

Vaticano, e de’ Danni di essa, e de’ Ristoramenti loro_ (Padua,

1768), p. 29.

[51] Milizia, _op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 325.

[52] _Parere di tre Mathematici sopra i danni che si sono trovato

nella cupola di S. Pietro sul fine dell’Anno MDCCXLII. Dato per Ordine

di nostro Signore Papa Benedetto XIV_, Rome, 1742.

[53] See Appendix.

[54] “Cominciato forsi poco dopo terminata la fabrica.” _Op.

cit._, p. 13.

[55] _Ibid._, p. 14.

[56] _Ibid._, p. 15.

[57] _Ibid._, p. 19.

[58] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, pp. 327–328.

[59] It is true that fissures in a properly constructed vault are not

necessarily alarming. Any vault may crack from unequal settlement of

the supports. Gothic vaults are sometimes slightly ruptured in this

way, but they are not thus endangered, because they are effectively

buttressed. But fissures in a dome without abutments may be a sign of

impending collapse.

[60] _Ibid._, pp. 328–329.

[61] _Ibid._, p. 388.

[62] _Op. cit._, p. 399.

[63] The principal work of Bramante’s immediate successors on the

fabric itself appears to have been to strengthen the great piers, which

seem to have been built too hastily, and on insecure foundations.

Poleni tells that in order to strengthen these foundations, well-holes

were dug under them and filled with solid masonry, and that arches were

sprung between these sunken piers, consolidating the whole. _Op.

cit._, p. 19.

[64] _Ibid._, p. 19.

[65] I call the end of the sanctuary “the east end” according to the

nomenclature of the usual orientation. St. Peter’s, as is well known,

does not conform to the general rule which has prevailed since the

fifth century.

[66] These vaults may have been begun by some of his predecessors.

It is impossible to make out how far the building had been actually

advanced by them.

[67] The colossal order of the Temple of the Sun at Baalbek is so

unique in scale, and so little known, that it does not influence our

general notions of the size of a large classic order.

[68] As it actually does in the western part of the nave built by

Maderna.

[69] _Le Vite_, etc., vol. 7, p. 249.

[70] _Il Tempio Vaticano e sua Origine_, etc. Discritto dal Cav.

Carlo Fontana, Rome, 1694, vol. 2, p. 406.

[71] Letarouilly, _Edifices de Rome Moderne_, Paris, 1860, p. 350.

[72] Milizia, _op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 144, affirms that it is by

Bramante.

[73] Cf. Fontana, _op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 363.

[74] Bk. 3, p. 54.

[75] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 240.

[76] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 239.

[77] _Memorie_, etc., vol. 2, p. 36.

[78] _I Cinque Ordini d’Architettura._

[79] _Op. cit._, plate 32.

[80] Bk. 1, chap. 1.

[81] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 30.

[82] The drawings are found in the addendum to the edition of 1617,

plates 7 and 8.

[83] Recent investigations, the results of which are set forth by

Signor Beltrami (_Il Pantheon_, Luca Beltrami, Milan, 1898),

have shown that the existing portico is of later date than either the

rotunda or the rectangular front against which it is set.

[84] “A l’intérieur, pourtourné de pilastres également Corinthiens,

deux parties de l’entablement qui n’ont pas leur raison d’être sous une

voute, c’est-à-dire la frise et la corniche, par un raffinement peu

habituel aux Italiens, ont été supprimées.” _L’Architecture de la

Renaissance_, par Leon Palustre, Paris, Quantin, p. 72.

[85] _Quatro libri dell’Architettura di Andrea Palladio_, Venice,

1581.

[86] _Le Vite_, etc., vol. 2, pp. 432–433.

[87] _Op. cit._, vol. 4, p. 444.

[88] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 537.

[89] I believe I am correct in this. Photographs seem to show it

clearly, but I have not verified this point in the monuments themselves.

[90] _Op. cit_., vol. 1, p. 240.

[91] _Le Vite_, etc., vol. 2, p. 433.

[92] Cf. p. 144.

[93] These ornamental features usually have, however, in Gothic art

some real structural function.

[94] _Op. cit._, bk. 3, p. 53.

[95] _Milizia_, vol. 1, p. 346.

[96] _Milizia_, vol. 1, pp. 346–347.

[97] _Ibid_., p. 351.

[98] “Sansovino lo sciolse con allungar il fregio quanto bastasse per

supplire al difetto di quella porzione di metopa: ed il problema, e ’l

ripiego sono un’inezia.”

[99] _Memorie_, etc., vol. 2, p. 34.

[100] _I Quattro Libri dell’ Architettura_, bk. 3, p. 41.

[101] “Non dubito che questa fabrica non possa esser comparata à gli

edifici antichi e annoverata tra le maggiori, e le più belle fabriche

che siano state fatte da gli antichi in quà, si per la grandezza, e per

gli ornamenti suoi, come anco per la materia, che è tutta di pietra

viva durisima, e sono state tutte le pietre commesse e legate insieme

con somma diligenza.” _Op. cit._, bk. 3, p. 41.

[102] They were grammatical, not in the sense of using the classic

orders with correctness,--this, as we have seen, they did not do,--but

in the sense of arranging their architectural details, such as they

were, on a basis of grammatical order.

[103] Sir William Chambers, in his _Treatise on the Decorative Part

of Civil Architecture_, London, 1791, p. 121, referring to this form

of opening, says, “It is an invention of Scamozzi’s.”

[104] Cf. Casati, _I Capi d’Arte di Bramante da Urbino nel

Milanese_, Milan, 1870, p. 24 _et seq._ That the design of San

Satiro was made by Bramante, Casati gives the evidence of a document

printed in the year 1500 by the deputies of the church in which it

is said, “ ... _Come vi si diede principio dopo l’anno 1470 con

disegno del celebre Bramante_.” And he finds further confirmation of

Bramante’s authorship in a commentary on Vitruvius by Cesare Cesariano,

printed in Como in 1521, where this author states that the church

and sacristy of San Satiro were designed by his preceptor, Donato of

Urbino, called Bramante.

[105] Salient ribs of stucco are carried up in the angles of the dome

of the sacristy as they are in the vaulting of the apses of Todi.

[106] Cf. Casati, _op. cit._, p. 44.

[107] Cf., p. 134, the window sometimes called that of Scamozzi.

[108] _Op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 434.

[109] Melani, _Architettura Italiana_, vol. 2, p. 154.

[110] Cf. _Architettura Italiana_, by Alfredo Melani, Milan, 1887,

vol. 2, p. 157.

[111] Coin of Metapontum.

[112] Vitruvius, bk. 7, chap. 5, refers with disapproval to the

tasteless and meaningless monstrosities embodied in the ornamental art

of his time, and the remains of Roman reliefs offer many examples of

such design.

[113] The theory respecting the use of artificial elements in

architectural ornamentation developed by Ruskin in his well-known

chapter entitled, “The Lamp of Beauty,” in the _Seven Lamps of

Architecture_, is, I believe, entirely right in principle, though

the author is arbitrary in some of his conclusions and overemphatic in

some of his statements.

[114] The most authoritative French writers are misleading in affirming

that no radical departure from their best building traditions was

made by the French architects of the Renaissance. Thus Viollet le Duc

(Dict., vol. 3, _s. v._ _Château_, p. 174) says of these architects,

“Toujours fidèles a leurs anciens principes, ils ne sacrifièrent pas la

raison et le bon sens.” But while affirming this, these same writers

sometimes make admissions which so materially qualify the affirmation

as to deprive it of its truth; thus the same author, remarking on

the changes that were making in the character of the château, adds

(p. 185), “Nous accordons que la tentative était absurde; mais la

renaissance française est, à son début, dans les lettres, les sciences

ou les arts, pleine de ces hésitations.”

[115] Martin, _Hist. de France_, vol. 7, pp. 378–382.

[116] Cf. Viollet le Duc, _s. v._ _Château_, p. 190.

[117] I use Willis’s term, “continuous impost,” for an impost in which

the jambs pass into the arch without the interposition of a capital,

and without change of profiling.

[118] Du Cerceau’s plate (_Les Plus Excellents Bastiments de

France_, vol. 2, plate 4) is incorrect, like most of his other

plates, in giving the semicircular form to the openings of this façade.

[119] _Reigle Géneralle de Architecture_, etc., Paris, 1568.

[120] Said by Palustre, _L’Architecture de la Renaissance_, p.

176, to have been “servilement imité du temple de Jupiter Stator.”

[121] These lower arches are concealed from view on the external

façades by a basement wall.

[122] Adolphe Berty, _Les Grands Architectes Français de la

Renaissance_, Paris, 1860, p. 70.

[123] Milizia, _Memorie_, vol. 1, p. 404.

[124] Berty, _op. cit._, p. 71.

[125] _Les Plus Excellents Bastiments de France_, plate 69.

[126] The lines of this poem which relate to Lescot are quoted by M.

Berty in _op. cit._, pp. 66–68.

[127] _Regole Generale di Architettura di Sebastiano Serlio._

[128] _Op. cit._, plate 2.

[129] Viollet le Duc, in his _Entretiens sur l’Architecture_, p.

362, says, “Philibert De l’Orme était peut-être l’artiste dont le goût

était le plus sûr, le sentiment le plus vrai, les principes les plus

sévères.” This estimate appears to me singularly short-sighted, but

it is in keeping with the artistic limitations of its gifted author,

whose great abilities did not, I think, include the finest powers of

artistic judgment. Viollet le Duc’s own architectural projects, as

illustrated in the _Entretiens_, are enough to show this. A truer

estimate is given by M. Berty, in his _Life of De l’Orme_, as

follows: “Ayant absolument rompu avec la tradition Gothique, toujours

plein du souvenir des monuments romains qu’il avait étudiés en Italie,

et qui constituaient pour lui la vraie architecture, De l’Orme, visant

sans cesse à la majesté, n’atteignit souvent que la lourdeur. D’un

autre côté, trop préoccupé de la recherche d’une beauté rationnelle

qu’il demandait plutôt au calcul qu’au sentiment, procédé pernicieux

qui égare à coup sûr, il ne peut éviter les bizarreries et même les

gaucheries dans ses conceptions.... C’est sur le terrain de la science

qu’il a vraiment dominé tous ses rivaux, en acquérant des droits

incontestables à la reconnaissance de la postérité.” (_Les Grands

Architectes Français_, etc., p. 36.) It was the scientific ability

of De l’Orme that Viollet le Duc could best appreciate, his own genius

being more scientific than artistic.

[130] _Le Premier Tome de l’Architecture_, etc., Paris, 1567.

[131] _Op. cit._, p. 156.

[132] The Tuileries was designed by De l’Orme for Catherine de Médicis.

[133] _Op. cit._, facing p. 240.

[134] Assuming that De l’Orme was born in the year 1515. Cf. Berty,

_op. cit._, p. 1.

[135] _Op. cit._, bk. 4, p. 26.

[136] Cf. my _Development and Character of Gothic Architecture_,

p. 304 _et seq._

[137] _Op. cit._, p. 155. The fanciful notion that the Ionic order

was designed after female proportions is derived from Vitruvius, bk. 3.

[138] The roof is not shown in Du Cerceau’s print.

[139] Viollet le Duc, I may say again, appears to me greatly to

overestimate De l’Orme’s artistic powers when he says, “Dans les

œuvres de Philibert De l’Orme on constate une étude attentive et

soigneuse des proportions, des rapports harmonieux qui semblent les

plus simples, mais qui cependent sont le résultat d’une connaissance

parfaite de son art et des moyens mis à sa disposition,” and when he

speaks of the Tuileries as follows: “C’était bien là une architecture

de palais grande et noble par ses masses, précieuse par ses détails.”

_Entretiens sur l’Architecture_, vol. 1, p. 363.

[140] _Op. cit._, bk. 8, chap. 9. The pages here are not numbered.

[141] It need hardly he said that such variety is very different

from that which results from an active inventive spirit, as where in

Gothic art some new constructive idea gives rise to change, or where

in sculptured ornamentation a teeming fancy finds expression in varied

forms.

[142] _Entretiens_, vol. 1, p. 374.

[143] But why should an architect wish to do any such thing? The fact

that he did so shows again the factitious and unreasonable character of

this Renaissance design.

[144] _Op. cit._, p. 375.

[145] _Essay on Building._

[146] These houses are figured by Mr. Gotch in his _Architecture of

the Renaissance in England_, plates 7, 12, 20, and 66.

[147] _The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors, and

Architects_, London, 1831, vol. 4, p. 85.

[148] _A History of Renaissance Architecture in England_, by

Reginald Bloomfield, M.A., London, 1897, vol. 1, p. 3.

[149] Almost nothing is known of John Thorpe beyond what may be

gathered from his numerous drawings preserved in the Soane Museum.

He was working during the latter part of the sixteenth century, and

appears to have been the original designer of some of the larger houses

of that time, the plans of which are contained in the Soane collection.

[150] These windows are said by Gotch, _op. cit._, vol. 1, p. 34,

to have been inserted by Inigo Jones. An attic over the central bay is

said to be also by him.

[151] Gotch, plate 33.

[152] Du Cerceau’s book was published in 1576, and Longford’s was begun

in 1580. It is not unlikely, therefore, that Thorpe had studied the

designs of Chambord and the Tuileries in the prints of this book.

[153] Gotch, plate 92.

[154] Gotch, plate 82.

[155] _Ibid._, plate 86.

[156] _Ibid._, plate 143.

[157] Vol. 2, p. 260.

[158] Cunningham’s _Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters,

Sculptors, and Architects_, vol. 4, p. 71.

[159] Cunningham, _op. cit._, p. 76.

[160] A work undertaken at the request of the king, in which Jones

reaches the astonishing conclusion that in Stonehenge we have the

remains of a Roman temple of the Tuscan order. Cf. Cunningham, p. 106

_et seq._

[161] Cunningham, _op. cit._, p. 115.

[162] Cunningham, _op. cit._, vol. 2, p. 266.

[163] _The Designs of Inigo Jones, consisting of Plans and Elevation

for Publick and Private Buildings_, by William Kent, London, 1727.

[164] Plates 1 to 52 inclusive.

[165] _Op. cit._, p. 265.

[166] _A History of Renaissance Architecture in England_, by

Reginald Bloomfield, London, 1897, vol. 1, p. 122.

[167] _Parentalia, or Memoir of the Family of the Wrens_, by

Christopher Wren, London, 1750, pp. 269–270.

[168] _Parentalia_, p. 142.

[169] _Parentalia_, pp. 261–262.

[170] Wren had been appointed surveyor-general and principal architect

of the city of London after the great fire.

[171] _Parentalia_, p. 335.

[172] _Ibid._, p. 273.

[173] _Ibid._, p. 277.

[174] _Parentalia_, p. 278.

[175] _Ibid._, p. 281.

[176] _Parentalia_, p. 283.

[177] W. J. Loftie, _Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren_,

London, Macmillan & Co., 1893, p. 196.

[178] _A Complete Body of Architecture_, by Isaac Ware, Esq.,

London, 1768.

[179] _Op. cit._, p. 131.

[180] _Lettera di Filippo Baldinucci intorno al modo di dar

Proporzione alle Figure in Pittura e Scultura_, Leghorn, first

published in 1802.

[181] _Op. cit._, p. 10.

[182] _Architettura Italiana_, Milan, 1887, vol. 2, p. 140.

[183] The letters in this description refer to those of the

illustration (Fig. 30) in the text.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been

corrected silently.

2. Hyphenation has been rationalised. Inconsistent spelling (including

accents) has been retained.

3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have

been retained as in the original.

4. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. or

X^{xx}.

5. Italics are shown as _xxx_.