A Text-Book of the History of Architecture Part 21

+FLORENTINE PALACES.+ The P. Riccardi long remained the accepted type of palace in Florence. As we have seen, it was imitated in the Strozzi palace, as late as 1489, with greater perfection of detail, but with no radical change of conception. In the +P. Gondi+, however, begun in the following year by _Giuliano da San Gallo_ (1445-1516), a more p.r.o.nounced cla.s.sic spirit appears, especially in the court and the interior design.

Early in the 16th century cla.s.sic columns and pediments began to be used as decorations for doors and windows; the rustication was confined to bas.e.m.e.nts and corner-quoins, and niches, loggias, and porches gave variety of light and shade to the facades (+P. Bartolini+, by _Baccio d'Agnolo_; +P. Larderel+, 1515, by _Dosio_; +P. Guadagni+, by _Cronaca_; +P. Pandolfini+, 1518, attributed to Raphael). In the +P. Serristori+, by Baccio d'Agnolo (1510), pilasters were applied to the composition of the facade, but this example was not often followed in Florence.

+ROMAN PALACES.+ These followed a different type. They were usually of great size, and built around ample courts with arcades of cla.s.sic model in two or three stories. The broad street facade in three stories with an attic or mezzanine was crowned with a rich cornice. The orders were sparingly used externally, and effect was sought princ.i.p.ally in the careful proportioning of the stories, in the form and distribution of the square-headed and arched openings, and in the design of mouldings, string-courses, cornices, and other details. The _piano n.o.bile_, or first story above the bas.e.m.e.nt, was given up to suites of sumptuous reception-rooms and halls, with magnificent ceilings and frescoes by the great painters of the day, while antique statues and reliefs adorned the courts, vestibules, and niches of these princely dwellings. The +Ma.s.simi+ palace, by Peruzzi, is an interesting example of this type.

The Vatican, Cancelleria, and Giraud palaces have already been mentioned; other notable palaces are the Palma (1506) and Sacchetti (1540), by A. da San Gallo the Younger; the +Farnesina+, by Peruzzi, with celebrated fresco decorations designed by Raphael; and the Lante (1520) and Altemps (1530), by Peruzzi. But the n.o.blest creation of this period was the

+FARNESE PALACE+, by many esteemed the finest in Italy. It was begun in 1530 for Alex. Farnese (Paul III.) by A. da San Gallo the Younger, with Vignola's collaboration. The simple but admirable plan is shown in Fig.

167, and the courtyard, the most imposing in Italy, in Fig. 168. The exterior is monotonous, but the n.o.ble cornice by Michael Angelo measurably redeems this defect. The fine vaulted columnar entrance vestibule, the court and the _salons_, make up an _ensemble_ worthy of the great architects who designed it. The loggia toward the river was added by _G. della Porta_ in 1580.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 167.--PLAN OF FARNESE PALACE.]

+VILLAS.+ The Italian villa of this pleasure-loving period afforded full scope for the most playful fancies of the architect, decorator, and landscape gardener. It comprised usually a dwelling, a _casino_ or amus.e.m.e.nt-house, and many minor edifices, summer-houses, arcades, etc., disposed in extensive grounds laid out with terraces, cascades, and shaded alleys. The style was graceful, sometimes trivial, but almost always pleasing, making free use of stucco enrichments, both internally and externally, with abundance of gilding and frescoing. The +Villa Madama+ (1516), by Raphael, with stucco-decorations by Giulio Romano, though incomplete and now dilapidated, is a noted example of the style.

More complete, the +Villa of Pope Julius+, by Vignola (1550), belongs by its purity of style to this period; its facade well exemplifies the simplicity, dignity, and fine proportions of this master's work. In addition to these Roman villas may be mentioned the +V. Medici+ (1540, by _Annibale Lippi_; now the French Academy of Rome); the +Casino del Papa+ in the Vatican Gardens, by _Pirro Ligorio_ (1560); the +V. Lante+, near Viterbo, and the +V. d'Este+, at Tivoli, as displaying among almost countless others the Italian skill in combining architecture and gardening.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 168.--ANGLE OF COURT OF FARNESE PALACE, ROME.]

+CHURCHES AND CHAPELS.+ This period witnessed the building of a few churches of the first rank, but it was especially prolific in memorial, votive, and sepulchral chapels added to churches already existing, like the +Chigi Chapel+ of S. M. del Popolo, by Raphael. The earlier churches of this period generally followed antecedent types, with the dome as the central feature dominating a cruciform plan, and simple, unostentatious and sometimes uninteresting exteriors. Among them may be mentioned: at Pistoia, S. M. del Letto and +S. M. dell' Umilta+, the latter a fine domical rotunda by _Ventura Vitoni_ (1509), with an imposing vestibule; at Venice, +S. Salvatore+, by _Tullio Lombardo_ (1530), an admirable edifice with alternating domical and barrel-vaulted bays; +S. Georgio dei Grechi+ (1536), by _Sansovino_, and S. M. Formosa; at Todi, the +Madonna della Consolazione+ (1510), by _Cola da Caprarola_, a charming design with a high dome and four apses; at Montefiascone, the +Madonna delle Grazie+, by _Sammichele_ (1523), besides several churches at Bologna, Ferrara, Prato, Sienna, and Rome of almost or quite equal interest. In these churches one may trace the development of the dome as an external feature, while in +S. Biagio+, at Montepulciano, the effort was made by _Ant. da San Gallo the Elder_ to combine with it the contrasting lines of two campaniles, of which, however, but one was completed.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 169.--ORIGINAL PLAN OF ST. PETER'S, ROME.]

+ST. PETER'S.+ The culmination of Renaissance church architecture was reached in +St. Peter's+, at Rome. The original project of Nicholas V.

having lapsed with his death, it was the intention of Julius II. to erect on the same site a stupendous mausoleum over the monument he had ordered of Michael Angelo. The design of Bramante, who began its erection in 1506, comprised a Greek cross with apsidal arms, the four angles occupied by domical chapels and loggias within a square outline (Fig. 169). The too hasty execution of this n.o.ble design led to the collapse of two of the arches under the dome, and to long delays after Bramante's death in 1514. Raphael, Giuliano da San Gallo, Peruzzi, and A. da San Gallo the Younger successively supervised the works under the popes from Leo X. to Paul III., and devised a vast number of plans for its completion. Most of these involved fundamental alterations of the original scheme, and were motived by the abandonment of the proposed monument of Julius II.; a church, and not a mausoleum, being in consequence required. In 1546 Michael Angelo was a.s.signed by Paul III.

to the works, and gave final form to the general design in a simplified version of Bramante's plan with more ma.s.sive supports, a square east front with a portico for the chief entrance, and the unrivalled +Dome+, which is its most striking feature. This dome, slightly altered and improved in curvature by della Porta after M. Angelo's death in 1564, was completed by _D. Fontana_ in 1604. It is the most majestic creation of the Renaissance, and one of the greatest architectural conceptions of all history. It measures 140 feet in internal diameter, and with its two sh.e.l.ls rises from a lofty drum, b.u.t.tressed by coupled Corinthian columns, to a height of 405 feet to the top of the lantern. The church, as left by Michael Angelo, was harmonious in its proportions, though the single order used internally and externally dwarfed by its colossal scale the vast dimensions of the edifice. Unfortunately in 1606 _C.

Maderna_ was employed by Paul V. to lengthen the nave by two bays, destroying the proportions of the whole, and hiding the dome from view on a near approach. The present tasteless facade was Maderna's work. The splendid atrium or portico added (1629-67), by _Bernini_, as an approach, mitigates but does not cure the ugliness and pettiness of this front.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 170.--PLAN OF ST. PETER'S, ROME, AS NOW STANDING.

The portion below the line A, B, and the side chapels C, D, were added by Maderna. The remainder represents Michael Angelo's plan.]

St. Peter's as thus completed (Fig. 170) is the largest church in existence, and in many respects is architecturally worthy of its pre-eminence. The central aisle, nearly 600 feet long, with its stupendous panelled and gilded vault, 83 feet in span, the vast central area and the majestic dome, belong to a conception unsurpa.s.sed in majestic simplicity and effectiveness. The construction is almost excessively ma.s.sive, but admirably disposed. On the other hand the nave is too long, and the details not only lack originality and interest, but are also too large and coa.r.s.e in scale, dwarfing the whole edifice. The interior (Fig. 171) is wanting in the sobriety of color that befits so stately a design; it suggests rather a pagan temple than a Christian basilica. These faults reveal the decline of taste which had already set in before Michael Angelo took charge of the work, and which appears even in the works of that master.

+THE PERIOD OF FORMAL CLa.s.sICISM.+ With the middle of the 16th century the cla.s.sic orders began to dominate all architectural design. While Vignola, who wrote a treatise upon the orders, employed them with unfailing refinement and judgment, his contemporaries showed less discernment and taste, making of them an end rather than a means. Too often mere cla.s.sical correctness was subst.i.tuted for the fundamental qualities of original invention ind intrinsic beauty of composition. The innovation of colossal orders extending through several stories, while it gave to exterior designs a certain grandeur of scale, tended to coa.r.s.eness and even vulgarity of detail. Sculpture and ornament began to lose their refinement; and while street-architecture gained in monumental scale, and public squares received a more stately adornment than ever before, the street-facades individually were too often bare and uninteresting in their correct formality. In the interiors of churches and large halls there appears a struggle between a cold and dignified simplicity and a growing tendency toward pretentious sham. But these pernicious tendencies did not fully mature till the latter part of the century, and the half-century after 1540 or 1550 was prolific of notable works in both ecclesiastical and secular architecture. The names of Michael Angelo and Vignola, whose careers began in the preceding period; of Palladio and della Porta (1541-1604) in Rome; of Sammichele and Sansovino in Verona and Venice, and of Galeazzo Alessi in Genoa, stand high in the ranks of architectural merit.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 171.--INTERIOR OF ST. PETER'S, ROME.]

+CHURCHES.+ The type established by St. Peter's was widely imitated throughout Italy. The churches in which a Greek or Latin cross is dominated by a high dome rising from a drum and terminating in a lantern, and is treated both internally and externally with Roman Corinthian pilasters and arches, are almost numberless. Among the best churches of this type is the +Gesu+ at Rome, by Vignola (1568), with a highly ornate interior of excellent proportions and a less interesting exterior, the facade adorned with two stories of orders and great flanking volutes over the sides (see p. 277). Two churches at Venice, by _Palladio_--+S. Giorgio Maggiore+ (1560; facade by _Scamozzi_, 1575) and the +Redentore+--offer a strong contrast to the Gesu, in their cold and almost bare but pure and correct design. An imitation of Bramante's plan for St. Peter's appears in +S. M. di Carignano+, at Genoa, by _Galeazzo Alessi_ (1500-72), begun 1552, a fine structure, though inferior in scale and detail to its original. Besides these and other important churches there were many large domical chapels of great splendor added to earlier churches; of these the +Chapel of Sixtus V.+ in S. M.

Maggiore, at Rome, by _D. Fontana_ (1543-1607), is an excellent example.

+PALACES: ROME.+ The palaces on the Capitoline Hill, built at different dates (1540-1644) from designs by Michael Angelo, ill.u.s.trate the palace architecture of this period, and the imposing effect of a single colossal order running through two stories. This treatment, though well adapted to produce monumental effects in large squares, was dangerous in its bareness and heaviness of scale, and was better suited for buildings of vast dimensions than for ordinary street-facades. In other Roman palaces of this time the traditions of the preceding period still prevailed, as in the +Sapienza+ (University), by della Porta (1575), which has a dignified court and a facade of great refinement without columns or pilasters. The +Papal palaces+ built by Domenico Fontana on the Lateran, Quirinal, and Vatican hills, between 1574 and 1590, externally copying the style of the Farnese, show a similar return to earlier models, but are less pure and refined in detail than the Sapienza. The great pentagonal +Palace of Caprarola+, near Rome, by Vignola, is perhaps the most successful and imposing production of the Roman cla.s.sic school.

+VERONA.+ Outside of Rome, palace-building took on various local and provincial phases of style, of which the most important were the closely related styles of Verona, Venice, and Vicenza. _Michele Sammichele_ (1484-1549), who built in Verona the +Bevilacqua+, +Canossa+, +Pompei+, and +Verzi+ palaces and the four chief city gates, and in Venice the +P. Grimani+, his masterpiece (1550), was a designer of great originality and power. He introduced into his military architecture, as in the gates of Verona, the use of rusticated orders, which he treated with skill and taste. The idea was copied by later architects and applied, with doubtful propriety, to palace-facades; though Ammanati's garden-facade for the Pitti palace, in Florence (cir. 1560), is an impressive and successful design.

+VENICE.+ Into the development of the maturing cla.s.sic style _Giacopo Tatti Sansovino_ (1477-1570) introduced in his Venetian buildings new elements of splendor. Coupled columns between arches themselves supported on columns, and a profusion of figure sculpture, gave to his palace-facades a hitherto unknown magnificence of effect, as in the +Library of St. Mark+ (now the Royal Palace, Fig. 172), and the +Cornaro+ palace (P. Corner de Ca Grande), both dating from about 1530-40. So strongly did he impress upon Venice these ornate and sumptuous variations on cla.s.sic themes, that later architects adhered, in a very debased period, to the main features and spirit of his work.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 172.--LIBRARY OF ST. MARK, VENICE.]

+VICENZA.+ Of _Palladio's_ churches in Venice we have already spoken; his palaces are mainly to be found in his native city, Vicenza. In these structures he displayed great fertility of invention and a profound familiarity with the cla.s.sic orders, but the degenerate taste of the Baroque period already begins to show itself in his work. There is far less of architectural propriety and grace in these pretentious palaces, with their colossal orders and their affectation of grandeur, than in the designs of Vignola or Sammichele. Wood and plaster, used to mimic stone, indicate the approaching reign of sham in all design (+P. Barbarano+, 1570; +Chieregati+, 1560; +Tiene+, +Valmarano+, 1556; +Villa Capra+). His masterpiece is the two-storied arcade about the mediaeval +Basilica+, in which the arches are supported on a minor order between engaged columns serving as b.u.t.tresses. This treatment has in consequence ever since been known as the _Palladian Motive_.

+GENOA.+ During the second half of the sixteenth century a remarkable series of palaces was erected in Genoa, especially notable for their great courts and imposing staircases. These last were given unusual prominence owing to differences of level in the courts, arising from the slope of their sites on the hillside. Many of these palaces were by Galeazzo Alessi (1502-72); others by architects of lesser note; but nearly all characterized by their effective planning, fine stairs and loggias, and strong and dignified, if sometimes uninteresting, detail (+P. Balbi+, +Brignole+, +Cambiasi+, +Doria-Tursi+ [or Municipio], +Durazzo+ [or Reale], +Pallavicini+, and +University+).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 173.--INTERIOR OF SAN SEVERO, NAPLES.]

+THE BAROQUE STYLE.+ A reaction from the cold _cla.s.sicismo_ of the late sixteenth century showed itself in the following period, in the lawless and vulgar extravagances of the so-called _Baroque_ style. The wealthy Jesuit order was a notorious contributor to the debas.e.m.e.nt of architectural taste. Most of the Jesuit churches and many others not belonging to the order, but following its pernicious example, are monuments of bad taste and pretentious sham. Broken and contorted pediments, huge scrolls, heavy mouldings, ill-applied sculpture in exaggerated att.i.tudes, and a general disregard for architectural propriety characterized this period, especially in its church architecture, to whose style the name _Jesuit_ is often applied. Sham marble and heavy and excessive gilding were universal (Fig. 173). _C.

Maderna_ (1556-1629), _Lorenzo Bernini_ (1589-1680), and _F. Borromini_ (1599-1667) were the worst offenders of the period, though Bernini was an artist of undoubted ability, as proved by his colonnades or atrium in front of St. Peter's. There were, however, architects of purer taste whose works even in that debased age were worthy of admiration.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 174.--CHURCH OF S. M. DELLA SALUTE, VENICE.]

+BAROQUE CHURCHES.+ The Baroque style prevailed in church architecture for almost two centuries. The majority of the churches present varieties of the cruciform plan crowned by a high dome which is usually the best part of the design. Everywhere else the vices of the period appear in these churches, especially in their facades and internal decoration.

+S. M. della Vittoria+, by Maderna, and +Sta. Agnese+, by Borromini, both at Rome, are examples of the style. Naples is particularly full of Baroque churches (Fig. 173), a few of which, like the +Gesu Nuovo+ (1584), are dignified and creditable designs. The domical church of +S. M. della Salute+, at Venice (1631), by Longhena, is also a majestic edifice in excellent style (Fig. 174), and here and there other churches offer exceptions to the prevalent baseness of architecture. Particularly objectionable was the wholesale disfigurement of existing monuments by ruthless remodelling, as in S. John Lateran, at Rome, the cathedrals of Ferrara and Ravenna, and many others.

+PALACES.+ These were generally superior to the churches, and not infrequently impressive and dignified structures. The two best examples in Rome are the +P. Borghese+, by _Martino Lunghi the Elder_ (1590), with a fine court arcade on coupled Doric and Ionic columns, and the +P. Barberini+, by Maderna and Borromini, with an elliptical staircase by Bernini, one of the few palaces in Italy with projecting lateral wings. In Venice, Longhena, in the +Rezzonico+ and +Pesaro+ palaces (1650-80), showed his freedom from the mannerisms of the age by reproducing successfully the ornate but dignified style of Sansovino (see p. 301). At Naples D. Fontana, whose works overlap the Baroque period, produced in the +Royal Palace+ (1600) and the +Royal Museum+ (1586-1615) designs of considerable dignity, in some respects superior to his papal residences in Rome. In suburban villas, like the +Albani+ and +Borghese+ villas near Rome, the ostentatious style of the Decline found free and congenial expression.

+LATER MONUMENTS.+ In the few eighteenth-century buildings which are worthy of mention there is noticeable a reaction from the extravagances of the seventeenth century, shown in the dignified correctness of the exteriors and the somewhat frigid splendor of the interiors. The most notable work of this period is the +Royal Palace+ at +Caserta+, by _Van Vitelli_ (1752), an architect of considerable taste and inventiveness, considering his time. This great palace, 800 feet square, encloses four fine courts, and is especially remarkable for the simple if monotonous dignity of the well proportioned exterior and the effective planning of its three octagonal vestibules, its ornate chapel and n.o.ble staircase.

Staircases, indeed, were among the most successful features of late Italian architecture, as in the +Scala Regia+ of the Vatican, and in the Corsini, Braschi, and Barberini palaces at Rome, the Royal Palace at Naples, etc.

In church architecture the +east front+ of +S. John Lateran+ in Rome, by _Galilei_ (1734), and the whole +exterior+ of +S. M. Maggiore+, by _Ferd. Fuga_ (1743), are noteworthy designs: the former an especially powerful conception, combining a colossal order with two smaller orders in superposed _loggie_, but marred by the excessive scale of the statues which crown it. The +Fountain+ of +Trevi+, conceived in much the same spirit (1735, by _Niccola Salvi_), is a striking piece of decorative architecture. The Sacristy of St. Peter's, by _Marchionne_ (1775), also deserves mention as a monumental and not uninteresting work. In the early years of the present century the +Braccio Nuovo+ of the Vatican, by _Stern_, the imposing church of +S. Francesco di Paola+ at Naples, by _Bianchi_, designed in partial imitation of the Pantheon, and the great +S. Carlo Theatre+ at Naples, show the same coldly cla.s.sical spirit, not wholly without merit, but lacking in true originality and freedom of conception.

+CAMPANILES.+ The +campaniles+ of the Renaissance and Decline deserve at least pa.s.sing reference, though they are neither numerous nor often of conspicuous interest. That of the +Campidoglio+ (Capitol) at Rome, by Martino Lunghi, is a good example of the cla.s.sical type. Venetia possesses a number of graceful and lofty bell-towers, generally of brick with marble bell-stages, of which the upper part of the +Campanile+ of +St. Mark+ and the tower of S. Giorgio Maggiore are the finest examples.

The Decline attained what the early Renaissance aimed at--the revival of Roman forms. But it was no longer a Renaissance; it was a decrepit and unimaginative art, held in the fetters of a servile imitation, copying the letter rather than the spirit of antique design. It was the mistaken and abject wors.h.i.+p of precedent which started architecture upon its downward path and led to the atrocious products of the seventeenth century.

+MONUMENTS+ (mainly in addition to those mentioned in the text).

15TH CENTURY--FLORENCE: Foundling Hospital (Innocenti), 1421; Old Sacristy and Cloister S. Lorenzo; P. Quaratesi, 1440; cloisters at Sta. Croce and Certosa, all by Brunelleschi; facade S. M. Novella, by Alberti, 1456; Badia at Fiesole, from designs of Brunelleschi, 1462; Court of P. Vecchio, by Michelozzi, 1464 (altered and enriched, 1565); P. Guadagni, by Cronaca, 1490; Hall of 500 in P. Vecchio, by same, 1495.--VENICE: S. Zaccaria, by Martino Lombardo, 1457-1515; S. Michele, by Moro Lombardo, 1466; S. M. del Orto, 1473; S. Giovanni Crisostomo, by Moro Lombardo, atrium of S. Giovanni Evangelista, Procurazie Vecchie, all 1481; Scuola di S. Marco, by Martino Lombardo, 1490; P. Dario; P. Corner-Spinelli.--FERRARA: P. Schifanoja, 1469; P. Scrofa or Costabili, 1485; S. M. in Vado, P. dei Diamanti, P. Bevilacqua, S. Francesco, S. Benedetto, S. Cristoforo, all 1490-1500.--MILAN: Ospedale Grande (or Maggiore), begun 1457 by Filarete, extended by Bramante, cir. 1480-90 (great court by Richini, 17th century); S. M. delle Grazie, E. end, Sacristy of S. Satiro, S. M. presso S. Celso, all by Bramante, 1477-1499.--ROME: S. Pietro in Montorio, 1472; S. M. del Popolo, 1475?; Sistine Chapel of Vatican, 1475; S. Agostino, 1483.--SIENNA: Loggia del Papa and P. Nerucci, 1460; P. del Governo, 1469-1500; P. Spannocchi, 1470; Sta. Catarina, 1490, by di Bastiano and Federighi, church later by Peruzzi; Library in cathedral by L. Marina, 1497; Oratory of S. Bernardino, by Turrapili, 1496.--PIENZA: Cathedral, Bishop's Palace (Vescovado), P. Pubblico, all cir. 1460, by B. di Lorenzo (or Rosselini?). ELSEWHERE (in chronological order): Arch of Alphonso, Naples, 1443, by P. di Martino; Oratory S. Bernardino, Perugia, by di Duccio, 1461; Church over Casa-Santa, Loreto, 1465-1526; P. del Consiglio at Verona, by Fra Giocondo, 1476; Capella Colleoni, Bergamo, 1476; S. M. in Organo, Verona, 1481; Porta Capuana, Naples, by Giul. da Majano, 1484; Madonna della Croce, Crema, by B. Battagli, 1490-1556; Madonna di Campagna and S. Sisto, Piacenza, both 1492-1511; P. Bevilacqua, Bologna, by Nardi, 1492 (?); P. Gravina, Naples; P. Fava, Bologna; P. Pretorio, Lucca; S. M. dei Miracoli Brescia; all at close of 15th century.

16TH CENTURY--ROME: P. Sora, 1501; S. M. della Pace and cloister, 1504, both by Bramante (facade of church by P. da Cortona, 17th century); S. M. di Loreto, 1507, by A. da San Gallo the Elder; P. Vidoni, by Raphael; P. Lante, 1520; Vigna Papa Giulio, 1534, by Peruzzi; P. dei Conservatori, 1540, and P. del Senatore, 1563 (both on Capitol), by M. Angelo, Vignola, and della Porta; Sistine Chapel in S. M. Maggiore, 1590; S. Andrea della Valle, 1591, by Olivieri (facade, 1670, by Rainaldi).--FLORENCE: Medici Chapel of S. Lorenzo, new sacristy of same, and Laurentian Library, all by M. Angelo, 1529-40; Mercato Nuovo, 1547, by B. Ta.s.so; P. degli Uffizi, 1560-70, by Vasari; P. Giugni, 1560-8.--VENICE: P. Camerlinghi, 1525, by Bergamasco; S. Francesco della Vigna, by Sansovino, 1539, facade by Palladio, 1568; Zecca or Mint, 1536, and Loggetta of Campanile, 1540, by Sansovino[25], Procurazie Nuove, 1584, by Scamozzi.--VERONA: Capella Pellegrini in S. Bernardino, 1514; City Gates, by Sammichele, 1530-40 (Porte Nuova, Stuppa, S. Zeno, S. Giorgio).--VICENZA: P. Porto, 1552; Teatro Olimpico, 1580; both by Palladio.--GENOA: P. Andrea Doria, by Montorsoli, 1529; P. Ducale, by Pennone, 1550; P. Lercari, P. Spinola, P. Sauli, P. Marcello Durazzo, all by Gal. Alessi, cir. 1550; Sta. Annunziata, 1587, by della Porta; Loggia dei Banchi, end of 16th century.--ELSEWHERE (in chronological order).

P. Roverella, Ferrara, 1508; P. del Magnifico, Sienna, 1508, by Cozzarelli; P. Communale, Brescia, 1508, by Formentone; P. Albergati, Bologna, 1510; P. Ducale, Mantua, 1520-40; P. Giustiniani, Padua, by Falconetto, 1524; Ospedale del Ceppo, Pistoia, 1525; Madonna delle Grazie, Pistoia, by Vitoni, 1535; P. Buoncampagni-Ludovisi, Bologna, 1545; Cathedral, Padua, 1550, by Righetti and della Valle, after M. Angelo; P. Bernardini, 1560, and P. Ducale, 1578, at Lucca, both by Ammanati.

[Footnote 25: See Appendix B.]

17TH CENTURY: Chapel of the Princes in S. Lorenzo, Florence, 1604, by Nigetti; S. Pietro, Bologna, 1605; S. Andrea delle Fratte, Rome, 1612; Villa Borghese, Rome, 1616, by Vasanzio; P. Contarini delle Scrigni, Venice, by Scamozzi; Badia at Florence, rebuilt 1625 by Segaloni; S. Ign.a.z.io, Rome, 1626-85; Museum of the Capitol, Rome, 1644-50; Church of Gli Scalzi, Venice, 1649; P. Pesaro, Venice, by Longhena, 1650; S. Moise, Venice, 1668; Brera Palace, Milan; S. M. Zobenigo, Venice, 1680; Dogana di Mare, Venice, 1686, by Benone; Santi Apostoli, Rome.

18TH AND EARLY 19TH CENTURY: Gesuati, at Venice, 1715-30; S. Geremia, Venice, 1753, by Corbellini; P. Braschi, Rome, by Morelli, 1790; Nuova Fabbrica, Venice, 1810.