IT A
42
IT A
it in the middle like a mitre ; this practice was even moreunsightly and unscientific than the preceding; for whereasthe ancient pediment was formed for the purpose of throwingoff the rain ; this, on the contrary, would seem to be shapedfor the very purpose of collecting and retaining it. Thisbarbarism is frequently accompanied by another equallyunauthorized and equally ugly; we allude to the practice,when the upper of two colonnades is narrower than the lower,of placing on each side of the upper story, a huge reversedconsole, or sort of volute, which has an exceedingly unsightlyappearance. This arrangement is of common occurrence inchurches, where the aisle-roofs are lower than that of thenave, the difference of level being made up by these tastelessmasses. These few last mentioned peculiarities form some
of the worst features of the style ; many buildings, however,are entirely free from such defects, and are of chaste andelegant design.
As we have above stated, the first attempt towards theintroduction of this style was made by Arnulfo di Cambio,in his design for the Duomo of Florence ; but very little pro-gress was made in this direction till the time of Brunelleschi ,who may be said to be the father of the Italian style. Fromhis time the style rapidly extended its influence throughoutItaly , and was considerably varied, and in some instancesimproved upon, by his successors ; of the life and works of jthe principal of them, a short account will be found in the jsucceeding table :— j
Name of Architect.
Born.
Died.
Native of
Practised at
Erected buildings.
Wrote works.
a. D. 1375
A. D. 1444
Florence.
Dome of Cathedral, and Church of San Lorenzo , and com-menced the Palace Pitti, Florence .
Alberti.
1400
Florence.
Rome, Florence ,Mantua , andRimini.
Palazzo Rucellai , part of the church of the Annunciation,Florence ; Church of St. Francis, Rimini; and St. An-drew, Mantua .
De ro JEdifica-toi'ia.
Bramante d’Lr-bino.
Micheli.
1444
1484
1514
Castel Du-rante , orFermig-nano.Verona
Rome.
Cloister of Convent della Pace, Cancellaria, Palazzo Giraud ,part of the Vatican, commencement of St. Peter’s , and theoratory of the cloister of San Pietro Montorio, Rome .
Palazzi Pompeii, Berilacqua, Canossa, Verona ; and PalazzoGrimani, Venice .
1474
1563
St. Peter’s Cathedral, finished the Famese palace, Rome ;and portions of Church of San Lorenzo, Florence .
Sansorino.
1479
1578
Libreria Vecchia, Palazzi Cornaro and Delfino, La Zecca,the Public Library, and the Church of San Francescodella Vigna, Venice .
Sorlio.
1475
1552
Theatre, Vicenza ; Palace Fontainebleau .
Opere di Archi-tettura,
Vignola.
1507
1573
Vignola,
Bologna, Assisi ,Perugia .Rome , &c.
Palazzo Isolani, near Bologna ; Church at Massano; theMadonna degli Angeli, Assisi; St. Francesco, Perugia ;Villa Giulia, Church of St. Andrea, Rome ; Palace atCaprarola .
Palladio.
1519
1580
Palazzi della Ragione, Tiene, Valmarana, Chieracati, Porti,Barberino, and Villa Capra, and Teatro Olimpico, Vi-cenza ; Churches of St. Giorgio Maggiore, and Ii Redem-tore, Venice .
Scamozzl.
’552
1616
Finished Public Library, Venice ; and the Ttatro Olimpico,Vicenza; Cathedral of Salzburg , the Churches of St.Nicholo di Tolentino, and SS. Simone e Giuda, and theProcuratie Nuove, Venice ; Palazzi Roberto Strozzi, Flo-rence ; and Pretorio and Trissimo. Vicenza .
Treatise on Per-spective,ArchitetturaUniversale.
Borromini.
1599
1667
Como.
Churches of La Sapienza , St. Agnes, and the College di Pro-paganda, Oratory Chiega Nuova, and the Doria Palace,Rome .
Bernini
1598
1680
Naples.
Palace Barberini , Fa£ade of the College di Propaganda,Colonnade in front of St. Peter’s , and Colonnade joiningthe Vatican , the Church of St. Andrea a Monte Cavallo,the Palace Bracciano, &c.
j
| Italian architecture is usually divided into three kinds,which, with a very decided similarity in general treatment,have peculiarities sufficient to distinguish them from eachother. The three classes are named after the cities in whichthey each prevailed, not that any one of the styles were inuse at any place to the exclusion of the others, but that eachj style was predominant in its own locality. The cities arethose of Florence, Rome, and Venice , and the classes arestyled after their names—Florentine, Roman, and Venetian.
The architecture of Florence , and more especially of itspalaces, is very peculiar : strong, massive, severe, and, fromthese very qualities, grand ; but at the same time gloomy, and heavy, presenting the appearance of fortresses ratheri than the residences of merchants. Nor was this appearancej a false or deceitful one, for the strength of these mansionsI was required for purposes of defence. The rival parties ofthe Guelphs and Ghibellines, and, at a later period, of the Neri
and Bianchi, were the cause of ceaseless civil discord, andtheir quarrels kept the city in a state of continual commo-tion, from an early period of its history, to the time of theMedicis. It was this state of circumstances which originatedthe peculiar appearance of the buildings to be found in thiscity. Large blocks of stone were readily procurable from thequarries of Tuscany ; and solidity and strength were, to someextent, demanded in residences which were not unfrequentlyrequired to answer the purpose of a stronghold. Florentinebuildings excel in dignity and grandeur those of Rome andVenice , but fall far short of them in lightness and elegance »they are inferior in the refinement of detail, but surpass allothers in bold and imposing masses.
Although the revival of the classic orders first took placeat Florence , in the cathedral of the above city, yet the pr* 5 'vious style, or rather many of its details, lingered there f° ra considerable time, and even as late as the middle of the