The first building I went to examine was the Cathedral, a splendid work externally, and quite sui generis; for though in classing it you must put it with the Italian Gothic, already described, yet the style of ornament is very different from any that we observe elsewhere. The erection of this noble pile appears to have been decreed by the Florentine senate in 1294, and the building was commenced in 1298. Florence was then, according to Machiavelli, in its greatest prosperity, under a government essentially democratical, but which still left considerable consequence and power to the nobility. It must be confessed that these Italian citizens had magnificent ideas. The architect was Arnolfo; and since the whole of the ground plan is certainly of his design, it would be extremely interesting to ascertain how he intended to cover the great octagonal space in the centre. Arnolfo died in 1330, and Giotto was substituted in his place in 1334. I have an engraving professing to give the façade, as it was first built, from the designs of Arnolfo, before that of Giotto, but this can hardly be correct, as we find that in 1342, the work was only raised just above the opening of the doors; and we cannot suppose Giotto to have first erected Arnolfo’s design, and then demolished it to apply one of his own; and it seems certain that an elevation designed by Giotto, was really carried up to above the arches over the doors.[[39]] This, however, was afterwards pulled down, and a new front raised, from a model made under the direction of the Academy of design in the city. This again was destroyed in 1688, and despairing of a marble front, the wall was covered with a smooth surface of stucco, and the architecture painted upon it. The weather will save the Florentines the trouble of destroying this invention, since it is now almost obliterated.
To return to the building. We have various, though imperfect notices of its progress till 1407, when the whole edifice was completed as far as the upper outside cornice of the nave; and it appears probable that both the nave, and the three tribunes forming the remaining arms of the cross, were vaulted and covered in. All this is said to be precisely according to the design of Arnolfo; but from the similarity of the style to that of the Campanile, we may imagine that Giotto had some hand in the distribution of the coloured marbles which cover the brickwork of the first part of the nave. The part behind the tribunes, from its similarity to that of the baptistery, may be attributed to Arnolfo, while between Giotto’s work and the front, there is a small portion of later date. The difference of style in these parts is not so great as to obtrude itself on a casual observer. Brunelleschi advised the construction of the octangular drum under the dome, with the circular windows, but whether this was his own design, or the continuation of Arnolfo’s, has been disputed. Perhaps he only suggested some alterations. In 1419 this work was completed, and Brunelleschi was again consulted about the construction of the dome itself; but he had great difficulties to encounter. A meeting of architects and master-builders was called, by whom his plan seems to have been generally disapproved, and even made a subject of ridicule. Perhaps this applies rather to the mode of carrying it into execution, than to the design itself. Among various schemes proposed, one was to bury some money in a vast mound of earth, corresponding in size and shape, with the proposed edifice, to erect the dome upon this mound, and afterwards, as the cheapest way of removing the earth, to permit the populace to enter and dig for the money. The building was under the care of the workmen and consuls of the woollen art; or as we should say, the warden and assistants of the clothworkers’ company; and they had the good sense and firmness to appoint Brunelleschi the architect. The clamours raised against his scheme, had, however, so much effect, that another artist was joined with him in the commission. We form a very mean opinion of this associate, when we learn that Brunelleschi feigned himself ill; and that the incompetency of his companion thus becoming evident, the whole direction was committed to him. This dome or cupola, if measured on the angles, is somewhat larger than the Pantheon at Rome, and when measured on the sides, not much less than that building, and wider than the dome of St. Peter’s. It is confined at the springing by a chain formed of wooden beams. The difficulty of construction is however, much lessened by the solidity of the mass on which it stands, and from its being carried up, in compliance with the disposition of the ground plan, without the intervention of pendentives, or any contrivance of that sort. It was begun in 1420, and finished in 1434; and in 1435, the church was dedicated by Pope Eugenius the Fourth.
After what I have already said, you will not ask me for any criticism on the front of this building; and in my observations on the appearance of the sides, you will recollect that the work is not all finished, particularly the upper part of the drum of the dome, where a parapet of small arches has been commenced under the direction of Baccio d’Agnolo, and not terminated. However, except in the façade, and in a few slight deficiencies of this sort, the whole edifice is encrusted with red, black, and white marbles, disposed in panels; some square-headed, and some terminating in pointed arches. There is a good deal of Gothic ornament about the lower windows and doors, and this is more apparent in the part I have attributed to Giotto and his successors, than in that of Arnolfo in the tribunes, where most of the arches are semicircular. The windows of the clerestory and of the drum of the dome, are circular, and without much ornament; but all the windows are small. You will not say that this is in good taste, and it certainly cannot be praised for purity of design. In fact the panelling does not agree with the arches, or cornice; and neither of these, with the windows. Yet station yourself at the south east angle, opposite the part which is most complete, and you must acknowledge it a glorious and magnificent building; rich and splendid in all its parts, and beautiful as a whole composition; and if there be not perfect harmony in every particular, there is nothing obtrusive or offensive; nothing which does not unite to the perfection of the whole. The inside of the nave is more decidedly Gothic than the out; it is very large, but not handsome, with wide arches upon low piers; the width of these openings being twenty-eight braccia, each of 22,956 inches, i. e. 53 feet and a half English, which is also the width of the nave, while the aisles are displeasingly narrow. The piers are of brown stone, the walls and vaults whitewashed, and there is very little ornament of any sort. There are no ridge-ribs in the vaulting, and the ridges themselves are very much arched. An awkward gallery at the springing of the vaulting cuts the lines, and hides the commencement of the ribs. The arches are kept as usual by iron ties, the windows of the clerestory are small and circular; those of the aisles long, narrow, and pointed.
| Braccia. | Feet. | |
|---|---|---|
| The internal length of the building is | 257 | 491 |
| The internal length of the transept | 154 | 294 |
| The internal length of the nave and side aisles | 69 | 132 |
| The internal length of the dome from side to side | 72 | 138 |
| The internal length of the dome from angle to angle | 78 | 149 |
| Height of the nave | 72½ | 139 |
| Height of the dome internally | 138 | 262 |
| Height of the building | 202 | 463 |
The whole of the part about the dome, is well and firmly built; and the exuberance of strength makes one conceive that Arnolfo intended something great in the centre. The diameter of the octagon is seventy-two braccia, which is somewhat greater than the width of the three parts of the nave united. Four of the sides are of course open to the four arms of the cross; two others open into the side aisles of the nave, and the remaining two into the sacristy. The dome is painted without any ribs or panels, or other architectural decoration; and in spite of its size, its gloom, and its apparent solidity, the impression is not sublime. As we usually see this building, the windows are shaded, and the chief light is admitted from the doors. Nothing can be worse; but we frequently find the private apartments in Florence lighted from the lower part. The choir is a great octagonal inclosure, immediately under the dome. This is also said to be by Brunelleschi, but it is very ugly. There is hardly any thing to be admired, either in the sculpture or painting of this church. It boasts indeed a work of Michael Angelo, but unfinished, like most of his productions; and in so dark a place that it is hardly possible to see it at any time. More interest arises from the names of some great men who were buried here; Brunelleschi, Giotto, Dante, the first who distinguished themselves in the architecture, painting, and poetry, of modern Europe. How terms change their signification in different places! Four hundred years gives a monument a full claim to antiquity in England, but in Italy leaves it quite modern; and I have heard of a gentleman, who, in a conversation about Greek antiquities, was put in mind of the fortifications of Messene, which are still nearly entire. ‘Oh,’ replied he, ‘but those are modern, only of the age of Epaminondas.’ For these nations to boast of their antiquity however, is just like an old man boasting of those years which have robbed him of all his vigour, both of body and mind.
From the cathedral I will take you to the Campanile, which stands just by, built entirely by Giotto; but if it was founded, as it is said to have been, on the 8th of July, 1334, it could hardly have been completed under his direction, since the latest account of his death fixes it in 1336, and Milizia places it in 1334. It is 25 braccia (47 feet 8 inches) square on the plan, and 144 braccia (294 feet 7 inches) in height. The building is encrusted with red, black, and white marbles, like the cathedral, and like it, is of a peculiar architecture; for though the openings are pointed, and have even a good deal of Gothic ornament, yet the whole character of the building has hardly any thing in common with the spiry, ascending form of that style, as we see it executed in France and England. For what it is, it is well composed, but we feel the want of any leading lines, the horizontal and perpendicular equally breaking each other. An Italian at Paris lifted up his hands and shoulders, when I praised the simplicity of design in the internal architecture of the best Gothic edifices; but the Italians have no right to reproach the northern artists with want of simplicity, since this never was the character of any period of the art with them. The Romans perhaps, added richness and magnificence to the Greek architecture, but they certainly, by introducing complicated, and frequently ill-combining forms, injured its simplicity; and if any thing like simplicity is found in some of the early restorers of the Roman style, it was soon over, and never became the national characteristic. Michael Angelo, Palladio, Brunelleschi, are only simple by comparison with the licentiousness of their successors.
These two buildings and the baptistery stand together, and form a group, which is, I suppose, hardly to be paralleled. The latter is a large octagonal edifice, covered with a dome, and is considered to have been an ancient baptistery, erected when the practice of immersion was prevalent; but the precise date is unknown. The mosaic of the interior was executed in 1260, and the marble incrustation of the outside in 1293, from a design by Arnolfo. If this be correct, we may readily assign part of the outside of the cathedral to the same artist, for the style much resembles that of the back of the tribunes. It is however, almost certain, from the appearance of some of the windows, that it has undergone alterations at a later period. Brunelleschi is said to have copied the dome, in that of the cathedral. The bronze doors of this building, the design of which is also attributed to Arnolfo, are much admired; but I shall enter into no particulars of what has been so often described. There is one other building in Florence designed by Giotto. It was erected for a corn market in 1337; afterwards it became a church, in consequence of a figure of the virgin, painted by Ugolino da Siena, which obtained a miraculous reputation during the plague which desolated Europe in 1348; and it is now a deposit for the archives of the city.[[40]] The lower windows are semicircular-headed, divided into three lights, over which are intersecting arches, also semicircular. The upper windows have pointed arches, but I doubt if these belong to the original structure.
The church of Santa Croce was built by Arnolfo in 1294. The front is of rough brickwork, the marble facing never having been executed, except a course or two at the base. Internally, the design is Gothic, with seven arches on each side. The side altars are of the Corinthian order, with columns of macigno. This seems to be a micaceous sandstone, of a gray colour; a good, but not a handsome material; the piers and archivolts of the building are coloured to imitate it: the rest is whitewash: the architecture has very little ornament, and the whole effect is poor, but it has been ill treated. As in most of the Gothic churches in Florence, the arches of the nave rise above the capitals of the columns, and the springing of the great vault, which has a very bad effect. Santa Croce has another claim on our attention, as the burying place of many distinguished men. Here lies Michael Angelo Buonarotti, painter, sculptor, and architect, having obtained the most extravagant praises in each art. A man of amazing talents, but so great a mannerist, that he is accused of having spoiled the Florentine school in every thing; and of great industry; but who, though his life was long, has left very little of finished work behind him. Here lies Machiavelli, the keen observer, the profound reasoner; but who, in some of his works, seems to have forgotten that there is in mankind a natural tendency to love truth and virtue. Here also lies Micheli, one of the ablest botanists of modern Europe: and we find many other of those great names, which have rendered Florence so illustrious. Here likewise is Alfieri. Harsh, stern, rigid, like Michael Angelo, and like him, possessing great powers, and strong expression; and being as great a mannerist. The duchess of York and Albany has erected to Alfieri a monument of Canova’s, at an expense of 4,500l sterling. It is very large, but not beautiful.
Brunelleschi is said to have borrowed much from the two ancient churches of San Remigio, and of the Santi Apostoli. The first is a Gothic edifice, in which the divisions of the nave are about square, and the springing of its vaults hardly higher than that of the side aisles. It offers nothing remarkable as an object of study to the architect, but it has considerable resemblance to Santa Maria Novella, the idea of which is said to have been taken from this edifice.
At the Santi Apostoli is a range of columns of a tolerable Corinthian, crowned with a large sima above the abacus, on which the arches rest; there is no cornice, or any continued straight line between the arches and the ceiling, so that it cannot by any means be correctly said to exhibit those peculiarities which mark the architecture of Brunelleschi. Both these churches are believed to be of high antiquity, but the latter has been restored, perhaps about the time of that artist, or not much before.