CONTENTS
| CHAPTER I | |
| Introduction | |
| PAGE | |
|---|---|
| Character of the Fine Arts of the Renaissance not hitherto correctly set forth—TheFine Arts always an expression of the conditions and beliefs of apeople—Mediæval Christianity as a source of artistic inspiration—Conditionsthat gave character to the Fine Arts of the Middle Ages—Artisticproductions of the Renaissance qualified by the immoral tendencies of thetime—Luxury and extravagance of Florence at the close of the fifteenthcentury—The Fine Arts made to minister to sensuous pleasure—Bestclassic art unknown in the Renaissance time—Mixed influences actuatingthe artist of the Renaissance—The Renaissance and the Middle Agescompared as to development of the individual—Lack of aptitude for constructionamong the architects of the Renaissance—The Italian geniusfor painting—The painter’s habits of design shown in the Renaissanceuse of the orders—Classification of architectural styles—Painting thebest art of the Renaissance—Yet Italian painting of the sixteenth centuryis not all of exemplary character—Best art of the Renaissance foundedon the earlier Christian art—A retrospective movement not a vital forcein artistic development | [1] |
| CHAPTER II | |
| The Dome of Florence | |
| Exhibits a wide departure from older dome constructions—Sources of thearchitect’s inspiration—General character of earlier domes—Remarkableconstruction of the dome of the Florentine Baptistery—It probably suppliedthe chief inspiration to both Arnolfo and Brunelleschi—Brunelleschi’sdepartures from the Baptistery scheme—His structural system and his ownaccount of it—No Gothic character possible in a dome—The dome ofFlorence a daring innovation—Its general dimensions—Brunelleschi’sgreat ability as a constructor—His achievement of the work without theusual centring—Consideration of the dome as a work of art—The inherentweakness of its form—This not appreciated by the early Italianwriters—Precautions taken for its stability—Signs of disintegration—Uncertaintyas to its duration—Opinions of the early Italian writers as toits security—Structural integrity essential to good architecture—Noclassic character in Brunelleschi’s dome—Inferior character of the classicdetails of the lantern | [10] |
| CHAPTER III | |
| Church Architecture of the Florentine Renaissance | |
| The Pazzi chapel—Gothic character of its central vault—Architectural treatmentof the interior—Impropriety of a classic order in such a building—Awkwardresult of an entablature passing through an arch impost—Incongruitiesof design and construction in the portico—Use of stucco—Sourcesfrom which the façade may have been derived—Other churcharchitecture by Brunelleschi—San Lorenzo and Santo Spirito—Use ofthe entablature block in these churches—Survival of mediæval featuresand adjustments—Church architecture of Leon Batista Alberti—Thefaçade of Santa Maria Novella—The façade of San Francesco of Rimini—Thechurch of Sant’ Andrea of Mantua—Return to Roman models inthe structural forms of this building—Sant’ Andrea foreshadows St. Peter’sat Rome—Its west front an adaptation of the Roman triumphal archscheme—Such fronts peculiar to Alberti—The designers of the Renaissanceworked unconsciously on a foundation of mediæval ideas | [26] |
| CHAPTER IV | |
| The Dome of St. Peter’s | |
| Bramante in Rome—His early training—Character of the Tempietto of SanPietro in Montorio—Its likeness to a Roman temple of Vesta—Bramante’sproject for St. Peter’s—Uncertainty as to his scheme for the whole building—Hisdesign for the great dome—Sources of his inspiration—Comparisonof his dome with that of the Pantheon—Structural merits anddefects—The architect’s probable intention to use a great order for theinterior of the church—Michael Angelo’s appointment as architect—Hisscheme for the great dome—Its statical defects—Its supposed Gothiccharacter—Comparison with the dome of Salamanca—Its illogical buttresssystem—Its ruptures and the alarm which they occasioned—Commissionappointed to examine the fabric and report on its condition—Poleni’sopinion and his binding chains—The grandiose character of the dome—Infollowing Brunelleschi, Michael Angelo went farther in a wrong direction—Sucha scheme cannot be safely carried out without resort to extraneousmeans of support—The proper mode of constructing a domesettled by the ancient Roman and the Byzantine builders—Condition ofthe dome ignored by recent writers—The ruptures attributed by the earlyItalian writers to carelessness on the part of Bramante—The beauty ofthe dome exaggerated—Its violation of structural propriety incompatiblewith the highest architectural beauty | [44] |
| CHAPTER V | |
| Church Architecture of the Roman Renaissance | |
| Other parts of the church of St. Peter—Beauty of its plan—This plan couldnot be carried out with a good result in classic Roman details—Awkwardmakeshifts to which Michael Angelo was led—The colossal order of theinterior—The magnitude of the structural parts of the church unavoidable—Thereal character of the building contradicted by the external order—Makeshiftswhich this order necessitated—The real character of St. Peter’shas been rarely analyzed—Its grandeur due to its magnitude and to whatit derives from the design of Bramante—Its incongruity and extravagance—Useof stucco in the ornamentation of the interior—Extravagant laudationof the building by the earlier Italian writers—Antonio San Gallo’sproject for St. Peter’s—Earlier examples of Roman Renaissance churcharchitecture—Sant’ Agostino a mediæval building with Renaissance details—Itsfaçade—Santa Maria della Consolazione at Todi—Its attributionto Bramante—Irrational treatment of its interior—Merit of theexterior in its larger features—San Biagio at Montepulciano—The orderof the interior—The Renaissance use of a pilaster coupled with a columnon the corner of a building—Roman treatment of the corner—Instanceof the use of a corner pilaster described by Serlio—The exterior of SanBiagio—Its campanile and lantern—The evolution of this form of tower—Systemof Santissima Annunziatta at Arezzo—Vignola, and Milizia’sremarks on him—His book of architecture—His advocacy of ancientRoman art and his disregard in practice of its principles—His designfor Sant’ Andrea di Ponte Molle—Its derivation from the Pantheon—Vignola’sdesign for the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli at Assisi—Hisdesign for the Gesù at Rome—Aberrations of design in this work—Thefaçade by Della Porta—Palladio, and his great influence on modern art—Hisbook of architecture—His design for the church of San GiorgioMaggiore at Venice—The Redentore and San Francesco della Vigna | [66] |
| CHAPTER VI | |
| Palace Architecture of the Florentine Renaissance | |
| The neo-classic ideas most extensively carried out in palatial houses—Domesticarchitecture of the Middle Ages in Italy—The Palazzo Riccardi—Itsmediæval features—Its general form—Its court arcades—General characterof the interior—Vasari’s remarks on the Riccardi—The PalazzoPitti—The Strozzino—The Strozzi—The Pazzi—The Quaratesi—TheGuardagni and its reasonable character—The Rucellai—Introduction oforders in the façade of the Rucellai—The architect Alberti—His archæologicaland literary tastes—Alberti’s initiative in the use of the ordersnot immediately followed—Further neo-classic innovations introduced byBaccio d’Agnolo—Milizia’s remarks on these innovations—Increase inthe spirit of display in domestic architecture—Decline of Florentineascendency by the beginning of the sixteenth century—Artistic activitiestransferred to Rome—Erection of sumptuous palatial houses in Rome | [102] |
| CHAPTER VII | |
| Palace Architecture of the Roman Renaissance | |
| The Cancellaria—Its attribution to Bramante—Exhibits features in furtherconformity with the Roman antique—Its pilasters in pairs—Its projectingbays—Its portals—Arcades of its court—The Palazzo Massimi—Thefunctional order of its portico—Treatment of the upper façade—ThePalazzo Farnese—Application of orders and pediments to the windows—Thebroken entablatures of these windows—An ancient example ofsimilar treatment—Orders of the court—Awkward result in the angles—Rhythmicalscheme of the cloister of Santa Maria della Pace—Lack ofreason for this scheme—The architect Sansovino—His design for theLibrary of St. Mark at Venice—Treatment of the angles of the Doricorder—Free-standing column in the order of the upper story—Sansovino’sdesign for the Loggetta of the Campanile—His design for thePalazzo Cornaro—Sanmichele—His design for the Porta del Palio atVerona—His design for the Palazzo Canossa—The Palazzo Pompei allaVittoria—The Palazzo Bevilacqua—Its singular aberrations of design—Vignola’sdesign for the Palazzo Caprarola—Influence of its circular courton De l’Orme and Inigo Jones—The civic and domestic architecture ofPalladio—The Portico of Vicenza—Its derivation from the town hall ofPadua and from the Library of St. Mark—Syrian instance of the free-standingcolumn in connection with the arch—Palladio’s own estimate ofthe merits of this design—Use of poor materials by Palladio—His versatilityin meaningless composition—His palace fronts—Palladio a grammaticalformalist—The art of Scamozzi—His use of an entablature brokenby an arch | [112] |
| CHAPTER VIII | |
| Church Architecture of the Renaissance in North Italy | |
| Various other phases of the architecture of the Renaissance—The façade ofSan Bernardino of Perugia—The façade of the Certosa of Pavia—Itscombination of local mediæval and distorted neo-classic features—Thechurch and sacristy of San Satiro—Evidence that both were designed byBramante—Santa Maria delle Grazie—Its dome—Architectural treatmentof its exterior—Its attribution to Bramante—The chapel of St. PeterMartyr attributed to Michelozzi—The Monastero Maggiore—The cathedralof Como—Evidence of Bramante’s hand in the east end—Its detailsof mediæval Lombard character mixed with neo-classic elements—Thesouth portal—The windows of the nave—Architecture of the VenetianRenaissance—The church of San Zaccaria—Peculiar column of itsinterior—The church of San Salvatore—Its piers—Attic of the interior—Thechurch of Santa Maria dei Miracoli—Architectural treatment ofits exterior—Excellence of its mechanical execution—The façade of SantaMaria Formosa | [135] |
| CHAPTER IX | |
| Palace Architecture of the Renaissance in North Italy | |
| Marked local character of the palace architecture of Venice—Façade of eastside of court of the Ducal Palace—Irregularities of its composition—Northside of the same court—The Giant’s stair—Façade of the Scuoladi San Marco—Composition of the main portal—Notable refinements ofexecution in this portal—Façade of the Scuola di San Rocco—Uniquearchitectural character of the palaces of the Grand Canal—Those of themediæval period alone have the distinctive Venetian character—Neo-classicdetails used sparingly in the early Renaissance palaces of Venice—ThePalazzo Corner-Spinelli—Disposition and character of its windows—Questionablepropriety of the panelling of its pilasters—The beauty ofthe façade independent of its neo-classic details—The Palazzo Contarini—Thevaried proportions of its pilasters—The Palazzo Vendramini—Thedistinctive Venetian character altered by the application of completeorders—This character largely lost in the palaces of the Roman Renaissance—ThePalazzo del Consiglio of Verona—Its mediæval scheme—ThePalazzo Comunale of Brescia—The Ospedale Maggiore of Milan—Itslack of distinctive character—The later palace architecture of northItaly | [154] |
| CHAPTER X | |
| Architectural Carving of the Renaissance | |
| Little architectural character in the sculpture of the Renaissance—Close imitationof Roman models—Great delicacy of design and execution in muchcarving of the Renaissance—Lack of vital beauty in this carving—Comparisonwith Greek conventional ornamentation—Exceptional beauty offoliation in the reliefs of the Lombardi—Lifeless character of the scrollleafage of Filarete—Artificial convolutions of Renaissance ornamentaldesigns—Artificial and inorganic composition in the works of Benedettoda Maiano—Representation of artificial objects in Renaissance ornamentation—Disorderedcomposition in the borders of the Ghiberti gates—Comparisonof Greek leafage with that of the Renaissance—The grotesquein Renaissance ornamentation | [167] |
| CHAPTER XI | |
| Architecture of the Early Renaissance in France | |
| The Renaissance had not the same meaning north of the Alps that it had inItaly—A fundamental change in French architecture effected by theRenaissance influence—Survival of the Gothic style—Conditions whichfavoured the change from Mediæval to Renaissance forms—The transformationof the feudal castle into the Renaissance château—Factitiouscharacter of the French Renaissance château—Peculiar mixture ofpseudo-Gothic and neo-classic details in early French Renaissance architecture—Thechâteau of Azay le Rideau—Survival in this building ofthe larger mediæval forms—Its ornamental portal based on that of Châteaudun—Analysisof this portal—A different manifestation of Flamboyantideas in the portal of Chenonceaux—The château of La Rochefoucauld—Theeastern wing of Blois—The staircase tower of the court—The gardenside of the eastern wing—The château of Chambord—Its florid upperpart—Fontainebleau—Écouen—Bullant’s portico—Exceptional characterof the château of St. Germain en Laye—Further transformation ofFrench architecture in the later sixteenth century | [179] |
| CHAPTER XII | |
| Lescot and De l’Orme | |
| French architecture further changed by Lescot and De l’Orme, yet still withoutelimination of native characteristics—Lescot’s design for the Fountain ofthe Nymphs—The sculptures by Goujon—Possible derivation of thedesign from a drawing by Serlio—Lescot’s design for the Louvre—Capricioustreatment of neo-classic details in this design—The traditional logicof French design ignored by Lescot—Excessive ornamentation of theLouvre—The architectural work of De l’Orme—Paucity of extant examples—Hisdesign for the palace of the Tuileries—De l’Orme’s column—Hisclaim that this column was his own invention—Earlier instances ofthe same—A conscious effort to be original gave rise to most of theartistic aberrations of the Renaissance—Noble architecture not a personal,but a communal and national, product—Analysis of the façade of theTuileries—De l’Orme’s other architectural aberrations—The château ofCharleval—The freakish character of this design—Discussion of Violletle Duc’s comments on it—The church architecture of the French Renaissance—Thechurch of St. Eustache—Its unmodified Gothic structuralsystem—Its neo-classic details—St. Étienne du Mont—SS. Gervais andProtais at Gisors—The apse of St. Pierre of Caen—The Portal of St.Maclou at Pontoise | [194] |
| CHAPTER XIII | |
| Architecture of the Renaissance in England | |
| I. _Elizabethan Art_ | |
| Derivation of the Elizabethan domestic architecture from the native mediævalart—The reasonable character of the early Elizabethan house in its integrity—Theostentatious character and pseudo-classicism of the greatEnglish houses of the sixteenth century—Use of flimsy materials in ornamentaldetails—General excellence of construction in the main body ofthe building—Employment of foreign craftsmen in ornamentation—KirbyHall—Its lack of native English character—Peculiar aberrations in theuse of structural forms without structural functions—Fantastic ornamentationof the gables—Longford Castle—Its resemblance to Chambord—Manifoldforms of capricious design in Lower Walterstone Hall, CranborneManor-House, Tixall, Stanway, and other buildings—Fantastic compositionof the gate at Caius College, Cambridge—Aberrations of design inWollaton Hall—Ungrammatical and tasteless misuse of distorted classicelements in Elizabethan architecture largely due to Flemish and Dutchworkmen—No professional architects in Elizabethan times—The classicorders foreign to the genius and the needs of the English people | [216] |
| CHAPTER XIV | |
| Architecture of the Renaissance in England | |
| II. _Jones and Wren_ | |
| The architecture of England in the seventeenth century properly called Renaissanceonly by extension of the term—Jones and Wren the only architectsof importance at this time—Walpole’s extravagant estimate of InigoJones—The early career of Jones—His design for the Banqueting Hallof the palace of Whitehall—Its lack of English character—Analysis ofthe design—Kent’s exaggerated estimate of Jones’s genius—The schemefor the whole palace—Jones’s design for the façade of old St. Paul’s—Thoughtlesslaudation of the art of Inigo Jones—Sir Christopher Wren—Artisticnotions of the English dilettanti in the seventeenth century—Wren’sarchitectural training—His visit to France—The SheldonianTheatre—Wren’s project for repairs of old St. Paul’s—His commissionto rebuild—His first scheme for the new edifice—Sources of inspirationfor the great dome—Rejection of the first scheme—The so-called warrantdesign—The existing edifice—The structural system of the dome—Characterof the interior of the church—The masking of the buttress system—Wren’scity churches | [226] |
| CHAPTER XV | |
| Conclusion | |
| The architecture of the Renaissance not based on consistent principles—Incorrectnessof the notion that the Renaissance aberrations in the use ofthe orders was but a free adaptation of the old elements to new conditions—Theancient architectural forms do not lend themselves to new conditions—Adaptationinvolves creative changes which wholly transform originalelements—Influence of the writings of Vignola and Palladio in recenttimes—Modern recognition of the arbitrary character of the rules of theformalists—Genuine works of art not produced from rules—A justersense of the real character of the architecture of the Renaissance shownby a few recent writers | [247] |
ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
| PAGE | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Hagia Theotokos. From Dehio and Bezold | [11] |
| 2. | Aachen. From Dehio and Bezold | [11] |
| 3. | Dome of Pisa | [12] |
| 4. | Dome of Arnolfo | [13] |
| 5. | Section of the Baptistery of Florence | [14] |
| 6. | Dissection of the vault of the Baptistery | [15] |
| 7. | System of the dome of Florence | [17] |
| 8. | Section of the dome of Florence. From Sgrilli | [18] |
| 9. | Part plan of the dome of Florence. From Sgrilli | [18] |
| 10. | Plan of the chapel of the Pazzi | [26] |
| 11. | Section of the vault of the Pazzi chapel | [27] |
| 12. | Interior of the Pazzi chapel | [28] |
| 13. | Façade of the Pazzi chapel | [30] |
| 14. | Badia of Fiesole | [32] |
| 15. | Impost of San Lorenzo | [33] |
| 16. | Crossing pier of San Lorenzo | [34] |
| 17. | Façade of Santa Maria Novella | [36] |
| 18. | Plan of Sant’ Andrea, Mantua | [39] |
| 19. | Façade of Sant’ Andrea, Mantua | [40] |
| 20. | Arch of Septimius Severus | [41] |
| 21. | Temple of Vesta, Tivoli. From Serlio | [45] |
| 22. | San Pietro in Montorio. From Serlio | [46] |
| 23. | Bramante’s dome for St. Peter’s. From Serlio | [48] |
| 24. | Section of the Pantheon. From Fontana | [50] |
| 25. | Plan of Bramante’s dome. From Serlio | [51] |
| 26. | Michael Angelo’s model for the dome of St. Peter’s | [54] |
| 27. | Diagrams of vault construction | [56] |
| 28. | Interior of dome of Salamanca | [57] |
| 29. | Diagrams of vault construction | [58] |
| 30. | Dome of St. Peter’s. From the Report of the Mathematicians | [61] |
| 31. | Plan of St. Peter’s. From Fontana | [67] |
| 32. | Section of aisle of St. Peter’s. From Fontana and Letarouilly | [69] |
| 33. | Pier of Sant’ Agostino | [72] |
| 34. | Façade of Sant’ Agostino | [73] |
| 35. | Exterior of Todi | [75] |
| 36. | Interior of Todi | [76] |
| 37. | Plan of San Biagio | [77] |
| 38. | Interior of San Biagio | [78] |
| 39. | Arcade. From Serlio | [79] |
| 40. | Exterior of San Biagio | [80] |
| 41. | Tower of Santo Spirito | [82] |
| 42. | Santissima Annunziatta, Arezzo | [83] |
| 43. | Vignola’s entablature. From Vignola | [85] |
| 44. | Half plan of Sant’ Andrea. From Vignola | [86] |
| 45. | Section of Sant’ Andrea. From Vignola | [87] |
| 46. | Sant’ Andrea | [88] |
| 47. | Order of Santa Maria degli Angeli | [90] |
| 48. | Plan of the Gesù. From Vignola | [91] |
| 49. | Façade of the Gesù. From Vignola | [93] |
| 50. | Façade of the Gesù, Della Porta. From Vignola | [94] |
| 51. | Pediment of Baalbek | [95] |
| 52. | Tablet from Vignola | [96] |
| 53. | Orders of San Giorgio | [98] |
| 54. | Façade of San Giorgio | [99] |
| 55. | The Redentore | [100] |
| 56. | Window-head of the Mozzi, Florence | [103] |
| 57. | Window-head of Perugia | [103] |
| 58. | Court of the Riccardi | [105] |
| 59. | Façade of the Rucellai | [108] |
| 60. | Window of the Bartolini | [110] |
| 61. | Façade of the Cancelleria | [113] |
| 62. | Portico of the Massini | [115] |
| 63. | Window of the Farnese | [117] |
| 64. | Portal. From Serlio | [118] |
| 65. | Part of façade of the Library of St. Mark | [120] |
| 66. | Corner of the Parthenon | [121] |
| 67. | Roman corner. From Serlio | [122] |
| 68. | Corner of Library of St. Mark | [123] |
| 69. | Window of Palazzo Cornaro | [124] |
| 70. | Part of façade of the Porta del Palio | [125] |
| 71. | Detail of Palazzo Bevilacqua | [127] |
| 72. | Part of the Portico of Vicenza. From Palladio | [129] |
| 73. | Plan of supports, Portico of Vicenza. From Palladio | [130] |
| 74. | Arch of St. Simeon Stylites | [131] |
| 75. | Loggia Bernarda, Vicenza | [132] |
| 76. | Window of Palazzo Branzo | [133] |
| 77. | Niche of the Basilica of Shakka | [134] |
| 78. | Window of the Certosa of Pavia | [137] |
| 79. | Sacristy of San Satiro | [139] |
| 80. | Santa Maria delle Grazie | [141] |
| 81. | East end of Como | [143] |
| 82. | Portal of Como | [145] |
| 83. | Porch of San Zeno | [146] |
| 84. | Portal of San Pietro in Cielo d’Oro | [147] |
| 85. | Window of nave of Como | [148] |
| 86. | Column of San Zaccaria | [150] |
| 87. | Plan of pier of San Salvatore | [151] |
| 88. | Plan of pier of St. Mark’s | [151] |
| 89. | Façade of Santa Maria dei Miracoli | [152] |
| 90. | Part of window of court of the Ducal Palace | [155] |
| 91. | Portal of the Scuola di San Marco. | [157] |
| 92. | Part of the façade of the Scuola di San Rocco | [158] |
| 93. | Window of the Palazzo Contarini | [162] |
| 94. | One bay of basement of the Ospedale Maggiore | [164] |
| 95. | Window of the Palazzo Martinengo | [165] |
| 96. | Roman Arabesque relief | [168] |
| 97. | Renaissance Arabesque relief | [169] |
| 98. | Greek coin, magnified | [170] |
| 99. | Arabesque by Filarete | [171] |
| 100. | Console of pulpit in Santa Croce | [172] |
| 101. | Leafage from the Ghiberti gates | [173] |
| 102. | Pilaster in the National Museum, Florence | [174] |
| 103. | Greek leafage | [175] |
| 104. | Roman leafage | [175] |
| 105. | Leafage of Brunelleschi | [176] |
| 106. | Leafage of Brescia | [176] |
| 107. | Leafage of San Gallo | [177] |
| 108. | Relief of the Scala d’Oro | [177] |
| 109. | Grotesque mask | [177] |
| 110. | Cornice of Blois | [181] |
| 111. | Azay le Rideau | [182] |
| 112. | Portal of Azay le Rideau | [183] |
| 113. | Portal of Châteaudun | [185] |
| 114. | Part of the portal of Chenonceaux | [187] |
| 115. | Part of the court façade of Blois | [189] |
| 116. | Du Cerceau’s print of the Fountain of the Nymphs | [195] |
| 117. | Roman arch. From Serlio | [197] |
| 118. | Part of Du Cerceau’s print of Lescot’s Louvre | [198] |
| 119. | Plan of the Tuileries. From Du Cerceau | [201] |
| 120. | Elevation of the Tuileries. From Du Cerceau | [202] |
| 121. | De l’Orme’s column. From De l’Orme | [203] |
| 122. | De l’Orme’s doorway. From De l’Orme | [204] |
| 123. | Doorway. From Serlio | [205] |
| 124. | Doorway of De l’Orme. From De l’Orme | [208] |
| 125. | Façade of Charleval. From Du Cerceau | [210] |
| 126. | Interior façade of Charleval. From Du Cerceau | [212] |
| 127. | Chimney of Burghley House | [217] |
| 128. | North side of court, Kirby Hall. From Gotch | [219] |
| 129. | Gable of Kirby Hall. From Gotch | [220] |
| 130. | Window of Walterstone Hall. From Gotch | [222] |
| 131. | Impost of Cranborne Manor-House. From Gotch | [222] |
| 132. | Portal of Wollaton Hall. From Gotch | [224] |
| 133. | Basement of Whitehall. From Kent | [230] |
| 134. | Front of old St. Paul’s. From Kent | [231] |
| 135. | Section of Wren’s rejected scheme for St. Paul’s. From Bloomfield | [236] |
| 136. | Section of the dome of St. Paul’s. From Longman | [240] |
| 137. | Vaulting of St. Paul’s | [242] |
| 138. | Crossing pier and impost of St. Paul’s | [244] |
| 139. | Half section of the nave of St. Paul’s. From Longman | [245] |
LIST OF PLATES
| PAGE | ||
|---|---|---|
| I. | The Dome of Florence | [16] |
| II. | Interior of Sant’ Andrea, Mantua | [38] |
| III. | The Dome of St. Peter’s | [63] |
| IV. | The Riccardi Palace | [103] |
| V. | San Bernardino, Perugia | [135] |
| VI. | Ducal Palace, Venice | [154] |
| VII. | Palazzo Corner-Spinelli, Venice | [160] |
| VIII. | Palazzo del Consiglio, Verona | [163] |
| IX. | Relief of the Lombardi | [169] |
| X. | The Banqueting Hall, Whitehall | [228] |
| XI. | The Dome of St. Paul’s | [239] |
| XII. | Interior of St. Paul’s | [242] |
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The great change in ideas and ideals which, after the remarkable intellectual and artistic life of the Middle Ages, was manifested in the so-called Renaissance, is not always correctly conceived or fairly stated; and the character and merits of the Fine Arts of the Renaissance, as compared with those of mediæval times, have not, I think, been often set forth in an entirely true light. Of the merits of the best Italian art of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there can be no question, but the belief that this art is altogether superior to that of the Middle Ages will not bear examination in the light of impartial comparison.
The Fine Arts are always an expression of the historical antecedents, the intellectual, moral, and material conditions, and the religious beliefs of the peoples and epochs to which they belong. They derive their whole character from these antecedents and conditions, and cannot be rightly understood or appreciated without reference to them. Thus a brief consideration of these conditions in the Middle Ages on the one hand, and in the period of the Renaissance on the other, may help us to understand the nature of the above-mentioned change, and to gain a more discriminating appreciation of the real character of the artistic productions of the latter epoch.
During the Middle Ages ideas and imagination were governed by a religious faith which, though in many ways mistaken and misguided, was for the most part firm and unquestioning. Mediæval Christianity was a living power with the masses, and an inspiration to men of genius. The mediæval Christian mythology was well fitted to stimulate artistic invention, and the ideals which it maintained were full of beauty. It is true, indeed, that human conduct was not wholly governed by this faith; but the precepts of the Christian religion, as defined and interpreted by the Roman church, were generally held as of supreme authority, and to them most people acknowledged that they ought to conform. This Christianity gave the chief motive power for the best activities of the time, and the social relations of men were, in theory at least, based upon its teachings. The history of the Middle Ages abounds in evidence that popular habits of life were in many ways exemplary. Villani tells us that the citizens of Florence lived in sobriety and frugality, that they had loyal hearts, were faithful to one another, and that they required the same fidelity in the administration of public affairs.[1] Florence in the fourteenth century was alive with industry, and the open country around the city was prosperous with agriculture. Of such conditions her Fine Arts were an outgrowth and expression.