influence can be detected, though always subordinated to the necessities of adaptation, which in architecture most imperatively hold sway over the imagination; an effort has been made to connect this influence with the presence in the city of Michelozzo Michelozzi, the Florentine sculptor and architect spoken of above, who was at Venice with Cosimo de Medici, banished from Florence. Vasari remarks (Op. vol. II, p. 434) that Michelozzi, during his stay in Venice, had the opportunity to construct private and public edifices there, and that, by order of Cosimo, he erected the library of the monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore. These statements made by Vasari, have not been disputed. If we admit their truth we may easily fancy that several of the Venetian edifices belonging to the middle of the fifteenth century, whose architects are still unknown, may have been by Michelozzo.
The supposition takes on a serious aspect when we consider that some of the Lombardic forms bear a resemblance to earlier Florentine forms. For example, the gemel-windows of the Vendramin Palace and the Scuola of San Rocco at Venice appear to have been inspired by those of the Riccardi and Strozzi palaces at Florence. If this be true, Michelozzo preceded the Lombardi at Venice in the production of Renaissance
types, and like his friend and co-worker Donatello, he appears to have introduced Tuscan art into Venetia. These are, however, conjectures.
Reference has already been made to the Vendramin palace, which was erected in 1481 (Figure 6). It is attributed to Santo Lombardo (1504 † 1560) but it cannot have been by him, as it was constructed before his birth. Yet it is without doubt the work of some member of the Lombardo family. Which one, is the question. When we remember that Pietro and Martino were the architects of the most beautiful Venetian structures of that time, it seems very probable that this palace may also have been designed by one of them. It ranks among the most sumptuous edifices in Venice: Sansovino placed it “among the four most imposing palaces of the city. ” There is a certain similarity of style between it and the Corner- Spinelli palace, so much, in fact, that both may be ascribed to the same architect, Pietro Lombardo († 1515). It is customary to consider Pietro as the head of the Lombardo family, but strictly speaking this honor belongs to Ser Martino da Charona, father of Pietro tajapiera (stone-cutter). Sculptors were thus termed at Venice in those simple times. Pietro was an artist of great merit. Among his productions in Venetia, the Cathedral of Cividale, in Friuli, is noteworthy; at Venice he built the church of Santa Maria dei Miracoli, between 1481 and 1489. The celebrated tower “dell’ Orologio, ” has sometimes, though incorrectly, been attributed to him.
His less important works, such as the Zeno monument at St. Mark’s, the altar of the Zeno chapel and the monument of Pietro Mocenigo, in the church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo, we will pass over. As to Martino Lombardo, we must be content to refer the Scuola di San Marco to him (it is the only edifice which can with certainty be ascribed to him). In it, he had as co-workers Tullio, the greatest sculptor of the family, and Moro, who is supposed to have been a son of Martino; in this Moro some have recognized a certain Mauro di Bergamo, who rebuilt the church of Santa Maria Formosa in 1492, the son also of a Martino, but one in no way related to the Lombardo family.
It has been thought that the charming church of San Zaccaria, founded about 1456 and completed in 1515 (Figure 7) was by Martino. In my opinion, only the façade is from his hand. He was the architect of the Scuola di San Marco or the Hospital of St. John and St. Paul, illustrated by Figure 8. Moro’s work amounts to but little here. On the other hand that of Tullio (who died a little before 1559) son of Pietro, is worthy of high praise. He was not only a sculptor of great merit but likewise won distinction as an architect, as for example, in the church of the Holy Saviour at Venice and in various structures at Treviso. To Santo Lombardo, incorrectly accredited with the construction of the Vendramin palace, the Trevisani palace is now attributed; this is not, however, wholly certain. Other artists of the Lombardo family flourished at Venice, but they cannot be noticed here.
[To be continued. ]
ARCHITECT, OWNER & BUILDER BEFORE THE LAW. 1 — XII.
A FRENCH INSTANCE. 2 O
NE of the most curious instances of an architect’s exceeding his authority is to be found in the French books. One Savoye was architect of the church of Saugnière. He was authorized by the contract “ to order works omitted or overlooked in the specification, and to provide for contingencies which might arise during the execution of the works ”; and the contractor, Duchez, was bound by his contract to obey Savoye’s orders. Savoye, without consulting the officials of the town at whose expense the church was to be built, practically substituted a new plan for that which had been officially approved. He increased all the dimensions of the building after the contract was made, thereby adding 12, 675 francs to the cost, and ordered changes in details of construction and decoration to the value of 5, 000 francs.
The town refused to pay the bills for these extras, and the case came before the highest court, which held that if the enlargement of the building did not better adapt it to the requirements of public worship in the district of Saugniére, so that the commune received some benefit from the change, Savoye must pay the cost himself. In regard to the other extra charge, of 5, 000 francs, the court found that a portion was for “ changes in detail fully jus“ tified by the necessities of good workmanship, ” but that 2, 000 francs of the extra expense had been incurred through “ the exaggerated importance attached by the “architect to the interior decoration, and the details of the tower, “ the entrance door and the windows. ” Of the cost of the increased size, the experts found that the commune should bear a part, as being to a small extent benefited; but Savoye was condemned to pay a total of 10, 500 francs.
DANGER TO ARCHITECTS IN ORDERING ARTISTIC EXTRAS.
The lesson afforded by this case in regard to the danger of trying to improve the artistic effect of their clients’ buildings without their knowledge will not be lost upon architects; but there are other ways in which it is easy for an architect, in his anxiety to promote his employer’s interest, to overstep his legal
1 Continued from No. 832, page 145.
2 Commune de Colombier-Saugniére vs. Duchez et Savoye, Dalloz, 1883, 3-92.
Fig. 8. Façade of the Hospital of St. John and St. Paul, Venice.
The supposition takes on a serious aspect when we consider that some of the Lombardic forms bear a resemblance to earlier Florentine forms. For example, the gemel-windows of the Vendramin Palace and the Scuola of San Rocco at Venice appear to have been inspired by those of the Riccardi and Strozzi palaces at Florence. If this be true, Michelozzo preceded the Lombardi at Venice in the production of Renaissance
types, and like his friend and co-worker Donatello, he appears to have introduced Tuscan art into Venetia. These are, however, conjectures.
Reference has already been made to the Vendramin palace, which was erected in 1481 (Figure 6). It is attributed to Santo Lombardo (1504 † 1560) but it cannot have been by him, as it was constructed before his birth. Yet it is without doubt the work of some member of the Lombardo family. Which one, is the question. When we remember that Pietro and Martino were the architects of the most beautiful Venetian structures of that time, it seems very probable that this palace may also have been designed by one of them. It ranks among the most sumptuous edifices in Venice: Sansovino placed it “among the four most imposing palaces of the city. ” There is a certain similarity of style between it and the Corner- Spinelli palace, so much, in fact, that both may be ascribed to the same architect, Pietro Lombardo († 1515). It is customary to consider Pietro as the head of the Lombardo family, but strictly speaking this honor belongs to Ser Martino da Charona, father of Pietro tajapiera (stone-cutter). Sculptors were thus termed at Venice in those simple times. Pietro was an artist of great merit. Among his productions in Venetia, the Cathedral of Cividale, in Friuli, is noteworthy; at Venice he built the church of Santa Maria dei Miracoli, between 1481 and 1489. The celebrated tower “dell’ Orologio, ” has sometimes, though incorrectly, been attributed to him.
His less important works, such as the Zeno monument at St. Mark’s, the altar of the Zeno chapel and the monument of Pietro Mocenigo, in the church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo, we will pass over. As to Martino Lombardo, we must be content to refer the Scuola di San Marco to him (it is the only edifice which can with certainty be ascribed to him). In it, he had as co-workers Tullio, the greatest sculptor of the family, and Moro, who is supposed to have been a son of Martino; in this Moro some have recognized a certain Mauro di Bergamo, who rebuilt the church of Santa Maria Formosa in 1492, the son also of a Martino, but one in no way related to the Lombardo family.
It has been thought that the charming church of San Zaccaria, founded about 1456 and completed in 1515 (Figure 7) was by Martino. In my opinion, only the façade is from his hand. He was the architect of the Scuola di San Marco or the Hospital of St. John and St. Paul, illustrated by Figure 8. Moro’s work amounts to but little here. On the other hand that of Tullio (who died a little before 1559) son of Pietro, is worthy of high praise. He was not only a sculptor of great merit but likewise won distinction as an architect, as for example, in the church of the Holy Saviour at Venice and in various structures at Treviso. To Santo Lombardo, incorrectly accredited with the construction of the Vendramin palace, the Trevisani palace is now attributed; this is not, however, wholly certain. Other artists of the Lombardo family flourished at Venice, but they cannot be noticed here.
[To be continued. ]
ARCHITECT, OWNER & BUILDER BEFORE THE LAW. 1 — XII.
A FRENCH INSTANCE. 2 O
NE of the most curious instances of an architect’s exceeding his authority is to be found in the French books. One Savoye was architect of the church of Saugnière. He was authorized by the contract “ to order works omitted or overlooked in the specification, and to provide for contingencies which might arise during the execution of the works ”; and the contractor, Duchez, was bound by his contract to obey Savoye’s orders. Savoye, without consulting the officials of the town at whose expense the church was to be built, practically substituted a new plan for that which had been officially approved. He increased all the dimensions of the building after the contract was made, thereby adding 12, 675 francs to the cost, and ordered changes in details of construction and decoration to the value of 5, 000 francs.
The town refused to pay the bills for these extras, and the case came before the highest court, which held that if the enlargement of the building did not better adapt it to the requirements of public worship in the district of Saugniére, so that the commune received some benefit from the change, Savoye must pay the cost himself. In regard to the other extra charge, of 5, 000 francs, the court found that a portion was for “ changes in detail fully jus“ tified by the necessities of good workmanship, ” but that 2, 000 francs of the extra expense had been incurred through “ the exaggerated importance attached by the “architect to the interior decoration, and the details of the tower, “ the entrance door and the windows. ” Of the cost of the increased size, the experts found that the commune should bear a part, as being to a small extent benefited; but Savoye was condemned to pay a total of 10, 500 francs.
DANGER TO ARCHITECTS IN ORDERING ARTISTIC EXTRAS.
The lesson afforded by this case in regard to the danger of trying to improve the artistic effect of their clients’ buildings without their knowledge will not be lost upon architects; but there are other ways in which it is easy for an architect, in his anxiety to promote his employer’s interest, to overstep his legal
1 Continued from No. 832, page 145.
2 Commune de Colombier-Saugniére vs. Duchez et Savoye, Dalloz, 1883, 3-92.
Fig. 8. Façade of the Hospital of St. John and St. Paul, Venice.