How to Study Architecture

by Charles H. Caffin

At first the movement groped. The thinker and the artist, while intent upon the study of life, were ignorant of exact methods of study. These were gradually learned through the rediscovery of the Greek and Roman classics. The Rebirth, in fact, which is metaphorically suggested in the term Renaissance, was the result of the spread of the humanistic spirit and the “Revival of Learning”; and, in recognition of this, Classic literature was called “Litteræ Humaniores,” the students of the Classics were called Humanists, and Humanism is the term often applied to the whole movement.

The movement was one that affected the whole fabric of civilisation, for it involved no less than the self-emancipation of the human intellect and will. The human will began to free itself from the shackles of dogmatism and the domination of absolute authority, whether exercised by the Church or by civil rulers. The human intellect gradually freed itself from the subtleties and sophistries of the “Schoolmen,” ceased to speculate on abstract questions, such as the language spoken by the angels, and how many angelic beings could be supported on the point of a pin, and began to apply itself to the exact study of what was actually within the reach of human experience or research. And for this exactness of study the Revival of Learning laid the foundation, because the students of the Classics learned to collate the various manuscripts, comparing them critically so as to discover the correct reading, and were also obliged to compile grammars and dictionaries—in fact, to construct from the ground up, a fabric of reliable knowledge and at the same time a system of education. It was a process that encouraged both exact and critical research.

Meanwhile, before the Revival of Learning could make itself a force, there had been other influences which prepared the way for emancipation from the despotism of authority. The Middle Ages had been dominated by two authorities, the Church and the Holy Roman Empire. The former, as we have seen in a previous chapter, was the sole agency to introduce organisation into the chaos that succeeded the fall of the Roman Empire. It gradually subdued the barbarian conquerors not only to a semblance of religious fellowship but also to some degree of social order, and further fostered the latter by throwing the weight of its influence on the side of popular rights.

On the other hand, the attempt of Charlemagne to revive the magnificence and the authority of a Roman Emperor had been directly to force upon the various racial divisions of Europe the yoke of a political despotism, under the sanction of the Church’s co-operation. The Holy Roman Empire was an arbitrary and artificial union of unmixable elements and did not survive the death of its founder. The central authority could not hold in check the ambition and power of local authorities. The Frankish group fell apart from the Germanic groups across the Rhine. The authority of succeeding emperors was confined to the east of the Rhine and had to meet the growing opposition of the Feudal system. The result was a continual clash of authorities, in which all parties intrigued for the assistance of the Church, so that the Papal authority also was drawn into the struggle for civil power, thereby weakening its prestige in religious and social directions.

The outcome of the prolonged embroilment was the gradual consolidation of peoples into nationalities. France, England, and Germany emerged as separate unities, each drawn into a whole by racial similarities and local self-interest. The dream of a centralised and absolute authority, whether civil or religious, was slowly replaced by the practical policy of attempting to establish a balance of European powers.

And, while this gradual disintegration of the absoluteness of authority was in process, other circumstances operated to undermine the old traditional order. We have spoken of one of them—the spread of Humanism. Meanwhile the use in warfare of gunpowder and guns hastened the overthrow of the Feudal system. The introduction of the mariner’s compass made possible the exploration of continents beyond the ocean. The substitution of the Copernican for the Ptolemaic system of astronomy revolutionised men’s idea of the universe. Further, the growth in nationality was accompanied by the development of separate languages, and the diffusion of these, as well as of knowledge generally, was increased by the invention of paper and printing.

Thus, from diverse directions light was breaking into the darkness of life, dispersing the superstitions and terrors that had shackled the human will, and illuminating positive pathways for the human intellect to travel. Thought ceased to be involved in allegory; the study of nature to be “perverted into grotesque and pious parables,” while sorcery and magic no longer seemed to be the means of compassing control over nature and obtaining insight into the mysteries surrounding human life. The other world, with its imagined heaven and hell, loosened its grip on the conscience, and the joys and possibilities of this world began to occupy men’s minds. The beauty of the visible world and the delights of sense ceased to be regarded as snares of the devil, and in their growing independence and belief in themselves men turned to mastering the resources of this world and to making it better for the purpose of life. No wonder, that as the consciousness of this new and fuller existence became confirmed, men spoke to one another of a Rebirth!

How this movement, which was in ferment throughout Western Europe, operated specifically in different countries, is now to be traced. The leadership in it was taken by the Rinascimento, to use the Italian word, of Italy.

ITALIAN RENAISSANCE

Ever since Charlemagne’s conquest of Lombardy the Emperors had held a foot in Italy, contesting authority with the Pope. Meanwhile, the successors of Roger, the Norman conqueror of Sicily, held sway over the Kingdom of Naples, which occupied the southern part of the peninsula, and at different times was joined to or independent of the Kingdom of Sicily. Italy, in fact, had proved herself incapable of forming a united nation or of establishing a national state. Like Hellas of old, she was an agglomeration of communes and cities, capable of being inspired by a common sentiment of race, but unable to merge their independence and mutual jealousies and rivalries in a single political organisation. Even the individual communes and cities were split into factions: the Ghibellines, representing the aristocratic party, favouring the Emperor, and the Guelphs, who comprised the popular party and were assisted by the Popes.