argan brunelleschi

8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi

1/33

The Architecture of Brunelleschi and the Origins of Perspective Theory in the Fifteenth

CenturyAuthor(s): Giulio Carlo Argan and Nesca A. RobbSource: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 9 (1946), pp. 96-121Published by: The Warburg InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/750311

Accessed: 22/01/2010 23:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburg.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Warburg Instituteis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the

Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/750311?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburghttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/750311?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/33

THE ARCHITECTURE

OF

BRUNELLESCHI

AND THE

ORIGINS

OF PERSPECTIVE

THEORY

IN

THE

FIFTEENTH CENTURY

By GiulioCarlo Argan

r | ahe

invention of perspective

and the discovery

of antiquity:

these two

1 eventshave

for long been held to

mark he beginnings

of the Renaissance.

Modern criticism

has sharply limited

the importance

of both events,

and

above

all of the second: so

profounda transformation

f the artistic

conscience

could not clearly

have been caused

by external circumstances.

It is not so

much

needful to decide how

far the artists of

the early Quattrocento

had

penetrated

nto the objective

understanding f

space (if indeed one

can speak

of such an objectiveunderstanding) r into the knowledgeof the documents

relating

to antiqueart, as

it is to discoverthe

internalnecessitythat

urged

them to

seek that knowledge.

In fact the same

inward mpulse s common

to

both activities:

the search

for a more exact knowledge

of

space and that for

a more

exact knowledge

of antique art are inseparable,

until such

time at

least as the study

of antique art assumes,

as it does in

the full maturity

of

humanistic

culture, an independent

existence

as the science of antiquity.

It is

well known that the

new ideal of beauty

was defined, classically,

as

a harmony

of parts, n other

wordsby meansof

the idea of proportion,

which,

accordingto Vitruvius,

is the same

thing as the Greek

9axovLoc;nd it was

with this same

word that

Euclid describedgeometrical

congruity,

which is

the fundamentalprincipleof perspective. If perspective s the process by

which we arrive

at proportion, hat

is to say, at beauty

or the perfection

of

art, it

is also the process

by which we reach

the antique

which is art par

excellence or perfect

beauty.

The

classical radition

had been neither lost

nor extinguished hroughout

the whole

of the Middle

Ages; on the contrary,

it had been diffused

and

popularized.

To set oneself

the task of rediscovering

he ancients,

meant

setting

oneselfto determine

he concretehistorical

value of the achievements

of ancient

art, asdistinguished

rom tsmediaeval

corruptions nd populariza-

tions.

The activityby which

we recognizevalue

is judgment, and

judgment

is an act of the total consciousness. Enthusiasm or, or faith in antiquity,

impulses

which had had, during

the Middle Ages

their moments

of genuine

exaltation,

are henceforth

nsufficient:

he formulationof

judgment, since it

implies

a definitionof the

value of consciousness,

mplies

also a definitionof

the value of reality,

because such a

judgment is a judgment

of being

and

not-being,

of reality and non-reality.

What

was sought for in

ancient art was therefore

not a transcendental

value,

but, in opposition o

mediaeval ranscendentalism,

n immanent

value,

a conceptionof the

world. The touchstone

by which we

recognizevalues is

reality:

not a limitless and

continuousreality

which can be grasped

only in

the particular,and

in which man himself

s absorbed,but

nature as a reality

conceived by man and distinct from him as the object from the subject.

96


3/33

THE

ARCHITECTURE

OF

BRUNFT.T.FjSCHI

97

Nature is the

formof

reality, in so

far as it

reveals and

makes it

tangible

in

its

full

complexity: the

laws of

form are

also the

laws of

nature,

and

the

mental

processby

which

we arrive

at the

conception

of nature

is the

same

as that

which

leads to

the

conception of

form,

that is to

say of

art.l The

Renaissancebegins, so far as the figurativearts are concerned,when to

artistic

activity is added

the idea

of art as

a

consciousness f

its

own act: it

is

then that

the

mediaeval ars

mechanica

ecomes ars

liberalis.

Ancient art-

writes D.

Frey2-appears to the

Btestern

mind as

nature, with a

heightened

significance

whereby

the natural

becomes

the

expressionof a

profound

ruth

and of

perfection.

Thusin

the West

every

tendency

to

naturalistic r

rational-

istic

development s

always

referable o a

classical

source.

The

formulationof

a

commonlaw for

nature and

for artistic

form lies

in

perspective:

which may

in

generalterms,

be

definedas

the

method or

mental

procedure

or the

determination f

value. In

the writers

of the

Quattrocento

excepting

naturally

n Cennini

and

Ghiberti

we see

clearly

the belief

that

perspective s not simply a ruleof opticswhich may alsobe applied to artistic

expression,but a

procedure

peculiar to

art, which

in art

has its

single and

logical end.

Perspective s

art itself

in its

totality: no

relation is

possible

be-

tween the

artist

and the

world

except

through the

medium of

perspective,

just as no

relation

is

possiblebetween

the

humanspirit

and

reality

short of

falling back

upon the

mediaeval

antithesis

of

conceptualism

and

nominalism

unless

we

assume the

conception

of nature.

Hence

proceeds hat

identity

of

perspective-painting

nd

science,

clearly

aErmed

by the

theoristsof

the

Quattrocento.

The startingpoint of the controversybetween modernistsand tradition-

alists

at

the

beginningofthe

Quattrocento

eems o me to

be

notably

ndicated

in a

passage,

probably

not

devoid of

polemical

intentions,

n

the Pittura

of

Alberti:

no man

denies

that of such

things

as we

cannot

see there

is none

that

appertainethunto

the

painter: the

painter

studieth to

depict only

that

which is

seen.

On the

other hand,

according o

Cennini,

a typical

representative f

the

traditionalist

chool,the

painter's ask is

to

discover hings

unseen,

that are

hid

beneath

the

shadow of

things

natural.

The exact

interpretation f

the

passage,

which

has been

variously

explained,3 s

to be

found in

Chapter

lxxxvii of the same Librodell'Arte, where it is suggested to the painter

that: if

thou

wouldst

earn to

paint

mountains n

a worthy

manner,

so that

they

be like

nature,

take great

stones

which be

roughand

not

cleansed

and

draw

them as

they are,

adding

light and

shade as it

shall

seem fit to

thee.

Since

the result

to be

aimed at is

a

symbol of the

mountain, the

object

(the

stone) has

no value

in itself,

apart

from its

external

configuration,

1

For the

nature-form

elation in

Renais- 3

E.

Panofsky n Idea

(Teubnered.,

Berlin,

sance

thought see E.

Cassirer,

Individuo

I924), p.

23 and

note 94 has

given

a Neo-

Cosmo,

r.

Federici,Florence,

La Nuova

Italia

Platonic

interpretation

of this

passage

of

ed., p.

25I.

Cennini;

it is,

however, a

question

of

2

D.

Frey,

L'Architetturaella

Rinascenza,

mediaeval

Neo-Platonism

in the

Plotinian

Rome,

I924, p.

7. tradition.


4/33

98

GIULIO CARLO ARGAN

analogous o that of the mountain. The analogy s purely external,morpho-

logical; but the difference,which consists n the situation of the mountain

in space, is of no interest to the painter because the formal motive of his

picture is not spatial, and indeed takes no account of space. He will link

that image with others n obedience o a rhythmicor narrativecoherencebut

principally n obedience to a manner acquired through long discipleship

with his masters, hat is, with tradition. From the perceptionof the material

datum (the stone) the artisticprocess s still a long one: and since its end is in

infinity or in abstraction,of what significancecan the distance between the

neighbouring tone and the far-offmountainbe when comparedwitll that?

When, on the other hand, Alberti affirms hat the visible is the domain of the

painter, he does not refer to the mechanicalperceptionof the eye and the

limited notions that derive from it, but to a full, total, sensory experience.

The eye may be consideredas a mechanicaland impersonal nstrument,a

recordingmechanism: nstead the senses are already consideredas a grade

of intelligence. Alberti, though he denies that the mental domain of the

painter can extend beyond the limits of the domain of the senses,yet affirms

that the artisticprocessdoes not begin, as it does for Cennini,with the data of

visible things,only to end in an abstraction,but takesplace wholly within the

sphereof sensoryexperienceas a processof understanding nd investigation:

that very experiencewill not be complete and fully defined until after such

reflection.

Cenninirestricted he painter'scontact with reality as far as he could, so

as to leave the widest possible margin for tradition. Alberti, by making

the limits of reality coincide exactly with those of the sensorypowers,refuses

any value to tradition considered as a complex of ideas learned without

reference o direct experience. It is true that Cenninialso demandsa contact

with reality (the stone which is copied as a symbolof the mountain): but that

is only because tradition is transmitted hrough moments of reality, which

are the lives of men. For Alberti, life is an ultimate value: it neither receives

nor transmitsa universal nheritance,but rather, in its very consciousness f

its own finite nature,that is, in the completeness f its experienceofthe world,

it arrivesat a point where it has the value of universality.

We have already pointed out that with the assumptionof the idea of

nature as the limit or definition of reality, the value of consciousness r of

personalitywas contemporaneouslyn processof definition. Certainlyman

also is, and feels himselfto be, nature; but he feels himselfto be so in so far

as he has already detached himself from unlimited reality, and the limits

within which he recognizeshimself are marked by what he can grasp and

understandof reality, that is by nature. Nature and the Ego, born of the

same act, are governed by the same law; man identifieshimself no longer

with the creation, but with the Creator.

The man of the Renaissance, n this Platonicdetermination f his to know

himself n nature, necessarily ocussedhis first and most ardent nterestupon

his own native sensorycapacity,upon his own naturalness. It has been justly

remarked hat the oppositionwhich the thoughtof the Renaissance ays down


5/33

THE ARCHITECTURE

OF BRUNF.T.T.F.SCHI

99

as a first definitionof personality s

not that between man and nature, but

that between man

(vir) and fate (fortuna); nature is an organism

not hostile

to man but akin to him, and dowered

with intelligence,an open field wherein

he may extend his personality.''1 From

the oppositionof virtus and fortuna,

which derivesfrom the Scholasticview of man's struggle or good againstthe

constant assaultsof evil, the moral quality

of personality merged; Giovanni

Pisano, Giotto,

Dante, Petrarch,were, during the Trecento,

the great repre-

sentatives of this dramatic conception

of life as a struggle

for redemption.

Nature, conceived

as full and lucid sensoryexperience,presupposes

his moral

conceptiorl f personality; t is a reality

already graspedand comprehended,

and so clear and

transparent hat the human person, that

supremeexample

and image ofthe perfectionofthe divine

creation,can see itselfreflected here

as in a mirror. But this inspired, and

indeed profoundlyclassic moment,

in which man becomes

aware of his own naturalness, s

not the end. Life

is not that moment, it is the seriesof

such moments. If we start by affirming

the moral quality of personality; f, that is, we consider t in relation to an

end, there immediately

arises the problem

of the relation of life, in all its

activities, to its initial naturalnessand

to its final aim.

And here we have

already the problem

of history as a consciousness

f its own activity.'>2In

fact if the final aim

is completeself-knowledge,he whole life

of the spiritwill

consist in retracing

ts natural life, hitherto

empiric, to an ideal ancestryor

an ideal genesis. Burdach's nterpretation

f the Renaissance

as a regenera-

tion or rebirth n the antique (in a Christian,

hat is in an

ethical sense)3 s

thus given its full

force: the processof this palingenesis s

history, through

which we are enabled

to rediscoverour true nature, and

so to rise from an

empiric to a systematic

conceptionof the world. Thus the

oppositionof the

identity of natureand history to the mediaeval identificationof reality with

tradition, finds an

historical ustification,before it finds a theoretical

one; in

the monumentsof ancient art the artists

of the Quattrocento eek to discover

their own Latin

nature in its most essential characteristics.

Even that first

description of humanity as virtusn

opposition to fortunahen assumes a

precise historical

significance; the very one that Petrarch

gives it when he

proclaims that Roman virtSwill take

up arms agaiIlst the

furore

of the

barbariannvaders. It is the rational

light of history that dispels the

darknessof hostile

fate. This idea of Latin virtuss undoubtedly

active in

Cennini,when he points out that Giotto

changedart from

Greek nto Latin,

and made it modern : the term Latin cannot certainlycorrespond o any

concrete figurative

experiment,but only to the moral order

of values. To

oriental mysticism in fact Giotto opposes

a religious sentiment that fulfils

itself in drama,

that is to say in action, and that can be

measured n the

activities of practical life.

Of Brunelleschi,

Manetti says that he restored hat fashion

n buildings

which is called

Roman or antique for before him these

were all German

1 G. Nicco, introduction to the critical

which it follows hat only

in his historycan

edition of the De Prospectiva

ingendi f Piero

man give proof of his freedomand creative

della Francesca, Sansoni,

Florence, I942, power see E. Cassirer,

p. cit., p. 73.

p. I7.

3 K. Burdach,Riforma, inascimento,mane-

2

For the conceptionof life as activity, rom simo, r. Cantimori,Sansoni,Florence,

933.


6/33

GIULIO CARLO

ARGAN

OO

and

were called

modern.

In Manetti

the

Germans Gothic

Art) have

taken

the place

of the

Greeks,of

whom indeed,

as

Worringerhas

acutelypointed

out,

they were

the natural

heirs. For

Cenninithe

word

modernhasa

positive

sense, for

Manetti it

has a

negativeone:

for Cennini

modern

means

actual,

for Manettinon-actual, since the

corsivo

has become the antique. Modern

has

become the

equivalent

of the

merely

chronological; n

the

antique the

value of

historyis

already

implicit.

That this is

by no

means an

objective

inquiry s,

however,

revealedby the

fact that

Manettiis in

nowise

concerned

to

determine

whether

Brunelleschi

had

rediscoveredor

invented the

con-

structionalaws

of the

ancients,

aws being

taken to

mean both

their technical

expedients

and

their

musical

proportions,

hat is to say

symmetry

and

perspective; those

who might

have taught

him these

things had

been dead

for

hundredsof

years: and

they are

not to be

found in

writing, or if

they be

foundthey may

not

well be

understood;

but his own

industry

and subtlety

did

either

rediscover hem

or else

were

themselves

the

discoverers. It is

significant hat the same thought is to be foundalso in Alberti: If this art

was ever

described n

writing we

are those

who have

dug it

up from

under-

ground, and if

it was never

so

described,we have

drawn it

from

heaven.

To

rediscoveror

to invent, to

find the

law of

ancient art or of

nature,

are

one

and the

same thing;

the same

processby

which we

establish

he concep-

tion

of nature

leadsus on

to establish

he

conception

of beauty, or

of artistic

perfection,and

to recognize

t as

historically

manifest n

Roman art.

Granted

thatthe

investigation

f

natureand the

investigation f history

are

inseparable,

the

problem,

which

has

tormented

modern idealist

critics, of

the relatiors

between

pictorialand

scientific

perspective,or

moresimply

between art

and

science, at the

beginning

of the

Renaissance,

oses its

importance. It

has

alreadybeen remarked hat perspective s not a constant aw, but a moment

in

the

historyof the

idea of space:

whence t

follows hat

the

problemof sight,

in

passing

rom optics

to

geometry,passes

rom the

objective o the

subjective

sphere.l

It is

certain, in any

case, that

the

conception of the

homogenous

quality of

space is first

set forth n

the

figurativearts,

and then,

consequently,

in

the physical

and

mathematical

ciersces.2

To our

modern

consciousness

t seems

obvious that, if

the opposite

had

occurred,art

would have

lost all

creativepower

in the

mechanical

processes

of

applicationand

deduction. In

judging thus

it assumes

as an

absolute

principle a

characteristic

peculiar to

Renaissance art,

and fails

to see its

historicalsignificance:before the Renaissancethe value of art lay not in

creation,

but in

repetition,

rs

continuing the

tradition by

remaining

withirs

it,

instead

of breaking

out of it

in order to

renew it.

The value of

creativity

which the

zesthetic heory

of the

Renaissance

recognizes n

artistic

achieve-

ment,

derivesfrom

the idea

that

nature is

ordered and

therefore

created by

the

artist.

The

novelty or

originalityof a

work of art

is such

only in so far

as

the workof

art

emerges rom

tradition,

and in

emerging rom t,

contradicts

it; and

since

tradition s no

longer a

dogma, but

an object of

criticism,

here

can

be neither

nventionnor

creationexcept

through he

medium

of a critical

G.

Nicco,op.cit.,p.

29.

tion

of reality, E.

Panofsky's

ssay

Die

2

For the

systematic

expositionof the

Perspective

ls

symbolische orm

(Vortrage

problem f central erspectivesanabstrac- derBibl.Warburg,V,

I924-25) iS

essential.


7/33

THE ARCHITECTURE

OF BRUNELLESCHI IOI

approach to tradition.

The orderingor creation of nature

is thereforenot

an act of authoritybut an act of reason.

The powerof inventionor of creation

comes to the artist

not from the grace of God, but from the

integrity of his

own consciousness,rom the lucidity of

his historicalvision.

Cenninican takepleasure n makingclear his own descentfrom Giotto by

way of arsuninterrupted raditiors hat

passes through Agnolo

and Taddeo

Gaddi; for the artists

of the Quattrocento,beginning at Masaccio,

Giotto is

the great, isolatedprotagonistof the

Trecento: the traditionthat originated

in his art merely

alteredand obscured

ts value, a value whichcriticismalone

shoulddetermine. Even for Giotto art

was mechanical,a craftsman'sabour;

but the judgment

of posterity recognizes n that 'Cfare an

ideal aim, which

it denies to that of imitatorsand followers,

rom the very fact that they are

such. To this making

or producing he art of the Renaissance

opposes

not abstractspeculationbut genius,

invention ;1 he artistin the process

of invention s conscious

of the noveltyof what he is doing,

and so invention

is a making accompaniedby judgmentor the attributionof value.

There thus arisesthe idea of the artist-hero,

a coryphaeusr protagonist

of history; but he

is this in so far as

he is consciousof the value of his own

activity, that is, in

so far as he is himself an historian. His

work breaksthe

continuity of tradition to justify itself

in history, ust as it emergesfrom the

confusionof matter to justify itself in

nature. The mental processwhich, in

the same act, eliminatesmatter and chronicle

(or tradition)by judging them

as values, is, as

we have said, perspective. This process s

clearly described

by Alberti. RememberGhiberti'sdictum:

nothing can be seen except by

light. Though it is here considered

as a physicalphenomenon, his light is

still a divine emanationor irradiation,

a first cause which is reflected n all

things and revealsthem. Alberti on the contrarywishes to clarify the idea

of things: we call

that a thing which occupiesa place.

Glearly f anything

in nature exists in space, space also is

nature; in fact it is the principle of

nature since the place which things occupy

is necessarilyantecedent to the

things. This may seem to imply a serious

objection to the necessity,which

Alberti categoricallyaffirms,of limiting

the domain of art to the visible. We

must deduce from

it that the experience of the senses is

not primary, but

secondary. Reason is therefore he basis

of life, even of the life of the senses.

In fact: large,

small3 long, short, high, low, wide, narrow,

light, dark,

luminous,shadowyand all qualitiesof

that kind-which becausethey may or

may not be addedunto things, the philosophers re wont to call accidents-

are such that all knowledgeof them is

made by comparison. It is therefore

by reasoning hat

the accidentsare distinguishedrom the substance

of things.

But this substance

is not, as has been assumed, their plastic

form, their

volume: volume is perceivedthrough

the medium of light and shade, height

and width, and these qualities, too, have

been placed among the accidents.

1 In Albertian erminology he facultythat

ingegno and mathematical ationality, nd

simultaneouslynvestigates

nd invents,or in for the necessity of artistic

creation as an

other words sums up and synthetizes the

expressionof the first, see Lionello Venturi,

moments of speculation and of action is

Storiadellacritica 'arte, talian ed., Florence,

ingegno. For the distinction between

I945,p. I28.


8/33

GIULIO

GARLO

ARGAN

I02

Moreover t is

clear

that in

making

his

catalogue

of

accidents,

Alberti

ntended

to

exhaust

all

the

possible

forms of

the

visible.

Strictly

speaking,

f a

thing

had

been

strippedof

all its

accidents,

nothing

would

remain of

it

except the

void in

space left

by its

disappearance.1

ButAlbertiknows that if painting is concernedonly with the visible, it is

impossible o

separate

the

thing from

its

accidents:

indeed

the

thing

itself is

an

accident

until it is

known

by

comparison :

t would

be

illimitably

wide

and

illimitably

ong, and

illimitablydeep

if

we did

not

establish he

relation

between

width,

length,

and

depth;

all

dazzling

ight or

impenetrable

arkness

if

we did

not

establishthe

relation

between

light

and

shade. We

may

say

therefore hat

the idea

or

substance

of a

thing is

merely

a

position in

space,

but

that

position is

determined

preciselyby

the fact

that it

gives a

situation

proportionately

ter

comparatione) to all

the

accidents,

that is to

say,

because

it

re-absorbs nd

eliminatesthe

matter of

which the

thing

is

composed

nto

a

systemof

proportional

elations.

This is indeed the functionof design. The graphicoutlineis originally

linked

with

the

colouristic

matter

as a

boundary

between

zones

of

colour:

in

the

Trecentesque

radition

t was

purelya

rhythmic

pattern

or a

narrative

n

rhyme

and that

rhythmic

cadence

was still

dependenton

the

relation

of the

line to

an

already

ormulated

olouristic

modulation.

For

Alberti the

outline

is the

edge of

the

surface, hat

is the

boundary

between

fullness

and

void; nor

can

we say

that it

belongs

more

to

the

fullness han

to the

void (or

more

to

the

thing than

to space)

because ts

function s

precisely

hat of

mediating,or

of

acting as

a link

and

solder

between

one

and the

other.

As has

been

seen,

in fact,

emptiness

cannotbe

thought of

apart

from

fullness,nor

can

spacebe

conceived

of

separately

rom

the

things that

occupy

it.

(When

Masolino

or

Paolo Uccello wish to represent the void independentlyof the full, they

reduce

perspective o

the

Trecentesque

dea of

infinite

spatiality.) The

need

now

becomes

clear for

a

recourse o

Euclidean

geometry or

to the

Platonic

description

of

geometrical

orms

as

perfectforms

or

ideas

archetypes

rom

which all

sensible

orms

are

derived:

geometrical

ormsare

pure

spatial

sites

or

pure

metrical

relations

which

in their

own

finitude

expressthe

whole

of

space.

It is not

by

chance

that

Alberti

defines

design in

the

same

words as

thosewhich

his

master,

Francesco

Filelfo,used

n

defining he

idea as

described

by

Plato: a

representation ab

omni

materia

separata.

The

conceptionof

design,

as

the

commonroot

of all

the arts,

that is,

as the

designationof the absolutevalue of form, is thereforevery closelyrelatedto

the

conceptionof

perspective:

perspective s

actually

the

method

of

design,

in so

far as

it is

absolute

representation. It

is

superfluous

o point

out

that

representation

nd

invention

may

be

equivalent

terms:

because

there

can be

1 On

the

impossibilityof

imagining

space of

the

thoughtof

Cusanus,

who was in

Italy

as

erepty,or

as an

enclosing

medium

that in

the

early

decadesof

the Isth

cent.

and

encloses

nothing ee

Cassirer,

p.

cit., p. 285.

who

certainly

knew

Alberti,

see,

besides

Alberti's

conception of

cognitione

per

com-

Cassirer's

undamentalwork,

G.

Nicco, op.

paratione,the

basis of

the

theory of

propor-

cit. To G.

Nicco,

too,we

owea

notable

essay

tion,

is

certainly

related o

the idea

expressed

on the

developmentof

perspective

heoryin

by

Cusanus

(De

Docta

Ignorantia I .

I ):

treatises

from

Euclid to

Piero

della

Fran-

Comparativa

est

omnis

inquisitio,

medio

cesca,

Le Arti,

V, I942,

no.

2,

p.

59.

proportionis tens. On thegreat mportance


9/33

THE

ARCHITECTURE

F BRUNELLESCHI

I03

no

representation,

ut only

mechanical

mitation,

f the image

does not

wholly

replace

the object

and become

a substitute

for it

as a value

or authentic

reality, ust

as

nature,as

a representation

f reality,

becomes

he one authentic

reality

for the

thought

of the Renaissance.

II

If we admit

that the

artisticprocess

has a

basis

of historical

hought,the

origin

of the

fundamental

deas of Renaissance

Art-perspective

anddesign-

must

be sought

in the

work of an

artist-hero:

only through

such a

medium

could these

ideashave

any positive

effect

on the subsequent

ourse

of artistic

development.

The

trattati

d'arte

themselves,

hough ostensibly

concerned

with

a theoretical

definitionof

the idea of

art, are in

reality the

firstattempts

at a history

of

art as a history

of the

artists,because

their

criterion s

no other

than a generalization rom those worksof art in which they perceive an

absolute

value. The

formulation

of

the principle

of perspective,

or the

inven-

tion of

perspective,

are ascribed

by general

consent

to Brunelleschi:

he first

person

of that artistic

trinity

which is completed

by

Donatello

and

Masaccio.

On this

point Manetti

is uncompromising:

in those

times

he brought

to

light and

himselfput

into practice

that which

painters

o-day call

perspective

because

it is

a part of the

science

that consists

n placing

those

diminutions

and enlargements

hat appear

to men's

eyes from

afar or

close at hand,

both

skilfully

and

fittingly . .

and

fromhim originated

he

rulewhich

is the mean-

ing of all

that has

been done

from

that time to

this.

It is interesting

to note

the distinction

that Manetti

makes

between the

originating ntuitionof Brunelleschiand the codificationor applicationof it

which the

dipintori

have successively

oggi )drawn

rom it.

The distinc-

tion

is not purely

chronological.

For

the painters,

perspective

s the law

for

making

housesand

plains and

mountains

and landscapes

of everykind,

and

in every

place,with

figuresand

other things

of such a

size as befits

the

distance

from

whichthey

areobserved.

Had

Brunelleschi

laborated

his rule

as a law

of vision,

Manetti

would

not have

so accurately

distinguished

he

Brunel-

leschian

principle

from the interpretation

which has

later been

given to

it

by other

painters,

who have

applied it

to a consideration

of the

external

world

that has

clearly

no connection

with architecture.

It is

thus impos-

sible to distinguishBrunelleschi's esearcheson perspective rom his artistic

activity,

that is to

say, from his

architecture:

t is from

this,

as Manetti

points

out, that

the painters

deduce

their law

of vision.

This means

that,

since

architecture

s free

of any necessity

o imitate

reality,

the formal

discipline

of

architecture

must precede

and condition

the

painter'scontact

with reality;

he will

indeedstudy

reality,

because the

painter'srealm

is the

visible world,

but

he will

do so through

the formal

patterns

of architecture.

This

is, we

think,

the historical

origin of

the principle

that architecture

s

the basis

or

motherof all

the arts:

a principle

easily reducible

to the

other (of

design as

the

common

root

of all the

arts), which

will be

clearly formulated

n

the

Cinquecento.

Architecture,

indeed,

as an

art free from

any necessity

of

imitatingreality, s design tself:representationeparate rom ognimateria.


10/33

GIULIO

CARLO

ARGAN

o4

It is

now

necessary

o

see

how

this

law

which s

the

meaning

of all

that

has

been

done

from

that

time

to

this

was

developed

in

the

architecture

of

Brunelleschi.

Manetti,

a

mathematician,

ays

of

perspective:

not

without

reason,

ust

now did I call it science, orscience s making according o law. The Life

of

Manetti

is

of

later

date

than

the

Pittura

f

Alberti

and

is

largely

indebted

to it;

and

one

of

the

most

important

nnovations,

n

Alberti's

treatise,

was

perhaps

that

idea

of

knowledge

by

comparison

which

emerges n

opposi-

tion

to

the

Scholastic

conception

of

knowledge

as

scire

per

causas.

Since

the

Pittura

of

Alberti

consists

of

reflections

on

the

great

Masters

of

the

early

Quattrocento,

and

particularly

n

Brunelleschi,t is

to

the

latter

that

we

may

attribute,

not

perhaps

the

formulation,

but

the

first

understanding

of

that

principle

which

for

causes,

understood

as

external

moving

forces,

substitutes

laws,

understoodas

immanent

causes

which

are

producedby

the

reciprocal

co-relation

of

phenomena.

In

the

architecture

of

Brunelleschi,

herefore,

must be sought the firstunderstanding f design as an act of knowledgeor

cognitione

er

comparatione,

hat

is,

the

first

laying

down

of

that

theory

of

pro-

portion,

which

in

its

turn

becomes

the

basic

criterion or

the

understanding

of

ancient

art.

That

Brunelleschi

had

undertaken

some

inquiry

into

the

laws

of

vision

may

well be

inferred

rom

what

Manetti

tells

us

of the

two

panels

on

which

Brunelleschi

ad

depicted

the

Baptistery

nd

the

Palazzo

della

Signoria.

Yet

the

very

objects

depicted,

buildings

and

not

landscapes,

suggest

that

these

studies

were

not

connected

with

the

formulation

of a

general

theory,but

with

the

concrete,

particular

igurative

and

architectonic

nterests

of

the

artist.

Of

the

first

of

these

two

panels

we

know

that

the

spectator

had to

look

at it reflected n a mirror, hroughan openingcut in the wood,at a distance

proportionate

o

that at

which

the

painter

had

placed

himself

while

at

work:

moreover,

nstead

of a

painted

sky

there

was

a

background

f

burnished

ilver

which

reflected

the

real

sky

with

its

clouds

moving

before

the

wind.

The

second

panel, on

the

other

hand,

being

too

large

to

permit

the

use

of

this

device,

was

cut

out

along

the

line

of

the

rooftops,

and

one

loooked

at

it

against a

background f

sky.

Manetti's

description

s

enough to

show

that

the

genesis

of

several

ideas

on

which

Alberti

was

later

to

build

up

his

perspective

heory

can be

traced

back

to

Brunelleschi.

By

means

of the

device

of

the

hole

in the

middle

of

the

picture,the spectatorwasconstrained o lookat the painting,reflected n the

mirror,

rom

the

same

point of

view

as

that

in

which

the

painter

had

placed

himself.

The

straight

ine

which

connects

he

painter's

eye

with

the

centre

of

the

thing

depicted is

already

what

Alberti

will

define

as a

centric

ay:

that

is

the

axis

of

the

visual

pyramid

whose

apex

coincides

with

vanishing

point.

So

far

we

are

still

within the

domain

of

vision,

though

it

is

even

now

most

important to

observe

that

for

Brunelleschi t

is

essential

that

vision

should

have

a

single

and

constant

point of

view:

hence

the

immobility

and

im-

partiality

of

the

artist

face

to

face

with

truth.

But

the

painting

must

be

looked

at in

a

mirror;

and

this

is

not

merely an

artifice

for

making the

spectator's

point of

view

coincide

with

that

of the

painter.

Alberti,

who

was

certainly amiliarwith Brunelleschi'sssays n perspective,n fact advisesthe


11/33

THE ARCHITECTURE

OF BRUNELLESCHI

Io5

painter to make use

of the mirroras a

means of checking he

artisticqualities

of his painting.

When he speaksof obtaining

an effect of relief

by the propor-

tionate use of light

and shade, Alberti

advises: and you

will find in the

mirrora good judge;

for, as I know

how things that are

well painted may

have greatbeautyin the mirror,so it is marvellous o see how everyfault in

painting

shows itself

more ugly in the

mirror. So let the

mirrorcorrect the

things which you

have taken

from nature. It is

well knownthat the

mirror

reverses

he image:

if the image is unsymmetrical

he mirror

will make this

defect more apparent,

because t removes

t from a position

to which

the eye

has grown

accustomed: f, on

the contrary,

he imageis perfectly

ymmetrical,

reversal

will not be able to

modify t. In other terms:

f thepainterhas

clearly

determined

and constantly

maintainedhis point

of view,

the centricray of

the direct vision

and that of the reflected

vision

will coincide,while otherwise

they will

diverge. The question,

it

will be seen, is one

of symmetryand

proportion.

Another mportantpoint: Brunelleschi oes not paint the sky. In the first

panel

he reflects t in a mirror-like

urface, n the

secondhe cuts out the

wood

so that

the real skycan insert

itself into the picture.

His interesttherefore

s

limited

to thingswhich as

Alberti will say, occupy

a place : the sky

does

not occupy

a place

and cannot be

reduced to measure

or known per

comparatione.

Since it cannot

be represented,

but only imitated,the

artist

forbears

o paint it. The strict

logic of

the argument s unexceptionable:

but

it is the argument

of an architect

and not of a painter.

If Filippohad

wished

to lay down a general

aw

of vision, and one that

would thereforebe

equally

valid for the vision

of landscape,he could

not have failed to

take the

sky into

account. He does

not take it into account

because his reasoning

s

related

only to architecture,which is a finite space, that, by its own finitudeor pro-

portion,

gives definitionalso

to the spatialatmosphere

n which

it is immersed;

and he

forbears o paint the

sky because buildings

stand out against

the real

sky and not against

a paintedbackground.

It remains o be

seen what value

Brunelleschi

ttributed o these

exercises n perspective.

It is clear that

they

had a

demonstrative

or, as we should

say now, a polemical

aim. Such

polemics

could only have been

directed against

the art of the late Trecento

tradition,for one

thing because

thesepictorialessays

belongto the first

phase

of the

Master'sactivity,between

the last years of

the fourteenthand

the first

of the

succeeding century.

To those painters

who were intent

only on

decoration,Brunelleschiwishedto demonstratepainting as an instrumentof

knowledge.

One might even

ask oneself whether,

in that

atmosphereof

naturalistic

propaganda, the

happy

invention of the silvery

background

which reflects the

light of the physical

heavens, may not

perhaps imply a

satirical

and almost irreligious

allusion to those

shining backgrounds

f fine

gold in which the

devout paintersof the

traditionsought to

mirror he mystic

light of

God.

The technical

miracle of the dome

of Santa Maria

del Fiore (P1. 7a)

has distracted

critics not a

little from the significance

which that long

and

strenuousconstructive abour holds in the art of Brunelleschi. Since it is


12/33

106

GIULIO

ARLO

ARGAN

known

hat

Filippo

had

originally

planned

to

make

the

dome

in

the

form

of

a

hemisphere,

nd

that

only

on

second

thoughts

did

he

decide

to

carry

out

the

scheme

aid

down

in

Arnolfo's

model,

the

problem

of

the

dome

would

seem

to

be

educed

to

a

mere

question

of

technique:

the

method

of

vaulting

it

withoutcaffiolding.

Was

t

really

technically mpossible o realizeArnolfo's

plan

by

tlle

usual

means?

ne

may

easily

believe

that,

in

those

first

decades

of the Quattro-

cento,

o

artist

would

have

dared

to

build

vaulting

on

so

vast

a

scale;

it

is

indeed

ighly

probable

that

throughout

he

Trecento,

when

decoration

ook

precedence

f

construction,

here

may

have

been

a

falling-off

n

constructive

skill.

ut

it

is

impossible

o

believe

that

Arnolfo

can

have

planned,

and

his

successors

aised

as

far

as

the

drum,

a

building

which

the

technical

resources

of

he

ime

did

not

permit

them

to

roof

over.

What

is

more,

Brunelleschi

never

even

thought

of

using

the

traditional

technique.

rom

the

outset

he

had

in

mind

the

idea

of

building

the

dome

withoutcaffolding;he

might

give

up

the

form

he

had

first

envisaged,

but

he

would

ot

give

up

his

method of construction.Only a mistakenestimate

of

Brunelleschi's

classicism

as

induced

the

belief

that

the

spherical

vault

represented

formal

ideal,

later

sacrificed

o

contingent

needs.

When

we

remember

hat

the

method

of

vaulting

the

dome

without

scaffolding

had

been

educed

from

the

Roman

circular

domes,

the

terms

of

the

question

are

reversed:

he

most

reasonable

hypothesis

s

that

Filippo

had

thought

first

of

a

emi-circular

ault

because

it

was

from

such

models

that

he

had

evolved

his

ystem,

and

that

he

returned

ater

to

Arnolfo's

plan

when

he

had

become

persuaded

hat

the

system

might

equally

well

be

applied

to

domes

with

ribs

and

ointed

arches.

This

method,

which

the

conclusive

researches

of

Sam-

paolesilaveshownto be of Romanorigin,

consists

n

walling

the

dome

with

courses

f

bricks

disposed

in

a

herring-bone

pattern. Brunelleschi'sormal

ideal

id

not

end

in

the

pattern

of

the

pointed

arch

or

of

the

single

span:

it

was

he

ideal

of

a

form

capable

of

sustaining

tself

throughout

he

process

of

its

wn

growth,

of

producing

the

force

that

sustains

t,

of

disposing

tself

in

space

y

virtue

of

its

own

interior

structural

coherence

and

vitality,

by

its

natural

roportionality,

ike

that

of

bones

and

mernbers.

The

herring-bone

method

of

construction

s

applied

in

Santa

Maria

del

Fiore,

n

a

much

larger

scale

than

it

is

in

any

of

the

ancient

models,

that

is

to

ay,

to

the

measurements

f

the

drum

already

constructed.

The

problem

setby

Brunelleschi

onsisted

herefore

n

reducing

a

gothic

dimension

o

pro-

j1ortion

hrough

the principleof self-support,hat is of

the

autonomy

of

the

form

n

space.

Thus

the

double

vault

of

the

dome

finds

a justificationnot

only

practical

but

figurative

(in

the

actual

words

of

Filippo

so

that

it

may

appear

more

enlarged

and

splendid ):

the

artist

feels

the

need

for

establish-

ing

an

exact

relation

between

the

form

of

the

dome

and

the

various

properties

of

space

that

are

summed

up

in

it.

In

the

interior

he

curvature

f

the

surfaces

of

the

octagon,

sums

up

and

co-ordinates

he

various

spatial

trends

of

the

1

p.

Sampaolesi,

La

Cupola

i

Santa

Maria

particularly

n

the

dome,

see

the

studies

con-

del

Fiore;

il

progetto,

a

costruzione,

stituto

di

tained

in

Atti

del

I

Congresso

Nazionale

i

Archeologia

Storia

dell'Arte,

Rome,

I94I.

Storia

dell'Architettura,

eld

at

Florence

in

On sundry

Brunelleschian

problems,

but

I936

and

published

by

Sansoni

n

I938.


13/33

a

Brunelleschi,

Dome

of

Santa

Maria

del

Fiore,

Florence

pp.

I05

ffs.)

b

Lanter


14/33

8

a Brunelleschi, azzi Chapel,Florence p.

I09)

b Brunelleschi,Detail of FaKade of Pazzi Chapel,

Florence (p.

I

og)


15/33

THE ARCHITECTURE

OF

BRUNELLESCHI

Io7

naves and

the presbytery,

as into

a common

horizon;

on

the exterior

he

ribs

mark

the limit

or the

juncture

between

the

masses

of the

building

and the

circumambient

pace.

If

the effect

of the

dome

is spatial,

the

process

which

leads

to the definition

of space

is a constructive

process.

But

thisconstructive

labour differsfrom the mediaevalmechanicaecause its acts are no longer

repeated

by tradition,

but determined

by

reason:the

coherence

c?f

hese acts

must there

be referred

o

a rational

principle.

Manetti

says that

in

Rome

Brunelleschi

saw

the ancients'

methods

of

building

and their

symmetry;

and

it

seemed

to

him that

he saw

there very

clearly

a certain

order,

as

of bones

and members.

It is not

a question

of the

generic

anthropomorphism

hat

recurs,

following

on

the traces

of Vitruvius,

in the treatise

writers

of the

Renaissance:

t is a question

of rational

discrimination

etween

the

elements

that

bear

and the

elements

hat

areborne,

and

of their

distribution

according

to order,

that

is

according

o symmetry

and

proportion.

In Romanesque

architecture

s in

Gothic, the

artistic

deal to

be realized,

though by differentfigurativemethods,is the effect of unlimitedspace. In

the

first,

weight

prevails

over

strain,

and the

effect of

space

depends

upon

mass;

in the

second,

strain

prevails

over

weight

and the

effect depends

on

linear

tension.

In either

case

the motive

force s

an energy

that

develops,

and

tends

to

develop

towards

the infinite,

but

which

finds

a check

and a

deter-

mination

n

matter.

And matter

s already

orm,because

f

matterhas

already

a spiritual

quality

of its own

as a

divine creation,

we cannot

conceive

of any

form

that transcends

t. Form,

force,

matter

make up

an

indivisible

unity:

force

is not

only

relativeto

the hardness

and

the elasticity

of matter,

but

also

to

the

thickness,

the

extension,

the flexion,

the

outline,

the

section

of the

element

n

which

it is expressed.

One may

arriveat

length

at the sublimation

of matterto sucha point that a mass whichphysicallypresseson the ground

can express

an

ascent;

none the

less, form

remains

a quality

of

matter,

how-

beit

a supernatural

one,

a revelation

of

its inner

spirituality.

A Gothic

cathedral

tends in

fact

to be

a compendium

of all knowledge,

that is

of all

reality;

and this

not only,

as Male

has observed,

n

its decorative

details

but

in

its deepest

structural

ntentions.

Since reality

is the

infinite

in terms

of

individual

things,

it is

expressed

n

architecture

by

individual

forces:

Gothic

architecture

s in

fact the

architecture

of the individualization

f forces.

Even

the

historical

interest

that

attracts

Brunelleschi

o a study

of the

antique

would have

no justification

f

he had

not sought

in antique

art

for a

standardof comparison n the criticismof tradition,that is for a meansof

freeing

himselffrom

a

tradition

hat

wasstill

alive:

history s

always

a criticism

and an

overcoming

of tradition.

Moreover,

the very

fact that

the

need

was

felt for a

spatial

definition

which

should

include

and

resolve

the whole

problem

of reality,

necessarily

presupposes

he experience

of Romanesque

and

Gothicspatiality

as the expression

of infinite

reality;

this

was

the matter

which

had to

be reduced

nto

measure.

runelleschi's

mental

process

n regard

to

tradition

s

already

hatwhich

Marsilio

Ficino

will define

n Platonic

erms:

in

corpore

animus a

singulis

ad

species,

a specibus

transit

ad rationes ;

or

since

we

are dealing

with

architecture,

romindividual

forces

to classes

and

from

classes

to systems.

To group

several

forces

together

into a

class it is

necessary o define their quantityand quality; thus it happensthat we are


16/33

GIULIO

CARLO

ARGAN

o8

no

longer

dealing

with

forces

n

action

or in

development,

uch as

strainand

stress,

but

with

those that

are

developed or

in

equilibrium,

such

as

weight

which

has

its

exactly

corresponding

esistance.

One

might

say,

paraphrasing

Alberti, that

our

knowledge

of

forces s

reachedby

comparison, hat

is

by theirreciprocal imitingsand oppositionsor by their reciprocal propor-

tioning of

each

other.

Only

when

the

dramatic

conflict of

forces

has

been

exhausted,

only,

that is,

when

a

catharsis

has

been

achieved,

will

architecture

cease

to be a

fragment

of

reality,

and

becomea

representation f

reality.

And

since

experience

which

here

means

the

experience

of

Gothic

architecture,

in

which

the

force

of an

element is in

proportion o

its

momento

or to

its

extension

and

duration

taught

that

the

strength of

a

force is

relative

to a

space, to

constant

forces

there

must

therefore

correspond

onstant

ntervals.

This

constancy

of the

relation

between

force

and

interval

is the

quality

of

the

single

span

arch

as

opposed

to

the

pointed one.

To

compare

the

single

span

with

the

pointed

arch it

was not

necessary

o go

back

to

Vitruvius

and

to ancientmonuments:TuscanRomanesquearchitecturewas enough. Yet

the

arcades

of the

Loggia

degli

Innocenti

with

their

very

wide

and

extended

span,

are

undoubtedly

much

more

akin

to the

arches

of the

Loggia

della

Signoria

and even

to

the

ogival

arches

of S.

Maria

Novella

and S.

Maria del

Fiore

than

to

those

of the

church of

the

SS.

Apostoli

or of

Roman

monu-

ments.

In

the

latter,

indeed, the

function

of

support

is

translated

nto an

equilibrium

between

the

masses

of

fullnessand

of

emptiness; n

the

former

he

line

has a

value of

its

own as

a

supreme

ormal

declaration

of

spatial

nfinity.

This

is

the

value to

which

Brunelleschi

would

give a

clear

definition,

measur-

ing the

depth of

the

void by

the

actual

outline of

the

arch.

He

reflects

hat in

the

single

span

arch,

all

points of

the

semicircleare

equi-distant

n

relationto

vanishingpoint, that is in relationto the apex of a half cone having its base

within

the

semicircle

tself:

therefore

he

width

of

the

curve is

relative to

the

depth of

the

extensionof

the

arch

instead of

to the

weight

which it

sustains.

The

arch

s

therefore

lwaysan

intercisione,

primo

piano, n

a

perspective

progression

which

has

its

term at

vanishing

point; the

curve of

the

arch, as

a

projectionof

depth

on a

plane

surface,

has

thus

the

valueof a

horizon.

For

Brunelleschi

oo,

as for

Donatello and

Masaccio,

Romanitas

s in

the

first

nstance

toscanita

the

definitionof

his

own

historical

character

begins

with

that

of

his

own

natural

character.

If, in

determining

he

spatial

value

of the

arch he

relies on

Tuscan

Gothic

architecture,

n

determining

the

spatialvalue of the plane he relieson the more remotepractice of Tuscan

Romanesque

architecture.

It

would

be

interesting

to

know

whether

the

opinions

expressed

by

Manetti n

his

excursus

n the

decadenceof

architecture

in the

Middle

Ages

are

entirely

his

own, or

whether

they

go

back, in

part

at

least, to

Brunelleschi: t

is

anyhow

significant,

that in

certain

Florentine

Romanesque

buildingshe

shouldsee

some

reflection

of

classic

splendour,

and

should

attribute

hem, by

an

error ull

of

meaning,

to the

Carolingian

period,

that is

to

the

time of

the

most

intense

classical

revival of

the

Middle

Ages.

Brunelleschi's

rchitecture

reserves

more

than

one

reminiscence

f

the

marble

inlays

that

adorned he

walls

of

Florentine

Romanesque

hurches,

or

example

in

the

pure

scrittura f

space

on the

flat

surface

by

means of

grey

pilasters

and arcadeson a whitebackground.One mightevenventureto interpret he


17/33

THE

ARCHITECTUREOF

BRUNELLESCHI

IO9

faSadeof the

Pazzi

Chapel

(P1.8a) as a

development f the

spatialtheme

ofthe

Romanesque

nlays.

One might

pointout

that the

artisthad

arrived

hrough

the exercise

of a subtle

dialectic,at

that

absolute

representation f space

n the

flat, by

identifying

inearand

chromatic

values; and

that in this

mutual

denti-

fication,the linearelement s purgedof the materialqualityof the outline ust

as the

chromatic

element is

purged of the

material

quality of

the

surface.

INhe

bean-pattern

rieze, the

grooved

pilasters

are far

from

being a

simple

reproduction

of the

antique: they

are an

alternation,

almost a

vibration,

of

ligllt

and shade

(P1.8b).

Precisely

becausethis

plane

generates ight

fromthe

frequencyof

its

relationsof light

and shade,

it may be

distinguished

rom the

surface,

which is

always a

defence in

relation to

an

external

source of

light,

ancl

becomes

identifiedwith

the

totality of

space.

And perhaps

this is

the

intellectual ourceof

that light

which in Piero

della

Francesca s no

longer

physical but

spatial.

The

Florentine

Romanesque nlays

were

undoubtedly

a

sign of a

return

to the

fountain-headof the

Byzantine

tradition,

perhaps

even of an obstinate Tuscan resistance to the renewing tide of Lombard

architecture. By

means of

these inlays

an

attemptwas

made to

resolve

the

effect of

space which

Lombard

architecture

enclosed within

the

complex

articulationof its

masses, nto

chromatic

ermson

a flat

surface.l

Geometrical

forms, while

eliminatingany

modulation n

colouristic

relations

within the

design,

employed

colours in

absolute terms

of

contrast on the

surface:

no

spatial

hypothesis s

possible

beyond a

strict

equation of

the opposing

terms

of

surfaceand

depth. A

most

subtleand

intimately

Platonic

process

ofthought

warnsthe

artistthat if

he

thinksof

space as

possessing

nfinite depth,

he will

find it

quite

impossible to

distinguish it

from the

surface:

therefore

the

infinity

of space

cannot

be a

sensorzr

erceptionor an

effect,

but a

concep-

tual representationor a cause, such as are for instance the figures of

geometry.

In this

mediaeval

Tuscan

Platonism here

arealready

to be

found

the

premisesof

the

transcendental

ogic of a

great German

Platonist of

the

fifteenth

century,

Cusanus.

For

Brunelleschi he

plane is the

place on

which there

occursthe

projec-

tion or

definitionof

depth, not as

an effect,

but

as pure

value or

geometric

form.

Therefore

he place is

a pure

mental

abstraction, he

precondition

or

the

representationf

space.Alberti

will

translate

his

intuitionof

Brunelleschi's

into a

formula:

the surface

s

still matter,

and as it

were the

outer skin

of

things,

although t

is the

extreme imit

of

matter, ts

suturewith

space;

instead

the plane is a geometricentity, the intersection f the visualpyramid. In

fact the

plane in

Brunelleschi's

rchitecture

s an

intersection

nd not

a

surface;

t is

the place

on to which

the

variousspatial

distances

are

projected,

and on

whichthe

infinite

dimensions f space

are

reducedto the

three

dimen-

sionsof

perspective

pace.

Since on the

plane these

distances

annotbe

valued

as

effects (for

they

would be

chaotically

superimposed

ne upon

another)

but

only as

measllrements, he

plane is

the

condition of

their

cognitione

per

comparationeX'that is to

say of

their

proportionality.

1 For a

fuller

analysisof the

formal

values manica

Romanica,

Florence,

Nemi, I936,

and

of

Romanesqueand

Gothic

architecture n

L'Architettura

talianadelDuecento

del

frecento,

Tuscany

I refer

the reader to

my two

Florence,

Nemi, I937.

volumes,

L'ArchitetturaProtocristiana,Prero-


18/33

GIULIO GARLO ARGAN

IO

On the fagadeof the Pazzi Chapel,for instance,every separateportionof

the plane has its point of reference n a corresponding alue of depth in the

porticoor the interior,and is a projectionof this: hence the lack of an effective

articulationof the parts which are elements of limitation and not elements

of force, and the compositionof the plane in squaresand recesses(P1. ga)

All surfaces f a body that are simultaneously isible, Albertiexplains, wili

form a pyramid composedof as many lesser facets as there are surfaces n

the thing seen. It is the principle of the homogeneityof space. But the

principle of the homogeneityof space destroys that of the homogeneityof

matter: for in orderto think of space as homogenous, hat is, as uninterrupted

by the presenceof bodies, it is necessary o think of those bodies as composed

of space, that is as brokenup into a succession f planes. Given this distinction

between the plane, as a complete representation f space, and the surface, t

is hard to accept the ingenious thesis of L. H. Heydenreichl who makes a

sharpdistinctionbetweenthe firstand secondphasesof Brunelleschi's ctivity,

between the moment of the

Wandbauten

nd that of the

Pfeilerkomvtraktionen,

or between the period when the wall is only a raumbegrenzendechale nd

that irl which it arrivesat a raumbildendeunktion. he cause of this sudden

stylistic evolution is said to be the journey to Rome, which Heydenreich

postponesto the years between I432 and I434; but the later researchesof

Sampaolesi ix the date conclusivelyat a time previous to the beginning of

work on the dome. In fact there is a complete coherencebetween the works

of the first and secondperiods: the problemof Brunelleschi's rtisticdevelop-

ment does not so much consist n determining he date ofthe journey to Rome,

as in forminga preciseestimateof his relationswith Donatello and Masaccio,

which were undoubtedlyclose and reciprocal.

According o Heydenreich's heoryBrunelleschi's rtisticdevelopment an

be codified into the artist'sprogressive bandonmentof building to a longi-

tudinal plan, for building to a central plan, which is the classic schemepar

excellence,

the most rigorous and systematic application of the Vitruvian

theory of the module. In reality, if one starts from the spatial premisesof

Brunelleschi he two plans cannot be so sharply differentiated:on the con-

trary, they complete each other by turns. And here again we find, as funda-

mental, the practice of Gothic architecture,which so often unites the two

plans or imposesone upon the other. The dome of S. Mariadel Fiore is itself

conceived as a co-ordinationor synthesisof the longitudinal depths of the

naves and the stellate spacesof the octagon.

Both the Sacristyof S. Lorenzoand the Pazzi Chapelare typical examples

of the synthesisbetween a longitudinalplan and a central plan. In the Pazzi

Chapel (P1. gb), for instance, the simple tracing of an entablatureand an

arcadeon the plane carries he depth of the squaredapse on to the longitudinal

walls: in the sameway the depth of the windowsopening o the front s graphi-

cally repeatedbetweenthe sunkpilasters. Every plane has therefore he same

content of space. This solution s perfectly ogical, because trictlyspeaking

a figure in plane geometry s no less representative f space than a figure in

solid geometry: indeed the hemisphericaldome has the same function of

1 L. H. Heydenreich, SpatwerkeBrunel- lungen,

93I.

leschis, Jahrbuch erPreussischenunstsamm-


19/33

9

a Brunelleschi, Portico of Pazzi Chapel, Florence

(p. I I O)

b Brunelleschi, nteriorof Pazzi Chapel,Florence p.

I I O)


20/33

o

a Brunelleschi5an Lorenzo,Florence(p. I I 2)

b Interiorof San Lorenzo detail) (p. I I 2 )


21/33


22/33


23/33

THE

ARCHITECTURE OF

BRUNELLESCHI

I I3

to the arch of

the naves is as 3 to 5;

therefore he two

archeshave a common

vanishingpoint and are

two succeeding

sectionsof the same visual

pyramid.

Thus the depth of the

chapels is transmitted

and

resolvedthrough the brick

vaultingof the extension

nto thearchesof the

centralnave. The

threewalls of

the small chapelsareframedby stronglymodelledcornices:thusthe walls fall

into the

background n three

directions,and the value

of depth

which cannot

be developed

within such small

dimensions s

condensed nto the

modelling

of the cornices.

In fact,

if one imaginesa

depth divided into equal

spaces, t

is clear that,

as we increase our

distance, the spaces

between member and

member

become, when

seen in perspective,

thicker and closer:

by making

the

modelling of the

members

more complex, that is,

by implicating the

intervalsor distances

with the quality of the

plastic objects, one

will obtain,

in

the actual form of the

disposalof the

members he

representation f un-

plumbable

depth. And how easy

it is to see, and how

easy it would be to

illustrate with precise

examples, the same

process at work in the

low relief

of Donatello.

The

successionof spaceswhich

is projected nto the

arcadesof the central

aisle is thus a

typicalperspective

uccessionrom the

horizon (the

end walls of

the

chapels) o the

foreground the

arch of the nave) In

Santo Spirito(P1. I )

the ratio

between the

arch of the chapels

and that of the nave is

of I to I:

and

the chapels are

reducedto the

concavityof niches.

So the lateral spaces

are

not graduated

perspectively,but directly

inserted and

articulated into

the archesof

the nave. Every

columnof the nave, to

which there corresponds

a half-column

n the side aisle,

thus stands out in its

plastic form, from the

concavity of

tsvo contiguous

niches. Not the parallel

planes of the centre

aisle, but the

plastic successionof

arches and columns

sums up the space of

the side aisles and of the chapels. In fact, if the artistin San Lorenzo has

given distinct sourcesof

light to the centre

aisle and the side aisles,

f, that is,

he

conceived them as

distinct and

co-ordinatedspatial entities,

in Santo

Spirito, the

side aisles have no

source of

light in themselves,

because their

spacesconstitutea single

plastic

organismwith the

colonnadesof the centre

aisle. If in San Lorenzo

the axis of the

centre aisle was simply

an axis of

symmetry for

the proportional

distribution of spatial

intervals, in Santo

Spirito it is the ground

plan of the

centralized vision. Space is

no longer

graphically

described n

geometrical orms,but realized

n the proportions-

metrical, chiaroscural

and luminous-of

plastic form.

So the column tself acquiresvalue as a member; t is no longerthe cesura

placed between

successive spatial intervals,

but as Alberti

would say a

thing that

occupies a place. In

its proportions, r in

the plasticquality of

its form t

resolvesall the

accidents f stress: ts value

in architecture ence-

forth s that of a

protagonistof space, as is that

of the human form

n painting

and sculpture.

The relation

between the emergenceof

the

columns and the

concavityofthe niches n

Santo

Spirito s in fact,

plasticallyand luministically,

a typically

Masacciesque elation.

Niches are thus the

spatial Leitmotif f

the later works of

Brunelleschi.

But

it is not a

question of

chiaroscuralor atmospheric

values, of a mass of

void

in oppositionto a

mass of fullness. In

Santo Spirito a

window breaks

the continuityof the chiaroscuro f the curvedsurface:the nichesin the but-


24/33

GIULIO

CARLO

ARGAN

I4

tresses

of the

lantern

and

those

in the

Rotonda

are

also

open

so as

to

avoid

a

pictorial

effect

of

atmosphere.

If,

in fact,

the

spatial

interval

betweentwo

members

s

plastically

expressed

n

the

actual

modelling

of the

members

he

space

enclosed

between

those

two

cannot be

indefinite:

the

curve

of the

niche

gives a senseof indefinitespace, of somethingbeyondthe horizon,of the sky.

In this

sense

t is a

development

of the

conception

of the

plane

as

a

representa-

tion

of

space,

that

is as

a

synthesis

of

depth

and

surface.

It

is

clear

that a

complete

representation f

space

cannot

admit a

dis-

tinction

between

the

space

internal and

the

space

external

to the

building:

hence

that

reciprocal

integrationof

internal

and

external

which

we

have

already

noted

in the

Pazzi

Chapel,

which

was

provided

for

in the

original

plan

of

Santo

Spirito,

which

is

fully

realized in

the

open

architecture

of the

lantern

and

which is,

above

all, the

central

problem

n

the

long

constructive

meditations

on

the

dome

of

Santa

Maria

del

Fiore.

The

building

is

now

conceived as

a

pure

structure

which

inserts

tself

into

empiric

spatiality

and

proportions t, or reduces t to perspective pace: likeearlyexercisesn paint-

ing,

the

building

is an

instrument

of

knowledge,

he

instrument

hat

creates

perspective.

In

more

general

terms,

the

building

is the

instrument

which,

through

the

rationalityof

its

processof

construction,

ransforms

confused

and

unlimited

reality

into

clear

and

ordered

nature.

By this

same

process

the

mediaeval

mechanica,

hich

had

reached

its

loftiest

expression

argan brunelleschi

Documents