84 THE BUILDING NEWS.
Fes. 2, 1872.
does only 127-3 grains per gallon; but the | decisive in fayour of the lime process as the
amount of lime employed, between 15 and 16
grains to the gallon, was also proportionately
less. With four grains less lime and much
weaker sewage, the precipitate obtained by
Professor Way is five grains in excess of that
given by Messrs Hofmann and Witt; and as
the results in this case are not mere deduc-
tions, but are founded upon careful analyses
taken at each stage of the process, they
may be considered, we believe, entirely reli-
able.
7 = 2 a of 3 OA ag ascsowywoans Ssaqg Se Ss ae ek = Bors eo coco st# nw A HK . Se of @ mw & a) =e a o2 5 n nD 2 to Pes SCssen aoeweeoss 2 So Bosses 2 oo 2 Sf @ 2 2 Oe 3% Smee ES Oo Oo = a eas ghe gz eo 5 5 @® 8} © EMI OGRE a oom iV] 2 * "4 a koe we + & GB a ce ES ow 38 FT Mom a a +e aH Oo Ht mH a Seas Sa) Se aS.y ews aoe eo Ho oO = 2 Aer He = » FSO a HK HW ° eo Ss SS O82) 7 9 eI qa mb ww + oc Oo Qa co a aot 8 DBD HH ON 80 = rc eg Ba os $ . ES 4 a 2 2 o ® & 3 Bo l|al/seuese82)./3 89 6 G&G 28 H Oo Ht SO . mB x on a a 2 ES = ad o = o a is a ~ o re) aaog onMN OA A NA ei g” ta as o 7 od ne ec ne ce a 19 a5 & a Az 4 a 8 s a5 8 eaocsoce rF® & 2 os sez eer 2 SF & eo | a SsE5 So 8 - aia Ss & © 3 On” Ss SOP) Gt Ca rs OS it - = go oS a = os = B 2 3 Bs as - =a a =A Ro oe oo © a 82/5 /8 $3 8 8 a se: a = ©2 Dn = 8&8 0 o sia ot EFoo eo 5S w B 3 a = a ap © 2 q = 3 ~3 = em AoulS » Sy SaaS Sees Se 2 3 =p an »nannrn»n & = ne >) ano wo Ds A 3 3° ° 3 3 3 5 a ° amt k= be) 1 S 2 Soe te Nee a JOAMIOM ‘aD D o Rosh eq enion? |S0alLoor <OOlE ‘> g 2 D A ere cet!) ext) 100 = ce] = = ee * 3 PE Tye eth. BS . 2 Se As fd a 8 Sh i S ma oO iz bar Shes 2 Db E Sh F mb bh = 2 PRO l es ka 2 s aos g 4 5 3 Go 2246 A B Sane e hee eh she So : = . > 3 . . e Bs Set teh eee See rs ° Br NEN is 5 ahs n : : : a a = S be eet Neary SE ch iy copies re CES rage 1 E a Sch eee ce E EF EFmao 2 : S Zs Ue! zi cs gs oo b> : : 2 iS ety el eb eae 5 : a Ssh Ss Peer Fe : ° = Feiates etn eae So S Digi oO tay it 5 3 S Nt ire eg ee 3 S H AA o 2 Ss 2 8 essed = +s a See ae Re Sh) See i b ao a Bey ee ors 4 Sih aE Ea JONES ONS Ver To! os a eee ead et]
It is not necessary to adduce any other
instances, as we think we have said enough to
show that the arguments founded upon the
above results lose much of their weight when
the premises are found to be so fallacious.
Many of the calculations of quantity, price of
production, &c., are entirely altered by sub-
stituting 84 grains for 64.
We have already said that no reasons are
given by Messrs. Hofmann and Witt for the
opinion they express that the effluent water
from the lime process, when diluted with over
200 times its volume of river water, is likely
to become a nuisance, and on turning to Dr.
Letheby’s report, we find that he entirely
disagrees with them. Indeed he goes so far
as to say, ‘‘ I am quite sure that the process
of defecating the sewage of London by means
of lime can be effected with advantage and
perfect safety, and the discharge of the clear
sewage water into the Thames will not be a
source of danger or discomfort to the public.”
The report of the eminent engineers who
associated with themselyes Dr. Letheby is as
referees’ report was adverse to this mode of treatment. When speaking of the outfall tanks they say : ‘‘ The reservoirs are proposed to be constructed so as to enable the precipi- tation of the sewage matter to be effected by the application of lime. . . . ‘We can speak positively to the fact that the process is most successful; the water is completely deodorised, as well as rendered bright and tasteless. It does not subsequently become putrescent, though diluted with only twice its bulk of other water.” The reason they bring forward against its adoption is the worthless- ness of the resultant mud, because, ‘*when produced in large quantities, the precipitated matter is unsaleable, and must be removed at considerable expense.” In their second report, the Sewage of Towns Commissioners condemn the process upon similar grounds, though they also allude to the danger there is of the decomposition of the effluent water from this process, when the therein-contained organic substances ‘ are placed under the necessary conditions of temperature, air, moisture, &e.” They con- clude by stating that ‘the lime process, though very simple and the least costly of any, is far from perfect,’ which, as far as concerns the last part of the sentence, may, we fear, be said with equal truth of every plan of precipitation yet proposed. We must defer to another occasion the examination of the remaining reports and the consideration of the value of the lime-sludge as a manure. eeeeee eee CRITICAL NOTES ON GREAT ITALIAN ARCHITECTS.—IV. By J. B. Warne. DONATO LAZZARI D’URBINO, COMMONLY CALLED BRAMANTE, BORN 1444, Diep 1514. OTHING is more observable in the career of the greatest architects of the Revival than the versatility of their talents and the varied nature of their studies. It is this which, no doubt, gave additional value to the works they have left to us, and we hold, with Vitruvius, that the architect, deal- ing as he does with so many and such differ- ent matters, relating to every kind of art and most sciences, cannot be too well-in- formed on the various branches of human learning, of which he will be required to know at least the principles. The course ‘of training for any student of the arts during the period of the Revival was of the widest description. He was taught the practical exercise of all cognate arts, and was often equally remarkable as a goldsmith, an engi- neer, a painter, an architect, or a sculptor. That division of labour which is so much to the advantage of purely mechanical work is fatal to excellence in the arts of design, and a thorough course of training in art on the widest possible basis is absolutely necessary for the formation of a completely-educated architect. Amongst the earlier architects of the Renaissance mathematics, appear always to have formed an essential branch of study ; the scientific as well as the artistie part of their calling received equal attention, and they were as good engineers as they were architects, capable of works of mere utility as of pure ornament; and even to this day the occupations of ‘‘ engineer and architect ” are practised in Italy by the same person Would that it were so in this country ! where, indeed, from the important engineering works of an ornamental nature carried out, it ought especially to be the case. In the present instance, Bramante, who was born of a good family, near Castel- durante (now Urbania), in the then Duchy of Urbino, commenced at an early age —another good custom of the old masters— to study painting under Fra Bartolommeo Corradino, who must not be confounded with that noblest of painters, Fra Bartolommeo di San Marco. Perspective drawing seems to have been his favourite study, and from this
he proceeded to the art of architecture itself, which he studied under Sciro Scirri, of Castel- durante. He is stated to have carried out some of his designs in the Romagna, of which, how- ever, we can find no authentic record. To- wards the year 1476, or when about twenty- eight years of age, he went to Milan, pro- bably having first visited several of the Lombard cities, “‘ working,” as Vasari says, ‘in each meanwhile as best he could,” probably in the same manner as the present ‘* wander- schaft ” workmen of Germany—in some re- spects an excellent system. At Milan he ‘‘thoroughly studied” the Duomo, at that time one of the most renowned undertakings in Italy, and also made the acquaintance of Bernardino Zenale, of Trevilio, engineer and architect of the Duomo, and, settling at Milan, had Cesare Cesariano, the writer of a com- mentary on Vitruvius, for his pupil. He appears to have remained in Milan, employed as an architect on various important works for the Court and the Church, of which we append a list further on, until the year 1500, when he visited Rome, and was at once commis- sioned to ‘‘paint the armorial bearings of Pope Alexander VI. in fresco over the door of San Giovanni Laterano * * * surrounded with angels, and (he) added other figures as supporters of the escutcheon.” (Since de- stroyed.) This appears a strange employ- ment for a man who had already erected some of the most important buildings at Milan. An explanation, however, may be found in the fact that Bramante did not at this particular period care to exercise his art ; but haying saved some money determined to husband his resources, have his time to him- self, and study diligently the grand remains of antique Rome. ‘This he did ‘in solitude and deep thought,” measuring and drawing not only all the antiquities of Rome, Tivoli, and the Campagna, but visiting all places where ancient remains were to be found as far as Naples. The ‘‘ Cardinal of Naples,” Oliviero Caraffa, was so fayourably impressed by Bramante’s labours in this way that he employed him to rebuild a cloister for the convent Della Pace in Rome ; and although it was a work in itself of no great importance, yet it is of excellent proportions, and Bra- mante gave so much satisfaction by his energy and zealous care in the work that it led to his being employed by Alexander VI., who appears to have employed him on the Fountains of Trastevere and the Piazza of S. Peter, at that time in progress—both, however, have been since destroyed. He was also “invited to take part with other eminent architects in the greater number of consultations which were held respecting the Palace of San Georgio and the Church of San Lorenzo in Damaso, which Raffaello Riario, Cardinal of San Georgio, was at that time about to build,” the works of the palace, which is still one of the ornaments of Traste- vere, being conducted by Antonio Monti- cavallo. For the Cardinal Adriano de Corneto he designed the fine palace in the Borgo S. Spirito, Trastevere, which now belongsto the Torlonia family, a masterpiece of its kind, and, we venture to consider, superior in de- sign, though not equal in size, to the Can- cellaria, or Jaw offices, built by Bramante for Alexander VI. But it was between the years 1503 and 1513, during the Pontificate of Julius IT., that Bramante’s genius found scope for the noblest efforts. Ambitious of signalising his reign by the erection of architectural works such as the world could not match, the Pope conceived the idea of forming the old and new buildings into one grand :nass, and of raising a temple dedicated to §. Peter on the grandest scale. The carry- ing out of both these great designs he con- fided to Bramante, who proved himself thoroughly worthy of the task. The great body of the Vatican, as it now stands, is due to the genius of the master mind of Bramante, however much subsequent architects may have altered and extended it; whilst of his
