sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1450s in architecture, Chigi (architecture), Classical architecture, Como Cathedral, Corbel, Coupled column

•••••••• ••• •• • .. • ••••---• • • - • • ••••••• •• ••••••••• • •• ••• ••• •• • •••• .... ••• .. .. • .. •• • • .. ••••••••••••••• .. eo__,_.. _ ••,., .... • • •••••• ..... •••••• .. ••••• •-.• . PETER MlJRRAY . 0 • •-•• • • • •• • • • • • •• 0 ., • • • ...... • • , .,.._, • • , - _,._•- •• • •OH • • • u • o H ·o ,o ,.,,,. • . , ...... ,__

I- .,- --, - Bo&ton Public ~ BoeMft; MA 02111 The of the Italian ...... \ .- "' ~ - .· .., , #!ft . l . ,."- , .• ~ I' .; ... ..__ \ ... : ,. , ' l '~,, , . \ f I • ' L , , I ,, ~ ', • • L • '. • , I - I 11 •. -... \' I • ' j I • , • t l ' ·n I ' ' . • • \• \\i• _I >-.

' • - - . -, - •• ·- .J .. '-

- ... ¥4 "- '"' I

Pcrc1·'· , . The co11I 1~, bv, Glacou10 t l t.:• lla l'on.1 ,111d 1 ll01nc\ S t 1, XX \)O l)on1c111c. . o Ponrnna. • The Architecture of the

New Revised Edition

Peter Murray

202 illustrations

Schocken Books · New York •

For M.D. H~ Teacher and Prie11d

For the seamd edillo11 .I ltrwe f(!U,riucu cerurir, passtJgts-,wwbly thOS<' on St Ptter's awl 011 Pnlladfo~ clmrdses---mul I lr,rvl' takeu rhe t>pportrmil)' to itJcorporate m'1U)1 corrt·ctfons suggeSLed to nu.• byfriet1ds mu! re11iewers. T'he publishers lwvc allowed mr to ddd several nt•w illusrra,fons, and I slumld like 10 rltank .1\ Ir A,firlwd I Vlu,.e/trJOr h,'s /Jelp wft/J rhe~e. 711f 1,pporrrm,ty /t,,s 11/so bee,r ft1ke,; Jo rrv,se rhe Biblfogmpl,y. Fc>r t/Jis third edUfor, many r,l(lre s1m1II cluu~J!eS lwvi: been m"de a,,_d the Biblio,~raphy has (IJICt more hN!tl extet1si11ely revised dtul brought up to date berause there has l,een mt e,wrmc>uJ incretlJl' ;,, i111eres1 in lt.1lim, ,1rrhi1ea1JrP sittr<• 1963,. wlte-,r 11,is book was firs, publi$hed.

It sh<>uld be 110/NI that I haw consistc11tl)' used t/1cj<>rm, 1./251JO and 1./25-30 to 111e,w,.firs1, 'at some poiHI betwt.·en 1-125 nnd 1430', .md, .stamd, 'begi,miug ilJ 1425 and rnding in 14.10'.

Copyright© 1963, 1969, 1986 by Peter /\1urray

All right<; reserved under lnternltion:1 1 :ind Pan-A meti<':u1 Copyrighr Convenrions. Published in the United States by Srhocken Books fnc., New York. Distributed by Pantheon Books. a divisio11 of Random , Inc., New York. O n gmally published in diflCrtnt form as 77,e Architecture cf the Renaissdure in Great Britain by B.T. Bat.sford Ltd., Lo ndon, in 1963. Thi< ed1Cio n first published in Grear 13ritain by T hames&· Hud­ son, , and by Schockeu Book.s Jnr.. New York. in 1986.

Published by arrangl·mcm with Th:une,:; &: Hudson, London

Library of Congress Camloging-in-Publicacion Dara J\1urray, Peter, 1920- Thc; archit~cture or the ltal.i<111 Renaissance. Reprint. Orig111ally published: London: T h,unes :md Hud.son, 1969. Bibliography: p. Includcs rndex. I. Architecture-1~,Jy. 2. Architecnm,, R cnajss;incc~ltaly. I. Title. NAIUS./\18 !986 720'.945 85-26243 • I SUN 0-8052- 1082-2

Pnntt.~d m lhc Uniled St.ates of Attu.·nca f '97]9876 Contents

lncroduccion 7

CHAPTER ONE 15 Ro111ancsgue and Gothic in Tuscan y Tiu· uew teh:{!ious Or,lers · expmuio,1 (!_( French G()t/ti( · per5isteuu: l!f' dass;cal ,:rt · · Ci.{trrt1a11 clwrthes · f-forrn1iue Corhic

CHAPTER TWO 31 Urunellesch1 The• cf Fforl'nre C,ulr<1dral · IJnml'llrschi's sc,/utio11 · Fomulli11g Ho spii,1/ S. Lor1'11:z:,, · Pazi:i Chapel· Sra ,\1,iria d~~/i Aug<'ii • St,, Spirito

CHAPTER THREE 51 Alberti AlbalJ· mrd Hrimmii:m, , Vitru,1ius · R1'mini · F/ort,uce. Sta J\11.nri,1 1:V'o11ella ..\1mtlua, S . Seb,ist1mw, S . Audrea

CMAPTEJl FOUR 63 design in , and else"vhere

Plcremi11e socleq,: Gmlds · B,•~S?tlfo · Prlfoz.zo /)m 1anz,ui • the 1\4Fdici /Jalacr · Rucellai and /Jiui Pa/ares · f>i,•11za · , Palazz,• Veuezit1 a11d Cmuelleria · UrM,w, Dutal l\1/,ue · , ,,,enin.~ : t)'pic<1I l"eHt'tfon paltire 1lri(q11 · tht Lomlurrdi, Codu;si . S. A1idlfh' in Isola, S. Sa/i,,11ort · G. da Sa11.~<1llo, Sta J\1,,ria d,·lle Carreri, Prmo

CHAPTER FIVE 105 : , Leonardo, Bran1ante :\llidu·fozza ;,, Alfi/au · Filarete and Iris trearisr · Leonardo da Vind, ceutralf), pla,mt•d d111rd1 de~·,~t1 · JJrmnmue in i\1il,m

CHAPTER SIX 121 B rarn.tnte in Rome: St Peter's Julius II • Sra 1\1nria ddla Pate· 1he Ttmp,ell<> · mart)•na ,md · 1lw [-louse of Rttphat/ · J\ iru, St Pet('r's · later versfous cy· the plou CHAPTER SEVEN l 43 and Raphael as Brauumte's pnptl · hh; ,vorks in Rome · .\fmmeti."111 · Flon:na' . Prt/,r;:;:o Pa1tdo//i11i · R,,,ne. I "il/n ,v!ndnma • Gi11/io R. ~mrt11<> a, 1\ln1111w

CHAPTER EIGHT 161 and Anconio da Sangallo the Younger Prrri-t ::, 's I ·;/JcJ F,u'n£·sina muf l'alaz 4~, .\ltl$$imi iu Rome · S,1,1.S!dll

CHAPTER NINE 171 ,\fidrel,mJ!efo', 11rd1i1crtural w,irk.< i11 Flort11cr · S. L,>rnr;:e, rit e· ,1/rdici Ch,,pd a11d Bibli«naa J..aur,·11z-1a,J.a · /11s R<1t,wn 1r,vrks · S1 Percr'$, rlu~ Capil

CHAPTER TEN T8J Sann1icheli and Sansovino S,mmidu·li's 111,,rk t11 1',·ro u

S1 1 rlfo'.~· tn-atisc · ir~flucncc> ou Eur~p(' · I ·,g,J(lla's w,,rk.~ w Remit' · ( 'igm.,/11°J rn•.,rise · Ddl,, Plu'/d tittd Del Duc,1 · Si.nu,( I .. -' rc,11 1n-pl,uwiu.~

CHAPTER f\VEL VE 207 Florentine Manneriscs: Palladio .-lm,1m1,ui · rl,e P,rri Pafocc · Iii.- Cllmlfet -R<~f~mu,uh>n mriwdc · I ·a.,: as 11rd111u1 , 1hc l11iz, · But>Jllakutr · P<11/adw · /us. 111r111ngs · his H't.>rJ,u m 1·ut·uz-d · f ·,·uia•, S. r.ior;~io .\I a,,c._t?ion- .md dre Rcdc>ml>rt•

CHAPTER THIRTEEN 224 : Vignola and Palladio .--l11r11·,u 11il!.zs · Rcmu , I "1)!,r.J/11 · .Vft·dici 11ill,1,, Sdt1mirl1('/i. ,wd S,m5v1Ji11,1 · P11ll,1d{()\ ,,;JI<,~ m rhc 1·c11c10. Ti11c>li mui Frd.,rmi ,· T!w I ·j/J,1 Af

Notes to cexc 03- -I Bibliographical note 239

Acknovv ledgn1encs '4- "J List ot illuscrations 244

Index 250 Introduction

Most people are overa\ved by the great Gochie ; the experience of ,valking round Canterbur y or Chartres 1nust often have given rise to the feeling that the pleasures of architecture are both real and worth cultivating. St Peter's in Rorne or St Paul's in London do not have the Sa rne effect on everyone, and fo r this reason n1any people feel that Renaissance and Daroque architecture are not for then1. There is a simple explanation for this difliculty in understanding, si nce requires kno\\:ledge on the part of the; spectator as \vell as a readiness to accept it on its o,vn tern1s. Sor11c of the e1notions aroused by a Gothic derive fro1n the associations of the p lace rather than fron1 its actual forn1, although the splendour of the stained- ,vindov,;s and the g reat ~oar in g vaults overhead profound! y reinforce the historical and devotional associations. Renaissance architecture n1 ust be experienced as archi­ tecture, and it is only honest to say that it is no easier (and no 111ore difficult) co understand it than it is to understand a Bach fugue. ln the first place, Renaissance architecture, as its narne implies, is a deliberate revival of the ideas and practices of the architects of classic,1I antiquity and, in point of foct, it n1ay be said that Renaissance :irchitectnre is Ron1an, since classical Greek architecture ,vas al111ost unknown in ,vesten, before the eighteenth century. A Ro1nan or Renaissance depends for its effect upon very subtle adjustments of ver y sin, pie 11,asscs, and both arc based on the ,nodular systen1 of proportion. The 111odulc is defined as half the dia1ncter of the colu1t1n at its base and the whol<: of a classical building depends upon this initial proportion. Occasionally the dian1cter itself is used as the standard of proportion: in eithe·r case ic is scale that is in1portant, not actual di1nensions. Thus, if a te111plc is based on a of Corinthian colu1nns and each coh111111 is 2 feet in dian,eter, the rnodule will be L foot, the height of thr colu,nn itself \viii be about 18-21 feet (since a certain variation is licit), and the height of the colu1nn and vvill detennine rhc height of the cntablature, and thus of the building as a vvhole. Si1nilarly. the length and width of 7 the building \Vill be retern1ined by the n1odule, since it fixes not on! y the size of the colu1nn but also - again ,vi thin lin1its- the an1ount of space between each colt1n111. Fro1n all this it follo,vs that every detail of a classical building is related to every other detail, and in practice the whole building is proportioned to the hu1nan body, sii,ce the colun1n itself was thought of in antiquity as being like a hu1nan body and frequently proportionate to it in height. Together ,vith the relationship ofall the pa r ts the classica 1a rchitect sought for sy1nrnetry and harmony, so that in a blank ,,va]I pierced by three ,vindcn,,s be would be careful co sec chat the height of the ,vall ,vas proportioned to its vvidth, that the openings were pierced syn11netrically ,vi thin it, and that the shape of the rectangle of the ,vindo,v bore so1ne satisfactory relationship to the shape of the \Vall as a ,vhole. Fron1 this it is evident that a little practice is needed co appreciate the 111ultiplicicy in unity of this kind ofarchitccrurc. and it is also obvious that, to a sensitive eye, a n1oulding three inches coo wide can be as distressing as a 'Nrong note in a piece of 111usic. In the nineteenth century this kind ofarchicecrure lay w1der a deep cloud of n1oral disapproval. Pugin, Iluskin, and n1any others seen1ed to believe that churches in the Gothic style ,vere Christian, ,vhereas the classical styles ,vere no n1ore than an atte1npt to revive pagan forn1s. The Lnost perfervid denunciations flo"•ed fro111 Ruskin: in

'(lie Stc>11es o(. Venice be ,vorked hnnself into a frenzv, - First, let us casr out utterly vvhatevcr is connected with the Greek, l-lo1n,u1, or R.enaissance architecture, in principle or in forn1 . . .. It is base, unnatural, unfruitful. unenjoyable, and in1pious. Pagan in its origin, proud and unholy in its revival, paralysed in its old age .. an architecture invented, as it see111s, to 111akc plagiarists of its architects, slaves of its vvorkn1en, and Sybarites of its inhabi­ tants; an a rchitccture in ,vbich intellect is idle, invention i1npossible, but in ,vhich all luxury is gratified, and all insolence fortified . ... The foolishness of trying to look at architecture through 1nor,1listic spectacles vvas de1nonstrated by Geoffrey Scott in his classic book The Arc/1irea11re oj' l-!11nu111isrn, first published in 1914. . Unforc1u1atcly, Scott hi1nsclf, ,vhil e elegantly den1olishing the various fallacies thar prevented people frorn looking with unprejudiced eyes at Renaissance architecture, nevertheless fell into rhe trap vvhich lurks pern1anently beneath the word 'hun·1anisn1 '. This, in the fifteenth century, n1eant 8 one thing and one thing only: the study ofCrerk and literature, both as language and as literature It never i1nplied any particular theological position, and indeed the hunianists differed an1ong then1- selves as 1nuch in this as any other group of n1en. The Italian hun1aniscs, hov,1ever, all shared one passion, a nostalgic longing for the glory of under the H.01nans and for the splendour of the Latin language. The artists v,1ho \Yere associated vvith the1n naturally ca1ne to feel the sa n1e cn1otion for antique art that the writers fe lt for Latin li terature; yet a r1101nent's thought vvi!J sho\v that neither alltique art nor Roman literature is honiogeneous, and the Renaissance in1 itations of them vary equally greatl y. There is a celebrated passage in the Me111orandu1n on Ancient Rotne, presented ro Leo X in 1519, \vhich describes clearly the vvay in w hich the 1nen of the sixteenth century revered ancient Ron1e and yet at the sa1ne ti1ne felt then1selves able to rival it: Therefore, 0 Holy Father, let it not be last in the thought of your Holiness co have a care that the littl e \vhich rc1nains of the ancient 1nother of glor y and of the Italian nan1e, \vitness of the divine spirits \vhose rnen1ory even today creat<::S and 1noves to virtue - spirits still ali ve ;nnong us - sho uld not be altogether ·wiped out. . . . May your Holiness, \Vhi le keepin g the exa,nplc of the ancient ,vorld still alive an1011g us, hasten co equal and tc) surpass the n1cn of ancient ti1nes, as you even no,v do ... . There arc onl y three styles of building, vvhich lasted fron1 the first Etn perors until tbe tin1e w hen H.0111e was ruined and despoiled by the and other . ... For although in our o,vn day architecture is active and approaches ver y nearly to the antique style, as n1ay be seen in rnany beautiful of Bramante. the ornarnentation is nevertheless not n1ade of such precious ,nace rial. ... 1 lf vve con1parc the Palazzo I~ucellai of about 1450 ,vith the hou~e [.38] built for hitnselfby Ciulio Ro1nano in a hundred years later [109] it is evident that they have little in co111111on; and equall y it is possible to con1pa re centrally planned churches such as Brunelleschi's Sta 1Vla ria degli Angeli \vith Bran1ante's Ten1pietto, o r churches of a ,nore traditional Latin cross type such as Brunelleschi's Seo Spirito and Vignola 's c;esu. The co1111non factor is. of course, the adherence to the basic principles of Ro111an architecture, just as conren1porary \v riters n1odelled themselves on Ciceronian Latin; but in both cases

9 the heritage of Christjanity ,,.,as bound to n1ake an enonnous differ­ en ce to the outlook of the artist. ln other vvords, Renaissance archi­ tecture has different aims, different background, and also a different constructional technique. The dorne of vvould not have been possible without Gothic masonry techniques, yet \Ve should never forget that one of the principal reasons for the des-ire to emulate the buildings of the Ro ,nans lay in their staggering and obvious superiority to the works of l:tter ages. Even novvadays, accuston1ed as ,,.,e are to enorn1ous bui ldings and to the technical fears n1ade possible by steel and rein forced concrete, it is still an a vie-inspiring experi ence co stand in the of Constantine or the Pantheon. In the earl y fifteenth century Ron1e consisted of huge, stark ruins overgrown ,,.,ith vegetation and 1nclancholy in their decay, ,,;hile sn1a ll and decrepit hovels represented the total secular building activity of a thousand years. There is a long larnent by the hun1anist Poggio \Vritten about , 431 on the state ofRon1c at that tin1e: This , once the head and centre of the Ron1an En1 p1re and the citadel of the ,vhole \vorld, befrire ,,.,hich every king and prince trern bl ed. the hill ascended in triurriph by so rn any e111pe ro rs and once adorned with the gifts and spoils ofso n1,u1y and such great peoples, the cynosure of al l the world. no,v lies so desolate and ruined, and so changed fron, its earlier condition. that vines have replaced che benches of the senators, and the Capitol has becon1 e a rccept;1cle of dung and filth. Look at the Palatine, and there accuse Fortune, which has laid lo,,; the palace built by Nero, after the burning of the city, fron1 the plunder of the ,,.,hole world, and splendid! y embellished ,vith the assembled riches of the empire, the d\velling ,vhich, enhanced by trees, lakes, obelisks, arcades, gigantic statues, an1phitheatrcs of vari-coloured rnarble. was adn1ired by all \vho beheld it; all this is no ,,., so ruined that not a shadov,; reniains that can be identified as anything but ,vild \Vasteland. 2 The sa111e sentin1ent ,,.,as expressed, rnore tersely, by the unkno\vn author of the epigran1 R.0111a q11ml/a.fiti1 ipso nii11c1 docel, ,vhich Serlio adopted as the motto of his book on the antiquities of I~on1e ( I 540). The one surviving ·classical author ,vho had ,,.,ritten on architecture, Vitruv1us, \vas kno\vn througho ut the 1\lliddle Ages, but Poggio is supposed to have rediscovered a n1anuscripr of his treatise in th<:

10 S,viss rnonastery of St Gall early in the fifteenth century; and it is certainly true that frorn then on,vards the obscure and rc::chnical Laciu of Vicruvius ,vas studied \vith passion, and architects began to \\-rite treatises based 111ore o r less freely on his. gives in1plici tly an account of the ain1s of the architect in antiquity and these ain1s ,vere restated by generation afrer generation of architects in their o,vn treatises. So1ne quotations ,viii make quite clear ,vhat their vie,vs ,vere on such subjects as the of proportion, the harrnony to be sought for in a building, and the deliberate re-creation ofc lassical types. Vitruvi us hin1self set the exarn pk \Vi th his definitions: Architecture consists of Order ... Arrangen1cnt ... Proportion, Sy111n1etry, Propriety and Eco1101ny .... (De Archirec111ra, I, ii, 1) The planning of ten1ples depends on sy1nn1ctry: architects 111ust diligently understand the n1ethod of this. It arises fron1 proportion . . . . Proportion consists in taki ng a fixed n1odule, in each case, both for the parts of a building and for the whole, by \vhich the n1ethod of syn1111erry is put into practice. For ,vithout sy1111netry and proportion no te1nplc can have a regular plan; char is, ir 1n usr have an exacc proportion worked our afrer the fashion of the 111e1nbers of a ,veU-shaped body .... In like fashion the 1ne111bers of tc111ples ought ro have din1ensions of their several pares ans,ver­ ing suitably to the general sun1 of their n1agn1tude .... If a man lies on his back with hands and feet outspread. and the centre of a circle is located in his navel, then his hands and feet ,~.- ill touch the ci rcun1ference: a square can also be produced in the s,11nc \Vay ... the height of a body frorn the sole of the foot to rhc cro,vn of the head being equal to the span of che outstretched :inns. (De Arch, III, i, 1- 3) I shall define Beauty to be a hannony ofal l the parts, in v..-hatsoever subject it appears, fitted cogecher 'Nith such proportion and con­ nection, that nothing could be added, di1ninished or altt-rcd but for the ,vorse. . . . (Alberti, De ri' at'di/icarcnia. VI, 2.) The ,vindo,vs in the Tc111plc oughr to be s111all :1nd high, so that nothing but the sky 111ay be seen through thcn1; to the incent that both the priests that are en, ployed in the perforn1ance of Di vine offices, and those that assist upon account of devotion, 111,1 y 11ot

r I have their rninds in any way diverted . . . . For this reason rhe Ancients \Vere ver y often contented \vithout any other aperture beside the ,vay. (A lberti, l)i' n' aed., VII , 12) As Virruvius say~, there arc three things to be considered in any bui lding, ,vithout ,vhich no edifice is \VOrth y of praise: utility or co1nrnodity; durability; and beauty.... Beauty ,vill be the result of a beauti ful forn1 and frorn the correspondence bCt\veen the ,vhole and its parts, and of the parts bct,.vcen thcn1sclvcs as \-veil a, to the whole ; thus, buildings n1ay appear as a single, \Vell- finishcd. body ,vithin which all che members agree, and all rncn1bcrs are necessary fo r vvhat is desired. . . . (Palladio, I Q11artro Libri, I, 1) Tern pies n1ay be round, quadrangular, of six, eight, or more sides, all of which tend towards the circle: cruciform, and in n1an v, other shapes and figures according ro the different in tentions of 1nen . . . . But the most beautiful and rnost regular forn1s. fron1 "vhich the others derive, are the circle and quadrangle; and tbereforc Vitruvius speaks only of these two .... Thus we read that the 111en of Antiquity, in building their ren1ples, set then1selves co observe Decorun1, v.;hic h is one of the n1ost beautifu l constituents of A rchitecture. And ,ve, ,vho kno1,v not false Gods, in order to observe Decoru111 in the fonn of tern pies, will choose the n1ost perfect and excellent, 1,vhich is che circle; for it alone is sin1p le, uniforn1, equal, strong, and adapted ro its purpose. Thus, ,ve should 1nake our Ten1ples circular ... rnosr apt ro den1onstrate the Unity, the infinitt' Essence, the Uniforn1ity and Justice of GOD .. .3 Those churches arc also to be praised which are in the forn, of a Cross ... for they represent to the eye of cfle beholder chat \Vood. fron, 1,vhich our salvation hung. Jr ,vas of this shape chat J rnade the Church of S. Giorgio Maggiore in Ven ice .. . . Of all the colours none is n1ore suited to Ten1ples than 1,vhicc, for the purity of this colour, as of life, is rnosr p leasing to (;OD. Bur if they are to be painted then there should noc be any pictures of a kind to prevent the n,ind fron1 conten1plation of Divine things; for Teniples should never depart frorn gravity or frorn chose things 1,vhich, when ,vc sec rhe1n, infla1ne our souls \Vith \vorship and the desire of good \Vorks. (Palladio. / Qunrtro Libri, IV, 2) 12 Classical buildings of a secular type were obvious!y easier to revive than \\1ere the pagan ten1ples of antiquity, unsuited as they ,vere to the Christian liturgy, and especially so in their associations. Thus, for exa1nple, the classical in.

13 2 Florence, S. Miniaro. Fa,adc, r. 1090 CJIAP 'I J, R ONE

Romanesque and Gothic in

Italian architecture does not begin \vith the year 1300; but this book begin s in the thirteenth century because it. must begin son1e,vhere, and also because of the nature of Italian Gothic. For n1any years Italian c;orhic architecture has been rather ouc of fashion. This is no doubt 1nainly due to Ruskin's inten1perate advocacy of Venetian Gothic \vhich was co result in so 1nan y rai.hvay stations and to\vn halls, erected in an unsuitable cliIT1ate, and no~, dank and grin1 y. In fact, Italian is different fro1n French, English, or Gern1an Gothic but not necessarily inferior. The causes which under­ lie the forins used by Italian architects of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are to be found in the history and rhe clin1ate of Italy, but it is necessary to point out that at this period Italy itself was an abstraction. The present Italian State isa creation of the la te nineteenth crntury, and during the ,vhole of the Renaissance Italy consisted of a large nun1 ber of sn,all and very high! y individualistic independent powrrs. The great \vers \vere Venice, Florence, , M ilan, and the centred on Ron1e, but this fragn1enca tion is che principal reason for the great differences bet\veen Venetian and Florentine art ; differences at least as great as those between English and in the sarne period. The first and fo r the n1ost important factor in the drvelopn1ent of all in che vvhole of Italy was the heritagr of . This is particularly to be seen in places like Ron1e or \¥here a great nu1nber of buildings still survive fron1 Rornan times. Jt is also true, in a rather more indefinable ,vay, of placrs like Florence \Vhere republi can scntirnent was very consciously modelled on the Rornan , so chat a tendency to regard the classical past as a norm of civilized behaviour as well as of architecture is very strong! y co be felt. This undying is, of course, a fundan1ental characteristic of all . Two other factors began to operate in the thirteenth century, and it was the con,bination of these \vith the classica l tradition \~rhicl, gave rise to Italian Gochie architecture. The fLrst \vas the phenon1enal expansion of the nevv religious O rders; the Orders founded in the early thirteenth century by St Francis and St Dorninic. Both expanded so fast that by the end of the century their members were to be nun1bered in thousands. These Orders differed very markedly from the o lder 111onastic Orders in that their n1ernbers did not li ve shut away in but spent rnuch of their tirne in preaching, and both Orders were characteristic of the nevv and rnore hurnan approach to religion which is one of the essential characteristics of the thirteenth century. Because of their enorn1ous popularity it ,vas very soon evident that rnany ne,v churches \vere going to be needed and, \vhich is more important, a ne\v kind of church, primarily designed to hold very large congre­ gations all of whom vvould have to be able to hear the preacher or to see che religious dra111as which were often presented there. At the n10111ent ,vhen these new churches vvere being built the other factor carne into operation. This \,vas the 1nome11t of the greatest Ao,vering of Gothic architecture in the north, and particularly in , so that n1odern architecture in the thirteenth century incant French Gochie architecture and rhe great feats of construction of the French archirects provided a 111odel for the rest of the world. The direct influence of can be seen 111ost clearly in , begun in 138"6 and worked on by French and Gennan archicecrs as well as local n1asons. Nevertheless, Milan Cathedral ren1ains unique in Italy, uor is it realJy very like a French building. To a certain extent French Gothic forn1s vve re imposed fi-0111 ,vithout, because the Cistercian Order had the curious characteri stic chat all irs 1nonasceries, \vherher in the v.rilds of Yorkshire or in the sourh of Italy, deliberately in1iratcd rhe form of the n1orher-housc at Ciceaux near . The of C:J1iaravallc near Milan \Vas founded in I J 3 5 and is thus a very early exa1nple of chis French type on Italian soil. Jc vvas inevitable that these foreign ideas should co1ne into collision v,rirh the existing Italian Ro111anesque style. The church ofS. Miniato [2] just outside Florence has a fi11;ade ,vhich can be dated about 1090. The characteristic fonn of chis la<;adc is distaJ1tly rerninisrent of antique architecture, with its round arches carried on colun,ns and its triangular pedin1ent. The colouristic effect obtained by the contrast bet\veen off-,vhite n1arble and the dark greenish, alrt1ost black, marble used co cn1 phasize the architectural 1nen1 bcrs is a feature of this 16 Rornanesque style vvhich does not appear to have a parallel in antiquity. Nevertheless, it see1ns that in the thirteenth and fourteenth ccnruries these buildings ,vere con1n1only believed to be very 1nuch older than \Vas actually the case; for exa111plc, ,ve know that the Baptistry in Florence \Vas generally held to be an antique pagan [ 13J ten1ple converted to Christian use. It is probably safe, therefore, to assu1uc that the traditionalists thought of a building like S. Miniato or the Baptistry as actual survivals fron1 the Ron1an past and th erefore better n1odels for i1t1 itation than nev,r-fanglcd French ideas. An exainple of the style vvhich arose fron1 this conflict is con­ veniently provided by the great church at Assisi vvhich ,vas begun i1nmediately after the canonization of St Francis in 1228. The Upper Church (there are nvo churches one above the other), ,vhich \Vas f3] consecrated in 1253, consists of a single, very large with no aisles at the sides. This i111mensc open space is covered by a stone­ vaulted roof, the \,veight of which is carried on ribs which in turn arc supported by colu11111s. By con1parison "\Vith any French Gothic building of equal in, portance the coltunns are very short and the spaces between the111 ve ry wide. At the san1e tin1e, the fact that there arc no aisles means that S. Francesco at Assisi is a \~•ide, open, single space \vhere its French counterpart is im1nensely high and is divided up by the aisles into a sequence of spaces with all the en1phasis on verticality. The hotter cli1nate of produces yec another difference, for any of the greater northern Gothic cathedrals in1press us by their extre1ne height and by the fact that all the supports are concentrated into a fe\v verv, slender coh1111ns \vith enorn1ous \vindows set between then1. Such windo,vs vvould obviously be i111practical in Assisi, v;hich n1eans that there are large spaces of en1pty ,vall between each of the load-bearing colu11111s. These spaces \Vere naturally used for decora­ tion 1,v1th paintings, and the famous cycle of twenty-eight scenes fron1 the life of St Francis v.rl1ich decorates the Upper Church of Assisi not only n1akes the best possible use of the ,vall space a vai lablc, but also adds very marked] y to the general in, pression ofhori zontality which is so un-French ,ind in deed so un-Gothic a characteristic. Fundamentally, therefore, the difference bct,veen French and Italian Gothic architecture co1nes do\vn to the question of the shape of each ; that is to say, the relationship bet,veen the ,vidth, length, and height of the spaces covered by a single ribbed and bounded T7 J A5sisi, S. Francesco, the Upp,·r Church, con,ccrat.:d 1153 on p lan by the bases of the four supportin g colu1nns. The typical French bay is very \Vidc in relation co the space between the colun111s on the long ax.is, ,vhereas the bays at Assisi are 1nuch squarer in fonn. The square bay rends ro be rather characteristic of Italian (;othic architecture and the evolution of chis type of design can be studied in rhe earliest Cistercian churches in Italy, notably in t\VO south of Ro1ne at Casamari and Fossanova, both of \\1hich ,vere co111plctcd 14] early in the thirteenth century. Fossanova fo 11 ows the pattern estab­ lished in the great church at Citeaux very close] y. The general type is thar of a Larin cross ,vith a square-ended choir, srnall square chapels at the sides, and a square , but with a long nave cc)nsisring of rectangular bays, considerably ,vider than they are long, linked to bays in the aisles \vhich are aln1ost square. The nave ar Fossanova [ 8] dates fron1 1187 and the church \Vas consecrated in T208. It is, therefore, slight! y earlier than one of the grcar French Gothic cathedrals such as Rheims. Both Rhein1s and Fossanova have high stone vaults carried on slender cohnnns with half-colu1nns attached to the \Vall, but the grt:'at difference bet,veen then1 consists in rhe architect's approach ro the basic problem of supporting the \Veight of the g reat stone vault. The French Gothic syste111 vvas a superb piece of in \vhich the \veight of the roof was carried partly as a direct vertical thrust on the slender piers, and partly as an out\vard thrust carried on one or even two rovvs of flying buttresses. These buttresses took the thrust \Vhich could nor be carried on the and d iverted it down,vards over the aisle roof The very large and elaborate \vhich can usually be seen on any big Gothic church are, in effect, counter-weights \vhich divert the thrust of the vault vertically dovvnvvards and the decorative quality ,vhicb they irnpart ro the silhouette of the church should not conceal from us their essenriall y structural function. Nevertheless, no Italian architect would have \vished to break the sin1plicicy of the outside line of his church by spiky pinnacles, and the sober classicisn1 which the sought in the exterior of their churches could be maintained, therefore, only by forgoing the structural advantages of the fl ying-buttress systcrn. This, in turn, rncans rhac the vveight of the vault n1 ust be carried entirely on the internal coluir1ns and on rhe outside walls. At Fossa nova there arc buttresses sec against the walls but they are small and more like classical than any forrn of flying buttress. The inside of the church, therefore, necessarily has a ." ' .." . ' , lrAIIAN GOl HI<. 4 Fossanova Abbl'y. s S. Galgano, near , ("HUl( C H l' I AN, Consccratt·d 1208 c. 121 8

totally d iffe rent appearance fro,n rhar of a French Goth.ic church and both inside and outside are entirely lacking in that feeling of forces n1aintained in equilibriu111 ,vhich gives such an exhilarating quality to the best northern architecture. This 1nodified Ciscercian Gothic architecture \~· as introduced into 15) Tuscany about 1218 in the church of S. Galgano, near Siena. S. Ga lgano. vvhich is 110\~' a l'\Jin, scen1s to have been designed by an architect vvho had ,vorkcd at (~asa1nari and it follo,vs the established Ciscercian pattern very closely. Its i1nportance lies in the fact that it introduced these ideas into T uscany, ,vhere the first realiy i1nporranr and independent church in a truly Italian style was begun in Florence 16, 9, 281 about 1246. This vvas the very lorge church of Sta Maria Novella, built for rhe f)on1inic,1n Order and partially subsidized by the Florentine St,lte. The exact daces of the various pares of rhe church arc still controversial bur it certainly took a very long ti1ne co build since it ~'as begun about 1246, che nave \vas noc begun until 1279,

20 • -,,' ' ,

,

• -+••

i!t..G.:i e\:: ';.,'-f.o\S:1.1 NOi/Eli.A

- J•:~+·11 a.':l __, £;;:J-"l>? • ~ ~ •:?O • l:C,'3C f ..] .. ~ "

6 Florence, Sta Mana Novella. 7 Florc-ncc, Sm Croce. Begun 1246 Uegun 1 294/ 5 and the fa,;:ade, begun in 1310, \vas not finished until 1470. Never­ theless, the interior and the plan n1ake it the niost important church of its date. It Vias begun as a new found,1tion for the Order of Preachers and it \vas therefore conditioned by the need to house a very large congregation in the nave and to provide the best possible acoustics. Un like monastic churches, it was not necessary to provide a large choir, but a nun1ber of s111aller chapels under the patronage of private f:-imilies \Vere very soon added. The choice of astone vault instead of an open ti1nbered roof - the comrnon Tuscan forn1 at this period - \Vas probably partly fo r grandeur of effect, partly because it had conic in as the new French fashion, and partly also because of its superior acoustic qualities. The interior of the church is open, spacious, and rather ho~izontal in feeling. TI1c tnain ele1nent of design is a square nave bay with aisles on either side "vhich are 1T1uch longer than they arc wide and arc approxin1ately half the \\'idth of the central square. This is quite 2 T B Fossa nova Abbey. The nave, 1187

different fron1 the tu1111<:·l-like effect of Fossanova or S. Galgano, where it is the aisle bays v,hich are square and the nave bays are about t\vice as wide as they arc long, thus n1aking the colun1ns corne ver y rnuch closer together and giving auro1naticaJJy a runnel-like effect ,vith grc:1t ernphasis on the vertical lines of the colun111s ,ind the ribs of the vaults. The open spaciousness of Sta Maria Novella is obviously very 111uch better fro111 the ptu-ely practical point of vievv of accon1- n1odating a congregation \Vhich can both see and hear the preacher. T he differences between Fossanova and Sta Maria Novella do not.

22 o Florence, Sta Maria Novella. T he nave, begun 1279

however, end ,vith lhe difference in plan. T he extre1ne verticality of Fossanova is due also to che face that the height of the arcade is very 111uch less than that of the cleresto ry, ,vhereas th e heights in Sta M aria Novella are approxi111a cely equal, thus bringing the line of the roof visually nearer the ground. There are 111auy other s1uall points of difference, but two are particularly relevant. T hey are the types of capital and half-colu111n which carry the arcade arches in Sta Mari a Novella, and the colouristic effect of the use of dark grey pietra sercna set against the white plaster walls. The colurnns and capitals are 1n uch 23 nearer to classical ones. than are their counterparts at Fossanova and the use of the black and white 111e1nbering ,,vas an established Ro1nan­ esque technique in Tuscany. In other \VOrds, Sta Maria Novella represents a compromise bet\veen French Gothic structural pri11ciples and the equili briu1n and harmony of the Italian classical heritage. This ne"v co1npron1ise abandons the basic Gothic striving after tOvJering height, just as it rejects the supre111ely skilful engineering systen1s of the French cathedrals. Nevertheless, the ne,v Tuscan Gothic style has a nun1ber of i1nportant buildiqgs to its credit, and it lasted for nearly t\VO hundred years. There ,vas a great deal of building activity following the reforn1 of the Florentine Constitution in 1250, and it was partly occasioned by the need for ne,v churches. In Florence itself the church of Sta Croce and the Cathedral are t,vo of the most in1portant successor, to Sta Maria Novella. The church of Sta Maria sopra Minerva in Rorne is alrnost a direct copy of Sta Maria Novella and ,vas also built for the Do111inican Order. It ha5 the distinction of being the only pure Gothic church in Ron1e before rhe nineteenth century.

The problc,n of authorship of the greater Tuscan Gothic churche; is rather involved. We have no certain ki10\vledge of the:' architects of Sta Maria Novella, though it ,vas traditionally designed by t\.VO [>on1inican friars. On the other hand, th<' famous sculptor, Nicol,1 Pisano. is 1nentioned as the architect of at least one Florentine church - SS. Trinita - ,vhich hr is st1pposed to have built in the 1250s. The attribution n1ay ,veil be corn:ct, but its importance lies principally in the fact that trained t\VO of the rnajor artists of the next generarion, both of vvhon1 were architects .1s ,veil as sculptors. They vvere hi.s O\Vll so 11. Giovanni Pisano, and Arnolfo di Ca111 bio, and. because we have verv little definite infonnation about the ' architectural sryle of either of these 1nen, we have to n1ake as n1t1ch as possible of "vhat \Vt, can deduce from the style of Nicola Pisano and to relatt' it co the work of both Giovanni and Arnulfo. Giovanni Pisano designed the faq,1dc' of the c:athedral at Siena and ~1.:t>n1s on the whole to have continued his father's style v,1 ith a strong dash of French inAuence, although this is 1nuch 1nore perceptible in his . than in his architecture. Arnolfo appears for the first tin1e as an architect in the year 1300 vvhcn he i.s recorded a.s \Vorki.ng on Florence c: achedral and a.s a 24 I i I

'I •I

I I

10 Florence:, Sta Croce. The nave, bc.:gun 1294/5 famous builder of ch urches. He was apparently so f:unous that he vvas exen1pt fro ,n taxation bur, unfortunately, he died quire soon after this (ber,vecn 1302 and 1310) and Florence Cathedral has been very much altered since 1 300. Indeed, the 1nain fai;ade is barely one hundred years old and it is difficul t to be certain ho,v nu1ch of the existing church is by hi1n. Two other i1n portanr buildings in Florence are attributed to hin1 although there is no docun1entary evidence in support of the ascriptions. They are the abbey church known as the Badia and the n1uch 1uore i1nportant church of Sta Croce. The Badia was built benveen 1284 and 1310, but ,vas altered in the seventeenth century. It has certain points in com1non with SS. Trinit:i., so that if the Badia is by Arnolfo and if SS. T rinita is by Nicola Pisano, the n1 aster- pupil relationship can be seen in the t\.vo buildings. [7, 10} The church of Sta C roce is 1nore i11·1portant because it is a rnuch larger and rnore an1birious building. It is the 111ain church in Florence of the Order of St Francis and w,1s therefore built in deliberate rivalry with the Dominican Sta Maria Novella. The Franciscans the111 sel vcs ,vere bitter] y divided since s0111e of then, 1,vi~hed to obser ve the original rule of absolute poverty and others clearly \Vishcd to en1ulate the Don1 inicans, 1,vho \Vere noc so bound. In point of foct, the Franciscans actracted very large charitable donations. largely fron1 the great 111crchanc banking fo n1ilies v-'ho had good reason to, feel render in their c,)nsciences on the subject of - hence the large nu1nbcr of fan1ily chapels in n1any of these fr iars' churches. The present building ,vas begun in 1294 or 1295 bur ,vas exceptionall y slo,v in construction, and consecration ,vas delayed until r 442, L1rgcl y because of the opposition of the stricter Franciscans. kno\vn as Obser,·antists. Like rhe Cathedral, the present fa<;adc is entirely nineteenth century. We knO\.V that the nave v-1as still unfinished in 1375, long after Arnolfo had died, but it is likely that he 111ade a ,vooden 1nodel ,ind that this \.Vas follo\vcd. The interior sho\vs a disposition rather different fro,n that of Sta Maria Novella. The t\vo 111ain features arc the open rirnber roof and rhe different relationship bet\~·een the nave and aisle bays. The open roof, 1nucb lighter than stone vaulting, 111e,1ns that the colun1ns supporting the \Vhole can be very light and son1ething of the sa111e effect ofair iness as that in Sta M,1ria Novella is 111aintained in the interior. On the other hand. the plan sho\.vs that neither the aisle nor the nave is sguiirc. The aisle bay~ are long, and the nave bays arc nearly t\vice as ,~1ide as they are long; that is to say, the architect 26 seerns to have reverted to the Cistercian type of bay. The horizontal emphasis is, ho,vever, very marked, so that there is no likelihood of confusin g Sta Croce 1.vith ai1·1 non-Florentine church. Both the Badia and Sta Croce are arrributcd to Arnolfo on stylistic grounds but it is certainly true that bnth have features \vhich can be found, even if some,vhat modified, in the Cathedral; and it is there- fore possible to assert that the basic plan ofthe Cathedral is by Arnolfo. (11) The Cathedral ,vas begun in 1294 and the document which mentions Arnolfo is of 1300, so he \~•as presu1nably in charge fro111 the begin- ning. The church itself \Vas intended to be as large and impressive as possible and the expense \Vas underwritten by the Florentine Republic. and Siena, the t,vo n1ost in1portant rivals of Florence, both had large, do1ned, Cathedrals and it is evident that Florence Cathedral \vas always intended to be stone vaulted and to have a very large do1ne indeed, sin1ply to outdo the Pisans and the Sienese. A little later, the Sienese attempted to rebuild their Cathedral on a colossal scale, so vast that the existing Cathedral, which is quite large, would have been no more than one of the proposed building. This project, which must a I,va ys have seemed oprirnistic, ,vas brought to a con1plete standsti11 by the ravages of the in 1348, fron1 which Siena never really recovered. The Florentines almost over­ reached themselves in their desire for an in1pressive church since the problen1 of the dome ,vas co ren1ain unsolved for about a century and a quarter before the genius of Brunelleschi was to find a solution to the apparently i1npossible problem of covering it.

1 r Florence, Cathtdr~I. Begun 1294. Plans by Arnulfo and Francesco Talenti [11) The plan of Florence c:arhedral was considerably n1odified by Francesco Talenri. ,vho becan1e Capon1aestro (architect-in-chief) in 1351, bur ir is no\~' generally agreed thac the s1na1Jer of the t,vo plans on page 27 represents Arnolfo's original project ,vhich Talcnri enlarged bur did not essentially vary. Arnolfo also built a sn1all part of the original fayade and part of the side walls as well as planning a do1ne over rhe crossing. The painter , ,vho was appointed Capon1acsrro in 1334 simply because he \Vas the 1nost famous Florentine artist of rhe day, had no architectura l kno,vledge and confined hi1nsclf to designing the separate Ca,npanile \vhich stands like a to,ver beside the fi1yade. In fact, ho\vever. G iotto's Ca111panile is not cnrirel y as he designed it a11d the entire Cathedral ,vas subjected to a series of 111odificarions throughout the ,vhole of the fourteenth century. The fac;-ade was n1uch altered by Taleuci and nu1nerous sche1nes for rebuilding it \vere begun and abandoned at various dates until finally, beC\veen 1876 and 1886, the present Neo-Goth.ic £1c;-ade \vas designed and built by En1ilio l)e Fabris. It is clear, h.o\-veve r. from the su rviving fragrnents of Arnolfo's original coloured 111 arble decoration on the side ,valls that the present facade is in so111e respects not coo far fron1 the original designer's intention. The plan in its present form consists of four very large bays ,vith aisles half the \vidth ofche nave bays, ,vhich arc thc111sc lves ,vidcr than square and very si1nilar to the Sta Croce type (con1pare plates 7. and 11). The principal djfference bet\-veen the two churches lies in che tact rhat the Cathedral has a stone vault ,vhich 111ust therefore be carried on very solid piers, \vhereas the ,vooden roof of Sta Croce [12, 10] doe~ not de1nand such 111ass ive supports. Ac the east end the churches differ considerably. for the Cathedral expands into an octagon on three sides of \vhich there are great tribunes oftriconch shape. Thus, the rorn l effect of the interior is chat oi'a centrally planned octagonal building \Vith spaces opening our fro111 the octagon. and the nave is only one a1nong others. The interior can be co1npared \Vith that of Sta Croce or Sta 1\/l.aria Novella and ics open spaciousness, classical forn1s, and e1nphatically horizontal string-course co1nbine to cre:ite an effect totally unlike the French (Jothic cathedrals ,vhich ,vere its distant ancestors, so.that it can 110\v be seen as the culn1inarion of a specifically Tuscan building tradition. Furrhennore, the Ro111an­ csque styl..: in Tuscany can dearly be $een on the outside, both in the use of coloured rn3rble inlays and in the choice of the don1ed octagon 28 12 Florence, C"thcdr:il. The nave (13) at the crossing \Vhich is clearlv rcla[ed co the Baptistry which stands only a fc,v yards a,vay. The Baptistry of Florence is very difficult co date \,Vith any precision (it is perhaps of the eighth century) but \Ve kno\v, frorn conten1porary sources, that in the fourteenth century it \vas traditionally regarded as a ten1ple of Mars ,vhich had been adapted for Christian usage. The don1e projected by Arnolfo n1ay, or n1ay not, have had a drum and it is by no 111eans clear ~·hether either Arnolfo or Talenti ever gave serious thought to the problem of spanning the enormous opening. By the end of the fourteenth century ir bcca111e evident that something \,Vould have co be done one day and rather reluctantly a nu1nber of architects tried to devise a ,neans of covering an opening 140 feet across. We knov,, tron1 the frescoes in the Spanish Chapel in Sta Maria Novella that at leas[ one unofficial project ,vas 1nade about 1367, sho\,ving a slightly pointed don1e \Vithout a dru1n, but nothing \vas rcall y done until the problen1 becan1c urgent, early in the fifteenth centurv. ' This chapter has been concerned \Vith Italian Gothic in its relation- ship to the style ~·hich vvas to develop out of it: the splendid achieve­ ments of the Gothic architects in Venice and have been neglected, sin1ply because they have aln1osr no relevance to the history of Renaissance architecture.

1 3 Florence, Cathedral and 13apt1stry CHAPTER T\VO

Brunelleschi

Fili ppo Brunelleschi \Va, born 111 1377 and died in 1446. Like 111any other great artists of the early fifteenth century, he \Vas trained orig inally as a golds1nith ~nd entered the c;oldsn1irhs' (;uild in Florence in 1404. Before chcn he had alreadv started to \Vork as a • sculptor. since he rook pare in the con1petition , held in J 401, for rhe co1n rni\Sio11 for the ne\\' for the Bapt1stry. It: \~'as ~·on by Ghiberri. and \Ve are cold rhac Brunelleschi \vcnc to Roni<: \vith rhe sculptor Donatello as soon as he kne,v cha r he had lose the con1pe1ition. This is quire likel y. Certainl y Brunelleschi and Vonaccllo \Vere close friend,, and, \\'itb the painter , the three 1nen \Vere the represenra ri vcs ofthe n1osr ;1d vanced painting. sculpture. and architec­ rure of che dJy. le i, of considerable i1i-1po rtance that Brunelleschi visited R.onie on several occasions. for there can be no doubt chat it 1,va, hi, close study of rhe constructional principles of the surviving Ro1nan ruins that enabled him co devise a n1eans of covering the area of the do1ne of the Cathedral, an achieve:-111ent \vhich has 111 ade his nan1e in1111ortal in Flo rence. Unu1elleschi is usually credited \Vlth the crearion of'the Ren,1i~sanc.: style' 111 architecture. but this is subject to a nt11nber of reservation,. It i,, ho\vever, certain rhac he ,vas the first nian to begin to con1prehcnd the structural systen1 ofcfassica l architecture and to ad.ipc it~ principles to n1odern needs. Perhaps the rnost i111portant thing about his do1ne is the fact thac it is a feat of engineering which could not h,1ve been carried n ut by ,inyonc else in the fifteenth century. le is not, ho\vcver. a piece of class icisn1 in the :1rchacological sens<:, or in the sense in 1\·hich Alberti was ro understand R.o,nan archicccturc only a fr\,· years lacer. llrunclleschi \vas first consulted on rhe c:,1 thcdral of Florence as early as 1404, but chis \vas on :t routine 1nattcr. Ncvcrrhclcss, by this tirne it \Vas evident that an atte1npt v,ouJd have robe n1ade to cover the crossing of ch,· Ct1thedral and there can be no doubt that I.ht· Florentines thcni,clves \Vere a11xious to dc1no11stratc Lhcit cultural superiority by erecting a do111 e 138½ feet across. ,vhilc ac the ,:une 31 cin1c they were ,veil ,1,vare of the difficulties inherent in the under­ taking and rhe ridicule which \VOuld be heaped upon them by the Pisans, the Siencse, the Lucchesi and, indeed, che inhabitants of every tO\\'n for 1nany 111iles around if the atte1npc were 1nade and failed. The reason for this anxiety is che sin1plc fact that all arches - and a do111e is no n1ore than an arch rotated on its axis - are built on a wooden fran1c\~·ork called 'centering'. A horizoncal \vooden bean1 i, laid across an opening in a \Vall at the point at ,vhich the arch begins ro spring. A \VOoden fra111c\vork, either sen1icircular ur pointed, is erected on this cross-bea111 and the fran1e\vork supports the or stones co1nposing the arch until the stone in the centre (the keystone) is placed in position. The keystone is \vedge-shaped so that once the arch is built the centering can be ren1oved and all the stone~ \v iU press one against the other in such a \,;a y that the arch remains stable; 1nortar bet\veen the stones is not essential, since rhe \vedgcs are reall y hs:ld 1n place by the force of gravity. Fron1 this it is obvious that an arch is lin-1ited in size only by the size and strength of the tin1ber available fo r centc.:ring. Since the octagonal opc.:ning of the drurn of Florence Cathedral, \i.1bich \Vas ready by 1412 o r 1413, \vas nea rl y 140 feet ,1cross and [ 14] about r Xo feet above the grounc\, it \Vas 1111possible to 'build a v.'ooden fran1c,vork strong enough to support a donle. Indeed, no trees could be.; found big enough to bridge th.: g,1p and even if th.:y h~d, the \\'<:ight of the ti11 1b.:r \Vould have broken the cen tering long before any stone ,vas put on it. This is probably rhe reason \vhy each succc.>s­ sive capo111aestro concentrated his attention on any part of the Cathedral rather rh.111 thl' don1c. As late ;1s the sixteenth century it i, clear th:1t ,111 aura of 1nystcry sti ll surrounded Brunelleschi', tcac. Vasari, in his li fe of l:lrunelksch1, ,vrirten about 1550, tells us chac the suggescion \Vas serious! y advanced that the \vhok of the tribune should be filled \vitl, earth and that on top of this the do1ne should be builc. It \Vas then proposed that alJ che earth should be disposc.;d ofby the expedient ofniixing pennies in ,It interv~ls so th,1t ,1 11 the Florentine children \Vould conie and take the earth a\vay in order to get ar the 111011.:y. [n 1418 the Operai (overseers of the \VOrks) ;1nnounced ,1 publi c con1petitio11, but \Ve kno,v that Brunelleschi ,vas already ,vorking on a 111odcl, presu,nably 111adt: of stone. In 1+17 he had already been paid for dra\vings, and a \-voodcn niodel had been 111ade. (;hibert1, \Vho 32 had dctc:1tcd Brunelleschi 1n the Baptistry Doors cor11petition, \vas also c·alled in and sub1nitted a n1odcl. In 1420 borh Brunelleschi and c.;hibcni ,,·ere appointed, together "·1th a 1nason, to act as supervisors and to build the don1e. 'fhe construction o f the do 1nc began on 7 August 1420. and ,vas finished as far as rbe base of the lantern on I August t436. Defore \\1ork beg,1n Brun(;·lleschi had already builc r,vo s,n:11 1..:r do111es, 11 1ore o r less as trial runs; and , although these have not survived intact, vve do kno\v rhat they ,vere very s1nall, hc1n isphcrical in shape, and constructed on ribs. [tis also clear that Ghiberti and Brunelleschi did not get on at a 11 \\·ell together, and there are la ter stories of ho\v Brunclh:schi pretcndi:d to be ill at critical 1110111ents so as to expose Ghiberti's incon1pcrencc. Gbiberci, on the other hand, in his auto­ biogr,1phy, declares thar he ,vorkc:d on the do n1 e for eighteen years :.11 1d in1 plicitl y clain1s half the c: redir. Ic seen is very likely th,1 t Ghiberri ·s part in the early ~rages of the do1ne ,vas greater than Lue r generations gave hi1t1 credit for, but it is also certain that fro1n about 1420 onv-1 ards rhc actual construction and indeed the invention of ne\\' 1nachinerv, \vas Urunelkschi's \Vo rk alone. A docu1nent of 1423 refers to l1in1 as 'inventor and governor' and \Ve knO\\' that Ghiberti \\1 as disniissed in 1425 just at the rnon1ent ,vhen the con~truction \vas beco1 ni11 g very difficult. Ir should. ho\vever. be: ren1c;111bered that in 1425 Ghibcrti had been given the i1nporta11t com 111i\Sion for rhc second Bapristry J)oors. and no doubt be had to give his tune entirely to thc1n. When construction began th e: t\VO 111 ajor problen1s vv hich had to be faced \Ve re that no centering of the tnidicional rypc \Vas possible. and, to 111ake 1natters \Vorse, the drurn over the octagon alread y existed. This dn11r1 has no external abutn1cnts, so that any \\-eight resting on it n1ust exert the ab,olute 1n ini1nu1n o t side thrust. In a c.--:othic building this 1,vould hardly n1artcr since the side thrusts ,vould have been provided fo r by Aying buttresses .n the angles of the octagon. This \Va\ in1po~siblc in f'lorcncc, \Vhere tly1ug buttn,:sses \vould have; been visuall y u11acccptable, and in any case there 1,v,1, no\vhcrc to put thc111. T his is the structural reason \vhich rondirions the pointed shape of the do1ne. Drunelleschi, li ke every other classica ll y- minded architect, would have \V ishcd to build a hc1i-1i­ spherical do1ne because of its ofs hape and because the g rt:at Ro111an do111es. above all the: Pan theon, arc he111ispheri cal. Uecaust· of t he pro blen1 of a but1nc11ts, :1 pointed dorne had to be adopted. 33 since che side chruscs fro1n .1 po1nn:d don1e ,1re ,·cry nu1ch less rhan rhose exerted by ,1 ribbed he1nisphere. A don1e like che Panrheon. ,,·hich is solid concrete, exerts no side rhruscs ac alL buc. on che other hand, the dead ,veighc of such a do111e \\·01ild have crushed the existing dn11n. There \\'as, therefore. only one ,olurion. ,,·hich ,vas to build a don1e pointed in section and supported on rib~ \,·1th the lighte~t possibl<:' infilling bet,vecn the111. Brunelh:sch1 's solution. fro111 [ 15] any point of vie,v, '"'as a ,vork of genius. The axonoinetric dra,,·ing5 sho,,·s ho,v the ,vork \\'as done. There are eight 1na1or nbs spnng111g fro111 the angles of the octagon and sixteen n1inor nbs ,er in pair, bet\vecn each pair of n13Jor rib~ (chis idea ,tlrnosr cert,unly ra1nc fro111 the Bapti,try. ,vhich is ,1 donied octagon ,vich eighL ,ind ,i~reeu ribs). The skckton i;, con1pletcd by horizont,11 archc; ,,·hich tic the n1ajor and the 111 inor ribs cogcther .ind absorb rhc side rh rusrs. There ,UT r,,·o ~hells to rhc donie, ' an outer ,kin dnd an inner one. incendcd. in 13runclleschi's o,vn ,vords, co keep ouc che da111p .1nd ro give grearer 1nagnificc11ct'. This is the first kno,\·11 use of a double shell do1ne and it 1, obviously one oi the ,,·ays in \\·hich the \\'eighr \\'as considerabl> reduced. The eighr 1najor ribs are cltarly visible fron1 rhe ours1de, ,vhile the 1ninor ones can be seen only fron1 inside che r,vo shells, ,vhere there is also ,1 passage leading ro rhe base of rhe l.1nrern . By [4.?5 construction had reached about one-rhird of che ,, ay up, co rhe point,, hcre the curve \\'JS beginning to n10,·c sharph in,,·ard, and 1t ,,·as ac chis point th,1t the lack of centering posed the grc.1rest problems. Brunelleschi, " ·ho had presented a long n1cn1oraudun1 co the building con1n1ittcc bcfort he began to build. had lefr h11nselt' J ' ' free hand by pointing ouc in advance rhar in an underr,1king of chis kind pn1ctice alone \\·ould sho\\· ,vhat ,,·as nece~,ary. In rhc c,·ent, he 111adc· only one n1aJor ch,1nge, ,ind char ,,·as the· ,ubsntut1on ofbnck for ~tone in the upper pans, ,1ncr this ,\'as lighter. For the rest, hi< u11 foiling! y tcrrik i1n,1gi11,uio11 produced a \\'hole seric, of ne,, n1echanic,il devices, such ,1s cr,1ncs and 111.1chinc, for handling th.: ,tone blocks: and it is Jbo ,aid rh,1t he ,1rr,u1gcd f'or .1 co1nplet,;' canteen high above ground le\'el. iii order to ~a\'c the 111<;11 ,,·,,sting nn1e going do,,·n tor their n1eals. The solution to the apparent! y insoluble problc111 of the ce11tcri11g ,,·a, to build the don1e in horizont,tl courses, c:H·h oi' ,,·h1ch ,vJs bondc·d to ics predecessor in such a \\'JY rhat each course carried its 0\\'11 ,veight ,111d ,vas strong enough to support chc \Vl>l'k on the next

.14 I LORENCE, (,.~T HEDRAL D0\1E

14 Secrion

1 5 Diagra1n of consrruction

one until the ring had been closed, and, by being closed, it became able to support the next course. A certain herring- bone pattern in tht: rnasonry courses has also been observed and there can be no doubr that Brunelleschi learnt this fron1 rhe study he had made during his various stays in Ro111e of ancient Roman consrruccion. There is a n1uch later dra\ving in the in Florence shO\Ving a do1ne vvich herring-bone courses and annotated 'how they build do1nes in Florence without centering'. Once again, it vvould seen1 that for a thousand years no one had really understood or had even atten1pted to understand hovv the enonnous Ron1an vaults and don1es had been put up, and BrunelJeschi n1ust have \vorked the vvhole thing out by wandering an1011 g the ruins and asking hin1self questions \vhich no one else at that tin1e had even thought of forn1ulating. 35 When the don1e proper was con1pleted there \Vas a large ring about 20 feet in dian1cter \vhere the ribs converged to ,u1 open eye. It is a curious face chat although it \vas necessary to keep the dome as light as possible, yet the forces acting on this eye ,vere such that the ribs then1selves tended to sit back on their haunches and therefore lO burst the ring open. In order to rneet this proble1n, the lantern had to act as a sort of stopper and had therefore to be relatively heavy. This explains the size and elaboration of the lanten1 as it exists. A co1npeti­ tion was held in 1436 w hich, not surprising! y, was ,von by Brunel­ leschi. We kno,v that he n1ade a con1plete model of his design and it is highly likel y that this is the model ,vhich still exists in the C:a thedral Museu1n. Work v,ras not begun on the actual construction until 1446, a fe,v n1onths before Urunclleschi's death, but the execution \Vas entrusted to his friend and follo,ver, , and the existing building tollo\.vs Brunelleschi's design in every respect. The Gothic ribs of the dome are very skilfully linked by a kind of flying buttress ,vhich supports the core of che lantern, and, by 111eans of inverted classical consoles, links the ribs to the octagon turret. The general appearance is. as one 1nighc expect, as classical as possible, and the

1 6 Flo rcncc\ Spcdak degli lnnoccnci. Fa,,1de. 1419-24 lantern of the Baptistry just across the street provided the prororypc. [ 13] As a final decorative touch, Brunelleschi also built the exedrae at the base of the drun1 between 1439 and 1445. These reflect the change in his sryle 1Nhich can be dated to the 1430s and it is to his other works that one must turn in order to get a clearer picture of the evolution of his style \l\1hen it "vas not conditioned, as it inevitably was in the Cathedral, by existing problen1s of construction and design. There can be no doubt that the lingering Gothic spirit of the dome of the Cathedral \vas not desired by Brunell eschi. but ,.vas accepted by him because no feasible alternative solution co the problems of statics presented itself.

The first expression of Brunelleschi's o,vn architectural principles, or, to put it another way, the first truly Renaissance "vork, was the Foundling Hospital - the Spedale degli Innocenti - built bet\l\1cen [ 16) r419 and 1424. This, which \vas the first hospital for foundling children in the \.vorld, ,vas built at the expense of Brunelleschi's own , that of the Silk Merchants and Goldsmiths. Fron1 the point of vic,v of architecture the in1porcant part of this building is the outside , since the hospital ii.sell \Vas coniplercd by Brunelleschi's follo\;vers \Vhen he hinisclf, in 1425, \Vas far coo busy \V ith the donie of the c:achedral to attend ro anything else. There is a prototype for such a hospital building \Vith a vaulred loggia ourside ic in che hospital at Lastra a near Florence, bujit in 141 r, and at first glance there is little to choose ben,veen the t\VO. It is, ho\vever, "vhen one looks n1ore closely at the arches, the vaults, and che details of the Foundling Hospital that one sees ho\v the Early Renaissance style is both deeplv rooted in the Tuscan Ro111anesque and yet at the sa1ne tin1e presents a number of new elen1ent~ derived fron1 classical antiquity. The loggia consists of a se ri es of round arches, \Vith J horizontal elen1ent above the111, and a vault, consisting of sn1all don1es carried on th<: colunins of the loggia and on corbels on the surface of the hospital \val!. T he domed bays arc square in plan, not cross vaulted but of the si111ple classic shape. Tht: profile - the inner face - of the arches is Aat and nor t ri angular in section as J Gothic arch \vould be. This is because the arches arc: archivolts : that is, they arc tl,c entablarurcs of classical ,1ntiquiry bent up\vards to forrn se111icircular arches. Sin1ilarly, che colunins, the capirals, and the are all of classic rypc. \Vhile the colu1nns have dossercts inserted bct\veen rhc capitals and the base of the vaults. Dosscrcts are 1nore Byzantine than Ronian, bur chey occur in Tuscan Ro1nanesque· churches such as SS. Apostoli in Florence. It is highly likely that at this sragc of his career Brunelleschi thought thac che tench cencury SS. Apostoli ,vas an Early Chriscian (i.e. fourth or fifth century) building, tor ic \vas not until 111uch lacer chat he began to di~tinguish bet\veen the purer for111s of classical antiquity and those of the later centuric:s. This use of non-classical rn odels can be proved from a curiou, circun1stancc in the Foundling Hos pita I. Above the round .1 rd1cs there runs a long i:ntablature supported at the ends by large pilasters: ch is. ho,,·cvcr, departs radically fron1 cl.issical precedent ,lt che exrren,c end~ of the building,

"vhere the suddenly• bends do\vn\\'ards. This is a featur~ \vhich occurs.in the Baptisrry at Florence. Ir is clear, rheretorc, that the Ba ptisrry, the dare of \vhich has been puc by rnodcrn historians any\vhcre in che 111illcnniu111 bet,vecn the fourth and the fourteenth centuries, \Vas for Brunelleschi, at thac in hi, developrncnr, an architectural excn1plar of the sanic validicy as thc grc,it Ron1an ruins. The arcading and the tabernacle \vindo,vs also derive fro1n the Uaptistry. So1ne reAecrions of Brunelleschi's architectural innovations can be seen in the "vork of hi s friends Masaccio and . Masaccio's of the "vas probably painted before November r425, and the niche by Donatello and Michelozzo on the church of was built betv.-een 1422 and 1425 : both are n1ore truly classical in feeling than the loggia degli Innocenti, but ncithcr could have existed "vithout it. Brunelleschi built t"vo la rge basilica! churches in Florence, both co,npleted after his death bur showing the develop1nenr of his style in his later years, and borh of thern becan1e patterns of the Latin cross type of plan. The earlier of the two is S. Lorenzo, the parish church of [ 1 9, 20] the Medici £1n1ily. This \Vas begun in 1419, \Vhen a plan was dra\vn up for rebuilding a 1nuch older church on the sire. Many chapels vvere necessary since it \>JaS a monastic foundation, and Brunelleschi there- fo re adapted the type w hich had been established in the last years of the thirteenth century at Sta Croce. The basic shape is a large Latin cross with a square central crossing, a square choir and smaller square chapels at either side of it. The architectural weakness of this type of plan can be seen by cornparing Sta C roce vvith S. Lorenzo. Tn the [7, 20] earlier church there is a strongly accenred directional fee lin g frorn the \vest towards rhe east end, but the three great axes of nave and aisles rather peter out in a clutter of small chapels at the east end \vhich do not bear any clearly established proportional relatioDship co the nave. Since the ntu11ber of n1onks living in the house> detern1ined the number of chapels necessary, it \vas often unavoidable cha t they should be sn1a!J. In S. Lorenzo Brunelleschi met th,is difficulty by extending the chapels round the in such a \~•a y that he obtained the san1e nt1111ber (ten in all) at the east end, but each individual chapel is now related in proportion both to the choir and to the nave and aisles. It was for this reason that his t\•VO Florentine churches beca n1e exa1nples of proportional planning, since they took an established type and subjected it to a n1athematical discipline. The basic unit is the square of the crossing. This square is repeated exactly to form both transepts and choir, and the nave is then made four squares long. The aisle bays are rectangular and exactly haJfthe ,vidth of the tnain square bay. In this way, the spectator standing in one of the aisles looks across the transept to the opening of a chapel ,vhich is related in ~ize to the nave and aisles; and the total effect is therefore n1uch n1ore hannonious than was the case in a church like Sta Croce.

39 In order co find space for ten chapels of this larger size, ic v,as necessar y to excend chen1 round rhe ends and both si des of the transept, vvhich in turn left an av.1 kv.1ard gap at the angles. This ang le v.1 as satisfactorily fi ll ed by using the space for tvvo sacristies. knov.·n as the O ld and Ne,v Sacristies. The nevv one \¥as allowed for in Brunell eschi's plan but ,vas not built for n1ore than a hundred years. T he Old Sacriscy ,vas [ 1 7, 18] begun in 14 19, w hen the plan for rebuilding the church was fi rst established, and, because it vvas paid for by a n1en1 ber of the Medici family, it vvas built quite rapid ly bet vveen August 1421 (,~,hen the foundation-scone vvas laid) and 1428. T he sculptural decoracion by Donatello is generally thought to be rather later, perhaps of the niid r 430s. Since the sacristy vvas finished before the rest of the church , it n1 ay be considered as a building in irs o,,.,n right. In a sense it is one of the fi rst centrall y planned buildings of the Renaissance, but this is only true in a very general vvay. It is square in plan, but what is 111o rc in1portant is the fact that the "valls arc equal in height to the sides of rhe s·quarc:: plan so that the building as a w hole fo rms a perfect cube. () 11 one side, the ,vall is divided into thn.:e, the central third being opened up to provide the entrance to a sn1all altar- roorn ,vhich is icself square in plan Jnd, like the main sacristy, has a hcn1isphcrical do n1e over it. In this ,vay, the O ld Sacristy reall y consiscs of n,vo related cubical blocks, altho ugh the s1naller space is not a t rue cube, its heig ht being condicioncd by thac of che 1nain sacriscy. T his fee ling for geo111etry is carried a good deal further, since the section sho,vs that the ,vall is divided into three equal horizoncal zones, che cvvo lo,ver ones being che to p and botto1n h alves of the square ,vall divided b y the entablarurc. Uecause the do1ne which covers the s,icristy is internal! y a hen1isphere, its radius is necessarily one-half the \Vidth ofthe vva ll , so that the three equal zones are quite clearl y visible. Like che arrangement of the chapels on phin this very si1r1ple arith- 1netical proporcion is the essence of the ,vhok design, bur supe.r­ i1nposed on to it arc s01ne con1plicatcd el-feces ,vbirh :ire partly B runelleschi's and partly, in all pro babil ity, Donatell o's. This is because the don1e is carr ied on pendenrivcs - spherica l triangles ,vhich project for,vards fro1n the corners o f the ,valls so that the square plan is t ransfonned into a circle at the springing of the do1ne. The use of pendenti ves v,,as fi rst fully cxploiced in Byzantine architec­ ture, one of the greatest exa1nples being the church ofHagia Sophia in ; but Drunelleschi could hardly have seen an y of

40 these and u1ust have \.vorked out the constructional svste, n1 fro111 a study of Ron1an re1nains.6 T he for\vard-curving surfaces of the pcndentives are exploited by Donatello in his decorative systen1 since the roundels \.vi th \Vhich Brunelleschi decorated the surfaces are treated as tho ugh they \.Vere portholes, and the spectator's eye looks thro ugh then1 011 to a scene \.Vhich is in sharp perspective. The rest o f Brunelleschi's decoration consists of pilasters carrying a rather decorated en tablature, si111ilar in style co the n1odified H.01n an fonns used b y hi rr1 in the loggia of the Foundling Hospital. T he circles and half-circles arc proportioned to the bas ic clcn1cnts of the design . The difficulty Brunelleschi encountered in fi tting these classical [ 17] fo n ns into h is rnathematically deten n incd spaces can be seen in the corners. ,vhcrc the t\.VO pil asters of an outward ang le have to be condensed into a fragn1entar y strip in the o pposite, re-entrant, angles, because there is no space for a fully extended pilaster. Si1nilar difficulties can also be seen \Vhere a pilaster is bent round an angle, o r \.vhere a has to appear to support a long \V here it is not possible to place a pilaster. The sa1ne rather experi1ncnral approach is visible in the don1e v-•l1-ic h is externally in section rather like the I 18] lantern of the 13aptistr y, since it consists ofa high dru1n w ith a conical tiled roofabove it. Internall y, hov1ever, it is a true classical l1emisphere. although it is supported on ribs like those used in the Cathedral. T his type, kno\.vn fo r o bvious reasons as an u111brella don1e, \\•,1s ahvays used by Brunelleschi and by 1n ost of his folk1\.vers until the sixtee11th century. T he do111e is li ghted by \.vin dO \\'S \vhich appear front outside to be in the dnun and fron1 the inside to be at the base of the gores benveen the ribs. Although the design for the rest of the church scents to have been established as ea rl y as about 1419, ,vork ,vas not rcsurncd until about 1442, and it vvas no t con1 plctcd until long after Brunelleschi's death in r 446. O ne maj o r change \.Vas rnadc in the revision of the ea rly 1440s, rendered necessary by rhe need for sti ll more ch:-1pcls. These v-•ere obtained by knocking out the \.Vall on the outsides of the aisles and extending the aisles to no rth and south by spaces \.vhich arc rectangufor , and exactly half the area o f the square bays of the aisles, v-,hich in their turn arc exactly one- quarter the area of the crossing square unit. Cutting throug h the v-,all leads also to sonic further perspective effects since anyone in the centre of the nave finds hi mself looking th rough the n1ain arcade and then through the round-headed 41 arch\vay of the chapel entrance to the rear \Vall ofrhe chapel, so that a succession of di1ninishing openings can be apprehended as a sequence of related shapes. The basic type of the church is si n1 ilar to that of Sta C roce in section, as well as in plan, since rhc nave has a Aac roof rising above rhe aisles, and the aisles in S. Lorenzo have sin1ple don1cs. This is the type of Ea rl y Christian basilicas, and the sinularities between the capitals used by Brunelleschi and those of a Ron1anesque church such as SS. Apostoli in Florence can hardly be coincidental. Again, .Urunelleschi experienced difficulties with the proportions in S. Lorenzo v.,hich he did not experience in the later church of Sto [ 25] Spirito, where the same type of plan is \vorked out in a n1ore coherent n1a11ner. One such difficulty 1na y be seen in the use of dosserets above the capitals of the nave arcade. This arose because the don1ical vaults of the aisles are supported on pilasters on the one side and the columns of the nave on the other. The pilasters and colu111ns n1ust necessarily FLOH£NCE, S. lORCNZO by Brunelleschi, begun· 1419

17, 18 Interior and section of the Old Sacrisry

19 Nave

20 Plan ► t

,.

.: .~ ~- ' . :, be the san1e height, but, because there is a raised floor at the entrance to the chapels, the pilasters stand higher than the columns and a space vvas therefore left bet\veen the top of tbe and the boctorn of the arch. A sixteenth- century architect \vould sin1ply have raised the column on a base, but Brunellesch.i, perhaps following a Rornan or Byzantine prototype, used a dosseret to fill this space, just as he had done in the loggia of the Foundling Hospital. Seo Spirito not only provides nevv and more satisfactory solutions to sornc of the problems encountered in S. Lorenzo, but also shO\\'S purely stylistic differences fro1n the earlier church. These differences seen1 co go back to a change in Brunelleschi's style which can be dated vvi th fair certainty to the n1id 1430s, and was very probably due to a fresh visit to Rotne. One of his tnost fan1ous vvorks is the of the convent attached to Sta Croce, a s1uall building in the [ 21-23 I cloister known generally as the Chapel. It was for long con­ sidered to be l:lrunelleschi's first vvork, but this vvas due to a n1istaken interpretation of Vasari; the building is in fact a half- vvay house on the verge of the stylistic changes of the 1430s. The first documents which 1nention the chapel are of 1429, and a contract \vas dra\vn up in 1429/30 \vhich led to a plan of 1430 or possibly of 1433 . The building \vas not finished for forty years and the exteri or is not as Brunelleschi \~'ishcd it to be. The plan is a 1nore co111 plicated version of the O ld Sacristy; that is, a central square " 'irh a don1e over ir, one side of \Vhich is opened to forin a sn1allcr, square, choir. The is 111ore sophiscicared in its planning, since the square of chc choir is balanced by a square vestibule vvbich is extended on either side to 1natch the lateral extensions or 'transepts' attached to che central space. In this \~•ay, each ofthe four sides ofche n1ain square is 1nodified, and each part retains a 111athen1atical relationship to the o riginal unit. The spatial feeling is far n1ore con1plicated than in the Old Sacristy. because the entrance vestibule has a heavy barr<::1-vault vvith a central saucer-do1ncd space. This foni-1s the entrance to the chapel, \vhich has a large ribbed dornc over it. The rnain chapel also has an extension at either side, barrel-v,1ulted and parallel to the corresponding portions of the entrance vestibule. Finall y, che choir space repeats the sn1aller entrance don1c beyond chc 111ain one. The treatn1ent ofthe decoration. vvhich includes sonic sculpture attributed to Brunelleschi hin1selC again shovvs his cxperin1cntal approach to Ron1an architecture as well as his desire to use colourisric effects of the rype traditional in Florence. 44 21 Interior flORE:S:CE, 'iTt\ ( RO, [, THE Pt\ZZI CHt\ P~ I :!2 Section by 13runelleschi, 1430 or lacer 23 Pla n

. ; • r., • .,.· t~ -hl. r ,., \7: .--J' / "·, :{__, ---·r_... _{; ,.. .• I --,. r ; ' •11•7 t'I .• ,J : ' .~ : I 1..-,-l

·: i .' . l . •' ,.. ·• ··-·. . ; , >U .

• ( . t • ,.- ,..

24 Florence, Sta Maria +~ 1 degli Angeli. Plan of r. 1434. l)ra"·ing by G. da Sangallo after I I ..,. .• •• t ' ' ,...., Brunclkschi ~--· .. ··- ... -- . . ' ' • - ' ;;.. +

•• I ... .-.. -- • I begun in 1434 and abandoned, unfinished, in 1437. The plan is the first true central plan of the fifteenth century and derives directly from the Ten1ple of' Minerva Medi ca' in Rotne. Ir consists of a central dorned octagon - the shape of Brunelleschi's Cathedral do1nc - surrounded by a ring of chapels opening off the sides. It is conceived on an entire Iy dilferent principle fron1 Brunelleschi's earlier vvork, such as the Old Sacristy or the Pazzi Chapel, since the forn1s are now thought of as solid sculptural 111asses with the air flov,ing round them, \vhereas in the earlier \vork they arc thought of as flat planes having geon1etrical relationships one to another but lacking in any plastic quality. In the same \vay. so far as \Ve can reconstruct it, the do111e secn1s to have been massively classical and based on the type represented by the Pantheon, quite different from his earlier ribbed fonns. Since this building was begun imn1ediately after the putative journey to Ron1e, it seems ro provide very strong stylistic confinnation for a renewed

classical influence; and this late st vie, can be found in all the \vorks datable afcer 1434, such as the lantern of the Cathedral, the cxcdrae of the Cathedral and, above all, the church of Seo Spirito. The Basilica of Sto Spirito is basically very sin1ilar to S. Lorenzo, I25. 26] and the t\VO churches between then1 became exen1plars of the Brunelleschian scyle. Sto Spirito, ho,vcvcr, shov,s certain points of difference fron1 S. Lorenzo and is an exarnple of Brunelleschi's latest and n1ost tnarurely classical style. Ir lies in the poorer quarter beyond the ,vhcrc a chu1 ch is kno,vn to have existed on this spot since about 1250. Brunelleschi's design for rebuilding it \~1 as approved by a con1111ission in 1434, and, afccr so1ne 111oncy had been collected, the foundation-stone ,.vas laid in 1436. Very lirtlc, ho\vever, \Vas done; and when Brunelleschi died ren years later the first colu1nn was on the site, but the church was not finished until 1482, after a Jong con- troversy \Vhich resulted in son1e alterations to the original design. These alterations are known to us largely through the anony1nous Life ofl3runelleschi which is our principal source of information about his career. So far as we can 111ake out, there should have been four 111ain doors at the \vest end where there arc now three; the systcn1 of do111ical aisle bays which runs right round the eastern end of the church should have been continued behind the " 'est ,val! so that each door opened into one of the sm.ill square bays: and, finally, the out- side line of the church ought to have been a rather curious shape with the semicircular \Valls of the side chapels expressed as convex curves 47 on the outside, instead ofbeing filled in co form a straight "vall. as they [25] nov,1 are. It is h ighly li kely char these alterations were 111ade by the later architects contrary to Brunelleschi's desires, since it \VOtdd seem chat this rarher curious curved \Vall-system \vas probably inspired by part of the Lateran Basilica in Rome, \vhich once had such a feature, and which Brunell eschi probably thought was Early Christian. In the same way, the idea of a continuous ring of small domed spaces for ming an internal prelude to the larger spaces of the nave, choir. and transepts. fits in very \'Jell \1/ith the spatial feeling of Brunelleschi's later works and it see1ns to be confinned by the fact that the space left blank on the present plan is exactly large enough for the t\vo extra bays. We kno\1/ chat a model "vas made by Brunelleschi and "vas approved in 1434, but the plans \'Jere 1nodified some ten years later so that in their final form they truly represent the style of BruneUeschi's last years.

r✓TT~ t>··. )I . .":".II'..·. • ' .. : ·: "'i',..... • ~ jt•• • ....• I 1 · ,·. ..' :-·,· - ... ,.,: ' •- • ! . ' ': . ' • . -,'. I Ji 'If ti .. :,_ ..• ,. II .. 1( : ·-.,\ i ,• .'. ::· " ;f! .. , ~ . ':: .. . ; !\ ·.·: r-.i4 ··-,: : ". ' . .,, . "•·• ; . .,..~_,.,, . . ~.··. a ...... j ;:, ·.: .. • . II . " ! I ' I : !, .,• " i ". ·. •· ,i(· . ,: • • . . •. · i( . . .. :. ·•: "'· ,t.. . .,, ' • .•. ••... ' . . • :...... I ~OflFN Cf. . STU ~ l'IUITO r ~ by Brunelleschi, • • • --~J .... I 4.l4 or later

25 Plan 26 Nave

Alchough the plan qfSto Spirito difrers from that ofS. Lorenzo, the real contrast bet\veen the t\VO churches is best experienced in three dirnensions when standing inside then1. Even on plan it can be seen that the rectangular forms ofS. Lorenzo are modified in Sto Spirito, as in all Brunelleschi's later \vorks, into son1ething far more sculptural in feeling. Where in S. Lorenzo the small chapels are rectangles \Vith flat pilasters set at the openings as responds to the columns, in Sto Spirito the semicircular niches of the chapel forn1s arc repeated as counter curves in the half-colun1ns at the entrances to the chapels, \~rhich serve as responds to the colunu1s in the nave. Again, the proportions inside che church are u1ore fully \vorked out, and the slightly awkward proportion in S. Lorenzo forn1ed by the height of I 19] the arcade in relation to the height of the clerestory above it (roughly 3: 2) is 1nuch n1ore satisfactorily created in Sto Spirito, \Vhere the (26] arcade height is the same as the clerestory height. The bays of the aisles have dotuical vaults, the roof of the nave is Rat and painted co represent coffering; bur rhe aisle bays are no\v half the height of the nave bays as \veil as half their ,vidth, and this, once again. can be traced back ro the tenth-century church of SS. Apostoli vvhich has the sa111e 1 : 2 proportion. The splendid spatial effect created by the great ring of colun1ns running round the \vhole church is perhaps hardly co be appreciated except by actually ,valking rhrough it. but it is certainly the case that it has a richness and truly Ro111,1n grandeur, not to be found in Brunelleschi's earlier \vorks, \Vhich 111akcs the church ofSto Spirito a firring conclusion to his career. The imitators who succeeded hi1n ,verc nut capable of grasping the n1athen1atical severity con1bincd \Vlth sculptural richness of the late buildings and they tended to choose ,vorks of his earlier period, such as the Foundling Hospital, as exa111ples for in1itarion. A case in point is the Badia at , JUSt outside Florence, ,vhicb \Vas not begun until after Brunelleschi's death, but ,~,hich is closer co the \Vork of the 1420s than to any of the buildings of his lacer style.

50 CHA PT ER THREE

Alberti

The o ther 111ajor archicect of the earlier part of rhe fifteenth century was ,vho ,vas, however, as different as possible fro1n Brunell eschi; he ,vas a 1nan co \vhom architecture represented only one activity an1ong n1any. Alberti \Vas one of the greatest scholars of his age, whereas we know that Brunelleschi \Vas unable to read Latin and was obviously a man who liked to work out things for hi1nself Alberti \vas born in , ver y probably in 1404, an illegitimate member of an i1nportant Florentine 1nerchant fa1nily which was tcn1porarily in exile. The young Alberti was given an excellent education, first at the University of , v.rhere at a ver y early age he acquired a rr1astery of Greek and Latin, and lacer at the University of , \Vhere he studied la,v. When his father died he \vas supported by tv.10 uncles, both of ,vhom were priests, since it ,vas quite evident that the young ,nan \Vas developing into a prodigy, and indeed at the age of t\venty he ,vrotc a Larin comedy which for a short ti111e passed as genuinely antique. This was perhaps less difficult in the fifteenth century than it \vould be nov.,, since these

,~1ere the very years \vhen a small nun1ber of hun1anist scholars ,vere rediscovering a vast number of classical n1an uscripts and there was nothing ver y strange in the discovery of a comed y v,hich pu rported to be antique. Alberti soon met n1osc of the g reater hun1anists of the next generation in cluding, in all probability, the future Nicholas V, the first-humanist Pope and later Albcrti's en1ployer. About 1428, or perhaps a li ttle earlier, the banishment of his farn ily was revoked and he went to Florence \vhere he 1net Brunelleschi and probably also L')onatello and Ghiberti. In his book on painting he mentions Masaccio as ,vell , so it is quite evident that he moved in the sarnc kind of advanced artistic circles in Flo rence as the hu1nanist circles he \vas accuston1ed to in Padua and Bologna. The dedication of his book is one of the fe,v pieces of evidence for a connection bet\veen humanist ideas and the arts. Soon after this he rook 111inor orders and entered the Papal Civil Service, as did n1any hu111anists of that period. He travelled widely, and, in the early 1430s, whil e living in Ro111c , he began to make an intensive study of the ruins of classical antiqttity. This, however, was approached in an entirely different way fron1 Brunell eschi's study of the san1e ruins. Brunelleschi was prin1arily concerned ,vich discovering ho,v the Ron1ans had been able co build on an enorn1ous scale and co roof vast spaces; in o ther words, he was interested in fron1 a purely structural point of vie,v. Alberti, who almost always en1ployed an assist.ant to do the actual bui_lding for hin1, was probably incapable of understanding the structural systc n1 of R.on1an architecture and certainly was not very interested in it. He ,~,as. ho,vever, the first theorist of the new· hu1nanist art, and his study of classical ruins ,vas for the purpose of deducing ,vhat he in1agincd to be the in11nutable rules governing the arts. He ,vrote three treatises - on painting, sculpture, and archi­ tecture - and in each case ,ve see chat not only is his prose 1nodelled on Ciceronian Latin, but the w·hole cast of his n1ind is to seek for antique exen1plars ,~,hich can be 1T1odified to suit conte111porary circurnstances. In 1434 he returned co Florence and there began ,vork on the first of his treatises on the arts. the short J)ella Pi11ura, dealing ,vith the cheoretica l basis of painting and dedicated to Brunelleschi, l)onatello, Ghiberci. Luca delfo Robbia. and Masaccio. the n,ost forn1idable con1bination of artists then to be found. (Masaccio, of course, vvas dead before 1434, but all the others ,vere at the height of their careers.) Della Pi11ura vvas finished 'in 143 5 and sho,vs Albcrci ·s scientific interest in p roblen1s of proportion Jud perspective. Much space is devoted ro the probkn1 of the rcpresenracion on a plane surface of objects assun1ed ro be at varying distances. and to the problen1 of n1aintaining an equal scale of di111inution bct,veen then,. This is funda1ne11tally a rational and naturalistic approach to the arts. and the san1e preconceptions can be .found in his book on the rheory of architecture and his pan1phlet on sculpture. Alberti's architectural interests began in the 1440s - that is, in the last year~ of Brundksch1 ·s li fetin1e - and it ,vas probably then that he bcgan to con1pose his greatest theoretical \\'Ork. the ten books on architecture, De ,.c t1/'df/ica1ori11, of v.:hich a version ,vas presented to in r 452, but ,vhich Alberti probably continued co 1nodify until his dc;ith in 1472. We kno,v fro1n an anonyn1ous Life (,vhich 1nay be an autobiography) that Alberti practised all three arts, but ,ve have no certain pain tings o r sculpture by h1111, and his repu­ tation as an ,1rtist rests equall y on his ,vritings and on his buildings. 52 The obvio us classical n1odel for Alberri's book on architecture was the vvork of Virruvius, the only technical treatise o n the arts co have corne do,v11 co us fron1 classical antiquity. 111 fact, a ,nanuscript of Vitruvius '-Vas rediscovered rather dra1naricall y by the hun1anisr Poggio about 141 S, although knov-,ledge of the treatise had never been entirely lose. It is, hov-1ever, certain that Alberti ,va~ the first 111an to 111ake real use of the text of Vitruvius since it vvas, and is, cxtren1ely corrupt and in parts entirely unintelligible. Alberri's purpose, therc:fore, ,vas co ,vrite on the basic principles ofarchitec ture as Vitruvius had done before hi1n, and to use Vitruvius as a guide ,virhout in any ,vay copying hin1. Much of Alberti's'trcatisc is dea rl y recognizable as a product of the early l-fun1anisr Age, w ith its c1nphasis on the develop1nent of the ind ividual through the culti­ v,1tion of the vvill, the restraint of feeling, and the develop1nent of one's ovvn capacity in order to secure the public good. This very Ronian conception of the i11dividual is characteristic of tl1e early fifteenth century, but it is slightly surprising to find Alberti referring to 'the tcniplcs' and 'the gods' vvhen he 1ne,1ns churches, God, and the Saints. This rather self- conscious Larin usage:: has kd to a funda­ n,enral rnisconception of Alberti's ideas, since it is q uite clear that in of his in sistence on the glories of antiquity and the supre111acy of antique art, he is nevertheless thinking entirely vvithin a C hristian fra111e,vork. Alberti gives the tir~t eonsi,tc'Jll thc·ory otrhe use of the tiv,· ordc-rs since classical tin1es. He has a de~;gn for a rovvn plan and for a series of suited to the different classes. He aho has a coherent theory of beauty and ornan1ent in architecture vvhicb depends basica ll y on a 1nathen1atical systen1 of harmonic p roportions, since he defines beauty as 'a harn1ony and concord of all the parts, 50 that 11 othi11g could be added o r subtracted except for the v-,orsc.: '. This beauty can, rather illogically, be in1.proved by ornan,en t ,~1 hich is supcrirnposcd on harmonic proportion, aud the principal o r11 a1ncnt of,1 rch itecrurc· is the colcirnn . It is eviden t, therefore, that Alberti ,vas ignorant of the cssentially functional nature of the colun1n in Creek architecture, ,1nd, like so,ne of the Ron1an architects, he regarded it as a rnere orna111ent on the load-bearing ,vall. His first works vve re a palace in Florence for the Ruccll~i fan1.ily, and a church \Vhich he rebuilt for Sigisn1ondo Malatesta, the tyrant of Ri111ini. It i~ likcly chat thc Palazzo l:lucellai was the first to be 53 ere<:rcd, but it v.rill be n1ore convenient to consider it in the next chapter along \Vith other Florentine of the fifteenth century. The church in Rirnini vvas an old one dedicated to St Francis, but it is nov.r 1nore usually k.110\vn as the Te1npio Malatestiano since it was rebuilt fron1 about 1446 011,vards by Sigismondo \vith the intention of 111aking it a 1nen1orial to hi111self, to his ,vife lsotta, and to the 111en1bers of his court. The idea of rebuilding the church to the glory of God ,vas cl early a very secondary consideration in Sigismondo's (27) n1 ind. The i11 1portance of the Ten1pio Malatestiano at Rirnini in th e lies in tbe f.1ct that it is the first n1odern cxan1ple of a classical solution to the proble1n presented by th e ,vestern fa\ade of a nonnal Christian church; that is, a high central nave vvith a Jo,ver aisle on either side, each covered by a lean-to roof. "fhe rather a,vk,Nard shape thus produced ,vas not a conuuon classical forn,, since the traditional classical ternple consisted of a portico stand ing in front of a sin gle ce ll a. The Gothic solution of ,vestern tO\~>ers, cornn1on in France and England. ,vas hardly ever used in Icaly and Alberti had therefore no i1n 1nediate prototype to dra,v on. The tact that the Ten1pio Malacestiano ,vas so patently dedicated to the glory of an earthly prince 1nay ,veil have suggested the solution adopted, ,vhich was to recast the old ,vest end of the church into a forn1 based upon the classical triun1phal arch, so that the idea of victory over death is in1plied in the choice of a tritunphal arch at the entra nce to the church. Most classical exan1ples consist either of a single arch flanked by colun1ns - there is such an Arch of Augustus in Ri1nini itself - o r are of a tripartite fon11 ,vith a large central arch and sn1a ll ones on either side separated by colun1ns. The n1ost fo n,ous exa1nple of this, and one ,vhid, \!Vas certainly very well kno,vn to Alberti. is the in Ilo111e. Tbis ,vas undoubtedly the original rnodel for the church at Rin1ini although 111any of the details are taken directl y fron, the Arch of Augustus. The Arch of Constantine, ho,vcver, only provided a solution to the proble111 presented by the cJjfferent sizes of nave and aisles. Alberti ,vas still faced ,vith the problern of the greater height of the nave, and. since triu1nphal arches arc invariably of a single storey ,.vith perhaps an attic, son1e o ther forin had to be fo und and adapti;;d for the upper part of the building. Ln tact the building \vas never con1pkted and the interior is still largelv Goth ic. but it is possihle to dedure Alberti\ intentions fro1n the fragn,enr ,~;hich exists, and fron1 a n1edal cast 54 t- "'~ ' .

•

27 Ri111ini , rhe Ten1pio Malatesriano. Fa<;ade by Alberti, 1446 and later by Matteo de' Pasti about 1450. Matteo was Alberti's assistant at Ri1nini and ,vas responsible for most of the actual building. A letter, recently rediscovered, from Alberti co Marreo de' Pasti of 18 November 1454 explains dearly some of Alberti's ideas, and the n1edal shows his proposed solution for the upper storey. It also proves that he intended to build a very large dorne, hemispherical in shape, like the Pantheon, bur carried on ribs, like Brunellesch.i's Cathedral. The solution for the upper part of the facade was to repeat the large arched opening above the doorway, using it as a and Ranking it with colu,nns (or rather pi lasters), the bases of which can be seen on the building as it exists. The roofs of the aisles v.1ere to 55 be 111asked -by lo,v seg1nental screening waUs \vich decorative ,notifs on them. This general syste1n, vvith the use of t\vO orders one above the other in the centre, becan1e one of che con1111onest fonns in Western . In the letter vvritten to Matteo de' Pasti, he explains this, saying : Rerne111ber and bear \veil in n1 ind that in the ,node], on the ri ghc and left sides along the edge of the roof, there is a thing like this (here is