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 da 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.