es aad ey a rah Fes. 23, 1872.
We shall not speak of this great master in his character of sculptor or painter, but we would wish to point out what is too often forgotten, that he was above all things a sculptor and draughtsman. Asa colourist he is not to be judged harshly, for he did not pretend to care for colour, and openly expressed his con- tempt, indeed, for painting in oil. As an architect he does not appear to have com- menced designing until he was of mature age. According to Vasari, he was forty years old before he studied architecture, and about the year 1515 was commissioned by Pope Leo X. (one of the Florentine Medici family) to design the Nuova Sagrestia of San Lorenzo in Florence, and much against his will was ealled off his great work (never completed), the tomb of Julius, to proceed to Florence and carry out his design. ‘To him also is due the fine Laurentian Library, and some other minor architectural works in Florence, and he was for some time (subsequently to the year 1527) Suryeyor-General of the fortifica- tions there, and especially took personal charge of the San Miniato fort, where his genius for military engineering was fully proved. Florence, however, had to cede to the allied troops of Pope and Emperor, and Michael Angelo was obliged to seek safety in Venice in the year 1529 or 30. After a short sojourn there, he made friends with Pope Clement, and returned to Rome. During all this time the Laurentian buildings were pro- ceeding ; nor, indeed, was everything complete till a very late period, for Vasari finished, according to Michael Angelo’s written direc- tions (dated 1555), the triple staircase of the library. In 1546 Michael Angelo was ap- pointed sole architect to §S. Peter’s, and through much opposition and trouble, remained in that post till his death. S. Peter’s, such as we see it, bears the impress of his peculiar genius ; but it is hard to specify, where so many designers were employed, what parts are purely his. We believe, however, that the dome and facade are due to him, and in themselves they are fine works. He designed also, the great church in Diocletian’s Baths (altered subsequently by Vanvitelli), the College of the Sapienza, the Church of S. John ‘‘de’ Fiorentini,” the Porta Pia, and the Capitol at Rome, of which the Senatorial Palace alone is certainly erected by him. Therefore, we may take that, and the Laur- entian buildings at Florence, as examples of his style. That style is marked by great boldness of design, much originality, and a consequent disregard of antique models, yet we cannot hold that the result is satisfactory. The use of one single column, with its en- tablature forming ,the entire height of the building, sounds grand in theory, and may look well upon paper; but, for our own part, has never impressed us as being particularly grand in effect; on the contrary, we believe that as regards size, the mind, informed though the eye alone, is not affected by mere size after certain propor- tions are overstepped, and is more impressed by several divisions in one height than by an unbroken surface. However that may be, the system of large single columns extending throughout a facade is one of the character- istics of Michael Angelo’s style, and one which may be properly advocated; but we cannot admire his sense of proportion, nor do we pretend to appreciate the originality of his detail which Vasari so extols, and for which he praises Michael Angelo as having ‘‘ broken the barriers and chains, whereby they (artists) were perpetually compelled to walk in a beaten path ;” he admits, however, that ‘this boldness on his part has encouraged other artists to an injudicious imitation, and new fancies are continually seen, many of which belong to grottesche rather than to the wholesome rules of ornamentation.’? We may take the Laurentian buildings at Florence, especially the chapel of the Tombs and the Library, as those in which he carried out most fully, in architecture and sculpture especially, the bent of his own genius. ‘As a whole,
THE BUILDING NEWS.
they bear worthy witness to the grandeur and |
boldness of Michael Angelo’s genius ; but as
regards taste, they present, we cannot but
think, many and seriously faulty points,
arising in a great measure from the artist’s
impatience of rules, without which, how-
ever, architecture can never be _ satisfac-
torily practised; and the disregard of
which forms one of the greatest drawbacks
to excellence of design in the archi-
tects of our own country at the present
day. On a full consideration of Michael
Angelo’s style of architecture, it is asa sculp-
tor and painter that he must be assigned a
first place: one in which he had no rival,
and never a worthy imitator.
We venture to think differently in respect to
his contemporary, Raphael, who commenced
the study of architecture under Bramante, and
at that artist’s death in 1514, sueceeded him as
architect to S$. Peter’s, and completed other
works of his master at the Vatican in a
manner ‘‘ richer and more beautiful than that
proposed by Bramante.” Besides these im-
portant works he designed a house for him-
self in the Borgo Nuovo (now destroyed), the
Palazzi Caffarelli, Stoppani, Coltrolini, Acqua-
viva (now Vidoni), and the Vigna on Monte
Mario, finished and altered by Guilio Romano;
the stables of the Farnesina, and the chapel
of the Chigi family in the church of §. M. del
Popolo. Whilst at Florence, besides a design
for San Lorenzo, which was not executed,
he designed the Nencini Palace, and Casa
Uguccioni in the Piazza. We may take
the Caffarelli Palace at Rome, and Casa
Uguceioni at Florence, as characteristic of
Raphael's style. They are both completed
only to the secondstery. ‘The Uguccioni has
there a wide projecting eave which conceals
the top of the Corinthian order. The upper
stories of the Caffarelli Palace would appear
to be of later addition. The style of each
is similar in principle, a bold rusti-
cated basement, with superimposed double
columns.. Nothing can well be simpler
than the Casa Uguccioni, nor does it
owe anything to size ; it has only three open-
ings on each floor, and is, indeed, an ordinary
dwelling house, but itis perfect in its way,
and affords the same satisfaction as some
finished gem of a small poem, or a charming
melody. Its beauty consists in the perfection
of its proportions, and the delicacy of its
details, which combine the idea of strength
with elegance, such as we admire in the cele-
brated Apollo. Raphael’s sense of beauty is
as evident in his architecture as in his paint-
ings, and what he has left in our art will al-
ways afford profitable matter for the student’s
attention, and delight all persons of refined
and educated taste.
Of a somewhat different nature is the
style observable in the works of his cele-
brated pupil, Giulio Romano, who at times
follows the style of his master, at times
that of Michael Angelo. Employed in the
later years of Raphael’s life as his principal
assistant in all his great works, especially
those at the Vatican, Giulio worthily carried
out the master’s designs, and not unfre-
quently, inspired by his example, produced
works of his own of the highest merit, and
so greatly was he appreciated by Raphael,
that at his death he made Giulio his chief
heir, and confided his unfinished works to his
charge. Giulio was shortly commissioned on
his own account to produce designs for build-
ings, and the Villa Madama, or the ‘‘Vigna”
(commenced by Raphael), the Alberini
Cicciaporci, Lante,and Cenci palaces at Rome,
are all good examples of what may be called
his Raphaelesque style: they are compavra-
tively plain and massive, and are not
unworthy of being ranked with the pro-
ductions of the best masters. In the
year 1524, being then thirty-two years
of age, he visited Mantua at the pressing
request of the Marquis Federigo Gonzaga,
and was commissioned by him to construct
the Palazzo del T. in the outskirts of the city.
Originally only a farm, Giulio formed it
into one of the finest of the many fine palaces which adorn Italy. On this remarkable work his prolific genius found full scope as architect, painter, and, we may add, sculptor, that is to say, he designed and in some cases executed the stucco work, figures, and orna- ment with which the palace abounds. ‘There are numerous suites of rooms in the building, among which the Sala de’ Giganti and the Camera di Psiche are the most celebrated. The story of Psyche contains some of the best examples of his ability as a painters but we cannot speak in terms of admiration of the story of the giants as pourtrayed on the walls of the palace, for an error in judgment, which is irremediable, makes these enormous figures out of all keeping with the size of the rooms; ina larger space they would indeed have been strikingly fine, but here they are oppressively large and coarse. It is rather in the old palace, or Castello, that we admire most the exuberant fancy, ingenuity, and taste of Giulio Romano. Many of the coloured and gilt ceilings present the most elegant combina- tion of vaulting with fine studies of colour, ornament, and figure subjects. Giulio did many other works in Mantua, the cathedral (interior), the Shambles, and Fish-market, the Palazzo Colloredo, his own house, the mausoleum of Piero Strozzi in the Duomo, and other works, so that his impress is left on Mantua, and itis there he must be studied and appreciated. He died there in 1546, having just received the honourable appoint- ment of architect to S. Peter’s, at Rome. Tke genius of Giulio Romano as an architect is of avery high order, his faney was exuberant, but his taste was wanting im refinement. His power—great as it was— required discipline, and he was deficient in that perception of fitness, of what is decorous, which distinguishes all the works of his great master Raphael; he holds a middle place between him and Michael Angelo, and, with probably greater powers of conception than either of them, he fails, for want of well disciplined study, to carry out his designs in a manner which gives perfect satisfaction. It is impossible, however, not to be astonished at the fertility of his invention and his ingenuity in overcoming structural difficulties, nor was his ability confined to the fine arts alone, for he successfully carried out engineering works for the prevention of the inundations of the river Po, and was made Superintendent of Roads in the State of Mantua. The names of these three great artists, Michael Angelo, Raphael, and Giulio Romano, will always hold a high place ir the history of architecture. ——————— HOW TO BUILD SCIENTIFICALLY WITH THE AID OF MODERN IN- VENTIONS.—YV. WALLS. TONE.—Returning to the consideration of the general subject, the first impor- tant point [have to treat is— Vents.—Stones with vents should be re- garded with suspicion. Some contend that vents do not make bad stones, and say that the very best and most durable of Portland stones are those most subjectto vents. While even they admit they do not advocate venty stone, but they state that venty stone does not necessarily make it a bad weather stone. All admit it does increase the cost of working. Tests—A great difficulty here presents it- self. How is the architect to know the quality of stone he is about to use? Myx. James Hall, ofthe New York Capitol Commis- sion, in his report says, ‘‘ In selection of building stones for the exterior walls, colour, texture, and durability are objects of first importance, and all these ought to be com- bined to render the structure perfect.” After stating too little attention has been given te the subject, he advocates a comparatively fine- grained stone, with the different parts ag
