the great structures in architecture - from antiquity to baroque

WITeLibraryHome of the Transactions of the Wessex Institute, the WIT electronic-library provides the international scientific community with immediate and

permanent access to individual papers presented at WIT conferences. Visit the WIT eLibrary at http://library.witpress.com

WIT Press publishes leading books in Science and Technology.Visit our website for the current list of titles.

www.witpress.com

The Great Structuresin Architecture

Antiquity to Baroque

The field of architecture has experienced considerable advances in the last few years, many of them connectedwith new methods and processes, the development of faster and better computer systems and a new interestin our architectural heritage. It is to bring such advances to the attention of the international community thatthis book series has been established. The object of the series is to publish state-of-the-art information onarchitectural topics with particular reference to advances in new fields, such as virtual architecture, intelligentsystems, novel structural forms, material technology and applications, restoration techniques, movable andlightweight structures, high rise buildings, architectural acoustics, leisure structures, intelligent buildings andother original developments. The Advances in Architecture series consists of a few volumes per year, eachunder the editorship - by invitation only - of an outstanding architect or researcher. This commitment is backedby an illustrious Editorial Board. Volumes in the Series cover areas of current interest or active research andinclude contributions by leaders in the field.

International Series on International Series on International Series on International Series on International Series on AAAAAdddddvvvvvananananances in Architectureces in Architectureces in Architectureces in Architectureces in Architecture

Honorary EditorHonorary EditorHonorary EditorHonorary EditorHonorary EditorC. A. Brebbia

Wessex Institute of TechnologyAshurst Lodge, Ashurst

SouthamptonUK

Honorary EditorHonorary EditorHonorary EditorHonorary EditorHonorary EditorP. R. VazquezFuentes 170

Pedregal de San Angel01900 Mexico D.E.

Mexico

ObjectivesObjectivesObjectivesObjectivesObjectives

Associate EditorsAssociate EditorsAssociate EditorsAssociate EditorsAssociate Editors

Managing EditorManaging EditorManaging EditorManaging EditorManaging EditorF. Escrig

Escuela de ArquitecturaUniversidad de Sevilla

Spain

W. P. De WildeFree University of BrusselBelgium

J. ChiltonUniversity of NottinghamUK

C. AlessandriUniversity of FerraraItaly

M. MajowieckiUniversity of BolognaItaly

M. ZadorTechnical University of BudapestHungary

A. de NaeyerUniversity of GhentBelgium

K. IshiiYokohamaJapan

F. ButeraDI Tec, Politecnico di MilanoItaly

G. CrociIstituto di Tecnica delle CostruzioniItaly

W. JägerTechnical University of DresdenGermany

S. Sánchez-BeitiaUniversity of the BasqueCountry, Spain

R. ZarnicUniversity of LjubljanaSlovenia

C. GantesNational Technical University of AthensGreece

J. J. SendraUniversidad de SevillaSpain

K. GhavamiPontifica Univ CatolicaBrazil


F. EscrigUniversidad de Sevilla, Spain


Published by

WIT PressAshurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK

Tel: 44 (0) 238 029 3223; Fax: 44 (0) 238 029 2853E-Mail: [email protected]

http://www.witpress.com

For USA, Canada and Mexico

WIT Press25 Bridge Street, Billerica, MA 01821, USA

Tel: 978 667 5841; Fax: 978 667 7582E-Mail: [email protected]

http://www.witpress.com

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A Catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library

ISBN: 1-84564-039-XISSN: 1368-1435

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2004116314

No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher, the Editors and Authors for any injury and/or damage to persons orproperty as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods,

products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.

© WIT Press 2006.

Printed in Great Britain by Athenaeum Press Ltd.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written

permission of the Publisher.


Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol. 22

F. Escrig


CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ vii

Chapter 1: STONES RESTING ON EMPTY SPACE............................................................................1

Chapter 2: THE INVENTION OF THE DOME.....................................................................................21

Chapter 3: THE HANGING DOME......................................................................................................45

Chapter 4: THE RIBBED DOME .........................................................................................................65

Chapter 5: A PLANIFIED REVENGE. UNDER THE SHADOW OF BRUNELLESCHI.......................96

Chapter 6: THE CENTURY OF THE GREAT ARCHITECTS ...........................................................120

Chapter 7: THE OMNIPRESENT SINAN..........................................................................................150

Chapter 8: EVEN FURTHER ............................................................................................................168

Chapter 9: THE PERFECT SYMBIOSES FORM-FUNCTION IN THE HIGH BAROQUE ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................................................180

Chapter 10: SCENOGRAPHICAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE 18TH CENTURY.................................209

Chapter 11: THE VIRTUAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE RENAISSANCE AND THE BAROQUE ......................................................................................................................243

This page intentionally left blank

I have always found amazing the fact that someone inthe past spent his time piling stones up to mark or todelimit an area. But I get even more astonished whenI come to think that somebody dared to live within thatpile of stones and, in addition, felt safer inside it thanoutside. That leads me to the conclusion that in thosedays people had to have a great faith in their own skillto take shelter in the shade of a wall of rough stonesand that they fully relied on the physical laws to dareto live under a slab canopy.

You could think that to build a dolmen, people onlyneeded enough energy to move the huge stones itwas made of, its stability being guaranteed by theinertia of those colossal masses. But when someonefirst succeeded in making a ceiling of pebbles,supported by a material as weak as mud, thatrepresented a step forward as great as the control offire. Nevertheless, that must have happened so longago that no mythology tells about a God owning thepower to keep stones floating in the air. The Bibleconsiders the existence of domes so obvious that notonly does it not mention it, but when an arch or atemple is to be made, wooden architraves are used,choosing the noble building way instead of thepopular brick based architecture. Neither do theBabylonian legends mention anything referring toarchitecture. And the Egyptians either, since theydeified the human architect that constructed Zoser’spyramids. Greek mythology makes reference to allthe forces of nature and to all the human passionsand liking, but not to architecture. The Nordic ancientcultures, more primitive, can deify the axe because itis an instrument for wood building, which they neverdo with architecture itself. And we could go on withthe Oriental mythologies with similar results.

Why does something so important stay outside theconsideration of men? In my previous book Towersand Domes I advanced some hypotheses, but I mustinsist on the instrumental character of the domesticarchitecture and on the symbolic character of the greatarchitecture as a means to achieve other objectives.

INTRODUCTION

We could also think that architecture is somethingso recent that it appeared when the legendary corpusof tradition was already finished, so that everything tobe added to tradition would show an unmistakablyhuman character.

In case that is right, this book tries to start from theearly origins without fearing to ignore undocumentedprecedents, but the historical sequence reveals itselfas tricky. In any case, what is left is the proof of theexistence of these works, which have evolved in aprogressive and sequential order as mentioned.

The story that I tell, which starts in antiquity andfinishes in the Baroque in this first volume, and reachesto the present time in the volume to follow, intends toreflect on the great adventure of architecture. Everymatter is open to opinions and everything isobjectionable. That is settled. But from the viewpointof someone who practices architecture, this text willpossibly serve to better understand the monuments,to get closer to them and find out whether they shouldbe conserved or modified, and to be humbler whenthinking that our tools are all-powerful. If we realisedthat our advantage is based in the fact that we havenew materials invented by chemists and that in usingsun-cooked bricks our results would not be differentto those of Babylonian craftsmen, we would be moremodest. Instead of committing outrages favoured bythe resistance of concrete and steel, we could studythe importance of the forms and its optimisation.

This page intentionally left blank

1

Stones Resting on Empty Space

Huge limestone rocky formations that end on theMediterranean coasts penetrate the continent, shapingsteep and stony landscapes. Among them sandy,usually dry waterbeds, wind their way down and leadthe water of rivers that have their source far inland.

Some of the oldest civilisations bloomed in those rockydeserts and have survived keeping themselves on thethin layer of earth resulting from the action of weatherover the stones. This was a world of shepherds in whichthe kindness of the weather allowed them to be partiallysedentary, a world of fishermen and navigators whoseknowledge of the Earth was confined to the rockyshores and the silky beaches, a world of soldiers thatsnatched out of their neighbours what their fieldslacked, a world of explorers in pursuit of paradisesthat inspired their epic poets.

The Palaeolithic civilisation was based on very limitedresources and a slowly made culture zealously passedon from one generation to the next.

In other countries other great civilisations were growingaround true orchards watered by mighty rivers or onvast plains. But the Mediterranean people had tostruggle for every inch of ground to sow their seeds,clearing the surface of stones, terracing the steepslopes, or carrying back to the terraces the little earththat had slipped to the bottom of the ravines, andutilising every source of water available to water thegrapevines, the olive, the almond and the fig trees. Itwas in this poor but well used space where one of thegreater structural revolutions took place.

There were few woods and the little wood of use forthe construction, such as that of pine trees, was asvaluable as a treasure, though the climate made itprone to fire and rotting.

Reeds are good as planking and are more resistant,and the adobe and the earth building provided stabilityand protection. Some types of impermeable clay aregood as layers on the reed covers and, on occasions,an incomplete firing provides rudimentary tiles notmuch better than mud walls.

Chapter 1. STONES RESTING ON EMPTY SPACE

In any case, the abounding lime is good to make everymaterial impermeable and lend it cohesion. The typicalMediterranean house was at first no more than amodest cabin made of flat walls with small holesblocked up with boards as windows and a flat reed orboard roof. The prismatic modules could be attachedto each other to make better use of walls. In this waya city was born, growing along more or less straightstreets with walls like fish backbones. The doorsopened into streets along which ran traffic, waste andpeople, who found in them a public and open place asan extension of the small cubicles they lived in.

The cattle shared the streets with trade, policy andculture. This primitive Mediterranean house did not havean interior courtyard. That is a later invention whoseorigin can be found in the country houses related tofarming and cattle farming. This form of constructionis very similar to those developed by other civilisationssince it was almost spontaneous.

At the same time there was a more complex andpermanent architecture, that made of stones. Thisconstructive system is based on the ease of limestoneblocks to fragment in angular and flat pieces, easy topile up and very steady once piled. Walls can be madeof stones as well as primitive tiles.

But although the walls admit a certain sloping, theproblem to close convex enclosures must be solvedby means of wooden beams. The great structuraldiscovery was the horizontal covering by means ofthe stone advance. The result has been called falsevault, or false dome, as it could have been called falselylintelled. All of them are negative terms that in a certainway reveal that language apostatises regrets of a greatcultural contribution. The English people refer to“corbelled” in a positive way, although they rarely usedthis type of construction, which should be called“advanced course domes”.

We are not talking about megalithic monuments, madeof great granite or sandstone blocks such as the Caveof Menga, the Temple at Stonehenge or the Minorca’sTaulas. We are talking about structures mostly made

2

The Great Structures in Architecture

Fig. 1.2. Plan and section of the Cave of El Romeral, in Antequera (Mata Carriazo).

Fig. 1.1. Schematic section of the Cave of El Romeral, in Antequera (Escrig).

of rough stone pieces light enough to be moved withoutthe help of great tools, that is to say rubble work.Near Menga, in Antequera, is the Cave of El Romeral,one of the most perfect constructions of advancedcourse domes. Dating approximately from 4500 yearsago it is a burial mound. Its central room is 5.20 m indiameter and 3.9 m high. The headstone consists of astone of great size very like other archaic works, andthe whole construction, that is completed with anaccess corridor and a smaller chamber, is covered bya mound of earth which has helped to preserve it inperfect condition. Fig. 1.1 shows a general view of themonument, whereas Fig. 1.2 shows a sectional viewin its present state. The pictures of Fig. 1.3 to 1.6 givean idea of the perfection of the bond that has recentlybeen partially restored. Many are the domes madefrom this model scattered all over Europe as proof ofthe capacity of navigators, explorers and soldiers tospread culture and techniques. In Portugal there arevast number of tombs with corridors made in a simplerway with great slabs (Fig. 1.7).

Minorca has impressive megalithic vaults inconstructions reaching two floors, as Naveta delTudons (Figs. 1.8 and 1.9), that does not have a whollyrounded cover because its constructors just let thewalls tilt inwards, shortening the span of the closingstones. This happened about 1500 BC, a thousandyears after El Romeral; the Mediterranean zoneabounds in this type of construction dating from thesame time. At Los Millares (Fig. 1.10), at Ontiveros,Matarrubilla or La Pastora (Fig. 1.11) in the El Aljarafezone in Seville, as well as in the South of France, inthe Mediterranean Italian islands, and in general inevery country under the “calcareous curse”, this systemhas remained until today.

Nevertheless, about 1350 BC, this technique wasdeveloped in the Peloponnesus to such an extent thatperfect domes of advanced courses could be built.The Treasure of Atreo had the greatest dome everconstructed until it was surpassed by Agrippa’sPantheon a thousand years later. The Treasure of Atreo,

3


Fig. 1.3. Corridor of access to the Cave of El Romeral, in Antequera(Escrig).

Fig. 1.4. Door of access to the main chamber of the Cave of ElRomeral, in Antequera (Escrig).

Fig. 1.5. Stone disposition of the main chamber of the Cave of ElRomeral, in Antequera (Escrig).

Fig. 1.6. Access to the second chamber of the Cave of El Romeral,and covering slab (Escrig).

4


Fig. 1.7. Domed tombs sketches from Portugal (Fletcher).

Fig. 1.8. Outer view of Naveta dels Tudons, in Minorca (Salvat).

Fig. 1.10a and b. Tholos of Los Millares in Almeria.

Fig. 1.9. Inner view of Naveta dels Tudons, in Minorca (Salvat).

also named Agamemnon’s Tomb, in Mycenae, is acircular enclosure 14.6 m in diameter and 13.5 m high.Its access through a brief covered gallery and apassage between embankments, lends it a movingmagnificence. The cross section is almost parabolicalthough its pointing in the headstone reveals anattempt to improve its stability as if it was an ogivalprofile (Fig.1.12). The vault is made of carved stonesof almost one tonne in a perfect bond that revealseither a great command of stereotomy techniques ora later carving of its inner part to level its surface andto get it decorated (Fig. 1.13). The curved lintel andthe discharging arch prove a good knowledge of buildingproblems (Fig. 1.14). The covering mound of earthmakes it stable and probably served to contain theramps along which the stones were lifted (Fig. 1.15).

At this point one has to wonder what was the staticworking of this system of stones bonding over emptyspace and why, though being structurally correct, itwas not included in the later cultured architecture, evenmore since this system was not surpassed by anyother made up of stones until the French Romanesquevaults.

In Ref. 26 Syrmakezis analyses some recent Greekconstructions and makes a detailed exposition of itsbalance. For a linear construction with prismatic blockssee (Fig. 1.16), and the following equations:

Fig. 1.11. Cave of Ontiveros, in Valencina near Seville (Escrig).

Fig. 1.12. Schematic detail from the Treasure of Atreo, in Mycenae (Escrig).

Fig. 1.15. Entrance and covering mound of the Treasure ofAtreo (Escrig).

Fig. 1.13. Detail of the access to the main chamber of the Treasureof Atreo, including the lintel and the discharging arch.

Fig. 1.14. Stone bound of the dome of the Treasure of Atreo, inMycenae (Escrig).

[1.1]

[1.2]

[1.4]

[1.3]

This does not depend on the height of blocks (Figs.1.17 and 1.18). In this case all the stones are identical.

[1.5]

W a

ab

i v ii

v

i ii

( )+=

− ≤

= +

∑ 1

1

0

2

β

β

aW

Wv

i ii

v

ii

v+=

=

=∑

∑1

1

1

β

β v vvab

+ ++= +1 1

1

2

�

��

�

�

+=

= ∑�

�

� β

5


Fig. 1.19. Scheme of the projection with a decreasing numberof blocks (Syrmakezis).

Fig. 1.16. Balance scheme of the prismatic blocks projection(Syrmakezis).

[1.6]

[1.7]

[1.10]

[1.11]

[1.8]

[1.9]

Figs. 1.17 and 1.18. Independence of the projection withregards to the thickness of the pieces, for the projectionsbalance analysis (Syrmakezis).

[1.12]

[1.13]� �

�

� �

�

� �

�

� � � � � �

� � �

− = − = − =� �

a a bvv v+ − =1

�

�

��

� ��

�

�

�

+== + ⋅

+

∑�

�

�

�

��

� �

�

� �

�

� �

�

� � � � � �

� �

− = − = − =� �

d d i di = + ⋅ Δ

a bd a d ia

vd v v dv

ii

v

ii

v

+= == + ⋅

+

+ +

∑ ∑1

1 1

22

2 1

Δ

Δ( )

If as it happens in many mounds, the courses have aback counterweight made of earth or rubble (Fig. 1.20)the formulas [1.1] to [1.5] become

� �

�

�� + − =

�

�

Which means that in case

a ba d

dv

i ii

v

ii

v+=

=

= +∑

∑1

1

1

2

In case we considered decreasing rows insteadstraight rows, being d and and hi constant (Fig. 1.19),the formula becomes

Which leads to

Meaning that

,....2,..., 21 dddd Δ=Δ=

6


Fig. 1.20. Balance of projections made of isolated blocks, balancedwith a rear load (Syrmakezis).

aW W

W Wv

i ii

v

i ii

v

i ii

v+= =

=

=+

+ ′

∑ ∑

∑1

1 1

1

β β ' '

( )

[1.14]

[1.15]

[1.16]

[1.17]

[1.18]

av a b a

v a b av

v ii

v

v ii

v+=

=

=+ −

+ −

∑

∑1

2 2

1

1

1

2

( )

( )

rW

Wv

i ii

v

ii

v+=

=

=∑

∑1

1

1

1

cosϕ

β

rW W

W Wv

i ii

v

i ii

v

i ii

v+= =

=

=+

+ ′

∑ ∑

∑1

1 1

1

1

cos

' '

( )ϕ

β β

β ϕϕ�

� � � �

� �

��

= + ++

�

�

� �

Fig. 1.21. Scheme for the study of the balance of circular shapeddecreasing stone courses (Syrmakezis).

[1.21]

[1.22]

[1.20]

[1.23]

[1.24]

[1.25]

[1.27]

[1.26]

[1.19]

′ = +r r bi i i

′ = +R r bi v v

W a W ai v ii

v

i v ii

v

( ) ' ( ' )+=

+=

− + − ≤∑ ∑1

1

1

1

0β β

W y b d hi i i i= ⋅

Which being bbi = becomes

β ϕϕi

i i i i

i i

sen R R r rR r

=+ +

+2

3

2 2

W y h R ri i i i= +ϕ ( )2 2

� � � � � �

= ′ + ′πϕ � ��

W y d h a b a bi i i v v i i' ( )= ⋅ + − −π

β� �

�

�

�= +�

If starting from this premise, we wanted to face thereal problem of the Treasure of Atreo (Fig. 1.21) withouttaking into account the stabilising earth weight.

If we counted on the existence of the backcounterweight

If we knew therefore the size of every stone that makesup the thirty-three advanced courses, its density andthe density and height of the filling material we woulddirectly obtain from the previous expressions theoptimal profile of the vault.

In Ref. 25 Symakezis has developed a calculationprogram that from the previous parameters andincluding the stones resistance to flexo-compressionand to cutting effort, allows us to develop the stableprofile considering the static and structural stability,though the table only reaches a height of 4 m and aspan of 5 m, as is shown in Fig. 1.22, where the stableprofiles appear in shade.

If we consider that the voussoirs are carved in a wedgeshape and therefore the problem of the flexion or thecutting one are of no importance, we will be able tochange the scale to fit the size of the Treasure of Atreo,locating its profile in the zone of suggested stability ofFig. 1.23.

Being

7


8


Fig. 1.25.a and b. Different outer views of a present Cretandome (Syrmakezis).

Fig. 1.24. Analysis of present Cretan constructions. Typical section(Syrmakezis).

Fig. 1.25.c and d. Different inner views of a present Cretandome (Syrmakezis).

Fig. 1.23. Scheme or the stability zone and the profile position ofthe Treasure of Atreo (Escrig).

Fig. 1.22. Calculation of the stable profiles for domes of projectedstones (Syrmakezis).

Syrmakezis has analysed Cretan constructions datingfrom the beginning of the XXth century, which areinfinitely more modest and made of rough stones fittingalso the profiles in the mentioned stable limits(Fig. 1.24).

9


Fig. 1.26. Different types of shepherd huts from the Levantine Maestrazgo, in Castellon. (García Lisón)

10


Fig. 1.27a, b, c, d and e. Different views of some shepherd huts in Castellón (Escrig).

11


Fig. 1.28a, b and c. Different views of the inner stone disposition of some shepherd huts (Escrig).

12


Fig. 1.29a and b. Present views of the Italian Trulli.

13


Fig. 1.29c. General view of Alberobello.

Fig. 1.30. The Trulli as a tourist attraction, in Alberobello.

Fig. 1.25 shows different building aspects wherein eventhe superposed lintels in substitution of the dischargingarches can be seen.

The disappearance of this structural type that hascountless advantages seems inexplicable:

a) Admits stones without carving.b) Construction without need for a temporary support.c) No need for horizontal thrust.d) Neither flexion nor cracking zones.e) Possibility of openings in the surface without

altering its tensional state.

14


Fig. 1.35a. and 1.35b. Recent project to build a Borie (Escrig).

Fig. 1.32. Stonehenge aereal view in Salisbury in England.

Fig. 1.34a. Group of Bories in Sarlat, in the French region ofPerigord (Escrig).

Fig. 1.31. Evolution of the Trulli (Vernice).

Fig. 1.34b. Inner aspect of a Borie, a stone cabin, in Sarlat (Escrig).

Fig. 1.33. Oratory of Gallarus, in Ireland.

SECONDARY FORM

COMPOSED FORM

15


Its hypothetical disadvantages, such as too muchthickness and weight and its high camber, do not seemenough reasons to think of it as obsolescent, evenmore considering that in the Treasure we find the firstpointed arch, preceding the exquisite medieval works.The main thing is that in the time of maximumsplendour of their culture, Greek people, though havingto hand these examples, possibly by the hundreds,preferred a much more primitive system with columnand lintel or strut and brace, whose vegetal precedentsthey did not try to hide. Fortunately for the advancedcourses domes, the Mediterranean Hellenizationhardly reached a few kilometres from the coast and inthe interior of the countries, where the only fruit to beharvested from the ground consisted of stones, theshepherds and the farmers of those dry places keptthe tradition.

The Levantine Maestrazgo has examples andcraftsmen who still follow that system. Ref. 14 showsa wide analysis of its different types and its usefulness(Fig. 1.26). Fig 1.27 shows some examples, that haveextremely disordered bonds (Fig. 1.28).

In Apulia, beside the Adriatic sea, in the town ofAlberobello the so-called Trulli (Fig. 1.29) are still builtand have become one of the main tourist attractionsof the place. According to legend, the principal reasonfor this way of building was the necessity to evade thetax on houses. When the collector appeared in thetown he only found rubble piles for which, evidently,he could not demand payment. No sooner did hedisappear than the stones were return to their originalplace since these vaults could practically be takenapart, so that a construction of a four metres spancould be rebuilt in two or three days at the most by apair of workers. Apart from this suggested explanation,we are again talking about pointed profiles stableenough to resist an earth tremor: in any case, easy torebuild. Ref. 31 deals in more detail with this interestingtype of very flat limestone stones whose schematicevolution can be seen in Fig. 1.31.

Now we are going to spend more time in everygeographic spot where these limestone eggs havegrown. But we cannot forget that the British Isles,paradoxically involved in the commerce of tin sinceearly times, have clear examples that share theterritory with the great megalithic monuments ofStonehenge and Avebury in England, Yvias in France(Fig. 1.32), and New Grange, Dowth and Knouth, inIreland, between 2500 and 1700 BC.

The medieval Irish monks had built vaults withprotruding stone profiles since the 7th century as, forinstance, in the Gallarus oratory, in Dingle (Fig. 1.33).

In the centre of France constructions exist verysimilar to the Trulli, called Bories, that can be addedto the long list previously mentioned. In Salat can befound the very well made Breuil cabins (Fig. 1.34) that

Fig. 1.36a and b. House in La Mancha in Spain. Outer and innerview (Jarque).

Fig. 1.37a and b. Terraced houses in Menorca in Spain. Outherand inner view (Jarque).

in some cases have a kind of mezzanine and windowsof a certain complexity. The attempts to reproducethe technique today have not been too satisfactory(Fig. 1.35).

Better constructions can be found nowadays, suchas those in La Mancha (Spain), with more regularcourses and using mud as a settling element, which

16


Fig. 1.39. Beehive house in Syria. Section of a dome.

Fig. 1.38. Beehive house in Syria. Plan of the whole building.

Fig. 1.40. Etruscan tomb in Casale Maritimo. Inner view of thedisposition and the symbolic central support (Ortega).

Fig. 1.41. Etruscan tomb in Montagnola. General view, sectionand plan.

gives them more stiffness (Fig. 1.35). In Minorca,ziggurat-like terraced constructions of great beautyare presently used (Fig. 1.36), whereas in Provenceconstructions of a large size and perfect carving arestill being built (Fig. 1.37).

In the Middle East too, though almost solely in Syria,the so-called Beehive Houses that are based on thesame principles but made of bricks are still built [Ref.20 ]. They gather in similar units of repetitive shape,forming houses with interior courtyards packed withvarious rooms (Fig. 1.38). Each dome rests on a squarebase (sometimes round) of brick or stone whose innerdimensions go up to 5 x 5 m. The 80 cm thick wallssupport the staggered brick dome that rises up to aninner height of 3.5 to 4.5 m (Fig. 1.39). When the pieceis rectangular it is divided by means of a central archthat allows the support of a pair of domes. A greatconstruction uses four to five thousand bricks of 25 x46 x 7 cm and a team of workers spends about 10 to15 days in its building.

With this list of places it is not the intention to exhaustthe subject, which is impossible anyway, since thereis little published about it, due to researchers’ lack ofinterest. A last question before ending: why the powerfulensuing civilisations went for less efficient systems?The Egyptians, great stone builders, used advancedcourses arches that ran along covering narrowcorridors. The Babylonian empires went for mud, whichthey had in abundance, the Greeks had more aestheticthan technical sensitivity and the Romans discoveredthe voussoirs dome, considering it a pattern suitableenough to tirelessly repeat it.

17


Fig. 1.42. Etruscan tumuli in Cervetery.

Fig. 1.43. General view of the temple of Bruvanesvar (Schlaich).

18


Only their predecessors, the Etruscans, made anattempt to connect with tradition, in some tombs likethe Tholos of Casale Maritimo (Fig. 1.40), theMontagnola tomb (Fig. 1.41) from 600 BC, or the burialmounds of Cervetery (Fig. 1.42), all of them with an

Fig. 1.45. Picture of 19th Century of the city of Varanasi.

Fig. 1.44. Elevation and sections of the temple of Bruvanesvar(Stierlin).

imposing inner support of symbolic character since itdid not have any influence on the structure.Other later important cultures, such as the SouthAsians in their pagodas and stupas and the Aztec intheir temples, put into practice part of the principles ofthe protruding stones.

Indian constructions are also built according to theadvanced courses vaulting principle, achieving suchspectacular results that it is not easy to choose asingle example. Fig. 1.43 shows an impressive pic-ture of the temple of Bhruvanesvar, whereas in Fig.1.44 its elevation and sections can be seen. Fig. 1.45shows a 19th century picture of the town of Varanasi.The thorough examination of the resistence principlesof temples and stupas goes beyond the goals set bythe author, however tempting that task could be.

Crocci (Ref. 10), mainly because of his work as arestorer, is the author who has most studied thesetypes of monuments from the structural viewpoint, find-ing that most of the problems arise from floor shifting,which causes wall leaning (Fig. 1.46).

Besides, this fact leads to an increase of the shearstresses in the horizontal contact surface betweenthe blocks (Fig. 1.47).

Fig. 1.46. Effects of the outward rotation of the base in a corbelledarch (Croci).

Fig. 1.47. Variation of the shear forces in a corbelled arch due torotation of the base (Croci).

19


Fig. 1.48. Possible layout of transversal chains and tie-bars tostrengthen a tower (Croci).

Fig. 1.49. Stresses in a corbelled dry block tower (Croci).

Fig. 1.50. Possible function of the iron beams in the Sury temple(Croci).

Fig. 1.51. A bird´s eye view of the Nuraghe Santu Antine (Robertiand Spina).

Fig. 1.52. Velocity vectors and contact closures at collapse forthe dome built without backfill.

If we took a nostalgic glance at so many techniquesthat were lost by ignorance or intellectual impositionwe would find in the advanced courses domes a non-recoverable example. Today it would not make anysense using materially economic but labour intensivesystems. Maybe other cultures thought somethingalike. But knowledge is a great pleasure that may havein those cupolas an exotic ingredient unknown by mostpeople.

This last consequence forces Crocci to use strongmetallic elements (Fig. 1.48), since he considers thestructure working as Fig. 1.49 shows in a simplifiedway.

Nevertheless, even though the Fig. 1. 50 reinforcementseems suitable, it is a contradiction in structural termsthat affects the system concept.

The more precise analysis of a tholos in Sardinia (Ref.25), carried out by Roberti and Spina using the FiniteElement Method, considers the following elements:

(i) independent blocks, (ii) deformable contacts and(iii) an explicit time-domain solution of the originalequations of motion. In the tholos considered, theNuraghe Santu Antine in Sardinia (Fig. 1.51), it hasbeen used as a method that considers the fabric sta-bility as a rigid solid.

20


1. BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. “Arte Antiguo del AsiaAnterior”. Sevilla, Universidad, 1975.

2. BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. “Arte Griego”. Madrid,C.S.I.C., 1984.

3. BOËTHIUS, A. “Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture”. Yale University Press, USA, 1994.

4. CARRIAZO, J. de la M. “ArquitecturePrehistórica”. Cartillas de Arquitectura Española,Madrid, 1929.

5. CHASSAGNOUX, A. “Persian vaultedArchitecture: Morphology and equilibrium of vaultsunder static and dynamic loads”. StructuralStudies of Historical Buildings IV. ComputationalMechanics Pub, Southampton, 1995.

6. COLL, G., GONZÁLEZ, R., HOLTZMAN, B. “Elgran arte de la Arquitectura. Roma”.

7. CONANT, K.J. “Arquitectura Carolingia yRománica. 800-1200”. Manuales Arte Cátedra,Madrid, 1982.

8. CORZO SANCHEZ, R. “La antigüedad. Historiadel Arte en Andalucía”. T. I. Sevilla, Gever, 1989.

9. CHILDE, G. “Los orígenes de la civilización”.México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1954.

10.CROCI,G.”The conservation and structuralRestoration of Architectural Heritage”. WIT Press,1998.

11.DANIEL, G. “Conjuntos megalíticos”, enInvestigación y Ciencia, 48 (Septiembre, 1980),pp. 42-52.

12.ESCRIG, F. “Domes and Towers in Architecture”.Computational Mechanics Pub, Southampton,1998.

13.FLETCHER’S, B. “A history of Architecture”.Butterworths. 19 ed., London, 1987.

14.GARCIA LISON, M., ZARAGOZA CATALAN, A.“Arquitectura Rural primitiva en Sec”. Temesd’Etnografía Valenciana. Institut Alfons elMagnanim, 1982.

15.GIMENEZ REINA, S. “Los Dólmenes deAntequera”. Biblioteca Antequera. Caja de Ahorrosde Antequera, 1974.

16.GUIDONI, E. “Arquitectura primitiva”. Madrid,Aguilar, 1980.

17.HEINLE, E. & LEONHART, F. “ Tours du mondeentiere” Livre Total, 1989.

REFERENCES OF CHAPTER 1

18.JARQUE, F. “L´habitatge temporal. L´ome i lapedra 2.” Universidad de Valencia, 2004.

19.MATA CARRIAZO, J. “Arquitectura Prehistórica”.Cartillas de Arquitectura Española I, Madrid,1929.

20.LLOYD, S. & MULLER, H.W. “Arquitectura delos orígenes”. Madrid, Aguilar, 1980.

21.ORTEGA ANDRADE, F. “Historias de laConstrucción. Mesopotamia, Egipto, Grecia yEtruria. Libro Primero”. Publicaciones de laUniversidad de Las Palmas, 1993.

22.PIJOAN, J. “Historia del Arte”. Tomo I. Ed. Salvat,1974.

23.RENFREW, C. “Arqueología social de losmonumentos megalíticos”, Investigación yCiencia, 88 (Enero, 1984), pp. 70-79.

24.RIBA, D. & MOULIN, J. “El enigma de los primerosconstructores”. Barcelona, Libroexpres, 1981.

25.ROBERTI, M.G. & SPINA,O. “Discrete elementanalysis on the Sardinian Nuraghe” HistoricalConstructions 2001.Guimaraes.Universidad ofMinho. Portugal, 2001, pp.719-727.

26.SYRMAKEZIS, C. “Domes in Creta”. MuseoCretense de Etnología, 1988 (in Greek).

27.SOUZA GOIS, M.I. “Cúpulas de Tierra”. MasterThesis ETSA de Sevilla. Prof. Escrig, 1995. Notpublished.

28.STIERLIN, H. “Encyclopedia of WorldArchitecture”. Taschen, 1977.

29.TRACHTENBERG, M. & HYMAN, I. “Arquitectura.De la Prehistoria a la Modernidad”. Akal, Arte yCiencia, 1990.

30.VELAZQUEZ BOSCO, R. “Cámaras sepulcralesdescubiertas en término de Antequera”. Revistade Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, n1 9. 1905.

31.VERNICE, B. “Los Trulli”. Primer Congreso deHistoria de la Construcción, Madrid, 1996, pp.515-523.

21

The Invention of the Dome

Chapter 2. THE INVENTION OF THE DOME

Without doubt, the invention of the arch, according tothe remains found in excavations, must be attributedto any of the civilisations that developed in the MiddleEast. There the earth has no end and dust and mudare the only materials that separate men from floodsand that can lift them up closer to the sky. Mud andbushes are the only available materials to make thetrousseau or the former means of writing and to buildhouses, palaces and fortifications.

The arch became the only feasible form for coveringthe empty space between two walls with a softmaterial, and it was profusely used as an alternativeto palm tree trunk beams or plaited reed beams.Physically constructed arches can be found inKhorsabad, in the Palace of Sargon (722 BC) or inNiniva (Fig. 2.1). From the arch to the vault there isonly the requirement of a bigger framework, which couldnot be an obstacle in great works, such as that of apalace, but certainly was a problem in more popularones, as in expensive civil works. That is why, inaddition to the building techniques, of the vaults otherexamples can be found not requiring provisional

support. For instance, in Fig. 2.2 can be seen a smallbrick covering at Tell al Rimah (2100 BC), in whichone brick supports the following one with the aim ofsaving the construction of shoring. The same system,though better organised, was used in the Khosabadsewers (Fig. 2.3). But vaults are linear elements, in acertain way a prolongation of arches, which were knownby all the civilisations.

Curiously enough, whereas in false vaults and archesa pointed shape is required, in true vaults and archesthe semicircular shape is chosen from the beginning,which shows that the passage from the former to thelatter is obligatory in the search of more harmoniousgeometries.

The Greeks in Olympia (Fig. 2.4) and the Etruscansin Volterra (Fig. 2.5) showed a skill in accurate stonecarving that, if not surprising, is solid proof of a buil-ding maturity.

In contrast, none of them shows clear proof of the useof domes, that is to say the revolutionary new form.

Fig. 2.1a. Ishstar gate of the Palace of Niniva in Babylon. Previousstate.

Fig. 2.1b. Ishtar gate of the Palace of Niniva in Babylon.Reconstruction.

22


Fig. 2.2. Brick dome in Tell al Rimah.

Fig. 2.3. Drain under Palace Plattform in Khorsabad.

Fig. 2.1b. Ishtar gate of the Palace of Niniva in Babylon.reconstructive system.

Fig. 2.4 Access to a theatre in Olympia.

Fig. 2.5 Etruscan door in Volterra.

Fig. 2.6. Relief from Ninive, wherein a domed village can be seen(Schlaich).

Fletcher (Ref. 6) shows in his book a relief reproductionfound in Niniva, dating from 700 BC, suggesting thatsome houses could have been covered with smalldomes (Fig. 2.6); Schlaich (Ref. 20) shows a pictureof this relief, but no excavation results lead us to thatconclusion, among other things because the tight meshof irregular reticules that formed towns did not go wellwith central covers and, either in Egypt as in Babylon,

23


to get protection against floods it was necessary tocompact the neighbourhoods and to close the streetswith doors or lift them up on platforms. Otherwise, thedome has a problem in comparison with the vault: thewearing of a piece leads to the total collapse, whichdoes not happen in the case of longitudinal forms.Therefore, it is difficult to deduct whether vaults havean Eastern origin or not. Anyway, there is no doubtthat the first dated vaults belong to the RomanRepublic. We find them as parts of thermal buildings,following very normalised models. That is the case ofdomed Frigidarium, vaulted Tepidarium and mixed upCaldarium.

Present images of Middle Eastern villages are decep-tive, since they may look as of ancient vernacular ar-chitecture, very similar to that seen in Fig. 2.6. Figs.2.7 and 2.8 show primitive looking images, all of themsubsequent to the 4th century AD, when Romans hadalready exported those geometries.

Dating from the second century BC we can mentionthe Stabianas thermae (Fig. 2.9) or the Forum ones(Fig. 2.10), both in Pompeii, which dating does notgive rise to any doubt since it was not possible tomake later reforms. In Pompeii there was another groupof thermal baths, the Central one, of which we do notknow the layout.

The model of thermal vaults must have been set longbefore and it practically consists of a hemisphere sittingon a cylindrical drum having the same height andradius. The ventilation and the illumination take placethrough the oculo of the headstone and theimplantation on an orthogonal reticule is done bymeans of niches in the corners (Fig. 2.11).

These vaults have a very stable structural behaviourbecause they are firmly supported by heavy walls andtheir thickness diminishes as it gradually approachesthe headstone, which receives all the weight. Althoughthis constructive system is not the optimum, becauseof the need of a complete formwork, it has evidentadvantages. In the first place it is monolithic, since itis based on a pozzolana concrete, resistant and light.In addition, it is compatible with the introduction ofbrick strips. In principle there are no limitations for thespace to cover. The inferior hemispheric form and the

Fig. 2.8. Earth block domes in Siestan, Afghanistan (Minke).

Fig. 2.7. Earth block domes village near Alepo in Syria (Minke).

Fig. 2.9. Stabianas Thermae in Pompeii (García Bellido).

Fig. 2.10. Forum Thermae in Pompeii (García Bellido).

Fig. 2.11. Sketch of the initial planning of the Roman domes (Escrig).

24


Fig. 2.12. Funicular working of the semicircular domes, with andwithout oculo.

outer cap allow the inclusion of a parabola of pressuresthat makes it work specially well. Fig. 2.12 shows adrawing of the loads funicular within the section whereit can be seen that this line does not exceed the thirdof the section, that being the reason why it does notcause flexions.

When talking about the Pompeii thermae we mustalso mention that the caldarium had a mixed form,that is to say, a cylindrical vault ending in a quarter ofa sphere that in the case of the Forum thermae evenhad a lateral perforation. Here the vault concept hasdisappeared, being replaced by a form very usual atthe back of Forums and Temples, whose stability isbased on a powerful frontal diaphragm plate (Fig. 2.13).

This demonstrates that whether or not its inventors,the Romans, were first in dicovering the characteristicsof the system, that they used and could afford totransform it at will.

But the discovery and use of the vault are but the firststep in benefiting from its great potential, not to mentionthe numerous examples that confirm small advances.

Let us have a look at the Domus Aurea vault (70 AD)of 13 m diameter (Fig. 2.14a). The first problem thatmust be solved is how to fit it in a perfectly orthogonalmesh without wasting space. The solution consists

on the intersection of four cylinders on an orthogonalplan, following a model that, otherwise, is identical tothe hemispheric one, but for the niches in the corners(Fig. 2.14b).

The modernity of the plan is characteristic of some ofour contemporary architects (Fig. 2.15). Thickness hasbeen reduced to the minimum thanks to thecounteracting barrel vaults. In fact, the system ofillumination through the ceiling of the contiguouspieces is impressive and its inner aspect, so regularand with no marble or decoration, shows a geometricpurity only common in maturity. The flat arches, thehorizontal courses that advance towards the emptyspace and a penetration through the big hollows thatoccupy 75% of the walls surface look as if the globesare floating in the air rather than a vault (Fig. 2.16).

In contrast, the Domus Augusta (92 AD) constructedalso with an octagonal plan in the days of Domitianand measuring 10 m in diameter, is of a smaller and ina certain way more primitive complexity, although itsbuilding does not force the rooms to spin diagonallyand, therefore, leaves less residual space. But animportant contribution that still has not appeared inthe previous examples consists of the archesdischarging on lintels and on the surfaces where weightis wanted to be transferred to the buttresses (Figs.2.17 and 2.18).

Fig. 2.13. Shrine of Hoessn Soleiman in Syria (García Bellido).

PANTHEON DOME

Complete domeDome with oculo

25


Fig. 2.14a. Scheme of the dome of the Domus Aurea (Escrig).

Fig. 2.14b. Plan of the Domus Aurea (Ward Perkins).

Fig. 2.15 Section of the Domus Aurea, showing its ceiling illumination system (Ward Perkins).

Fig. 2.16. Inner view of the Domus Aurea.

26


Between 115 and 130 AD, Adriano, an emperor oforiental mentality whose arguments with Trajano’s, hismentor architect, are well known because thisApolodoro was a rationalist of its time, built thePantheon, or rather rebuilt it on a previous buildingmade by Agrippa. The Pantheon is a way to take tothe limit the thermal vault in its simpler but at the sametime more sophisticated state (Fig. 2.19).

It is simple because it is supported by a perfectlycircular drum with a cap able to keep within a completesphere and responds to the first model found inPompeii. It is sophisticated because it is able toset up directionality by means of a hierarchy of hollowsand cornices of complexity. The system of curvedlintels and three-dimensional arches not only did nothave any precedent but, in addition, that theconstructive system used to cover a 43.3 m innerdiameter and a similar height reveals an inventivenessthat has never been used again. The vault is reallymade up of a spatial lattice that is camouflagedas a reticular coffered ceiling. Besides, walls andcaps transmit the action by means of dischargingarches superimposed (Fig. 2.20), everything beingfinally gathered with a concrete layer (Ref. 16).

So much has been written on this building that it isa redundancy to expand on the matter. In our opinionit is a point of inflection, according to our arguments,in the Roman constructive technique in severalsenses:

a) It demonstrates that the vault has a potential tocover wide spaces that do not have other types ofvaults.

b) It creates an eastward tendency to the detrimentof the Greek one.

c) Concern for the constructive procedurepredominates over the formal one, which at last isa result of the former.

d) It gives way to new architectonic types.e) It turns height and ceiling illumination into a new

spatial value.

Apart from that, each one of the vaults constructed inthe days of Adriano meant a step ahead with respectto the previous ones. In the Leptis Magna (Libia)thermal building several substantial new features areintroduced of which an architectonic ornament madeup of sixteen layers, eight of them cylindrical and theother eight gathering the lunettes of the windows, sothat when joining before arriving at the key, become acontinuous spherical cap, is not the least important.This permits construction of the optimal formwork (Fig.2.21 and 2.22). The same can be said of Baiae (Fig.2.22).

The other innovation consists of a line of windowspositioned between the drum and the dome thatilluminates the interior instead of a central oculoand high enough as to overlook the contiguous rooms.

Fig. 2.17. Perspective of the Domus Augusta (Ward Perkins).

Fig. 2.18. Section and plan of the Domus Augusta (Ward Perkins).

Fig. 2.19. Scheme of the Pantheon of Agrippa (García Bellido).

27


1 INTERIOR LAYER AND COFFERS

2 INTERMEDIATE LAYER OF MERIDIANS

AND PARALLELS

3 EXTERIOR LAYER MADE OF CONCRETE

AND RELIEVING ARCHES

4 ONE OF THE EIGHT SUPPORTS

5 BRICK ARCHES

Fig. 2.20. Scheme of the construction phases of the Pantheon of Agrippa (Ortega).

Plan and first stage

Section

1 Interior layer and coffers

2 Intermediate layer of meridians and parallels

3 Exterior layer made of concrete and relieving arches

4 One of the eight supports

5 Brick arches

Level of the great cornice

Construction of the dome

6 Three tiers of relieving arches

7 Meridian ribs made of brick

8 Parallel ribs also in brick

9 Relieving arches

10 Continuous layer of puzolanic concrete

11 Buttresses of the dome

12

3

45

5

6

7

8

7 8

9

10

11

Fig. 2.23 shows a plan of the Horti Sallustiani in Rome,where the directionality of the 26.3 m in diameter spacehas been achieved by enlarging disproportionately theentrance hollow and by prolonging that of exit, resultingin the Palladian basilicas that we will see below.

In Adriano’s villa, the emperor gave absolute free reinto its fantasy and intuition, finding there an enormousvariety of forms and solutions that seem impossibleto remain standing (Fig. 2.24). The most surprisingare those surrounding Piazza d’Oro.

28

Fig. 2.22. Scheme of the dome of Baiae (García Bellido).

Fig. 2.23. Nimphaeum of the Horti Salustiani, in Rome (GarcíaBellido).

Fig. 2.21. Group of thermal buildings in Leptis Magna in Libya(García Bellido).


The lobed dome over its hall simplifies that of Baiae,although it maintains the illumination through the key

and loses directionality. But the fact of its remainingstanding in spite of being supported by eight lunettesis a clear sign of its structural effectiveness (Fig. 2.25).

29

Fig. 2.24. Piazza d’Oro in the Villa Adriana, in Tivoly.

Fig. 2.25a. Drawing of the hall of Piazza d’Oro in the Villa Adriana,in Tivoly.

Fig. 2.26b. Perspective of the main building of the Villa Adriana, inTivoly.

Fig. 2.26a Plan of the main building of the Villa Adriana, in Tivoly.

Fig. 2.25b. State of the hall at the end of the XIXth Century.


30


In the great baths of Tivoli the sequence of hemi cap-groined vault-dome, makes up a real form exhibition.There, it is appreciated as the ordered way to connectthe elements of the whole and the independence toperforate the walls with great colonnades rather thanas individual achievements.

But it is in the main building of Piazza d’Oro whereform has not been surpassed until the present time(Fig. 2.26). Here we find a dome that no longer is usedto cover a circular, not even polygonal, plan. There wehave a winding form that nobody would think capableof being covered because of the complexity of its spaceand the limited dimension of its buttresses andcolumns of complete permeability. Although nowadaysa 13 m diameter is not too much, building a dome on

columns balanced by attached dome sectors, as thoselater made in Byzantium, was in its moment aninnovation difficult even to think of. And it was still moredifficult in the arrangement of the 20 m side square onwhich was implanted a cramming of vaults and domeswhere even a toric dome could play a main role. If wecompared it with the Domus Aurea dome, we couldrealise the enormous strides made by buildingtechniques in a very short time. Only a century and ahalf from the Treasure of Atreo to the Neronianconstruction, and hardly a half more, to arrive at thisfiligree supported by slender columns.

Piazza d’Oro prefigures constructions of wood or steel,but nobody would dare to make it of stone or brick,not even the gothic constructors who knew the static

Fig. 2.27a. Bathrooms in the Villa Adriana, in Tivoly. Sections.

Fig. 2.27b. Bathrooms in the Villa Adriana, in Tivoly. Plan (GarcíaBellido).

Fig. 2.27c. Bathrooms in the Villa Adriana, in Tivoly in the actuality.

31


laws and achieved height under the penalty of thickbundles of columns.

The baths must be considered as a masterpiece also(Fig. 2.27).

What else can be done after the Tivoli Villa? Lighteningthe walls with deep lobes as in the PergamonAsklepieion by Antonino, with a 26.5 m diameter (Fig.2.28). Inventing the true drum as in the temple ofMedical Minerva? (Fig. 2.29)?

Little more, indeed. But if we analysed the constructivesystems, any of these works would contributeexcellent new features. The 250 AD temple of Minerva,with a 24 m diameter and a height of 33 m, is very welltied with bands of bricks in several threads (Fig. 2.29);the Diocletian Mausoleum in Spalato has an interestingconstruction made exclusively of bricks placed as fishscales (Fig. 2.30). The Treveris thermae have a hugelyperforated drum, thanks to the perfect relief given bythe brick arches (Fig. 2.31).

Fig. 2.29c. Present state of the Temple of Medical Minerva.

Fig. 2.28. Plan of the Askleipeion of Pergamo (García Bellido).

Fig. 2.29a. Outline of the Temple of Medical Minerva (GarcíaBellido).

Fig. 2.29b. State of the Temple of Medical Minerva at the end ofthe XVIIIth Century.

Fig. 2.29d. Constructive scheme of the Temple of Medical Minerva(Drum).

32


From that moment, the changes are the consequenceof an alteration in the type of plan. This is due to theneeds of the new Christian cult.

The Saint Constanza Mausoleum has only a 12 mdiameter and a height of 20 m, but it is surrounded bya permeable gallery through a colonnade thatduplicates the useful diameter (Fig. 2.33). This,together with the existence of a drum as the one inTreveris Thermae and even a columned peristyle,inaugurates a model of central plan only altered by acrossed access narthex repeated over and over again(340 AD), as the tomb of the Calventii of hexagonalplan (Fig. 2.34) or Saint Gideon in Colony, of oval plan(Fig. 2.35).

Fig. 2.31. Plan of the Treveris Thermae (a) and present state (b)(García Bellido).

Fig. 2.30a Scheme of the dome disposition of the DiocletianMausoleum, in Spalato.

Fig. 2.30b. Inner view of the Mausoleum dome (Hébrand).

33


Fig. 2.32 Mausoleum of Saint Constance (García Bellido).

Fig. 2.34a. Plan of Saint Gideon, in Colony (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.34b. Primitive state of Saint Gideon, in Colony (Escrig).

Fig. 2.34c. Medieval state of Saint Gideon, in Colony.Fig. 2.33 Mausoleum of the Calventii (Renaissance Drawing).

34


as in Saint Lorenzo in Milan, now unrecognisablebecause of its baroque restoration, that formerly musthave been covered with a groined vault (Fig. 2.35),balanced by attached domes. The innovation here liesin the fact that the circumvallation gallery has twofloors.

As is well known, Adriano’s empire was the largestone under a single administration during the wholeRoman period and though the western provincesadapted very well to the official architectonic patterns,the eastern ones defined their own types with a vigour.

Those two examples inspired the Renaissance archi-tects; mainly the former, that helped Borromini tosettle his Ivo della Sapienza scheme, practically withthe same size.

Other complications appeared when a squareenclosure without octagonal transit was to be covered,

Fig. 2.36. Perspective of the Basilica of the Saints Peter andMarceline and Mausoleum of Saint Elena, in Rome (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.37a. Perspective of the Basilica of Saint Peter and SaintAndrew (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.35a. Plant of Saint Lorenzo in Milan (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.35b. Original pattern of Saint Lorenzo in Milan (Escrig).

Fig. 2.35c. Actual state of Saint Lorenzo in Milan (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.37b. Plan of the Basilica of Saint Peter and Saint Andrew(Krautheimer).

35


A very special example, mainly because of itssymbolical meaning rather than its structural content,is the 33.7 m diameter Anastasis Rotunda inJerusalem, whose shape we know thanks to the 1609engraving by Callot, copied then from the originalconstruction still standing. This example wouldinspire the construction of the Dome of the Rock, seenbelow, with its nerved wood cover (Fig. 2.38) thatintroduced great variations, although could not hidetheir basilica or central temple origins.

First, the predominance of stone instead of brick andthe Roman cement.

Second, the complex geometries full of colonnadesthat mix straight and curved lines, transepted basilicas,apsidal endings or diagonally spun spaces.

Precedents can be found in some constructions inRome as Saint Peter and Marceline Basilica with itsending transept and crowned by the Saint ElenaMausoleum (Fig. 2.36) with a 20 m diameter. Or asSaint Peter Basilica, combined with the HonorioMausoleum and the Saint Andrew Rotunda (Fig. 2.37)..

Fig. 2.39. Saint Minas, in Abu Mira, and Baptistry (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.38a. Anastasis Rotonda in Jerusalem in 1609 (Callot).

Fig. 2.38b. Anastasis Rotonda in Jerusalem by de Bruyn in theseventeenth century.

Fig. 2.41. Qual’at Siman (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.42. Saint Babilas, in Antioquia (Krautheimer).

Fig. 2.40. Saint Philippe Martiryum (Krautheimer).

36


Fig. 2.44. Martiryum of Selencia Pieria (Baldwin Smith). Fig. 2.46. Martiryum of Resaffa (Baldwin Smith).

But no construction involves as much complicationas Saint Minas, in Abu Mira at 412, and its Baptistry(Fig. 2.39), Saint Philippe Martyrium (about 400 AD)(Fig. 2.40), the 1480 Qual’at Siman (Fig. 2.41), SaintBabilas’ in Antioquia (Fig. 2.42), dating from 379 AD,or the innumerable examples that repeat some of themodels from the metropolis:

The Tomb of Virgin Mary in Jerusalem, dating from450 AD (Fig. 2.43) and the Church of Theolokos, datingfrom 484, both coming from Saint Constance as wellas the Selencia-Pieria Martiryum (Fig. 2.44), theCathedral of Bosra (Fig. 2.45) or the Resaffa Martiryum(Fig. 2.46), all of them coming from Saint Lorenzo’s inMilan.

Though the mentioned examples recall former ones,there are other types of an unquestionable newness.

The parabolic dome of the Saint Joseph Martiryum inZorah (Fig. 2.47), the vaulted basilical plan of the Saint

Fig. 2.43. Tomb of the Virgin Mary in Jerusalem (Baldwin Smith).

Fig. 2.45. Cathedral of Bosra (Baldwin Smith).

Sergio Martiryum in Resaffa (Fig. 2.48) and somechurches like those shown in Fig. 2.49. Also, theincipient Greek cross plans shown in Fig. 2.50, thatdue to its dating make it possible to know whetherthey exerted some influence over the Persianarchitecture or else were influenced by it, the latterbeing more likely.

37


to be seen in the following chapter. In that movementthe centralised plan schemes, of which Romans wereso fond, were used with absolute mastery, as well asthose of the one or more naves basilical plan, to beinherited by the Christian tradition during theRomanesque style, clearly inspired in these easternexamples and brought to the West by the pilgrims toHoly Land. Also, the schemes of cruciform plan, aninnovation not to be considered in the West until theGothic style; and finally, the rotunda schemes, thegreatest exponent of which was the Palatine Chapelin Aquisgran. All this architecture from the Easternplateaus would have an important future influence,since even Justinian used it as a precedent for hisgreat revolution.

We must consider that the eastern dome, which wasnot developed until the 3rd century, returned from Rometotally transformed and full of new possibilities thatthe Persian and Sassanid constructors developed witha clear autonomy and that later would exert influenceover the Roman works in the bordering territories. Weowe these eastern constructors great inventions thatthe Romans pursued but were not able to shape: thependentives, the trumpet shells and the control of thesquare plan. In contrast, the Roman experience wasable to propose more rational global arrangements andthe hierarchisation of the different architectonicelements.

It seems that in the 1st century BC the Parthians wereable to construct some domes of parabolic form ontrumpet shells but there is nothing left, except for muchmore subsequent examples that must have beeninfluenced by the portentous Roman technique.

Fig. 2.47. Martiryum of Saint George, in Zorah (Baldwin Smith).

Fig. 2.48. Martiryum of Saint Sergio, in Resaffa (Baldwin Smith).

Fig. 2.49a. Church of Bizzos, in Ruweha (Baldwin Smith).

All these constructions could be made thanks to theinitiative and support of the Byzantine emperors, tothe point that it is not possible to think that easternarchitecture begins in the 6th century, however truethe fact that then starts a completely new movement,

Fig. 2.49b. Church of Il-Anderin (Baldwin Smith).

38


Fig. 2.50a. Martiryum of Saint Elias. Plan.Fig. 2.50b. Elevation of the Martiryum of Saint Elias.Fig. 2.50c. Present aspect of the Martiryum of Saint Elias.Fig. 2.50d. Plan of the Martiryum of Chagra.

Fig. 2.50a. Fig. 2.50b. Fig. 2.50c.

Fig. 2.50d.

Fig. 2.50e.

Fig. 50f. Fig. 50g. Fig. 50h.

Fig. 2.50e. Outer aspect of the Martiryum of Chagra.Fig. 2.50f. Plan of the Tomb of Bizzos, in Ruweha.Fig. 2.50g. Section of the Tomb of Bizzos, in Ruweha.Fig. 2.50h. Outer aspect of the Tomb of Bizzos, in Ruweha.

All Figures belong to E. Baldwin Smith (Ref. 21)

In spite of this debt to western culture, we cannot butadmire the magnitude of their palaces and the skill oftheir constructive solutions. The Sassanid Persiansgave place to certain types that would never beforgotten. On the one hand, the palaces reticulararrangement with the access through a vaulted ivan ofgreat magnitudes that reached 25 m span and 30 m

height and on the other hand, the way centralisedspaces were crowned with a great variety of vaultedforms that looked from the outside like mountains inthe centre of the whole. The ivan was an access thatwould soon be adopted by Persian, and later Hindu,architecture, but was an inversion of the domes in halfa cappet of sphere that covered the Roman temples.

39


Fig. 2.51. Plan of the Palace of Firuz Abad (Upham Pope).

Fig. 2.52. Structural scheme of the Palace of Firuz Abad (Ortega).

Fig. 2.53. Plan of the Palace of Bijapur (Upham Pope). Fig. 2.54. Building section of the Palace of Bijapur (Upham Pope).

40


The centralised dome on a square or cruciform planwas an optimal way to integrate in complex enclosuresthe circular plan that the Romans constructed withoutcovering by its nature.

Thus, the greater works constructed by theSassanians, as for example Firuz Abbat Palace, byArdashir I (Fig. 2.51), was made up of a dozen vaultedspaces and three domes with an 11 m diameter,probably with a cambered shape. All of it perfectlyordered in a rectangular enclosure of 104 x 55 m2 thatincludes a great ivan and a courtyard, datingapproximately from 250 AD. Ortega (Ref. 17) hasstudied in depth this sassanid construction and makesan assumption of the palace that we support because,though the domes are of small dimensions they arecambered, made of a single shell of variable sectionand must have surely been disposed in such a waythat they do not need craddlings nor shoring. The wallsthat support them have a tremendous thicknessaround 5 m, which must be justified by other reasonsapart from the structural counteracting. Fig. 2.52 showswhat must have been its geometric outline as well asa possible disposition.

There is no doubt that none of these sassanidconstructions could have been built without the previouscontact with the Roman culture, no matter how muchtheir appearance is fully Eastern like. We have alreadyspoken of the step forward represented by the domeson square plan; nevertheless they are of aninconceivable primitivism as for the reception of lightand the ventilation of the enclosures, though notbecause the builders did not have the solution at hand.But this solution would not appear until the ByzantineEmpire fused the Mediterranean tradition and theEastern one.

Fig. 2.55. Passage from the octagonal plan to the circular onein the Thermae of Caracal (Robertson).

Fig. 2.56. Plan of the Palace of Sarvistan (Upham Pope).

Fig. 2.57. Dome of the Palace of Sarvistan and isostatical linesof the dome intrados (Chassagnoux).

Fig. 2.58. Resting point of the tonal arches (Upham Pope).

41


The other fully Eastern contribution is the accumulationof domes, meaning the loss of the main role playedby the single space. The Eastern architecture resortedvery frequently to the multiplication of domed spacesin a repetition deprived of hierarchy, although in manycases one of the forms stood out among the others.

It was like that to such extent that Bijapur Palace,constructed by the second member of the dynasty,Shapur I, consisted of only a great dome. But also inthis case it was built on a cruciform shape of squarebase. The passage from this complex plan (Fig. 2.53)to the circular one requiring a dome of parabolicdirectrix, was done for the first time by means of theintersection of cylinders (Fig. 2.54). A 24 m diameterplaced it close to the most spectacular Romanconstructions. Since there is nothing left of the vault,its construction and its real form are but a supposition.But it is possible to draw very accurate conclusionsfrom the surviving ones. Without a doubt the buildersdid not know the pendentives necessary to arrangethe joining of the cylinders intersection, but they useda kind of course approaching that already put in practiceby the Romans in the thermae of Caracal (Fig. 2.55)that surely the Sassanians learnt from the Romanprisoners who worked on their constructions.

A century later, Sarvistan Palace shared the sameexposed characteristics and timidly started locatingthe illumination windows at the height of the drum (Fig.2.56), which caused force concentrations that had notexisted to date. Chassagnoux [Ref. 1] made ananalysis by finite elements in which there could befound a concentration of isostatical forces in the keyof the openings that reached a 1.5 kp/cm2 traction(Fig. 2.57).

They created too some original forms like the vaultedroom of Fig. 2.58, with columns giving complexity tothe space. The Sassanid Empire stereotyped theseforms and from that moment on repeated them in a

mechanical way without even paying attention to thegreat advances made by the Byzantine constructors.

Remarkably, despite the fact of being aware of thetechnology around them, they never used any otherRoman solution like the groined vault, the circularcylindrical one or the spherical dome.

The great success of the half-sphere dome, with orwithout oculo and on drum or without it, was due to itsoptimal structural behaviour.

Recent studies trying to interpret its few detectedpathologies revealed that its easy construction iscombined with a great geometrical rigidity.

The Roman domes were built mainly of pozzolaniccement, of brick or of a mixing of both. This gave thema monolithic aspect that would escape those made ofstone in the Renaissance and in behaviour closer tothat of present day concrete domes. That is why somemathematical attempts were relatively right.

The Pantheon dome has been studied profusely. ThusMark [Refs. 12 and 13] sets out an analysisconsidering a cylinder of 5.5 m thickness with thesection of Fig. 2.59 and obtains maximum efforts of2.8 kg/cm2. It is surprising that when thereinforcements are eliminated, the efforts decrease by20%, but they have a stabilising effect that increasesthe compressions and diminishes the cracking.Theoretically, cracking must reach a height of 54º fromthe top and the reality verified in the work is very similar,according to the drawings by Terenzio (Fig. 2.60) [Ref.22]. Anyway, Polení’s study attached little importanceto a fact that appeared systematically in its domes,as can be seen in the drawing by Piranesi of theTemple of Tosse in Villa Adriana (Fig. 2.61).

The dome would be an element to incorporate in thecultured posterior architecture and the Renaissance

Fig. 2.59. Modelisation by Finite Elements of the Pantheon of Agrippa section (Croci).

42


Fig. 2.61. Drawing by Piranesi of the Temple of Tosse, in theVilla Adriana.

Fig. 2.60. Cracking state of the Pantheon of Agrippa dome (Mark).

and the Baroque would make such an extensive useof it that those two styles would be featured by theirarchitecture of convex spatiality.

It would also be incorporated in popular architecturewith a firmness that would make it irreplaceable aseven modest constructions have no straight piecesto construct a flat formwork.

Using exactly the same techniques found in Tell alRimah (Fig. 2.2), people build without a frameworknowadays in Afghanistan (Fig. 2.62 and 2.63) andeverywhere in the islamic world there is an attempt torecover those old techniques as an identity sign. Thecomplexity of the plans to cover with so scarceresources is illustrated in Fig. 2. 64, having to resortto means as basic as those seen in Figs. 2.65 and2.66. The results are nevertheless surprising andmeticulous even for several plans (Fig. 2.67).

43


Fig. 2.62. Building process without framework of a rectangularplan vault and building stages (Souza).

Fig. 2.63. Building process without framework of rectangularplan vault (Souza).

Fig. 2.64. Different building stages for the covering, by meansof domes, of a Mauritanian house (Souza).

44


1. CHASSAGNOUX, A. “Persian VaultedArchitecture: morphology and equilibriumof vaults under static and dynamic loads”.Structural Studies of Historical Buildings IV.Computational Mechanics Pub. Southampton,1995.

2. CHOISY, A. “Historia de la Arquitectura”. Leru.3. CHOISY, A. “L’art de Batir chez les Romains”. Forni

Editores, París, 1873.4. ESCRIG, F. “Towers and Domes”. Computational

Mechanics Publications, 1998.5. FERGUSSON, J. “The Illustrated Handbook of

Architecture”. Murray, London, 1859.6. FLETCHER, B. “A History of Architecture”.

Butterworths, London.7. GARCIA BELLIDO, A. “Arte Romano”. C.S.I.C.,

Madrid, 1972.8. HEINLE, E. & SCHLAICH, J. “Kuppeln”.

DeutcheVerlags-Austalt, 1996.9. HEYMAN, J. “Teoría, historia y restauración de

estructuras de fábrica”. ETSA de Madrid, 1995.10.IASS. “Domes. From Antiquity to the Present”.

Istanbul, Minar Sinan University, 1988.11. KRAUTHEIMER, R. “Arquitetura paleocristiana y

bizantina”. Catedra, S.A. Madrid, 1984.12.MARK, R. “The Art and Structure of Large-scale

Buildings”. MIT Press, 1993.13.MARK, R. “Light, Wind and Structure”. MIT Press,

1990.14.MARTA, R. “Arquitettura Romana”. Kappa, Rome,

1986.15.MINKE, G. “Earth Construction Handbook”. WIT

Press, 2000.16.OATES, J. “Babylon”. Thames & Hudson.17.ORTEGA, F. “Historia de la Construcción”. Libro

Primero. ETSA de las Palmas, Books I, II and III.18.ROBERTSTON. “Arquitectura Griega y Romana”.

Cátedra.19.SALVADORI, M. “Why Buildings Stand Up”. Norton,

N.Y.20.SCHLAICH, J. & HEINLE, E. “Kuppeln. Aller zeiten-

Aller Kulturen” Deutche Verlags-Austalf, 1996.21.BALDWIN SMITH, E. “The Dome. A study in the

history of ideas“ Princeton University Press, 1971.22.TERENZIO, A. “La restauración del Panteón de

Roma”. La conservation des monuments d’Art &d’Histoire. Paris, 1934.

23.TRACHTENBERG, M. & HYMAN, I. “Arquitectura”.Akal.

24.WARD PERKINS. “Arquitectura Romana”. Aguilar.25.SOUZA GOIS, M.I. “Cúpulas de Tierra”. Master

tesis ETSA de Sevilla. Prof. Escrig, 1995. Notpublished.

Fig. 2.65. Domed construction in Afghanistan (Souza).

Fig. 2.66. Domed construction in a refugees camp in Afghanistan(Souza).

Fig. 2.67. Construction domed in several levels (Souza).


45

The Hanging Dome

Chapter 3. THE HANGING DOME

Fig. 3.1a. Church of Polyeuktos. Ideal reconstruction (Harrison).

Although the dome building tradition was neverinterrupted while the Roman empire existed, bothsides, East and West, continued repeating their usualstyles with some small variations.

The Western domes were supported by circular orpolygonal forms with a high number of sides, whichallowed them to go from the drum to the shell withoutthe need of important elements of transition. Thegroined vault was fundamentally used on square plans.The Eastern solution by means of trumpet shells wasalways an inelegant way of solving the problem. Forthat reason it is surprising that the VIth century wasborn with so many simultaneous innovations. The for-mal and constructive search was of a fecundity neverseen before in such a short time. Simultaneously theByzantine constructors solved five problems:

a) The dome is supported by great arches that left thefrontal walls clear enough to be perforated by windowsor passages.b) The use of pendentives like a perfect element oftransition from a square to a circle.c) The suitable accumulation of domes and vaults tocompensate the thrust.d) Constructions of great lightness.e) The support of the dome on isolated points, whichguarantees an even illumination and in a certain waydematerializes the weight of the dome, which looksas if supported by rays of sunlight. The mosaic andglazed decoration contributed to that effect.

As early as 524, Polyeuktos Church began to be built,with a dome of 20 m in diameter and we guess thatwith a longitudinal scheme reminiscent of laterexamples. Since this church has not survived it isbased on an ideal reconstruction by Harrison [Ref. 4].We will not spend any time analysing it (Fig. 3.1).

The first fully finished example of this kind is SaintIrene in Constantinople, begun in 532 (Fig. 3.2), withan imposing aspect because of its great transversearches as wide as the lateral naves so as to containthe horizontal forces (Fig. 3.3) and its completelypierced walls similar to those in later gothic cathedrals(Fig. 3.4).

Saint Irene is, in addition, a perfect example of a gooduse of thrusts counteracting by means of two domes,

Fig. 3.1b. Interior view of the Church of Polyeuktos. Idealreconstruction (O´Donell).

46


Fig. 3.2. Saint Irene, in Constantinople. Section and plan.(Ortega).

Fig. 3.3. Saint Irene, in Constantinople. Inner view.

Fig. 3.4. Saint Irene, in Constantinople. Outer view.

Fig. 3.5. Saint Irene, in Constantinople. Structural scheme.(Ortega).

Fig. 3.6. Church of the Saints Sergio and Baco. Plan andsections (Ozsen).

47

The Hanging Dome

Fig.3.12. Comparison of sections and floors between SaintsSergio and Baco and Saint Vital in Ravena (Choisy).

one of them having a circular shape 15 m in diameterand the other an oval shape with the dimensions of 12x 15 m, and of another dome like a cap of a quarter ofsphere cap dome in the apsidal model, inherited fromthe Roman exedras and coming from thepalaeochristians apses (Fig. 3.5).

Even if Justinian had not done anything else, he wouldhave deserved a place in History because of this work.

It is remarkable that however difficult it may seem, inevery following work the complexity multiplied.

Saints Sergio and Baco Church, built in Constantinoplebetween 527 and 536, have besides a centralised plan,clearly following a Roman model but solved withcompletely different proposals.

In addition to the ambulatory, in the line that had been

Fig. 3.7. Photogrammetric scheme of the Church of the SaintsSergio and Baco (Ozsen).

Fig. 3.8. Inner view of the Church of the Saints Sergio andBaco.

Fig. 3.9. Outer view of the Church of the Saints Sergio andBaco.

Fig. 3.11. Structural scheme of Sergio and Baco (Choisy).

Fig. 3.10. Topographical plan of the dome of Sergio and Baco(Ozsen).

48


Fig. 3.13. Plan of Saint Vital, in Ravenna (Ward Perkings).

proposed in Saint Lorenzo in Milan, it used a systemof arches that make good use of this double skin forthe relief of forces (Fig. 3.6). The dome is in this caseornamented, attaching therefore a great structuralimportance to the reinforcement ribs, although theyare little apparent. The shell is made up of lobes, ascan be seen in the drawing in perspective of thephotogrammetric restitution (Fig. 3.7) [Ref. 14 ].

The passage from the octagonal form to the circularone is also made by means of pendentives and the

Fig. 3.14. Structural scheme of Saint Vital, in Ravenna (Escrig).

Fig. 3.15. Inner view of Saint Vital, in Ravenna (Escrig).

Fig. 3.16. Outer view of Saint Vital, in Ravenna.

Fig. 3.17. Making up of the pieces of the dome of Saint Vital, inRavenna (Mark).

49

The Hanging Dome

illumination achieved by piercing the shell, accordingto the rules of Byzantine construction (Fig. 3.8), turningweightless the 18 m diameter dome.

A feature inherited from the Romans is the modesty ofthe materials used, even more in this case since eventhe pozzolanic cement was not available.

The whole building is constructed with brick and mortarobtained with the mixing of lime and crushed bricks(Fig. 3.9). This system, though seeming adisadvantage, has turned out to be the salvation ofthese buildings. Firstly because no later civilizationbothered to dismantle what was unusable and secondlybecause the masonry obtained was elastic enough toadapt to the great movements suffered by thefoundations as well as those produced by earthtremors. From 1600 AD to the present time, 89earthquakes of an intensity higher than six have beenregistered.

All these movements have produced geometricchanges, windows breaking and render loosening.Paradoxically, what most damaged this building wasthe railroad that was constructed closeby in 1870.Nevertheless, during the war of the Balkans it wasused as a shelter from the bombing because of itssafeness.

Fig. 3.10 shows the present state of the geometryand allows sight of its great distortions.

Fig. 3.11 is a sectioned perspective showing how theapproximately 2,000 tonnes of weight of the dome areabsorbed.

A later building following a very similar guideline isSaint Vital in Ravenna, also built during the Byzantineperiod, with a hemispheric cap cover on octagonal planwith ambulatory. Saint Vital is, in a formal way, muchmore complete for several reasons: it is much higher,reaching 30 m, whereas Sergio and Baco reached only20 m. Fig. 3.12 shows the comparison between both

sections made by Choisy. It has a more formalcoherence that becomes apparent in the plan,peculiarly turned 22.5º with respect to the Narthex(Fig. 3.13) [Ref. 2]. The inner space is of a grandiosityunknown until then, the result of being higher thanwide.

The different levels and the drum embedded in the capwith great dimensioned windows increase thesensation of height (Fig. 3.14).

Instead of pendentives, small trumpet shells have beenused simulating sorts of corbel supports that givehorizontality to the springing level and allow it tointerrupt in a suitable way the verticality of the mainbuttresses edges (Fig. 3.15). Its outer aspect has aclear volumetry, so legible with regards to whathappens inside that such a clarity would not be foundagain until the Romanesque (Fig. 3.16).

In this case, the weight of the cover exceeds 1,000tonnes, which combined with its height requires atransversal reinforcement that experience has provedstrong enough but that is not apparent, and that in theabsence of more complete studies allows us to thinkthat implies an almost limiting dimension. Manycontemporary analyses, made by fitting methods ofcalculation, of big constructions such as the Pantheon,Santa Sophia and the great gothic cathedrals,disregard smaller structures like this one that seemfar better dimensioned and in a more rational way.

Because of its interest, therefore, we add the studiesshown in Ref. 11. The perfectly hemispheric cover isabout 16 m in diameter and its main particularity isthat it is made up of horizontal tubes forming ringsfrom the base to the key (Fig. 3.17).

These tubes have approximately 14 cm of side plus acone of 6 cm, a diameter of 5 to 6 cm and a thicknessof 0.5 cm (Fig. 3.18). This allows an almost uniformthickness of the dome of 21 cm (Fig. 3.19). Accordingto this and to the determination of the quality of the

Fig. 3.18. Pieces of the dome and key of Saint Vital, in Ravenna (Mirabella and Lombardini).

50


Fig. 3.20. Deformations of the dome of Saint Vital during the construction. On the left, construction with shoring; on the right,without shoring (Mirabella and Lombardini).

Fig. 3.21. Calculation of efforts and displacements 56º from the key when building by rings (Mirabella and Lombardini).

Fig. 3.19. Section of Saint Vital, in Ravenna (Mirabella and Lombardini).

51

The Hanging Dome

materials, some interesting data have been obtained.Fig 3.20 shows the deformation of the dome with itsproportions vertically doctored by 500, for differenthypotheses of materials rigidity. This deformationranges between 0.3206 mm in the case of maximumrigidity and 1.84 mm for maximum flexibility. In the leftgraphic is considered the construction with framework,whereas in the right one without it and by rings advancewithout shoring. These are the two possible forms toconstruct this dome.

The calculation of the efforts and displacementsproduced by building by rings and without shoring isillustrated in Fig. 3.21 by means of the assimilation tosixteen states of course advance, in the zonecorresponding to 56º from the key.

In any case, the efforts are minimum (0.92 kg/cm2 ofcompression in the direction of the parallels and 1.43kg/cm2 in that of the meridians). Neither this tensionnor the maximum traction of 0.12 kg/cm2 appearingin other points are critical for the used materials.

Fig. 3.22. Roman basilical plan (Escrig). Fig. 3.23. Scheme of a central plan through an evolution fromthe basilical model (Escrig).

Fig. 3.24. Superposition of «A» Ste Sophia, «B» Basilica of Maxencius and «C» the Pantheon (Escrig).

Due to the thickness (1.25% of the diameter), theflexions are insignificant and we get a practically perfectmembrane state.

Paradoxically, in the calculations obtained, if the hollowtubes had been placed in the direction of the meridians,the structure would have behaved much worse unlessit had been built on a framework removed with themortar well forged, in which case the behaviour wouldhave been similar.

In any case, Santa Sophia is the most important workof Byzantine architecture in which all the technologicalresources were experimented with, giving rise to oneof the most singular constructions.

We have already explained how the plan is acombination of the greater Roman constructions: thebasilical form of the thermae with its three longitudinalmodules having material galleries to hide the buttresses(Fig. 3.22), and the centralized plan of Pantheon typewith some transformations (Fig.3.23). In addition we

52


find the previously mentioned innovations: the greattransverse arches that serve as supports, thecounteracting by means of sectorial domes, the domeresting on points and the thinness of this one due toits brick construction.

Figure 3.24 shows the superposition of three mainbuildings where we can see that «A» and «B» havethe same area and «A» and «C» the same diameterbetween main piers.

The result is that of a hitherto unknown greatness(Fig. 3.25). The 31.2 m diameter of the dome, the76 m of length and the 50 m of height were thegreatest continuous volumes ever built before(Figs 3.26 and 3.27). The dome profile was not thepresent one but that represented in Fig. 3.28 havinggeometric continuity with the pendentives and beingchanged in the first reconstruction for the profile ofFig. 3.29.

The complex with its collection of abutted domes isreally difficult to interpret (Fig. 3.30), but it is basedfundamentally on a dome that rests on four transversearches of great magnitude which transition to the cir-cular plan is done by means of pendentives. Thesetransverse arches are not rigid enough to support thehorizontal thrusts, they must be supported by auxiliarystructures: in the north-western and south-easternsides with two semi domes that in turn arecompensated by other shells of apse, and in the per-pendicular sides by four huge buttresses (Fig. 3.31),clearly illustrating all this Fig. 3.32.

The problem is that these buttresses were not sufficientand the dome suffered frequent breaking almost fromits inauguration and even partial collapse, it had to bereinforced with even greater buttresses (Fig. 3.33) andtheir great transparent walls had to be blocked up (Fig.3.34). The dome, being continuous in the beginning,ended up being rebuilt with reinforcing ribs and evenso its great elasticity made it so deformable that itsaspect is quite irregular (Fig. 3.35)

The causes of the bad structural behaviour,nevertheless, must not necessary be only looked forin its design. Also the constructive technique leaves alot to be desired. The complete building was finishedin five years and, to save expenses, the masonry wasmade up of bad quality brick walls and a mortar withjoints of several centimetres and badly set while beingloaded.

To make matters worse, it is situated in a highlyseismic zone. The question would not be why thedome collapsed so many times, but how did it manageto remain standing for so long (Fig. 3.36).

Calculations done with modern technologies in thisbuilding are contradictory according to the differentsearchers.

Fig. 3.25. Engraving of the interior of Saint Sophia, inConstantinople.

Fig. 3.26. Inner space of Saint Sophia, in Constantinople.

53

The Hanging Dome

80,90 m.

According to Mainstone [Ref. 7], the author of the mostdeep and detailed study of Santa Sophia, the problemsoriginated in the scarce experience in the structuralinnovation represented by the supporting of a domeby means of transverse arches, having not made asymmetrical counteracting. The semi domes of the Eand W sides proved to be an effective system, but theN and S buttresses behaved rather badly, letting thematerials slip and triggering the dome denting. Nomatter how much it was enlarged, because its increaseof rigidity caused a thrusts increment straight awayand therefore an asymmetrical behaviour of the dome.The regularisation by means of tensors and hoops didnot help. He doubts the quality of the foundations andof the capacity of the buttresses, hollowed out to havestairs and galleries, to absorb horizontal thrusts. Thepresent cracks of the dome are not important unlessits haunches get more separated.

Mainstone even says that the cracking of the rest ofthe structure is beneficial because it diminishes thefrequencies of vibration in the case of earthquakes.The only real problem that it gives rise to is theprogressive inclination of the buttresses. Fig. 3.35shows the scheme of dissipation of forces accordingto this author.

According to Mark [Ref. 10], who has made a finiteelements analysis, the first breaking of the dome in558 AD, eleven years after being finished and due to553 AD and 557 AD earthquakes, and its conversioninto a dome with a different profile wascounterproductive.

The first model used the pendentives distributing theefforts very regularly and concentrating them in thecorners (Fig. 3.37a), whereas the second model, the

Fig. 3.27. Section and plan of Saint Sophia, in Constantinople.

54


Fig. 3.28. Initial design of the dome of Saint Sophia (Mainstone).

Fig. 3.29. Initial and present sections of the dome of SaintSophia (Mainstone).

Fig. 3.30. Volumetric scheme of the domes of Saint Sophia(Mainstone).

Fig. 3.32 Structural scheme of Saint Sophia (Escrig).

Fig. 3.31. Outer view of the domes of Saint Sophia.

55

The Hanging Dome

present one, because of resting on a plan thatfundamentally rests on the transverse arches (Fig.3.37b), gives rise to important thrusts in the highestpart of the buttresses. Apart from the above, the presentdome is more stable than the primitive thanks to agreater curvature and to reinforced ribs.

According to Mungam [Ref. 12] the effect of thesupporting arches is highly effective only when theyall have the same rigidity. In the opposite case, thedeformations are proportional to the least rigid andproduce flexions in the shell. That is the reason whythe considerable reinforcement made by Gaspare

Fossati in the 19th century by means of metallicbundles, hardly had any result in respect of thedisplacements.

The thesis made by Cereto [Ref. 1] contains revealingdata that the dome is elliptical due to the lateraldeformation of the southern and northern walls with adifference of 1 m in the main axes and that the collapseof the buttresses is at the present time of 0.8 m (Figs3.38 and 3.39). When comparing his calculations withthe real behaviour of the dome, we lead to theconclusions that the constructive problems beganduring its erection, due to the sliding of the bricks on

Fig. 3.33 Initial plan and successive reinforcements of the Church of Saint Sophia (Mainstone).

Fig. 3.34. Filling of the tympanums for the reinforcement ofSaint Sophia (Mainstone).

Fig. 3.35. Topographical scheme of the domes of Saint Sophia(Hidaka).

56


Fig. 3.36. Descending loads in Saint Sophia (Mainstone).

Figs. 3.37a, b and c . Tensional behaviour of the former domeand the present dome of Saint Sophia (Mark).

the mortar and that the counteracting semi domesproduce an inward thrust that magnifies the thrusttoward the outside of the zone of buttresses whoserole is passive, resulting in a non-uniform state oftensions. Figure 3.40 shows the deformation of theoriginal dome calculated both ways, obtaining effortsgreater than 5 kg/cm2, and reaching even 10 kg/cm2

in certain cases, which is excessive for this type ofconstruction.

In summary, this is a problematic construction thatsurvives as a result of the will of the successive culturesto keep it standing, and that has served as an authenticstructures laboratory. The works of Sinan in the XVIthcentury owe so much to the solutions of Saint Sophia

57

The Hanging Dome

Fig. 3.38. Resting plan of the main dome of Saint Sophia (Mark).

Fig. 3.39a Outward collapse of the closings (Cereto).

Fig. 3.39b. Pathologies of the buttresses of Saint Sophia (Cereto). Fig. 3.40. Deformation of the actual dome in both ways (Cereto).

58


Fig. 3.41. Church of the Holy Apostles, in Constantinople.Drawing from a codex.

Fig. 3.42. Church of the Holy Apostles. Reconstruction of theplan (Krautheimer).

Fig. 3.43. Inner perspective, plan and outer perspective of Saint John, in Efeso (Krautheimer).

59

The Hanging Dome

that we could rightly state that we are before theprototype work of the eastern architecture, the sameas the Pantheon is for the western one.

The Byzantines inventions continued in other religiousmodels. Influenced by the approaches of the greatmonasteries of the Middle East, they generate Latincross plans covered with successive domes without aspecial hierarchy.

The Holy Apostles Church in Constantinople (540-550AD) inaugurates this tendency, although there is nolonger anything left of it. Figs. 3.41 and 3.42 showwhat this great construction, which had sequels in

Fig. 3.44a and b. Plan of Saint Marcos, in Venice, and structural scheme (Choisy).

Fig. 3.45a, b, c and d. Outer view, plan and inner views ofSaint Front, in Périgueux (Escrig).

60


Fig. 3.48b. Inner view of Saint Peter, in Angouleme (Escrig).

Fig. 3.46. Saint Etienne, in Périgueux (Escrig).

the East but many more in the West, must have been.In effect, Saint John in Efeso, finished towards 565AD (Fig. 3.43) is an Eastern exact replica. The samething happens in the West, from Italy, where SaintMarcos in Venice repeats the formula (Fig. 3.44) inthe middle of the XIth century, to Aquitaine in France,in the XIIth, where the same plan is used with lessskill but more greatness. A good example of this canbe found in Saint Front de Périgueux (Fig. 3.45), whichplan is almost an exact replica of Saint Marcos in

Venice or the Holy Apostles. Such a long geographicdistance in front of such constructive similarity is onlyexplained by a cultural connection that must obviouslyhave been provided by the crusades.

The basic difference that can be observed is that ofthe illumination solution. Whereas in the Byzantinearchitecture the dome was an appropriation of the skyand therefore had to be drilled so that the light got in,in the Romanic, closer to the Roman tradition, light islooked for through the walls.

It is interesting to observe how the patterns broughtby the crusaders from the East recreate the forms butlose the subtlety that all Byzantine architecture andthe later Muslim one breathes. Saint Etienne, also inPérigueux (Fig. 3.46), Echillais (Fig.3. 47), Angoulême(Fig. 3.48), Cahors (Fig. 3.49), Fontevrault (Fig. 3.50)or Souillac (Fig. 3.51) are merely some of the scoresof examples of churches in the region that, unlike most

Fig. 3.47. Structural section of Echillais (Conant).

Fig. 3.48.a. Plan of Saint Peter, in Angoulême (Conant).

61

The Hanging Dome

Fig. 3.48c. Main dome of Saint Peter, in Angoulême (Escrig).

Fig. 3.49.a. General view of Saint Etienne, in Cahors (Escrig).

Fig. 3.48dc. Domes of Saint Peter, in Angoulême (Escrig).

62


of the Romanics churches, are not covered with a barrelvault. Structurally, in these cases we cannot speak ofa contribution, but it is shocking to find this island ofEastern tradition in the Roman Christian whole.

One of the structural advantages of these solutions isthat they rest in points and therefore release the wallsFig. 3.50 a and b. Plan and inner view of Fontevault (Conant).

Fig. 3.51a and b. Outer view and inner view of domes of Souillac(Escrig).

Fig. 3.49b. Inner view of Saint Etienne, in Cahors (Escrig).

63

The Hanging Dome

Fig. 3.52a and b. Saint Sophia, in Salonica. Outer view andstructural scheme (Krautheimer).

Fig. 3.53. Round Church in Preslav. Plan and section(Krautheimer).

Fig. 3.54a and b. Structural scheme and main dome of theDodrum Camii, in Constantinople (Krautheimer).

of load. These can be pierced with great hollows, theinteriors becoming unusually luminous for that time. Italso implies that the centring of the loads on thesupports, being greater than in the usual Romanicconstruction, requires smaller buttresses. So,churches were built of only one nave, with hardly anyside buttresses. At that moment, the massiveconstruction created in Saint Irene was surpassed,being presaged in other ways by what Gothic art wouldlater do.

Below we will see how other ribbed Romanicexpressions were also imported and that Gothic wouldhave not taken place without the existence of thecrusades.

Still in the Byzantine ground, the ability forexperimentation is inexhaustible. The power to makeastronomical investments has been lost, but in areduced scale new designs are tried. Saint Sophia inSalonica perforates a prismatic drum instead of thedome (Fig. 3.52), although in the interior that is notevident. The Round Church of Preslav (Fig. 3.53) com-bines all the possible complications: lobed circularplan, circular ambulatory, two levels, hemispheric domeon pierced drums and drum buttresses. The DodrumCamii in Constantinople, although a miniature, is ofan outstanding complexity (Fig. 3.54). At that moment,the dome of continuous mass already had experiencedall the possible forms. From that moment only designpolishing is left to be done, that is what theRenaissance style did.

Meanwhile other possibilities of a completely differentnature are opened up, turning the domes intosomething different: the ribbed dome.

64



1. CERETO, W. STEFANO, A . & NASCE, V. “HagiaSophia: A laboratorium monument”. StructuralRepair and Maintenance of Historical Building II.Sevilla 1991. Computational Mechanics Pub.,Southampton, Pp. 87-95.

2. CHOISY. “Historia de la Arquitectura”. Ed. Leru,Argentina.

3. CONANT. “Arquitectura Carolingia y Románica.800-1200”. Manuales de Arte Cátedra, Madrid.

4. HARRISON, M. “A temple for Byzantium”.University of Texas Press., Austin, pp.139, 1989.

5. HIDAKA, K et al “Photogrammetry of the EasternSemi-dome of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul”. PublicAssembly Structures. IASS Symposium 1993,Istanbul, Minar Sinan University Pub.

6. KRAUTHEIMER. “Arquitectura Paleocrisiana yBizantina”. Madrid Manuales Arte Cátedra, 1992.

7. MAINSTONE. “The Structural Conservation of HagiaSophia. Structural Repair and Maintenance ofHistorical Buildings III”. Bath, 1993, pp. 3-14.Computational Mechanics Pub., Southampton.

8. MAINSTONE. R. “Hagia Sophia”. Thames &Hudson, London, 1989.

9. MARK, R. “Architectural Technology use to theScientific Revolution”. The MIT Press, 1993.

10.MARK, R. “Structural analysis of Hagia Sophia: a

Historical Perspective”. Structural Repair andMaintenance of Historical Buildings III”. Bath 1993,Computational Mechanics Pub. Southampton, pp.33-45.

11.MIRABELLA, G. & LOMBARDINI, N. “Late RomanDomes in Clay tubes. Historical and numericalstudy of S. Vital in Ravena”. Spatial Structures.Heritage Present and Future, Milan, 1995. Ed.Padua, pp. 1237-1244.

12.MUNGAM. I & TÜRKMER, M. “Effect of the archesand semidomes on the Statical and dynamicBehaviour of the Central dome in Hagia Sophia”.Spatial Structures. Heritage Present and Future,Milan, 1995, Ed. Padua, pp. 1253-1260.

13.ORTEGA, F. “Historia de la Construcción”. LibroTercero, ETSA de las Palmas.

14. OZSEN, G.A. “The Structural Evaluation of KuçukAyasofya Mosque”. St. Sergius and Bakhus inIstanbul”. Spatial Structures. Heritage Present andFuture. Milan, 1995. Ed. Padua, pp. 1261-1270.

15.ROCA, P., GONZÁLEZ J.L., MARI, A.R. & OÑATEE. “Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions”.CIMNE, Barcelona, 1997.

16.SANPAOLESI, P. “Structure a cupolaautoportante”. Palladio. Rome, nº 1-IV, pp. 3-64.

17.SANPAOLESI, P. “La chiesa di S. Sophia aConstantinopoli”. Officina Edicione.

65

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.1. Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem (Valcárcel).

Chapter 4. THE RIBBED DOME

In search of lightness, economy and an easyconstruction, many techniques had been experimentedwith, the preceding chapters is the story of aprogression from heavier forms, despite their reduceddimensions, to the minimum weight in the wake ofthe Pantheon, whose huge room was thought of asthe maximum surface to be covered withoutintermediate supports. That had been possible thanksto the use of a malleable material that nobody wasable to reproduce. The Byzantine mortar made of limeand brick powder was of not much use and thestonework, which settled with a geometrical perfection,required a specialisation and means that very fewbuilders could achieve. Villa Adriana, Minerva Templeor Sergio and Baco reinforced their surfaces with groinsthat proved to be pretty stable. The thousands ofRoman groined vaults could collapse in many points,

but most usually kept intact in their pointed diagonals.Observation and logic must have helped a lot tounderstand that every folding reinforced the surface.But very few times, and no case has survived, a surfacewas considered as a piece of fabric which is made upof threads that are woven or warped showing thefanciest forms and the most beautiful drawings. Nocivilization bothered less about the three dimensionsthan those empires that suffered from vacuum horrorand felt forced to fill the buildings with reliefs, shapes,spaces and masses. The Assyrians, the Egyptians,the Greeks or the Romans, the eastern and the westernones, and even the Indians later, invented complexorders that had to cover everything.

Only the Muslims, followers of a linear religion thatdid not even accept the existence of a hell, having a

66


Fig. 4.2. Structural and geometrical section of the dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem (Ortega).

literature traced with only a winding line andrepresentation systems of the simplest geometry,without images and without imitating nature, couldconceive what turned out to be the most fecund wayfor architecture: the fibrous construction, thearchitecture of resistant lines.

The discovery of the fact that a form behaves byadapting itself to its inner resistant elements was reallya result of intuition, and many centuries had to passbefore forming part of the structures theory.Nevertheless, that was the path opened by the buildersof the ribbed domes.

Where is the origin of the true ribbed dome that basedon brick or stone courses that, logically, can be builtwith little shoring?

Without any doubt, the Omeyas triggered the process.The dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, finished in 691AD, was made of wood and followed the patternspreviously seen in the central Roman plans as that ofthe Saint Constance Mausoleum, profusely imitatedby close constructions such as the Virgin, or theMartirium of Seleucia or Resaffa. But there issomething that makes it different. The ribs of thecovering framework are copied out of a ship structure,the only reticular precedent of the great convex surfaces.Also, as in the naval version, the ribs were nailed to awooden planking on which to place the golden metal

outward or the polychrome plasterwork inward, hidingthe structure (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2). Its 20 m in diameterand 25 m of height imposed this type of lightconstruction on a great power that, having military andideological dominion over an immense territory, didnot have its own model to follow.

That is why the first great mosques, that wereconstructed making use of previous buildings and withso scarce elements, are so important to explain whathappened afterwards. Probably imitating the Rock, allthe mosques had a domed space that, in a certainway tried to be more representative outward thaninward, at least until the moment when minarets tookover from it as the identifying element. The mosquesof Damascus, Medina or Cairo would have domes thatin no way correspond to the present ones and that didnot allow to foretell what would happen. In fact, theappearance of the Abasies in the East and even thecoincidence of the literary, scientific and technicalrenaissances symbolised by Charlemagne in Aquitaineand Harum al Rashid in Baghdad, cannot hide thefact that the source was in Constantinople, whichboth of them tried to control from the extremes of thecivilised world.

Actually, the constructive technique of some domesof the time, as that of Ibn Tulum in Fustat, dating from879 AD, follow Sassanid and Byzantine patterns (Fig.4.3), but that of the great mosque of Kairnan, in 875,

67

The Ribbed Dome

obviously materialises what in the Rock was hidden(Fig. 4.4). Too many pieces of the puzzle havedisappeared to speculate about the birth of ribs in theEast.

What does not leave room for discussion is whathappened in Spain, where the deposed Omeyas createda court from 750 AD to the beginning of the millennium,similar in its splendour to that of Baghdad, but muchmore sophisticated, democratic and cultivated. TheMosque of Cordoba is, for many reasons, the mostbeautiful jewel since Saint Sophia to the greatRomanic cathedrals.

But we want to cite it here only because of its fivedomes on square or rectangular plan, built by Al-HakemII in 961 to 976 AD, being filigrees in brick that theGothic style equalled but did not surpass andexamples of inventiveness, beauty and efficacy.

The dimensions of 10 x 8 m2. of the Chapel ofVillaviciosa and its eight ribs permit it to cover some

polygonal spaces in a sumptuous way (Fig. 4.5).

Three other domes follow two different models ofpassage from the square to the octagon by means ofribs. The most beautiful of them, the central one, linksalternate vertexes of the octagon (Fig. 4.6). The othertwo link each vertex to the third one from that (Fig.4.7).

The Real Chapel, traced as the Chapel of Villaviciosa,hidden from visitors and lacking in ornaments is, withits serrated ribs, of an immense dramatism (Fig. 4.8).

Fig. 4.3. Mosque of Ibn Julun, in Fustat.

Fig. 4.4. Dome of the Great Mosque of Kaiman.

Fig. 4.5. Dome of the Chapel of Villaviciosa, in the Mosque ofCordoba.

Fig. 4.6. Main dome in front of the mihrab, in the Mosque ofCordoba.

68


It is not worthwhile to consider their structuralbehaviour, that is pretty obvious and was never intendedto draw anyone’s attention because of its audacity.Nevertheless, such modest constructions have beenadmired by all their past and present visitors. Basically,they did not deal with a constructive problem, but withan ornamental one. What was the difference amongthe solutions given to the making of an inlay (Fig. 4.9),of a tile (Fig. 4.10), of a map (Fig. 4.11), of a latticework(Fig. 4.12) or of a piece of fabric (Fig. 4.13)?

The consciousness of newness led to the repetition ofthis model with infinite variations. In Toledo, the smallChrist of the Light Mosque, dating from 1000 AD, is acollection of samples of different shapes (Fig. 4.15).Even after the Omeya splendour had faded, the Taifakingdoms were captivated to the point of affectationby the ornamental potential of such geometricalsystems.

The Aljaferia of Zaragoza, dated about 1050 AD, showsa coherence and a proportion that deserve deeper study(Fig. 4.14). Just as thousands of mosques that today,transformed to churches for a different worship, stillshow those simple domes, made by artisans whowere paid for carving different patterns in each work.

The remains underlying every village inhabited by theMuslims should be analysed one by one to find theinnumerable links that competed with the northernreligious architecture and with that from Byzantium,refusing to be integrated in which, once overcome theformer prejudices, would culminate in the Gothic style.There are complexes, such as Our Lady of the Olivein Lebrija (Fig. 4.16) or the Huelgas Monastery inBurgos (Fig. 4.17), that we cite only as a justification.

Without hesitation, Spain held this tradition practicallyto the present time with no interruption. Guarini, withthe 1668 Saint Lorenzo of Turin, inspired by theCordoba mosque (Fig. 4.18), or Luis Moya in the XXthcentury, forced by the poverty of the country thatrequired the recovering of this cheap technique (Fig.4.19), are examples of the maintaining of somethingthat not even the Christian conquerors of Muslim Spainthought of substituting. As a good example, themagnificent dome of the Room of the Ambassadors inthe Alcazar of Seville, which wooden work does not fitin this context, but that, nevertheless, reveals the veryhigh levels of sophistication reached (Fig. 4.20).

The other place in which the brick calligraphy reachedrefined levels was ancient Persia. The Isfahan complexis as rich in dome solutions as any other monumentin history (Fig. 4.21). Here we find starred domes (Fig.4.22), domes of polygonal patterns (Fig. 4.23), do-mes with the ribs exposed to the outside view (Fig.4.24), ribs embedded in the mass (Fig. 4.26), domeson pointed transverse arches (Fig. 4.25), very complextransitions from square to polygonal plans (Fig. 4.27)and wooden domes, looking like mushrooms in the

Fig. 4.7. Side dome in front of the mihrab, in the Mosque ofCordoba.

Fig. 4.8. Dome of the Royal Chapel, in the Mosque of Cordoba.

Fig. 4.9. Nazari escritoire made of wood and ivory marquetry.

Fig. 4.10. Nazari glazed tiles.

69

The Ribbed Dome

middle of the desert, like a beach full with umbrellasin front of a non existent sea (Fig. 4.28).

But Isfahan was only a laboratory in which peopleworked along nine centuries. The Iranian plateaus werefull with the most varied domes, the most pointed ofthem shored up (Fig. 4.29).

Even the rich wooden stalactites formations namedmocarabes, seem to have been originated in thecomplex systems of trumpet shells used to makegradually smaller the span to cover (Fig. 4.30). Thesewooden mocarabes would culminate in the superbNazary constructions in Granada (Figs. 4.31 and 4.32),or the fronts in apse or the Iranian and Indian ivans(Fig. 4.33), all of them in full in XIVth century or evenlater.

We find no great dimensions and complex geometriesobtained by means of poor materials and withoutexpensive wooden cradles or shoring. The pointedshape of the bigger domes, those ones exceeding 10m in diameter, are the result of the logical process ofsuperimposing courses, closing them in rings withoutlosing the stability in every round completed (Fig. 4.34).In the smaller ones the hemispherical or the flat formscould be kept thanks to the great thickness that allowedthe drawing of the funicular of its inner loads in aparabolic or pointed shape.

The Muslim art did not have prejudices against thegeometries respecting certain proportions and, in thatsense, distanced itself in an explicit way from thehistoric precedents. It does not seem either that thedesigns were conceived as a whole and we canimagine an intentional accumulation of elements thatavoid analysing the plans as proportional and evengeometrical tracings. For the same reason they couldadapt to unusual plots and reuse previous remainswith no scruples, even destroying and freelytransforming them afterward.

According to chronology, it seems unquestionable thatthe Muslim architects were pioneers in using the ribsas geometry generators and the structure in the domesolutions. This brought in a parallel way the pointedforms, the transverse arches and every sort of foldingand fantasies in the space between ribs.

They introduced too the brick disposition as a structuralvalue, constructive and ornamental since, in manycases, it would stay in full view. There are unrepeatableexamples of this, as some previously mentioned orthose found in Christian constructions in territoriesconquered to the Muslims (Figs. 4.35 and 4.36).

But these discoveries do not end in this point. Wehave already mentioned that a Christian resistancewas opposed to the Islamic expansion that, regardingarchitecture, materialised in the recovering of theclassic patterns.

Fig. 4.11. Maghrebi nautical map.

Fig. 4.12. Marble latticework of the Caliphal period.

Fig. 4.13. Almohade tapestry known as the Banner of Navasde Tolosa.

Fig. 4.14. Dome of the oratory of the Aljaferia, in Saragossa.

70


Fig. 4.15. Details of the nine ribbed domes of the Christ of the Light, in Toledo (Velázquez Bosco).

71

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.16a. Parish church of Our Lady of the Olive in Lebrija, Seville. General view.

Fig. 4.16b. Parish church of Our Lady of the Olive, in Lebrija,Seville. One of its domes.

Fig. 4.17. Dome of the Chapel of the Assumption, in the Huel-gas Monastery, in Burgos.

72


Fig. 4.18. Main dome and dome of the presbytery of SaintLawrence in Turin, by Guarini.

Fig. 4.19. Dome in Torrelavega, by Luís Moya (Moya 1956).

Fig. 4.20. Room of the Ambassadors dome, in the Alcazar of Seville.

73

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.21. Aerial view of the Mosque Aljama, in Isfahan 11th-18th century (Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.22. Starred domes in Isfahan (Upham Pope).

74


Fig. 4.23a. Southern dome of the Mosque Aljama, in Isfahan(Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.23b. Northern dome of the Mosque Aljama, in Isfahan(Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.24. Outside of the hemi dome of the Isfahan north-western ivan (Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.25. Succession of domes in Isfahan (Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.26. Dome of the northern room(Upham Pope).

Figs. 4.27a and b. Section and view of the Isfahan northern room dome (Upham Pope).

75

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.28. Mausoleums of Asuan (Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.29a. Dome of the Mosque ofArdestan (Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.29b. Madrasa of Ince Minare, inKonya (Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.30. Mausoleum of Al-Safi’I, in Cairo(Upham Pope).

Fig. 4.31. Dome of the Room of the Two Sisters, in theAlhambra of Granada.

Fig. 4.32. Roof of the Pavilion of the Abencerrajes, in theAlhambra of Granada.

76


Fig. 4.33a. Ivan of the Sanctuary of Masjid-i-Jami, in Isfahan. Fig. 4.33b. South-eastern ivan of the Sanctuary of Masjid-i-Jami, in Isfahan.

Fig. 4.34. Tomb of Oljeitu, in Sultaneia.

Since 800 AD, the Christians built in the Roman wayin the territories bordering with those of theirantagonists. From Aquisgran, with centred plan (Fig.4.37), to the Asturian Preromanic, with basilical plans(Fig. 4.38), like advanced Romanic style as Ste Maryof Ripoll (Fig. 4.39), there are no concessions but tothe imitation of the classical style.

This would last only until the moment when thebalance tips in favour of the Christian side, startingwith the reconquest of the conquered territories. Freeof complexes, the northern architects do not have any

prejudice to accept Muslim elements and even hiretheir builders.

In that moment first appears the Modern and later,Romanic that introduces the archivolts in the frontssimilar to the eastern ivans, the transverse arches tosupport the cimborrios and the formerets to reinforcethe vaults, together with the pilasters, arches, groinedvaults or Roman barrel vaults. Also, the decreasinggeometries that link square and octagonal plans andthe ribs to build the domes transept. Santiago ofCompostela (Fig. 4.40), as many other cathedrals, is

77

The Ribbed Dome

an example of the Romanic that combine all theseelements synthesising the style, a synthesis that willbe repeated with few variations in all the rest of theexamples, showing that willingness to acceptelements from other styles is only the verification ofthe structural efficiency not of a mental exchange.

Naturally, this attitude was gradually relaxing, mainlyafter the crusades, and the unbelievers were no longerseen as a culture to exterminate, except in the politicalground. Their cultural superiority at that momentproduced the transformation of western literature,science, technique and the rest of knowledge,architecture included. The austere Romanic changedto be shockingly ostentatious. In this time of splendour,Cluny competed with Medina Azahara, Byzantium orCairo (Fig. 4.41). Its system of square tiled towers, itsdomes, its polychromous stones, tapestries,sculptures, its libraries, workshops, schools,investigation centres, etc, were the counterpart tothose of Toledo or Cordoba. The extension of its church,with its endless wood of columns, as that of a mosque,its very high dome, more powerful than that of the Rock,shining with sparkles and bells, and its dozens of do-mes covering the radial chapels were more than asymbol of the power against Mahoma’s religion, butthe acknowledgement and appropriation of his culture.

No wonder that discontent and opposition to thatostentation grew among the most clear-sightedintellectuals. What was the use of prevailing on theopposite religion in the most superficial aspects? Whynot attack it from deeper grounds such as spiritualityand rigor?

Islamism was a linear conception, simple, withoutcontradictions or difficulties, without a past.Christianity was complex, deep, inaccessible,contradictory, tormented, and laden with a long historyand a doctrine made up of accumulations, legends,saints, heresies and councils. There was somethingmore interesting to obtain of all those circumstances,but the Cluniac monks had hidden it under thedecoration.

Much has been written about the features thatannounced the Gothic style during the Romanic: fan-vaulting, pointed arches. None of them weredeterminant for the new style, however evident theseelements could be.

The key consisted in spirituality and on the effortto synthesise the Christian thinking in an orderequivalent to that established by the preceding empires(Ref. 16).

So architecture and philosophy developed together tosuch extent that the scholasticism and the Gothicare indissoluble, so that theological literature wasconceived as an almost architectonic structure andarchitecture was conceived simultaneously by both

architects and thinkers, being evident this indissolubledependency in the Gothic rigor.

The leap between the Romanic and the Gothic stylewas not sudden because the Cistercian order made abridge toward simplicity in a still intuitive way. But thefact that the abbot Suger of Saint Denis, Saint Abelardand Luis VII coincided in time, together with the greatscholastics such as Albert the Great, Saint Buena-ventura or Saint Thomas of Aquino, resulted in theaforementioned renovation, which was based on a fewprinciples:

a) The inclusion of light as the soul of the built space.b) The order and the proportion of the whole, as an

identification of the spiritual power over the chaotic

Fig. 4.35. Dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in Torresdel Río in Navarra.

Fig. 4.36. Chapel dome of Church of Saint Marine, in Seville.

78


Fig. 4.37. Scheme of the Palatine Church, in Aquisgran.

urban mess on which these building were settled.c) The complete fading of any surface under branches,

threads and drawings that move architecture furtheraway from the classicist temptations.

d) The vegetal analogy by which the building turnedinto a living being with a luxuriant foliage and allsorts of living beings crouching in capitals, keys,gargoyles, buttresses, altarpieces, choirs andaltars.

e) The symbolic transcription in graphical signs of allthe concepts, resulting in ceiling roses, stainedglass windows, fretworks and labyrinths.

f) The use of geometry to replace drawing and thereplacement of proportion by trace.

For all that, Roman or Byzantine architecture was ofno use, and the examples more at hand for inspirationwere the Muslim ones.

Paradoxically, the two opposite and in a certain wayantithetic religions based their architecture upon thesame elements, though obviously with very differentresults.

Fig. 4.38. Scheme of Saint Julian of Prados, in Oviedo (Conant).

Fig. 4.39a. Saint Mary in Ripoll. Plan.

Fig. 4.39b. Saint Mary in Ripoll. Outer view.

Fig. 4.40. Building perspective of the Cathedral of Santiago deCompostela (Escrig).

79

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.41. General plan and perspective of the Monastery of Cluny (Conant).

Fig. 4.42. Interior of the Cathedral of Durham.

Fig. 4.43. Nôtre Dame of Paris.

Fig. 4.44. Cathedral of Laon.

The Gothic style is luminous and the Islamic one ig-nores the light, the former is light and the latter heavy,one is rationalist and coherent, the other fantasist andarbitrary. Fig. 4.46. Vault of the Cathedral of Chartres.

80


Fig. 4.47. Vault of the Cathedral of Lincoln.

Fig. 4.48. Vault of the Cathedral of Gloucester.

Fig. 4.49. Chapel of Saint George, in Windsor Castle.

Fig. 4.45. Cathedral of Toledo.

There is not a scale of values establishing a hierarchy,but the Gothic style brought to the limit the stresscapacity of the stones and forced gravity withimmaterial effects.

81

The Ribbed Dome

If we followed the thread of our text only on the basisof the domes, we would find very little material in theGothic style. There would be gigantic cimborrios overthe transepts, delicate chapterhouses in polygonalshape and side chapels with convex coverings carvedin threads. But all this would be embraced by therelentless rhythm of the naves, reaching impossibleheights.

Fig. 4.50. Chapel of Henry VII, in Westminster Abbey.

The singular elements of the Gothic style are rathertowers than domes, even though these have spiral outershape as huge cypresses or flames that ascend toheaven.

Since 1130 AD the Romanic becomes an old fashionedstyle that does not adapt to the new concepts andmust be substituted.

82


Fig. 4.51. Interior of the Cathedral of Prague. Fig. 4.52. Vault of the Church of Annaberg, in Saxony.

Fig. 4.53. Vault of the Cathedral of Segovia. Fig. 4.54. Vault of the Cathedral of Salamanca.

83

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.55. Vault of the transept of the Cathedral of Cordoba (Escrig).

84


Fig. 4.56. Chapel of Our Lady, in the Cathedral of Wells.

In the beginning, the Gothic four parts vaults resultingfrom the groined vaults, result in turn in vaults prettycontinuous, as in the case of Durham (Fig. 4.42). Butthe side walls of central naves were not coherent withthe squares of side naves.

The moment when the central naves are covered withsquare patterns, we can assume that they adopt therole of inner domes, though to the outside they areconcealed. Nôtre Dame de Paris is one of these firstexamples of six parts domes (Fig. 4.43), although itstracing does not relate directly to the different heightsof the arches keys. Leon is a more perfect case ofthis kind (Fig. 4.44). In Toledo, the keys are slightlypointed to obtain more convex forms (Fig. 4.45).

But the six parts domes were too irregular and soonthey were substituted by the four parts ones with aproportion 2:1, as in Chartres (Fig. 4.46) or by thefasciculated ones as in Lincoln (Fig. 4.47).

What naturally follows is the multiplication of ribs likea spiders web making the skeleton much morecomplex. Figs. 4.48 and 4.49 show some stonestructures that look rather like slender steel bars orhuge tropical leaves full of veins (Fig. 4.50), havingbeautiful rectilinear patterns (fig. 4.51) or fanciful curves(Fig. 4.52).

In Spain they developed the vaults of secondary ribs,which were able to stop the evolution of the imported

Renaissance styles practically the moment they weresubstituted by the Baroque structures. The Cathedralsof Segovia (Fig. 4.53), Salamanca (Fig. 4.54) andCórdoba (Fig. 4.55) are examples of it.

All these examples refer to cylindrical forms. But if wefocus on concave spaces such as chapels andcimborrios, the richness is even greater.

As for chapels, we highlight some of the mostimportant: those of Our Lady in Wells (Fig.4.56), theConstable in Burgos (Fig. 4.57) or the Abbey of Batalhain Portugal (Fig. 4.58). In all of them the Islamicpatterns are evident.

More variety and innovations offer the cimborrios,among which the English ones stand out with dramaticpassion. That of Ely, though made of wood, is themost spectacular of all (Fig. 4.59), and the result ofsuppressing the four main pillars of the transept untilgetting a polygon 25 m in diameter, whose mainframework is shown in Fig. 4.60. Heyman (Ref. 12)has recently done a study of this structure that wefind interesting to summarise.

Its framework has undergone some transformationsover the years, since it suffered serious structuraldeterioration through being made of wood. In the XVIIIthcentury, the architect Essex added some elementsto the point of turning it into the tangle illustrated inFig. 4.61. Later on, Walsingham cleared it until gettingthe polished result that is shown in the Fig. 4.62diagram.

If we analyse the stability of these structures as aspatial net, we can see that, although they fulfilMaxwell’s equation (Fig. 4.63):

Fig. 4.57. Chapel of the Constable, in the Cathedral of Burgos.

85

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.58. Church of the Abbey of Batalha (Stierlin).

Fig. 4.59. Octagon of the Cathedral of Ely.

Fig. 4.60. Wooden framework of the Cathedral of Ely octagon(Heyman).

Fig. 4.61. Initial design of the Cathedral of Ely octagon (Heyman).

Fig. 4.62. Construction sketch of the Cathedral of Ely octagon.The left side is the invention of Essex in 1760 and the right sidethe Walsingham solution.

86


Fig. 4.63. Perspective of the mechanism of the octagon of Ely.

3n = b + 6 [4.1]

being n the number of knots and b the number ofbars, if

3n < b + 6 [4.2]

the structure is hyperstatic, and if

3n > b + 6 [4.3]

the structure is isostatic and there is a lack of bars,as many as

F = 3n – b – 6 [4.4]

If the whole is linked to the outside, the number oflinks “s” can compensate the lacking bars. Therefore

F = 3n – b – 6 – s [4.5]

So, in a structure similar to that of Fig. 4.63,

N = 16, b = 24 and s = 24

And as a result of the equation [4.5] F = – 6

This means that there are 6 extra bars, which isequivalent to saying that the whole is hyperstatic.

But Maxwell’s equation is a necessary but notsufficient condition. Besides, the bars have to becorrectly distributed. In this case they are not and thewhole can get deformed as shown in Fig. 4.64. Thiswould not have happened had the polygon been oddsided; but due to a structural paradox, an even numberimplies serious damage for its behaviour. Therefore,Essex’s work did not have much use, no matter howmany bars were added. In addition, the curved woodenbars indicated underwent some effort due to thesupporting of the tower and were unbearable for sucha light material. Finally, Gilbert Scott, with less analyticand more technical criteria, got the whole stabilised.His solution consisted of increasing the heavy masonryof the outer circle, in duplicating the number ofbuttresses and stabilising everything by means ofdeadweight, what was very suitable against the windaction (Fig. 4.65). Heyman’s text is very detailed andworthwhile consulting.

Another impressive cimborrio is that of the Cathedralof Lincoln (Fig. 4.66) which, though having hardly15 m of side, resolves the square plan with this formuntil its culmination in a typically English solution.

The cimborrio of the Cathedral of Burgos is one of theworld’s most beautiful, in spite of its reduceddimensions. The elegance of the ornaments and theeffects of the ribs make of it a goldsmith’s work (Fig.4.67).

So many are the examples that for a deeper knowledgeof the matter we advise you to resort to the referencesat the end of this text.

Nevertheless, before ending this section we shouldmention the Cathedral of Valencia whose dome, thoughvery modest, has some specially valuable features(Fig. 4.68). It too has an octagonal plan, radial ribsand a height over the nave that doubles the width. It isa late work, already built by the XVth century. But itdoes not have steel chains nor buttresses (Fig. 4.69).It was the result of a careful study of the loads and thestructure that has to conduct them (Fig. 4.70). Toscamade the following description of its tracing:

“Being the octagon ABEN and C the vault plan: drawthe diagonals, that cross in the centre C, being thesethe horizontal traces of the diagonal arches and, atthe same time, their diameters; draw over one of thediagonals, for instance the BF, the pointed arch BGF,which centres are B and F, to which should be directedtheir tensions; over the cornisature and over the HI,and the same is to be done in the rest of sides, whicharches work like formerets for the vault, being in themand in the mentioned second body a group of windowssimilar to that of the first body. On the diagonal archesis built the vault, following the tracing of the arch orformeret HLI, which is made of winding brick and fillthe hollows ECA, ACB and C of the diagonal arches,which vault, being pointed, form in the middle an

Fig. 4.64. Mobility of the mechanism of the octagon of Ely.

87

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.65. Present state of the octagon of Ely outside.

Fig. 4.66. Vault of the cimborrio of the Cathedral of Lincoln.

Fig. 4.67. Set of nets of the lantern of the Cathedral of Burgos.

Fig. 4.68. Transept tower of the Cathedral of Valencia.

Fig. 4.69. Outside of the transept tower of the Cathedral ofValencia.

Fig. 4.70. Plan and section of the cimborrio of the Cathedral ofValencia, according to Tosca.

88


Fig. 4.71. Vault of the Cathedral of Beauvais.

Fig. 4.72a. Plan by Simón García, copying Gil de Hontañón, ofa church with fan-vaulting, in Chapter VI, page 18.

Fig. 4.72b. Church of Villascatín, in Segovia, by Gil deHontañón.

Fig. 4.73. Simón García transcribing Gil de Hontañón.Geometrical generation of the plan of a church.

89

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.74a. Simón García transcribing Gil de Hontañón. ChapterII, page 7.

Fig. 4.74b. Gil de Hontañón. Church of the Vine, in Burgos.Chapel of the monastery.

Fig. 4.75a. Simón García transcribing Gil de Hontañón. ChapterV, page 12. Plan tracing of a church of large dimensions.

Fig. 4.75b. Simón García, Chapter II, page 75. Plan of a churchof large dimensions.

90


Fig. 4.75.c. Cathedral of Segovia, by Gil de Hontañón.

entering angle corresponding with the line QC: thesame thing is made in every eighth side, beingconcluded the work with much beauty and firmnessenough, almost without needing an extra abutment,as I show in the following form:

Firstly, the vault that is placed over the transepts ACand BC and fill the hollow, which plan is the triangleACB, has enough abutments with the collateral vaultscorresponding with the triangles ACE and the one ofthe other side; because having such a high point islittle its thrust, against which have very enoughresistance the aforementioned collateral vaults,singularly when the plan has 6 or 8 sides, or evenmore”.

We wonder how with such poor analytical means aswe suppose existed in the Middle Ages, thesechallenges could be assumed with such precision.

We know that the Romans, much more advanced,fully trusted the accumulation of experiences that

allowed them to advance on the basis of previousprojects. In any case, they counted on a firmknowledge of geometry. But the massive and superfi-cial structures that they constructed were too difficultuntil the XVIIIth century.

Nevertheless, the Gothic structures had an advantageover any other: they were linear, so that their studyreduced to that of the balance of forces and loads.

Paradoxically, this did not even require someknowledge of geometry. It was enough making threadmodels, models that almost always can be flat, sinceGothic naves or radial chapels can be reduced to thestudy of parallel or polar plans. That is why what inthe XIXth century was resolved with the help of a staticgraphic that demanded skill in drawing, could beforebe experimented with a thread suspended betweentwo extremes being the springing supports. From thatpoint balance was achieved by means of weights, toget all the forces passing through the interior ofresistant members. When Gaudi built the Holy Family

91

The Ribbed Dome

he did but echo the Gothic tradition that still underliesthat zone of the Mediterranean.

The theory of proof and mistake does not provevalid in works of such a huge size and as muchinvestment. Otherwise, it cannot explain that thegreat constructions were made without minorprecedents. It is true that there were big disasters,but they were not proportionally bigger thanthose suffered nowadays by perfectly calculatedworks. Whoever visits the Cathedral of Beauvais isimpressed by the challenge of those 46 m high andfully holed naves (Fig. 4.71). It seems as if theslightest breeze or the minimum earth tremorcould make fade all that glasswork as if it were madeof smoke and, nevertheless, there it is, proudafter having undergone all the disgraces thatthe Genesis threw against those ones that wantedto build a Ziggurat to ascend to heaven. Beauvaisreached 156 m at its highest point and so challengedarrogantly all its neighbours who attempted to achievesimilar feats in their towers. Its collapsing shouldhave been considered a fair punishment. But Ulm,Strasbourg or Colony succeeded in materialising thatchallenge in stone, though after waiting for somecenturies.

In any case, there is no question that the thousandsof Gothic churches and cathedrals resulted in anexercise of calculation and risk and, as stoneworkinghad its own rules that were transmitted withoutexceeding the gremial limits, dimensioning too hadsome rules that you should not infringe and that gavesufficient safety coefficients which surprisingly werenot excessive. Maybe between 3 and 5, which inmasonry work is very advisable.

The existence of written treatises on dimensioning,maybe those written in code, is beyond any hesitation,but they are but few and little known. The mostimportant of all is that by Rodrigo Gil de Hontañón, socomplex that it must be a compilation of manytraditions.

It is worthwhile to spend some time on thesecontemporary books of Gothic structures.

The Gil de Hontañón’s manuscript is dated between1544 and 1554, evidently out of the period we arestudying in this chapter. But, since it is a synthesis ofall the knowledge gathered to the moment, it can bethought that some centuries ago construction followedthose criteria. Its name is “Treatise of architecture andsymmetry of the temples” and is exclusively aboutdimensioning. Maybe it is the first book aboutstructures of history. It consists of three different parts:

a) Calculation of the surface of temples.b) Establishment of the general tracing.c) Formulas for the dimensioning of the structural

elements, pillars, buttresses, vaults and towers.

For the calculation of the surface of temples, he useddemographic criteria. For the tracing, hesimultaneously based on the theories of the classicproportion as an analogy of human body and thesystems of the Gothic tradition for the geometricaltracing.

Fig. 4.72 shows the great resemblance to page 18 ofChapter VI in Gil de Hontañón’s book to the church of

Fig. 4.76. Name of the elements of a fan-vault.

Fig. 4.77. Simón García transcribing Gil de Hontañón. Cap. IV,page 105. Project of tower for the Cathedral of Salamanca.

92


Fig. 4.78a. Rule n.1 for the dimensioning of buttresses, accordingto Gil de Hontañón.

C H N A c� � ��23

23 2;

[4.7]

[4.8]

Villacastin tracing, dating from 1529, as an exampleof the proportional tracing that is also illustrated inFig. 4.73. Fig. 4.74 shows an outline of the geometricaltracing of page 7 in Chapter II and its resemblance tothe Church of La Vid in Burgos, dating from 1522. Fig.4.75 shows the equivalent for a cathedral and itsmaterialisation in the Cathedral of Segovia.

As for the dimensioning, he based it on the churchesof hall, which always used dome shaped vaults,following the outline of Fig. 4.76.

The dimensioning rules advised were:

Circular pillars:

D pillar diameter.H height of the nave.L span of the nave.A length of the stretch.

Buttresses:

C buttress side.H buttress height.ÓN addition of the halves of the ribs that take holdof the buttress lengths.A buttress core.

Ribs:

Bond-stone arch L/20.Transept arch L/24.Secondary ribs L/28.Arch of shape L/30.

This is of use if the pillars height equals the span ofthe stretch. If it is bigger, this will increase or diminishin the same proportion. Being a flat vault, thisdimensions should be increased. If the span of thestretches is different, the media should be used.

Keys:

Q weight of the key in quintales (about one hundredpounds).P weight of the transepts in quintales.ÓN length of the sustaining elements in feet.ÓS length of the sustained elements in feet.

Towers:

� �� SRPQ

Fig. 4.78b. Drawing of the Rule n.1

2

HE � 2

AHC ��

4

HA �

D H L A�

� �2

H height of the tower.A width of the tower.E thickness of the wall.C thickness of the buttress.

Fig. 4.77 shows the project of the Cathedral ofSalamanca.

[4.9]

93

The Ribbed Dome

Fig. 4.79a. Rule n.2 for the dimensioning of buttresses, accordingto Gil de Hontañón.

Fig. 4.79b. Drawing of the Rule n.2.

Fig. 4.80. Rule n.3 and its interpretation.

Besides, the manuscript spends some time in a se-ries of graphic considerations to the dimension of thebuttresses that correspond to different kind of arches,according to certain rules illustrated in Figs. 4.78 [RuleI], 4.79 [Rule II], 4.80 [Rule III] and 4.81 [Rule IV].

Rule I is only of use for circular arches, Rule II forflattened ones, Rule III allows the dimensioning ofbuttresses of variable section, whereas Rule IV is validfor every sort of arch.

Since that moment, some other treatises aboutstructural matters have been written, up to the presenttime. We want to highlight Durand’s rule for thedimensioning of buttresses for every kind of arch, whichdue to its simplicity was the most used (Fig. 4.82).

94


Fig. 4.81. Rule n.4.

Fig. 4.82. Rules of Sanabria and Derand.

We may wonder about the precision of these methodsand their justification. The answer is rather complex.They cannot be disdained as simplifications made bypeople who ignored calculation, or magnified as theelixir of experience. To be true, their dimensions couldhave been improved making them depend on thematerials quality and the geographical zones. But inshort, these buildings have survived in spite of disastersand wars, which cannot be said of some presentconstructions dimensioned in the limit.

The ribs based construction was one of the greatdiscoveries of architecture, and although it was buriedby the builders of the Renaissance, the Baroque andthe classic style, it once again reached a predominantsituation with steel and concrete, making possiblenowadays the largest known structural designs.

95

The Ribbed Dome

1. ACLAND, J.H. “Medieval Structure: The GothicVault” University of Toronto Press, 1972.

2. ADAM, E. “L´Architecture Medievale II”. PetiteBiblioteque Payot.

3. BARRUCAND, M. & BEDNORZ, A. “Arquitectura Islámica en Andalucía”. Taschem, 1992.

4. CLIFTON - TAYLOR, A. “The Cathedrals ofEngland”. Thames & Hudson, 1986.

5. CONANT, K. J. “Arquitectura Carolingia yRománica 800-1200”. Ediciones Cátedra, 1982.

6. DODDS, J.D. “Al-Andalus. Las Artes Islámicasen España”. Edi. El Viso, 1992.

7. ESCRIG, F. & PÉREZ VALCARCEL, J.”La Modernidad del Gótico. Seis puntos de vista sobrela arquitectura medieval”. Servicio dePublicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla, 2004.

8. ETTINGHAUSEN, R. & GRABAR, O. “Arte yArquitectura del Islam 650-1250”.

9. FITCHEN, J. “The construction of GothicCathedrals. A Study of Medieval Vault Erection”.Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1967.

10.GIMPEL, J. “Les Bátisseus de Cathedrales”.Editions du Seuil, 1961.

11.GOMEZ RAMOS, R. “La Iglesia de Sta. Maríade Sevilla”. Universidad de Sevilla. ArteHispalense nº 60, 1993.

12.HEYMAN, J. “Teoría, historia y restauración deEstructuras de Fábrica”. Instituto Juan de


Herrera. E.T.S.A. de Madrid, 1995.13.HOAG, J.D. “Rodrigo Gil de Hontañon. Gótico y

Renacimiento en la Arquitectura Española delsiglo XVI”. Xarait, Madrid, 1985.

14.HUERTA, S. “Diseño Estructural de Arcos,Bóvedas y Cúpulas en España. 1500-1800”. Tésisno Publicada. ETSA Madrid, 1990.

15.JIMENEZ MARTIN, A. “El Arte Islámico”. Historiadel Arte nº 15. HISTORIA 16.

16.MARK, R. “Experiments in Gothic Structure”. MITPress, Cambridge, 1992.

17.MICHELL, G. “Architecture of the Islamic World.Its History and Social Meaning”. Thames &Hudson, 1978.

18.PANOFSKY, E. “A Gothic Architecture andScholasticism”. Latrobe, 1957.

19.RUIZ DE LA ROSA, J. A. “Traza y Simetría de laArquitectura”. Universidad de Sevilla. SerieArquitectura nº 10, 1987.

20.SIMSON, Otto von “The Gothic Catedral. Originsof Gothic Architecture and the medieval conceptsof order”. Princeton Univ. Press, 1956.

21.UPHAM POPE, A. “Persian Architecture”.Thames & Hudson, 1965.

22.VIOLLET LE DUC, E. “Entretiens surl´Architecture” 2 vols. París: A. Morel, 1863-1872.

23.WILSON, C. “The Gothic Cathedral”. Thames &Hudson, 1992.

While the fiction of the Empire was alive, all overEurope there was a certain stylistic coherence thatmaterialised in the Romanic and kept on ruling thearchitectonical interventions. From England to Sicilyor from Galicia to Germany, the Roman patterns,reproduced in shafts, capitals, circular arches andspherical domes, meant an outline of orders andornaments renowned as classical. This unity survivedfor longer than the Empire itself, in spite of the factthat Charlemagne tried to repromote it under his militaryand moral control. His heritage, torn apart by hischildren who consolidated a systematic confrontationamong the European regions that is still dragging on,and the economic fact that the Empire was fictitiousand that every little portion of its territory had to surviveon its own initiatives, extinguished the last embers ofthat unity. Since that moment, new nationalisms wereborn, echoing protohistorical periods of legends andepic poems free of the influence of the Romandominion.

The Gothic style was born with a huge strength in theNorth of France and matured with its interventions,which seemed impossible given the scant capitalisationof the cities. This ostentation of autonomic fervourspread quickly all over a geography that, not havingroots of its own, saw in that imaginative style that hadno prejudices and was free in its interpretation, a goodchance to turn it into its own creation. Despite itsformal unity, its determinist techniques and its similarresults, it was possibly understood that the localistornaments provided enough freedom to make peopleclaim a disconnection of the classic rules, pagan andoppressive. The Gothic style, despite the manytransformations undergone along the history, can betraced crouching in periods of political centralism thatnecessarily required again a calling for the imperialsystem until the extinction of those periods. The XIXthcentury, shaken by the Napoleonic dominion,resources, from the literature to the plastic arts, tothe nationalist dream of the medieval Renaissance.The XXth century itself resorts to decorativism in anyof its known aspects (Art Noveau, Modernism,Secession, etc), while the new nations are takingshape and history is being rewritten. It is common

Chapter 5. A PLANIFIED REVENGE. UNDER THE SHADOW OF BRUNELLESCHI

knowledge of the huge difficulties faced by the greatpioneers of new international architecture to see theirworks recognised before the end of the First WorldWar, which brought a certain stability to the nations'borders.

But despite its undeniable appeal, the Gothic styledid not shake the foundations of the birthplace ofClassicism. It was impossible for the central zone ofItaly, mainly the regions of Toscana and Campania, torenounce its own culture to join the commotion of thevegetal architecture. The Classicism had been inventedthere, had been planned from Rome and had provedable to unify cultures as distant as the Persian andthe Mauritanian. The Italian Romanesque always hada luminous and tidy appearance that could not be foundin Santiago or in Maguncia. The different orders kepta certain purity and the marble slabs showed a Romancut. In summary, the skill was not lost. In fact, theEastern Empire survived until the XVth century andthe permeability was absolute. The Gothic stylecrossed Italy leaving but a patina of modernity thatcould not conceal the classical substrate. Only theregion of Lombardy, always reluctant to join the Empire,accepted the new style with a relative conviction.Venice’s case is different. Venice was a patchwork ofdifferent cultures, gathered thanks to their commercialvocation. Venice could not be unaware of what washappening elsewhere, since it lived on others’ illusions.It constructed Saint Marcos, a literal copy of the SaintApostles Church in Constantinople, with a passionthat extended to the building of the sumptuous me-dieval palaces and the Renaissance churches of theinitial times.

The Renaissance, or the Modern Style, as was thennamed, wanted too to be a local self-assertionconnected to a story that, on this occasion, wasperfectly documented. Any dusted off classical textwas celebrated with great acclaim from the intellectualsthat were making that national consciousness. In anopposite way to that proposed in the Middle Ages, inthis case unification did not have a military but aneconomic nature, showing through it the deeprenovation and the knowledge of the control

96

mechanisms. It was a coincidence that in that momentthree giant personages, who were at war amongthemselves, had to fight against their owndisintegration. The fact that Charles V, Francisco Iand Henry VIII confirmed in the new style their longingfor universality, facilitated its diffusion. The Renaissancecould have been only a trend, had it not coincidedwith that historical moment.

In symmetry, the Eastern Empire had also crumbledand a tribe of conquerors had succeeded in rebuildingit with a dimension never seen before. The OttomanEmpire was forced to straight away invent another uni-versal style to have under strict control the dispersionto which tended Egyptians, Persians and Byzantinessharing the same yoke. It was not necessary to lookfor very long. The great works of the VIth century builtby Theodosius were claimed as undeniableautochthonous precedents. Maybe they were not asrich as the Islamic filigrees, but their colossaldimensions matched the magnificence of the Empire.Finally there was a mixing that nowadays gets usamazed at its unity, its beauty and its technique. TheItalian Renaissance architects themselves never hidtheir admiration for the constructive quality of thosemonuments and even Leonardo’s notes show that hehad found in them an inspiration for his proposals.The Renaissance was no more a western matter. Atthe same time, a similar explosion was taking placein the Far East, as well as some time later in India ormuch sooner in Mesoamerica with a culture soadvanced as the Aztec one, unfortunately destroyedin only a night by a swineherd from Extremadura. Evenin Central Africa there was a phenomenon unthinkableof in that continent except in the Nile proximity.

When we talk about the Renaissance, we will not referto Vitrubio’s resurrection note to the collectors ofancient pieces of marble. We want to focus on thenecessity of creating a sphere of proposals that arerecognisable for their unity and language and thatappeal to precedent Roman constructions.

In the moment when Florence decided to be the drivingforce behind the classic Renaissance, this city wasnot the most powerful in the Italian peninsula. Milan,Sienna and, of course, Venice were ahead. Neither inFlorence were there old remains to take as a model.No big works that stimulated the self-esteem had yetbeen undertaken. Nevertheless, it was here where thatnational consciousness took shape. May be literature,under Dante’s and Petrarca’s leadership, was thetrigger of the new classicism. In painting it was Giottoand in sculpture the Pisano’s school. All of them havea medieval background that floats over their greatinnovations. That is why we must set 1400 as themagical date in which the decision on the competitionto build the doors of the Florence’s Baptisteryseparated the vocations of Ghiberti as a sculptor andBunelleschi as an architect. Undoubtedly, the latterwas superior in both fields and finished drawing

Fig. 5.1. Saint Vital, in Ravenna (Escrig).

Fig. 5.2. Saint Lawrence, in Milan (Escrig).

together the best artists of the time around him.Donatello, della Robia, Massacio and Alberti were hisfervent admirers. That is why it was a logical decisionto elect him to project and build the most importantwork of the XVth century.

Italy in that moment, as in previous years, was fullyready to assume a new important role. In architecture,the great works kept on being the representativechurches. Pisa had, in the XIIIth century, the mostqualified monument, behind the Roman works thatsurvived in the ancient capital city and in Ravenna (Fig.5.1) or Milan (Fig. 5.2). Its classical ornaments andits two domes would be a reference to imitate until thearrival of the Baroque. What was left of the Gothicperiod was several churches: Saint Francisco in Asisi(Fig. 5.3), Saint Petronio in Bologna (Fig. 5.4), SaintAnthony in Padua (Fig. 5.5) and Saint John and SaintPaul in Venice (Fig. 5.6). The great Gothic works were

97

A Planified Revenge. Under the Shadow of Brunelleschi

98


to be started very late. The Cathedral of Milan hardlyhad got its galleries finished in the XVIth century (Fig.5.7). In the Monastery of Pavia the great architects ofthe XVth century still worked (Fig. 5.8). Only in theCathedral of Sienna, finished in the XIVth century, canwe find the perfectly delimited foundations ofClassicism (Fig. 5.9): semicircular arches, pilasterswith Corinthian capitals, transverse arches and a domeover the three naves by means of resting on anhexagonal plan (Fig. 5.10). Sienna was an economicalpower that could afford that luxury, a counter power toFlorence that tried to do the same but failed, becauseFlorence also started building a gigantic Duomo underthe leadership of the main sculptor and architect ofthe time, Arnolfo of Cambio (Fig. 5.11). Here you couldbe amazed at the sight of the Saint John Baptistery,constructed in the XIIth century, that could be built toscale on the new church (Fig. 5.12). Thus it wasdecided that the shy projected nave would be endedwith a powerful octagonal rotunda and threecounteracting thick arms. The dimension of the wallsis explained by the need of avoiding the seriousvariations that started appearing in the ambitious worksof Sienna and even in Giotto’s Campanile, beside SaintMary of the Flowers. It is obvious that the failures ofSienna were seen by the Florentines as successes,whereas they did not agree about the modifications todo in Arnolfo’s first works. Since the middle of thecentury scale models and proposals followed eachother. The rivalry among the three competing architectsis well known: Talenti, Orcagna and Lapo Ghini. Thefinal result was decided by a popular vote and wasimmortalised in a picture (Fig. 5.13). Being the threeof them, mostly sculptors with little experience inarchitecture, it was no surprise that they could notsolve the problem of building an octagonal dome 42 min diameter, 50 metres from the floor. To cap it all, thelengthening of the main nave and its conversion from

Fig. 5.3. Saint Francisco, in Asisi.

Fig. 5.4. Saint Petronio, in Bologna.

Fig. 5.5. Saint Anthony, in Padua.

Fig. 5.6. Saint John and Saint Paul, in Venice.

99


five modules to four, generated some thrusts strongerthan expected, that had to be counteracted withmetallic struts (Fig. 5.14).

We have spent time with these descriptions so farfrom the Renaissance period because they lead us todeduce the debt that Brunelleschi owed to the past.When he won the competition in 1420 he was asculptor with a vast culture who had visited and studiedthe main Roman remains. That is why his first importantwork, the portico for the Hospital of the Innocent, is ofso refined a classical style (Fig. 5.15). Talenti hadinvented a complete shoring system that wasexcessively expensive and the successive masterbuilders did not go above the drum, the spring line,because they did not find a satisfactory solution tokeep going. The common proposal of Brunelleschi andGhiberti was based on two fundamental contributions:the possibility of lifting the drum twelve metres moreand the solution of vaulting without wooden cradles. Itwas, in that moment, a complete madness that wasbased on the knowledge of the Pantheon and the Tem-ple of Minerva Medica, but had to be resolved with amedieval shape and in keeping with the contractclauses.

We can think that the genius of Brunelleschi wasuniversally recognised but at that moment he was onearchitect among many who competed in Florence doingall type of tasks. Brunelleschi, in the confusion of acompetition in which nobody proposed a solution ofcommon sense, elaborated a scale model thatscrupulously respected the image assumed by thecity reflected in paintings and sculptures, by which itwas remunerated. During three years there was acontinuous debate on the way to close that giganticcrater located at the top of the church. His ability wasdemonstrated by being able to show with his modelthat it could be constructed without a wooden cradle.The silk guild had to trust this architect of hardly fortyyears, although Ghiberty and Battista d´Antonio weredesignated to help him.

In order to avoid surprises a contract with twelveclauses was signed to define the shape, theconstructive materials, the thickness, the number ofribs and the building systems. This contract probablyreflected Brunelleschi’s own choice. In spite of that,there is a shortage of information about this phase inwhich the works of the cathedral were continued, neverseen before for a monument of its dimension. It seems

Fig. 5.7. State of the Cathedral of Milan in 1773 (Creve).

Fig. 5.8. Monastery of Pavia (Heindereich and Lotz).

Fig. 5.9. Cathedral of Sienna (Escrig).

Fig. 5.10. Cathedral of Sienna (Stierlin).

100


that Brunelleschi, very self-confident and mistrustinghis competitors, worked with the maximum of secrecy.The workers themselves had to be lodged in the workplace and the plans were destroyed as soon as theywere used. If the dome had a basically medievalaspect, also the atmosphere in which it was beingbuilt seemed medieval. Therefore, it is not surprisingthat everything that has been written on the dome isbased on suppositions. Maybe Mainstone is the personwho has described the difficulties of this work ingreatest detail, perhaps because he saw it with anengineer´s eyes.

Starting from the knowledge that the dimensions andthe shape were imposed, we are going to describethe components and solutions of so singular a work.In the first place it was built on an octagon 42 metresin inscribed diametre, placed 55 metres high from the

Fig. 5.11. Superimposition of the former and final projects ofSaint Mary of the Flowers, in Florence (Borsi et alt.).

Fig. 5.12. Saint John Baptistery, in Florence (Escrig).

Fig. 5.13. Painting by Andrea Bonaiuti, including the project ofSaint Mary of the Flowers chosen by popular consensus.

Fig. 5.14. Metallic struts in the nave of Saint Mary of the Flowers.

Fig. 5.15. Portico of the Hospital of the Innocent, in Florence(Escrig).

101


Fig. 5.16. Final sketch of the dome of Saint Mary of the Flowers.

Fig. 5.17. Profile tracing of the dome of Saint Mary of the Flowers

(Escrig).

Fig. 5.18. Sketch of the ribs of Saint Mary of the Flowers (Battisti).Fig. 5.19. Building set of the dome of Saint Mary of the Flowers

(Battisti).

ground, on a drum of 12 metres (Fig. 5.16). The first14 metres were made of stone and the rest of brick,reaching a height from the ground of 90 metres. Theprofile is that of the “quinto acuto” pointed arch, whichconsists of dividing the diametre in five parts and takingthe fourth segment as the centre of the curvature (Fig.5.17). It results in a cambered form with a slope of 67ºin the key that turns into 62º because of the existenceof an oculo 5 metres in diametre. The dome is formedby eight main ribs of circular tracing, a radius of 36metres and 8.8 metres in width and sixteen meridianribs on the sides with an elliptical tracing 1.3 metresin width (Fig. 5.18). In addition, there are 9 parallelsthat together with those in the base and the crowningmake up a very rigid space reticule. All that iscomplemented with two laminar sheets of cylindricaltracing, an inner one of 2.20 metres and anotherexternal of 0.73 metres, with a gap between them of5.17 metres (Fig. 5.19). All this results in a weight ofabout 7 tonnes per square metre of dome unevenlydistributed. The total weight of the structure is 20,000tonnes.

The merit of Brunelleschi consisted of constructing itwithout the aid of wooden cradles nor shoring. Neverbefore had a building of these dimensions beenconstructed in that way. And he could not have knownof other smaller domes, such as that of the Treasureof Atreo, that were made by means of courses, orsome of the Eastern constructions, so he was forcedto use the knowledge of the Gothic techniques thatdid have a solution for these problems. If only the ribswere sustained by a framework, the rest could rest onthem. But in this case the ribs were excessively highand too heavy. We know that in the years previous tothe building order, the architect had been in Romestudying the classic remains. From the Pantheon helearned the value of the ribbings to lighten the weightof the whole, from the Domus Aurea how to solve anoctagonal dome, from the Temple of Minerva Medicahow to turn an octagonal plan into a circular one andhow to insert ribbings in its interior to make theinterspersing of masonry in between easier. From theCaracalla Thermae he learned the techniques ofmassive construction and the advance of courses. Wemust take into account though that Florence hadcontacts with Eastern artists due to the commercialexchange, and it was possible that some craftsmenhad moved to Tuscany to enjoy its temperate climateand its standard of living; the disposition of the bricksin the dome was too similar to that of the old EasternEmpire. The fact of using a pointed profile helped muchin the solution, once loaded with a heavy lantern.

Nevertheless, we can only conjecture about thefollowing procedures. The first 8 metres, made of stonedid not cause problems. They practically continuedthe drum and were used to intersperse all kind ofhorizontal tying elements (Fig. 5.20): building stoneswith metallic staples, wood belts, metallic bars. Theireffectiveness is in question when we consider that their

breakage or destruction did not affect the dome. Butthey had a stabilising role regarding the rheologicaland seismic behaviour. Some hypotheses use thecriterion that the author wanted to build a circular domeinserted in the octagon and therefore the courses hadto be successively closed so that they acted ascompressing rings. This hypothesis complicatesimmensely the construction method since floatingcentres are needed for the tracing of the surface and,in addition, the courses are not flat since they are theresult of the intersection of a cone with an ellipticalcylinder (Fig. 5.21). However complicated thishypothesis could be, it has prevailed over the other asthe official one. With respect to the masonry, theworkers must have been placed on climbing scaffoldsto lay the bricks. On the outside, with a thickness of0.73 metres, as well as in the interior, with a thicknessof 2.2 metres, where these scaffolds would advancehanging on the void (Fig. 5.22), anyone will find it verydifficult to explain how the big bricks could be properlylaid. The most admissible hypothesis is the simplestand has been described in one of my previous works.

It is documented that for the construction Brunelleschilevelled the sandy area around the Arno to make theworking tracing and to measure to life-size scale. Fewcould interpret those lines drawn with lime on theground and the wooden stakes, except for the authorand his collaborators. If the author wanted to keepsecret his method he succeeded since nobody couldfind it out later. From the life-sized drawing he drewthe curves of the formerets that were going to be theframework for one of the ribs. Having a constant radius,he only had to make sections of a easy-to-use lengthand place them in their point, verifying their geometryfrom platforms at the height of the drum crowning (Fig.5.23). That way the ribs could be made with a gradualincrease of height and a radial tracing of the brickcourses. By means of the level, the points at the sameheight could be linked to the horizontal brick courses,placing in the established intervals the reinforcementsof the inner ribs to link the two sheets. The bricks ofthese two shells must logically be horizontal sincethere is no simple geometric method to draw them upradially. And after all, what Brunelleschi wasconstructing was a Gothic dome of ribbings (Fig. 5.24),that is to say following the patterns established bythe authors of the previous century tracing. But stillthere are other advantages. On this work, four metresthick in the base and rather thicker in the key, alongits horizontal cut the workers could walk and do theirtask at the level of their hands without having to crouchor use sawhorses (Fig. 5.25). This is the most effectiveform to make good use of the possibilities of theconstruction.

What is more, at the edges, all kinds of safetyelements could be placed as handrails or similar. Theaccidents during this work are not documented, mostpossibly because they were very few. The materialswould be lifted by means of machines fixed to the

102


corbels that perforated the dome and were used laterin the rendering and in the tile roof. There is evidenceof the ability of the authors of the work to inventmechanisms because nowadays some of them arestill in the Duomo Museum (Fig. 5.26). Along the firstfew metres the stability of the whole would not dependon the collaboration of all the parts, but as this becamenecessary the courses would be closed beforeadvancing to the following. The mortar used at the time,with a thickness of up to five centimetres took muchtime to harden, this made it a necessity to advance inhorizontal layers instead of vertically in order to beable to walk along the previous layers. The period ofone week calculated by some historians to place abrick course all around the octagon must be lengtheneddue to the more than eight courses that had to be laidto reach the height of the workers waist. This wouldmean that they could spend two months walking overprevious courses.

As for the structural behaviour, much has been saidabout the thrusts produced in the different rings. If theprofile had been hemispheric, there would have beentractions in the base greater than those that couldhave been absorbed by the brick and the mortar (Fig.5.27). Having been pointed, that proportion producescompressions in all the mass. All this would happenwith a circular plan. As the plan was octagonal, the

Fig. 5.21. Building progress of the dome of Saint Mary of theFlowers, according to the floating centres hypothesis(Borsi et al.).

Fig. 5.22. Hypothetical scaffolding system of the dome of SaintMary of the Flowers (Battisti).

103


104


edges of the cylindrical sheets resulted in an arch likebehaviour of the great corner ribs. Finally we havereturned to the calculation of the whole like that of adome with eight ribs propped up in the key. The stabilityof the whole is based on the behaviour of those Gothicribbings. If these do not move the stability of the wholeis not in danger. Much importance has been attachedto the spring bundles, among other things becausethey were mentioned in the contract and were in factmade. About this matter several theories have beenformulated too:

a) A first theory says that these elements are tractionrings compensating the outward thrusts. Not having acircular plan, this is not true and the curving dispositionthat appears in so many plans of the base can perfectlyhave been invented. In order to rigidise the traction ona straight element, a curved cable makes the resultworse because it introduces flexions.

b) A second one says that they play a checking rolefor the whole working. Before the dome is damaged,these controllers would break. These were expensivecontrollers that could have been substituted by a sim-ple rope.

c) A third theory says that they serve to stabilise eachone of the stretches that, due to their complicatednetwork of ribs and internal arches, also undergo hori-zontal thrusts. In this case they have to be necessarilystraight.

d) A fourth one simply says that they do not serve foranything and can even be detrimental because theyforce to behave as a whole something that has to havea certain independence.

e) We put forward another theory that is not in thebibliography. The bundles were in the contract andthey were to be placed in the beginning of the works,when Brunelleschi still did not have enough prestigeto change the criteria of the contractors.

Fig. 5.23. Building proposal by the author (Escrig).

Fig. 5.24. Ribs according to Salvadori (Escrig).

Fig. 5.25. Hypothetical climbing way without scaffolding,according to the author (Escrig).

Fig. 5.26. Winch in a drawing by Francisco de Giorgio (Battisti).

105


In practice we can see that the cracking that appearedin the centre of the stretchers and in the joining withthe ribs confirms the most sceptical hypotheses (Fig.5.28). Each rib works at this moment in an independentway, however it was as the initial planning. Theanalytical verifications that have been done by everyinvestigator are interested in their own hypotheses andtend to demonstrate them. Thus the calculation byfinite elements of Kato, who considers the masonry ahomogenous and continuous material. Out of thiscalculation we deduce that the traction in the base ofthe whole barely reaches 1 tonne, a practicallyinsignificant one (Fig. 5.29). The same author alsoanalyses the advantages of the pointing and comesto the conclusion that the “quinto acuto” used is theideal combination between its own weight and thedisplacement in the base (Fig. 5.30).

The large amount of writing generated by those cracksis amazing, in contrast to the few on the construction.

From Leonardo to Fontana, including Michelangelo,many gave their opinion, although nobody did anythingto prevent them. The studies of Blasi demonstrate thatthe evolution of them have much to do with thetemperature changes (Fig. 5.31).

Another important aspect is the fish bone dispositionthat confirms that the Eastern techniques ofconstruction, absolutely ignored or at least not usedby the westerners, were known then(Figs. 5.32 and5.33). As we have already mentioned, Brunelleschimust have known them well, since there are manysimilarities with works placed along the route of thecaravans. Mainstone mentions the Oljeitu Mausoleumfor its great resemblance and for being dated at thebeginning of the XIVth century: octagonal plan, pointedbrick dome, double skin linked by ribs and a greatdimension (a crowning 54 m high, 24 m in diametreand the same “quinto acuto”). Too many chances tohave been discovered separately (Fig. 5.34). The fishbone disposition would be used in practically all laterbrick works (Figs. 5.35 and 5.36) and even in some ofthe stonework (Fig. 5.37) until the systematicapplication of the chambered domes of Byzantineorigin.

Considering the importance attributed to the greatdome as the architectonical beginning of theRenaissance, we have given enough hints as to itslineage and position as a landmark and the culminationof the medieval proposals. The cathedrals of Milan andPavia tried to emulate what presumably was therecovery of the monumental Gothic. Fortunately,Brunelleschi surpassed what could have been only atechnical challenge and began to design with greatrigor and modesty other works in which thetechnological challenge did not exist but that set outan intellectual adventure. Nevertheless, in theresolution of other smaller domes he always usedribbings except for those with circular profile. Thesolution of the Old Chapel of Saint Lawrence is similarto that of Sergio and Baco in Constantinople, apartfrom the fact that it has twelve ribbings instead ofsixteen (Fig. 5.38). The new aspects were theornaments and an order that, from then on would becommon place. The existence of the four horizontallevels is clearly evident. The first one, that of the naves,the second one, on the first cornice, that of thetransverse arches, the third one that of the drum,replaced here by sectioned plans of the dome, andthe fourth one that of the dome (Fig. 5.39).

In the Pazzi Chapel, with a similar technique, hetimidly sets a Greek cross plan (Fig. 5.40). In thechurches of Saint Lawrence (Fig. 5.41) and Holy Spirit(Fig. 5.42) he perfected the basilical plan until giving itthe invariable features that have survived to date asexamples of religious architecture. It cannot be saidthat these were technical adventures, but theyemphasised proportion, therefore putting an end to thegeometrical style of the Gothic.

Fig. 5.27. Tractions in the base of the dome of Saint Mary of theFlowers, in the hemispherical and pointed hypotheses (Escrig).

Fig. 5.28. Present cracking state of the dome of Saint Mary of theFlowers (Borsi et al.).

106


Fig. 5.29. Analysis by Finite Elements of the Dome of Saint Mary of the Flowers (Aoki and Kato).

107


Fig. 5.30. Analysis of different shapes for the same dome (Aoki).

Fig. 5.31. Present dome cracking (Blasi and Mark).

108


Brunelleschi would still do new contributions in hisapproach to classicism, renewing the contributionsabout the temples of circular plan. Saint Mary of theAngels recovered the thermal type of the paleochristianbaptisteries and opened a fruitful new path in thefollowing years (Fig. 5.43). It seems that it was Albertiwho suggested to him to leave the square and takethe compass. The proposals to extend and enlargeinnumerable churches spread all over Italy would beborn here. Michelozzo in SS. Anunciata crowns abasilical nave with a rotunda identical to that of theTemple of Medical Minerva (Fig. 5.44). Alberti in SaintFrancisco of Rimimi (Fig. 5.45), never finished asshown in the medal of Mateo of Pasti (Fig. 5.46), triesto crown a new temple with another gigantic rotunda.Bramante does the same thing in Saint Mary of theGrace in Milan, with 20 m in diameter (Fig. 5.47).

Fig. 5.32. Drawing by Antonio de Sangallo the Young, of thedome fish bone disposition.

Fig. 5.33. Fish bone disposition in Isfahan (Upham Pope).

Fig. 5.34a. Oljeitu Mausoleum, in Iran (Escrig).

Fig. 5.31b. Structure of the dome of the Oljeitu Mausoleum

109


Fig. 5.35. Fish bone building of a Vatican room (Souza, notpublished).

Fig. 5.36. Drawing by Antonio de Sangallo the Young ofa minor dome for Saint Peter’s, built in fish bone(Mainstone).

Fig. 5.37. Dome of the chapel of the Anet castle, built by Philibert de l’Orme in 1549 (Blunt).

110


Saint Mary of the Flowers would be the new incentivefor the new great transept domes: Saint Petronio inBologna, not finished (Fig. 5.48), the Cathedral of Pavia,with the intervention of Bramante (Fig. 5.49) and theCathedral of Milan, by Francisco de Giorgio (Fig. 5.50)from previous drawings by Leonardo (Fig. 5.51).

Also Alberti had opened the doors to a new model,the Greek cross plan, this time perfectly defined, inwhich the building is projected in a pyramidal shapetowards the pinnacle of the dome. Saint Sebastian inMantua, with a dome 17 m in diametre that collapsedjust after being constructed (Fig. 5.52), or Santa Mariadelle Carcerei in Prato, by Giuliano de San Gallo, arethe quattrocentist prototypes of this proposal madeby Brunelleschi.

Very usually Leonardo has been considered aninnovator for having proposed the bubbles plans (Fig.5.54). But the complexity of these designs hinderedthe clarity that the new style looked for. On the otherhand, the characteristic impatience of the inventormade him leave any project that required much timeand he was never able to go beyond the paper stagein architecture. Nevertheless, the most gifted architectof the transition the XVth century, Bramante, had takeneverything that had been done, said or drawn and wouldopen the full Renaissance in its entire splendour.

At the end of the XVth century the ideal synthesis hadbeen reached on the basis of some principlesobjectively enunciated:

a) Reinvention of Classicism having as a referencethe Roman times.

b) Elaboration of a formal language usable as a uni-versal language with strict rules of application.

c) Definition of a catalogue of basic models to be usedaccording to their function.

d) Recovery of a technology alternative to the Gothicbased on the wall and not in the rib.

e) Importance of the introduction of urban-planning anddefinition of the urban space from architectonicelements.

To get all this, the synthesis of all the plastic arts, thevaluation of the drawing and the perspective for theircharacter of virtual definition of the work to construct,and the rising of the artist to the rank of an intellectual,were counted on.

In the Renaissance buildings we are going to findcertain constant elements that make them easy toidentify:

1) The unity of the building. This is something thatdefines the Agrippa Pantheon and that is not repeateduntil the Shrine of Saint Peter in Montorio.

2) Focality. Of a longitudinal type towards the back ofthe nave, of a central type towards an inner point or ofa vertical type towards the key of the dome by wherea flood of light can enter.

Fig. 5.38. Old chapel of Saint Lawrence, in Florence (Battisti).

Fig. 5.39. Axonometry of the old chapel of Saint Lawrence, inFlorence (Heindenreich and Lotz).

111


Fig. 5.40. Pazzi Chapel, in Florence (Borsi et alt.).

Fig. 5.41. Church of Saint Lawrence, in Florence (Heindenreichand Lotz).

Fig. 5.42. Holy Spirit Church, in Florence (Stierlin).

112


Fig. 5.43a. Drawing by Brunelleschi for Saint Mary of the Flowers,in Florence.

Fig. 5.43b. Drawing by Leonardo of Saint Mary of the Flowers.

Fig. 5.44. Proposal by Michelozzo for the extension of the Anunciata chapel, in Florence (Heindenreich and Lotz).

Fig. 5.45. Work of Alberti in Saint Francisco, in Rimimi (Heindenreich and Lotz).

113


3) Luminosity. In spite of the wall based structure, theconstructive systems allow the opening of greathollows in the high parts of the naves and drums.4) The domed ending as an essential element for thecontrol of the inner space and for the identification ofthis from the outside. The dome recovers the oculos,lost in the Gothic style, which is ended by a lantern.5) Modulation, that is used in the ground plan and inthe elevation and replaces the regulating plan of theGothic. The orders are of use for the signalling of themodules.This means in practice three types with many variantsthat Brunelleschi constructed as if he was writing atreatise on architecture in a stone similar to that writtenin paper by Alberti: a longitudinal plan as that of HolySpirit, a Greek cross plan as that of the Pazzi Chapeland a circular plan in Saint Mary of the Angels.

The structural and functional advantages of these typesare the following:

Longitudinal Type:

- Hall plan with buttresses embedded between thelateral chapels.

- Barrel vault in the main nave with lunettes thatconcentrate the loads on the pilasters.

- Perfect buttressing of the dome with hardly any needfor additional reinforcement of the supports.

- Use of low quality materials.- Illumination at several levels.- Continuity of the outside order towards the interior.- Transverse arches connected with the masonry.

Greek cross type:

- Descending balance of the loads with no need ofbuttresses.

Fig. 5.46. Alberti’s project for Saint Francisco, in Rimimi. Fig. 5.47. Saint Mary of the Grace, in Milan (Escrig).

114


- Planned as an autonomous urban element and as aunitary inner space.

- It allows an organic growth in draughtboard form, inthe cases where the space unity is turned down.

Circular type:

- It is a highly symbolical form except for the Christianfaith that finds in it an excess of Christian references.

- It has many structural advantages when buttressingon or linking.

- It allows implementation of the old or Easternconstructive systems.

One of the features of the Italian Renaissance is theabsence of towers that destroy or hide the unity of thewhole. The high domes replace them. This feature cannot be extrapolated to other regions.

Fig. 5.48. Peruzzi’s proposal for Saint Petronio, in Bologna .

Fig. 5.49a. Cathedral of Pavia (Stierlin).

Fig. 5.49b. Model of the Cathedral of Pavia .

115


Fig. 5.50. Proposal by Francisco Giorgio for the cimborrio of the Cathedral of Milan (Pedretti).

Fig. 5.51. Leonardo’s sketching for the cimborrio of the Cathedralof Milan.

116


Fig. 5.52. Alberti’s project for Saint Sebastian, in Mantua (Heindenreich and Lotz).

Fig. 5.53. Saint Mary of the Imprisoned in Prato, by Giuliano de Sangallo (Escrig).

117


Fig. 5.54a, b, c and d. Bubbles domes for centralised plan proposed by Leonardo.

118


Fig. 5.54e, f, g and h. Bubbles domes for centralised plan proposedby Leonardo.

Fig. 5.55. Bubbles domes for longitudinal plan proposed by Fig. 5.56. Dome sketches for the Milan Duomo by Leonardo.

119


1. AOKI, T., KIDAKA, K. & KATO, S. "StructuralStability and profile in the Dome of Sta. Mª del Fiore.Florence". STREMA. Computational MechanicsPub., Southampton.

2. ARGAN,G.C. “Brunelleschi”.Electa.3. BENEVOLO, L. “Historia de la Arquitectura del

Renacimiento”. Taurus, Madrid.4. BLASI, C. & GUSELLA, V. "Historical evolution of

the Cracks of the Brunelleschi´s Dome in Florence:Experimental Data Analysis and NumericalStructural Model". Computational MechanicsPublications, Southampton.

5. BORSI, F. “Leon Batista Alberti”. Electa, Milan.6. BORSI. "Filipo Brunelleschi: 1377-1446. La

naisance de lárchitecture moderne". LÉquerre,Paris.

7. BULGARELLI. “Allómbra delle volte: architetturadel quatrocento a Firence e Venecia”. Electa,Milano.

8. CABLE, C. "Brunelleschi and his perspectivepanels". Vance Bibliographies, Monticello.

9. CASTEX, J. "Renacimiento, Barroco y Clasicismo".Hª de la Arquitectura 1420-1720”. AKAL, Madrid.

10.DOUMATO, L. "Filippo brunelleschi". VanceBibliography, Monticello.

11.FANELLI, G. "Brunelleschi". Scala, Firence.12.HEIDENREICH, L.H. & LOTZ, W. “Arquitectura en


Italia 1400-1600”. Manuales Arte Cátedra, Madrid.13.KATO, S., HIDAKA, K. & AOKI, T. "Structural Role

of the wooden ring of the dome of STA. Mª del Fiorein Florence". IASS Symposium 1988, Istanbul.

14.KLOTZ, H. “Filipo Brunelleschi: The early worksand the medieval tradition”. Academy Ed, London.

15.MAINSTONE, R. “Structure in Architecture: History,Design and Innovation”. Ashgate Publishing Ltd,U.K.

16.MARK, R. “Architectural Technology”. MIT Press,Cambridge, Mass.

17.MILLON, H.A. & MAGNANO, V. “The Renaissance:from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: Therepresentation of Architecture”. Thames andHudson.

18.MURRAY, “The outline of the Italian Renaissance”.London.

19.PEDRETTI, C. “Leonardo Architetto”. Electa, Milan.20.PRAGER, F. & SCAGLIA,G. “Brunelleschi: Studies

of his technology and inventions”. MIT Press,Cambridge, Mass.

21.ROSSI, P.A. “Le Coupole del Brunelleschi”.Bologna,

22.SAALMAN, H. "Filipo Brunelleschi. The Coupolaof Sta. Mª del Fiore". London.

23.SALVADORI, M. “Why Buildings stand up”.Norton, N.Y.

120


Brunelleschi and Alberti had placed architecture on alevel that only required enough wealthy patrons andexperienced architects. Both circumstances happenedto to be found together in the dawn of the XVIth centuryin the times of their great successors: Bramante,Michelangelo, Vignola and Palladio.

As for the patrons, Rome had again become the capitalof the Christian world after the return of the Pope fromAvignon and his pretension to turn it into the greatestcity of the known world. Alberti convinced Nicolas V ofthe the idea that the choir begun by Rosellino behindthe old basilica of Saint Peter, lacked the greatnessthat the initiative of the construction of the new templeof Salomón exiged (Fig. 6.1). Nonetheless, thisinitiative did not succeed because his successor, PabloII, insisted on continuing the same project so that it

Chapter 6. THE CENTURY OF THE GREAT ARCHITECTS

was finished in the Holy Year 1475. But it was Julio II,who after his arrival to the pontifical throne in 1503,fully changed the planning. Although his personalarchitect was Giuliano de Sangallo, the order wasmade to Donato Bramante, an experienced architectbut with almost no work built in Rome; it is curiousthat his most remarkable piece has a minimumdimension: a shrine.

This Tempieto of Saint Peter in Montorio is theparadigm of the new classic perfection. Belonging tothe Doric order, placed on a peristyle rotunda andcovered with a hemispheric dome, it was an exerciseof formal precision that could only be built in thedimension of a small model (Fig. 6.2). All thearchitecture of the Renaissance can be found in thissmall piece.

Fig.6.1. Rosellino’s project for the Basilica of Saint Peter(Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.2. Bramante’s projecto for the Shrine of Saint Peter inMontorio (Millon and Magnano).

121

The Century of the Great Architects

When he received the order to continue the building ofthe great basilica he was therefore an artist who hadearned the respect of people even greater than thatearned by his teachers. His problem was that he hadto start off from a plan that gave shape to his own planand from a pre-existing building that indicated the axis.In his hand dated drawing dating from 1505, we see atthe same time the plan of the former Saint Peter, thepart constructed by Rosellino and his first idea ofadaptation to the pre-existing construction (Fig. 6.3).Contrary to what is the traditional opinion, Bramantenever had the idea of constructing a temple of Greekplan, not even of making use of some of Leonardo’sproposals; he proposed to spin the plan ninety degrees.But his 1506 project is well represented by the innu-merable drawings of his assistant Peruzzi. There isno doubt about the fact that Giuliano of Sangallo, hiscompetitor, tried an alternative proposal of a centralisedplan based on Bramante (Fig. 6.4), whereas FraGiocondo showed a clear preference for a basilicalone (Fig. 6.5).

The great contribution of Bramante, which all thealternative proposals would conserve, was to bevel thehard corners of the part constructed by Rosellino to

Fig. 6.3. Bramante’s drawing of the Saint Peter’s projectadaptation to the pre-existing construction (Thoenes).

Fig. 6.5. Fra Giocondo’s project for Saint Peter’s (Thoenes).

Fig. 6.4. Sangallo’s project for Saint Peter’s (Thoenes).

122


extend the size of the dome and thus give it a diameterequivalent to the three naves, as had been done inFlorence and Pavia. That, and the idea of making someprojected pendentives of a spherical trapeze type, arealready found in the first outlines of Fig. 6.3. The projectis so reasonable and perfectly adapted to the plan ofthe paleochristian basilica, as much in width as inlength, as is shown in the Foellbach hypothesis (Fig.6.6). The plan in parchment (Fig. 6.7) seems to be thelast attempt to establish the definitive plan of the backpart. Whereas the medal of Caradoso illustrates thedome concept (Fig. 6.8), maybe on the basis of aproposal that has not reached our times and that weknow thanks to an idealisation by Serlio (Fig. 6.9)which makes good use of the parchment plan to makeit equivalent to Giuliano’s proposal.

There are no surviving important plans of Bramante’sproject, all we know is that he wanted to crown thebasilica with a hemispheric dome identical to that ofthe Pantheon. For that, his effort was aimed at thecreation of a base, firm enough to support the giganticthrusts that were supposed to be generated. Fig. 6.10illustrates in a disordered way this attempt inBramante’s drawing and Fig. 6.11a and b, the aspect

Fig. 6.6. Foellbach’s hypothesis of Bramante’s second projectadapted to the the paleochristian plan and to that built byRosellino (Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.7. Parchment plan solving the rear part of Bramante’sproject, in composition with a Peruzzi’s elevation (composedby Escrig).

Fig. 6.8. Caradoso’s medal of the prior solution (Lotz).

123


architects who followed him, disciples or admirers ofthe teacher, made the necessary changes to makepossible his great dream (Fig. 6.11c). Giuliano, Rafaelor Peruzzi reinforced the main pillars and consolidatedthe basilical plan (Figs. 6.12, 6.13 and 6.14). Antonioof Sangallo inherited the direction of works at the deathof Rafael in 1520, and during ten years he elaboratedfor the first time a complete and unitary project to solvethe difficulties of a dome that nobody had dared todesign. The drawing by Scorel illustrates the state ofworks at this moment (Fig. 6.15), whereas those byHeemskerck, the state in 1532 (Fig. 6.16).The ambitious work advanced slowly in the middle ofa succession of different popes, changing architects,political and religious problems and changes of ideas.In 1520, Lutero was excommunicated for preachingagainst the simoniacal uses of Church, the financingof the works of the Vatican being a main objective ofthose. In 1527, the sacking of Rome was made by thearmies that defended the religion. In 1529 Soleimanlaid siege to Vienna after Belgrade had already fallen.It is no wonder that between 1521 and 1534 the works

of what he tried to do. Nevertheless he had greatproblems in respect of this aspect, and it was naturallyMichelangelo, permanently in conflict with him, whorevealed the cracks that appeared in the great pillarsof the transept as they rose. Bramante died in 1514,just a year after a Florentine pope, Leon X, and the

Fig. 6.9. Serlio’s interpretation of Bramante’s dome (Kraus).

Fig. 6.11a. Drawing by Bramante of the dome support (Thoenes).b. Evolution of the shape of the great pillars in the Saint Peter’ssuccessive projects for the transept: Bramante, Peruzzi, Rafaeland Michelangelo (Bruschi).

Fig. 6.10. Bramante’s approaching to the final plan (Thoenes).

124


practically stopped. The only thing that Sangallo coulddo was to study the problem, to take notes and toprepare itself for better moments. Meanwhile the Italianarchitectonic panorama had much changed. Theexamples of Bramante and Alberti had many followersand the temples of central plan are the alternative trendto the basilical plans. Cola of Caprarola began theChurch of the Consolation in Todi in 1508, althoughthe cupola was not started until 1568 and was notfinished until 1606 (Fig. 6.17). Its 15 m in diameterand its unitary space confer on it a moving innerspatiality. Antonio of Sangallo the Old began theChapel of the Madona of Saint Biagio in Montepulcianoin 1518, which was built quickly and finished in 1529(Fig. 6.18). In 1564 the only one of its two projected

bell towers was finished, summarising thusBramante’s ideal that a church had to be preceded bytwo towers. Although it was only 12 m in diameter, itwas the first great dome finished in the XVIth century.Rafael, in addition to the Chigi Chapel, had alreadyexperimented with Alberti’s scheme in Saint Eligio,on a plan by Salustio Peruzi (Fig. 6.19), though with aminimum dimension of hardly eight metres. BernardinoZaccagni began the Madonna della Stacata in Parmain 1521, a symbiosis between the last two models,since it combined the cylindrical tubes with apsidalconoidal vaults and he even left planned four towersframing the dome (Fig. 6.20) or four cupolas instead.Although it only had a 14 m span, it was too big awork for that architect, who was replaced by Sangallo,

Fig. 6.12. Giuliano de Sangallo’s project to continue Bramante’swork (Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.13. Rafael’s project to continue Bramante’s work (Lotz). Fig. 6.15. Drawing by Scorel of the state of the vatican worksin 1520 (Lotz).

Fig. 6.14. Peruzzi’s project to continue Bramante’s work(Thoenes).

125


Fig. 6.16. Drawings by Heemskerch of the state of the worksin 1532 (Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.17. Church of the Consolation in Todi, by Cola ofCaprarola (Escrig).

Fig. 6.18. Chapel of the Madona in Biagio, by Antonio ofSangallo the Old (Tafuri).

126


Fig. 6.19. Drawings by Rafael for the Church of Saint Eligi(Tessari).

Fig. 6.21. Madona della Campagna in Piacenza, by Tramello(Lotz) (Escrig).

Fig. 6.20. Madona della Stacata in Parma, by Bernardino Zacagnii(Escrig).

127


Tramello and Corregio. In 1531 the work must havebeen very advanced since Parmigianino was asked topaint the dome. Tramello began the Madonna ofCampaña in 1522 (Fig. 6.21), that repeats the previousmodel but replaces the conoidal vaults with sectionsof cylindrical vault and really materialises the cornerdomes. In this case it was a Nordic decorative model,as it corresponded to Piacenza, but that complicatedthe centralised plan a lot.

The ideal of a centralised design, as planned byBrunelleschi in Saint Mary of the Angels, was the

Roman temple, and for reasons that have not beenclarified, although it seems that the stability of theground had an influence on the decision, the Florentinepope Leon X put out that model to a tender to build thechurch of Saint John of the Florentines in Rome, inwhich Rafael, Sangallo the Young, Peruzzi, JulioRomano, Vignola and Sansovino took part, the lastwinning the tender (Fig. 6.22). This happened in 1518and the work was not executed. But it generated abibliography for fifty years worth of proposals. Betterknown was the project of Sangallo (Fig. 6.23). Peruzzi’sproject can be seen in Fig. 6.24. Rafael’s, in Fig. 6.25,

Fig. 6.22. Sansovino’s project for Saint John of the Florentines, in Rome (Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.23. Antonio de Sangallo’s project for Saint John of the Florentines (Millon and Magnano).

128


is rather similar to the project that was being analysedas a solution for the Saint Peter dome. In 1559,Michelangelo, then architect of Saint Peter, was askedto also offer his plans (Fig. 6.26). The temple wasnever constructed but it was an example for successiveaccomplishments, as that of Sanmichelli in SaintBernardino and the Madonna of Campagna, both inVerona (Figs. 6.27 and 6.28).The afore mentioned details help us to understand thetransformations that Saint Peter was going to undergo

in the hands of Bramante’s successors. Rafael andAntonio of Sangallo the Young still were designing thebasilical plan. But the first project of Michelangelo wasalready fundamentally centralised. In spite of thereluctance that, according to Vasari, he showed beforethe enormous Sangallo project, without this the finalproject would not have been possible. Both Sangalloand Peruzzi had collaborated with Rafael, Peruzzi leftus the most valuable information about the constructiveadvances of the work and Sangallo provided us with a

Fig. 6.24. Peruzzi’s project for Saint John of the Florentines(Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.25. Rafael’s project for Saint John of the Florentines(Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.26. Michelangelo’s project for Saint John of theFlorentines (Argan and Contardi).

129


detailed project (Fig. 6.29) that was materialised inone of the wood scale models, real works of art of thearchitecture (Fig. 6.30). It seems that both architects,competing permanently for more than ten years, wereforced to work in tandem by Clement VII, eager toreduce the initial budget at any price. Also, the firstproject of Sangallo did not succeed, but his rigorouscomparative studies with the Pantheon revealed anattempt to materialise, in a reduced version,Bramante’s project. Fig. 6.31 shows the section ofthe Pantheon with measurements and three possiblesolutions for Saint Peter numbered in the drawing,whereas Fig. 6.32 shows the result of solution 3. From1530, both architects chose a centralised plansolution, with a portico of access of huge dimensions.

Peruzzi’s project can be traced through a series ofdrawings (Fig. 6.33), whereas Sangallo’s later reachesa full definition as a centralised one, which would notbe clearly seen until the order to make the scale modelin 1539, after the death in 1536 of Peruzzi who PopePaul III had every trust in. Maybe that was the reasonwhy Sangallo was forced to adopt the Greek crossplan (Fig. 6.34). His final project can be seen in Fig.6.35.

In this project, there are some aspects of greatinterest. We have said that Sangallo knew Bramante’sproject well, as well as its Roman and Florentineprecedents. He knew that the stability of the Pantheon

Fig. 6.27. Saint Bernardino in Verona, by Sanmicheli (Lotz).

Fig. 6.29. Sangallo’s project for Saint Peter’s (Bruschi).

Fig. 6.28. Madona della Campagna in Verona, by Sanmicheli(Lotz).

130


dome was based on the thickness of the base andthat the “quinto acuto” of Saint Mary of the Flowersincreased its stability and allowed a constructionwithout a wooden cradle. That is why his last projecthad such a Gothic profile and had only a ribbed sheet. The drum was reduced to the minimum to hide theexcessive height of the dome and the outside wasreinforced with two floors with columns, imitating twodrums superimposed. The dome is one of rotation with32 ribs that can be seen from both inside and out, andare connected by horizontal rings. Thus, besides notneeding wooden cradles, the construction would startwith these ribs, making up something similar to a

Fig. 6.30. Sangallo’s project model for Saint Peter’s (Lotz).

Fig. 6.31. Sangallo’s authographed drawing with the Pantheonmeasures and several solutions for Saint Peter’s dome(Bruschi).

Fig. 6.32. Sangallo´s Solution n. 3 of the previous drawing forSaint Peter’s (Bruschi).

131


reticular structure, as must have been done in thePantheon.

The other main aspect refers to the definition of theprofile, a little extravagant (Fig. 6.36). Not agreeingwith any of the precedents of great domes, he planneda section of 42 m in diameter and 30 m of height. Thatwas the result of projecting on a plan the curve resultingof the Fig. 6.37 tracing. It is a curve with a bigresemblance to a catenary that gathers differentadvantages: it hardly has any flexion on its profile anddoes not generate horizontal thrusts in the base. Let’ssay that Sangallo got, in an empirical way, an idealcurve. The comparative result between the domes ofBramante and Sangallo is that of Fig. 6.38.

Fig. 6.33. Preparatory drawings by Peruzzi for Saint Peter’s project (Millon and Magnano).

Fig. 6.34. Preparatory project to the final one by Sangallo forSaint Peter’s (Lotz).

132


Fig. 6.35a. Final project by Antonio of Sangallo for Saint Peter’s. Fig. 6.36. Sangallo’s dome profile proposal (Bruschi).

Fig. 6.35b. Drawing by Antonio of Sangallo for Saint Peter’s.

133


Fig. 6.37. Sangallo’s dome profile geometrical tracing (Millonand Magnano).

Fig. 6.38. Comparison between Bramante’s and Sangallo’sdomes (Mainstone).

Fig. 6.39. Graphical definition of the pendentives in a Bramante’sdrawing for Saint Peter’s (Thoenes).

Fig.6.40. Forces model with achains scheme (Kraus).

Fig. 6.42. Michelangelo’s modifications to the works made byhis predecessors (Argan and Contardi).

Fig. 6.41. Force lines obtainedfrom the previous model (Kraus).

134


Fig. 6.43. Michelangelo’s project for the Saint Peter’s plan,according to Duperac (Argan and Contardi).

Fig. 6.44. Michelangelo’s project elevations, according toDuperac (Argan and Contardi).

Fig. 6.45. Autographed drawings by Michelangelo, for theSaint Peter’s dome tracing (Argan and Contardi).

135


After the death of the architect in 1546, the divineMichelangelo succeeded him in his post, always inconflict with everybody and disagreeing with hispredecessors and contemporaries. Before starting thatchapter, it would be useful to analyse the two domesproposed to then.

According to Serlio’s drawing, which compiled thecontemporary schemes of Bramante (Fig. 6.9), itseems that we are faced with a mimetic reposition ofthe Pantheon. According to Krauss and consideringthat the dome rests on some projecting pendentives(Fig. 6.39), the most problematic section is thatcorresponding to the drum (Fig. 6.40), which must bereinforced with buttresses instead of columns (Fig.6.41) as Della Porta made later. Bramante did not havea solution to finish the Basilica and his project was soacademic that it did not guarantee the stability of thesupports even before the dome was built. The onlyexperimented element was the lantern, because it wasan identical copy of the Tempieto of Saint Peter inMontorio. As for the rest, without the help of Pellegrino,Peruzzi and Sangallo, he would have had problems,since he was more worried about other ordered works.Michelangelo expressed in those years his doubtsabout Bramante’s technical ability and honesty.

As for Sangallo’s project, we are going to differentiatebetween that confirmed by his hand in 1538 (Fig. 6.29)and that from 1546, the date of conclusion of the scale

model in wood (Fig. 6.30), in which graphicalexpression of Fig. 6.35 can be seen that the domebase has been reinforced by means of a peripherycolonnade. But most probably, this project, signed theyear of his death, was made by his collaborators,mainly by Antonio Labacco who used to boast about

Fig. 6.46. State of the drum at the time of Michelangelo’s death(Mainstone).

Fig. 6.47. Wooden scale model presented to Pope Paul III (Arganand Contardi).

136


being the author. Neither the drawings of Fig. 6.36,nor its expression in the sheets of Fig. 6.35, have thepolished design characteristic of one of the bestarchitects of the Renaissance. As both projects havenearly the same profile, we can only differentiate themby the existence or not of ribbings.

The first decisions taken by Michelangelo were drastic.Twenty-two years after Bramante’s death, he couldbe generous with his memory and make good use ofit to change the decisions of his successors: “It istrue that Bramante was the best architect of any time.He prepared the first plan of Saint Peter withoutconfusions, luminous and isolated not to interfere withany part of the Palace of the Popes. Anyone who hadcontinued with his idea, as Sangallo did, starting offfrom the truth to surround it with a crown of darknessand, besides, eliminating the light from the rest, fillingthe whole space with corners for delinquency, so whenclosing it in the afternoons, more than twenty-five menwere needed to vacate with a great effort the buildingof those who were hiding, can analyse it impartially.Sangallo’s project would need, because of thatadditional crown, the destruction the chapel of SaintPaul, the rooms of Piombo and many other parts, theSixtine Chapel included. In addition, it would cost morethan one hundred thousand crowns, since the remainsand the existing foundations would not be of use. ThusI understand it and someone should convince the Popeof that, which is very difficult for me.”

When in 1546 Michelangelo received the order tocontinue Sangallo’s work, his planning referredbasically to the plan and to the inner illumination. Hedid not previously have an overall idea as Sangallohad. The previous year, Council of Trento did not makea clear statement about the shape of the temples,except for those of circular plan, which were advisedagainst for being of pagans. His great skill in his firstinterventions was increasing its aspect of grandeur bydiminishing its size (Fig. 6.42). By diminishing theplan, any possible type of dome would increase inelevation. He reinforced the central supports and madea model for the conclusion of the whole that was

presented to the Pope. Vasari and Duperac wereguarantors for his project, to the point that when in1565 the continuator of the works, Piero Ligorio, wantedto change Michelangelo’s design he, was immediatelydismissed. The character of the Divine can be foundfrom his arguments with the ecclesiastical hierarchy.When he was asked to explain his project, heanswered that the mission of the Church was to lookfor the money, whereas he would be in charge of therest.

What was the contribution of Michelangelo to inspiresuch confidence? For a start, he had a clear and welldimensioned scheme. For the first time, an architecthad made a categorical statement about a centralisedplan (Fig. 6.43). There were no corners any more. Overa square there was a superimposed cross. The restwas masonry, and above it all, a drum and a domethat reflected Alberti’s spirit (Fig. 6.44). Also he wasnot Brunelleschi, he was a mix of Alberti and Braman-te. A drum crowned by a hemispheric shell. But healso learned from that drawing that it was not enough.It had to be constructed, despite its 42 m diameter. Inhis drawings, Michelangelo tried desperately to lightenthe loads, therefore the double sheet which would behemispheric inward and slightly cambered outward tosupport the lantern (Fig. 6.45). And between themsome meridian ribbings to connect them. Therehappened the paradoxical fact that the section is biggerin the key than in the base, unlike the Pantheon whichmodel Bramante copied . To absorb the thrusts, heput a firm belt in the drum, very medieval like, butdisguised as classical order (Fig. 6.46). Sixteenribbings that corresponded to each one of thebuttresses form the solid part of the dome.

We will never know how Michelangelo’s scheme wouldhave worked. He made sure that it was immutable bymeans of the construction of a wooden scale model(Fig. 6.47) which authority would maintain his presenceafter his death, in 1546. Only the drum did he seefinished (Fig. 6.48). The responsibility of crowning itwould be for others'. Nevertheless, his idea had anoutstanding power since, despite the fact that he wasin charge of the work for only fifteen of the almost onehundred and fifty years spent in the transformation ofthe paleochristian basilica and in spite of the over fiftyarchitects who took part, the final project was his.

Analysing his proposal, that some wanted to comparewith Saint Mary of the Flowers, we find evidentdifferences. The shape was not determined by theresistant behaviour, the constructive system, the stateof the trades or by a structural challenge. The shapewas an act of self-assertiveness of the ideas over thepractice and of freedom over the rule. Argánemphasises this concept and the fact that the followersof the academical rules of Vignola found this behaviourrepugnant. That is why his successors tried very hardto eliminate this stimulus to independence. Not beingable to fight against the Master’s authority, they hid

Fig. 6.48. West wing at work, by Michelangelo (Argan andContardi).

137


Fig. 6.49. Drawing by Dosio of the section and the lantern ofthe dome (Argan and Contardi).

Fig. 6.50. Section in perspective of the dome, by Dosio (Arganand Contardi).

Fig. 6.51. Section in perspective containing the drum, by Dosio(Argan and Contardi).

Fig. 6.52. Drawing made in Duperac’s atelier of Michelangelo’sidealised project (Argan and Contardi).

138


the tests, lost his drawings and modified the scalemodel until Della Porta and Vanvitelli succeeded inmaking the others believe that their project wasMichelangelo’s. That matter is discussed below. But,would the circular design have worked? Themathematical analysis cannot preview possibleconstructive solutions that could have made it viable.

As a result of the autographed drawings (Fig. 6.45),there have been speculations on whether the outsideshell was in “quinto acuto”, but the drawings byDuperac and Dosio’s sphere guarantee that, at leastin its definitive version, he chose two hemisphericaldomes (Figs. 6.44 and 6.49). Fig. 6.50 , drawn fromthe original wooden model, supports this thesis. Asfor whether the inner ribs went along the wholemeridian, the drawing of Fig. 6.51 clarifies it and, ifthey were interrupted at half their height in the laterwooden model, it was due to the fact that Della Portaand Vanvitelli did not complete the lacking materialwhen cambering the outside sheet. The image of Fig.6.52, although infantile, made every doubt disappearand even set the concept of façade that Michelangelohad in mind, the model of which was lost.

When he died in 1564, the work stopped. We havealready seen how Piero Ligorio was dismissed withoutany consideration, for trying to change the drawings.The dome construction was not restarted until DellaPorta, in 1588, decided to keep a modified project inuse that he did not make clear was so. Lifting theoutside dome almost eight metres, he approached thetracing in catenaries that could guarantee perfectstability. This implied that in the higher part, the innerribs turned into excessively heavy real walls. Thesolution was diminishing their width while increasingthe height. Fig. 6.53 shows a comparison betweenboth projects. At the same time, some metallic ringswere placed on the drum at a medium height, whichmust have hooped any tendency to radial opening.

There are different opinions about the constructivesystem used. Some, such as Salman, claim that itwas the same process as in Florence, which is doubtfulsince the geometrical planning was very different,whereas another, considering the amount of woodbought in 1589, deduce that it used a frameworksimilar to that of Fig. 6.54, by Fontana. There arecontemporary representations that go the same way.Fig. 6.55, also by Fontana, or Figs. 6.56, by Zabaglia,dating from 1773, copy graphics of the time. Mainstonejustifies these aspects in detail. It is amazing that ofsuch a singular work, made in a moment in which somany artists were transforming the city and drawingsystematically its evolution, there is no drawing of theconstruction process. It is true that the constructiononly lasted three years and that, probably, during theprocess it must have been a mess of planks, protectingcanopies and gross bricks. Even so, there is nojustification for the lack of information that makes uswork with hypotheses.

Fig. 6.53. Comparison between Michelangelo’s dome project(left) and della Porta’s (right) (Mainstone).

Fig. 6.54. Framework proposed by Fontana for the domeconstruction (Mainstone).

139


Using the same logic that we used on the dome ofFlorence, we think that the frameworks drawn by Fon-tana refers basically to the sixteen main ribs and thatthe rest could have been made with hardly a plankingor hanging of a rope. Besides, two ribs could havebeen built at a time and afterwards the wood used forthe other two (Fig. 6.54). The ribs, that had to be verydeep in the key, could have been built less tall andincreased later. That way, their weight would not resttotally on the framework during the construction. Fon-tana himself, in one of his descriptions, is ratherexplicit: “The tall walls grow like arches until the lanternbase in sixteen ribs that close the space, having belowand above the profile of the two layers, and they havekeys to insert the stretches of shell until getting theircomplete shape. The sixteen ribs were firstconstructed and were not loaded until being properlyhardened. Resting on them the circular sectors weremade, having 1.38 m in the base and slightlydiminishing toward the key with good bricks placedas a fish bone.”

In no more than 21 months, in September of 1591, thework had reached the starting of the lantern. Themosaic ornament was initiated the following year andthe mortar for recovering was used too to seal thefissures and cracks that appeared because ofrheological effects. It seems unlikely that in thatmoment anyone attached a big importance to thatphenomenon. Della Porta had succeeded in finishing,in a minimum term, a huge task about which othershad been previously getting nowhere. He has the meritof the construction, though the design belongs, withoutdoubt, to Michelangelo.

But Saint Peter’s adventure had not yet finished. Itseems that the existing cracks had increased in sizecausing alarm over risk of the collapse of the structure.Even Bernini was accused of being responsible, inpart, for some slight modifications made in thesupports. The 1730 earthquake forced the insertion ofcrack advance controllers. It was Vanvitelli in 1730who did the first detailed report with graphics thatsignalled the position of the damage (Fig. 6.57).According to Mainstone’s analysis, all the cracks wereinitially due to the radial thrusts that, in addition, haveseparated the buttresses, besides the fact that themetallic rings did not work. We must not forget, though,that the structure is not laminar, but a set of sixteenpowerful ribs with an edge of seven metres, linked bya skin much more fragile. Taking a good look at Fig.6.57, every crack generated in the stretches agreeswith that analysis. As for the buttresses, if they hadopened they would have had cracks in the oppositeway. It seems more probable that they were exhaustedby the weak resistance to compression. Rondelet’sdrawing (Fig. 6.58) reveals how little the buttressessection is. The cracks in the drum base show aninsufficient bracing by the tubes of the naves. In anycase, only an insufficient section of the base could bedangerous.

Fig. 6.55. Drawing by Fontana (Zabaglia?) for the domeconstruction (Mainstone).

Fig. 6.56a and b. Section of the same scaffolding used for thefurring, also in a drawing by Zabaglia (Mainstone).

Fig. 6.57. Drawing by Vanvitelly with marks where the domedamage appeared (Mainstone).

140


What were the analysis and the dispositions of thecontemporaries? In a report dating from 1742, Vanvitelliproposed the conventional solution of introducing fourmetallic rings for bracing, which did not satisfy thecultivated Benedict XIV who asked thee famousmathematicians to prepare a deeper report. Le Seur,Jacquier and Boskovich presented him their opinionsthat were published in a document of maximumscientific interest. Two alternative hypotheses, with andwithout the cracked buttresses, were based on it. In

both cases hinges were placed where cracks hadeffectively been found.

Obviously, the analysis was flat, since there was stillnot enough knowledge to do a spatial calculation. InFig. 6.59 can be seen the result of the visual check(central drawing), the consideration of the buttresseswithout cracking (above, left) and with the existingpseudovertical crack (above, right). In the first case,they deduced that there was a safety margin big

Fig. 6.58. Drawing by Rondelet explaining thedamage and showing the weaker section of

the drum.

Fig. 6.59. Flat analysis of the dome behaviour by Le Seur,Jacquier and Boskovich and proposed reinforcements(Mainstone).

Fig. 6.60. Analysis of the parabola ofpressures, made by Poleni.

Fig. 6.61. Spatial analysis by Poleni,from which the breaking lines areobtained.

Fig. 6.62. Reinforcements proposed by Poleni.

141


enough even without working the chains placed duringthe construction. In the second case, the state wasproblematic even with the chains working. This secondcase was very pessimistic, since the cracking didexist. The proposed solution was a new chain, alsoshown.

Nevertheless, that report must not have convinced thebuilders or the Pope, since it meant that the domehad to have already collapsed. A second report, byanother great mathematician, John Poleni, has agreater importance because of its solid line ofarguments. From the parabola of pressures of Fig.6.60, he determined the point in which the hinge Lmust be produced, and set out a spatial analysis inFig. 6.61. As a conclusion, he suggested the exactpoint in which should be placed the chain of hoopsand even its value, though this had been ratherarbitrarily deducted. Nonetheless, his line of argumentswere speculative, since Vanvitelli already had takencare in placing the chains A, B, C, D and E in additionto the primitive ones n and u of Fig. 6.62.

Saint Peter's sums up everything that happened inthe XVIth century, though around it can be found greatarchitectonic contributions. In short, we have seen howAlberti’s ideal is taken up by Bramante, who reinventsthe ancient ideal, and is betrayed by Peruzzi, whofavours Brunelleschi’s way, and above all by Sangallo,brilliant but tending to the Gothic in his development.When Michelangelo appears in the architectonicscene, he does it with his characteristic terribilitá, veryfew of his contemporary architects were able to escapehis personal influence and almost none in the followingcentury. Only one, greatest among the great,succeeded and saved the situation, keeping sane inthe middle of insanity. Andrea Palladio reached theperfect architecture – at least, as defined by the laternon-Italian architects. His complex works are such aprodigy of obvious simplicity. His religious architecture,from Saint Giorgio Maiore (Fig. 6.63) to the DivineRedeemer (Fig. 6. 64), is not a structural wonder, butit is a wonder in simplicity. It is in civil architecturewhere he expresses with more serenity the difficultbalance between the complexity of the programmesand the clarity of the solution. Villa Rotonda is, maybe,the most successful house and the best known inhistory, surpassing Villa Savoie or the Cascade House,only to mention two of the most important (Fig. 6.65).

From 1591 to 1624, there is little to tell about Italy.But we have overlooked what happened elsewhere,as in Spain, where Diego of Siloe, Hernán Ruiz andAndrés of Vandelvira made, in the XVIth century, basiccontributions to architecture, even from a structuralpoint of view. The decagonal dome of the Cathedral ofGranada, by Siloe (Fig. 6.66), finished in 1557, thedome of the Real Chapel in Seville, by Hernán Ruiz(Fig. 6.67) and dating from 1562 or the group of vaultsof so many Andalusian stonework churches that canbe seen in Fig. 6.68, by Vandelvira. The solution a) is

Fig. 6.63. Saint Giorgio Maggiones, in Venice. Plans by Palladio(Wundram and Pape).

Fig. 6.64. The Divine Redeemer, in Venice. Plans by Palladio(Wundram and Pape).

142


found in the Cathedral of Jaen that, otherwise, is arepertoire of almost every solution. The solution b) wasfrequently used by Juan Bautista of Toledo in ElEscorial, or by Vandelvira himself in Saint Salvador inUbeda. The solution c) is found too in Saint JuanBautista in Chiclana. The d) solution that, as we cansee, is a mixed one, is exquisitely represented in thetreatise by Vandelvira, but is difficult to find at aconsiderable scale. The e) and f) solutions, with theribs standing out, can be found in Our Lady ofConsolación in Cazalla (Seville) or in Azpeitia(Guipuzcoa).

In terms of importance, Juan de Herrera has not thevalue of invention of the others, though his participationin El Escorial gives him a certain pre-eminence.However, his Palladianism is ascetic and bare and hisstructural capacity remains dubious after his numerousconstructive mistakes.

In France, however, the Italian, Diaspora, brought bigcontributions. From Leonardo to Serlio, de L’Orme (Fig.6.69) and Primaticio (Fig. 6.70), they are the best ofthe century.

Fig. 6.65. Villa Rotonda, in Vicenza. Plans by Palladio(Wundram and Pape).

Fig. 6.66. Dome of the Cathedral of Granada, by Diego of Siloe.

Fig. 6.67. Dome of the Real Chapel in Seville, by Hernán Ruiz(Escrig).

143


The Italian Renaissance and its national branches stillproduced new models that we have to highlight if weintend to understand the Baroque. Serlio, in his BookV, developed the fundamentals of the elliptical plantracing and several architectonical proposals (Fig.6.71). His book, published in 1545, caused theconstruction of the little temple of Saint Andrea inRome by Vignola, another great treatise writer andarchitect. It is one of those scarce examples ofarchitectonical rotundity that summarises a wholeprogramme in a little model measuring 10 x 7 x 2 m.(Fig. 6.72). In its second version in Saint Anne of theGrooms, a little bigger and with more ornaments, themodulation of orders is in direct conflict with the difficultgeometry (Fig. 6.73).

The work of Serlio and Vignola was better knownoutside of Italy than that of Michelangelo. Therefore,no wonder it turned out to be a pattern for the biggestconstructions of this type. Whereas in Italy, Volterra,in 1590, plans the big dome of Saint Giacomo degli

Fig. 6.68. Solutions through stonework vaults made byVandelvira (Cobreros).

Fig. 6.69. Chapel of the Castle of Anet, by Philibert de l’Orme(Blunt).

Fig. 6.70. Primaticio’s project for the Chapel Valois, in St. Denis(Blunt).

144


Incurabili, measuring 26 x 19 m (Fig. 6.74), Vitozzibegins a risky and troublesome construction in SaintMary de Vicoforte in Mandovi, measuring 36 x 24 m(Fig. 6.75). It is in Spain, where some projects of thisgreatness are finished sooner. The Capitular Hall ofthe Cathedral of Seville, begun in 1569 by Hernan Ruiz(Fig. 6.76) and the Cathedral of Cordoba transept, withthe same plan but started in 1557 (Fig. 6.77), are theforerunner masterpieces of elliptical plans.

Alonso of Vandelvira’s treatise, dating from around1590, explains a good systematisation of the

Fig. 6.71. Oval tracings by Serlio, from the books V and VII(Gentil).

Fig. 6.72. Saint Andrea in Via Flaminia, in Rome, by Vignola(Escrig).

Fig. 6.73. Saint Anne di Palafreneri, in Rome, by Vignola(Escrig).

Fig. 6.74. Saint Giacomo degli Incurabili, by Volterra (Lotz).

Fig. 6.75. Saint Mary in Vicoforte de Mondovi, by AscanioVitozzi (Lotz).

145


Fig. 6.76. Capitular Hall of the Cathedral of Seville, by Hernán Ruiz (Gentil).

Fig. 6.77. Dome of the Cathedral of Cordoba, by Hernán Ruiz (Gentil).

146


Fig. 6.78. Elliptical domes tracings by Andrés de Vandelvira (Cobreros).

Fig. 6.79. Drawing from the Treatise of Vandelvira, showing the final solution of Fig. 6.78 (Palacios).

147


stonework quartering for this sort of work. Fig. 6.78shows the three basic patterns that correspond to thename of the treatise and Fig. 6.79 is an example ofthe rigor with which he set out the stoneworkconstruction of this new structure, being followed bythe rest of the Spanish architects mentioned.

Hernan Ruiz´s work can be of use, since it has beenwell studied, to illustrate the structural behaviour ofthese shapes (Fig. 6.80). In the mathematical modelwe can see how logical the efforts in each meridianare but are not constant in each parallel. We knowthat, in practice, these domes are very flat in the baseand undergo much flexion and cracking in their lower

part. The maximum momentums are developed in theshort axis, as we will see below in Vicoforte. In themodel, the low parallels stand out in traction and theshifting matches with a great precision that found byphotogrammetrical methods (Fig. 6.81). Saint Maryof Vicoforte has been studied more since, due todifferential settings, it has had to be reinforced recently(Fig. 6.82), and the conclusions are rather similar:strong tractions in the base parallels, bigger in theshort axis, and large deformations of the meridian inthe long sides. Finally the repairs, independent of thefoundation reinforcement, consisted of a ring hoop that,being elliptical, had to be applied by sections and witha variable prestressing.

Fig. 6.80. Efforts developed in the elliptical dome of the Capitular Hall of the Cathedral of Seville (Cobreros).

DEFORMED SHAPE DUE TO SELF WEIGHT

a) STRESSES DUE TO SELF WEIGHTb) GEOMETRY FOF THE MODEL

148


Fig. 6.81. Photogrammetrical analysis of the dome of the Capi-tular Hall in Seville (Gentil).

Fig. 6.82. Phogrammetrical analysis and pathology of SaintMary in Vicoforte de Mondovi, before its restoration (Pizzetiand Fea).

149


1. ARGAN, G.C. & CONTARDI, B. “Miguel AngelArquiteto”. Electa, Milan.

2. BLUND, A. “Arte y Arquitectura en Francia 1500-1700”. Ed. Catedra.

3. BRUSCHI “Bramante”. Laterza, Bari.4. COBREROS, M. & VAZQUEZ, E. “The sail vault:

A survey of constructive techniques to stalilize asophisticated structure”. STREMA. WIT Press,Southampton.

5. CREVE, S. “Visionary Spires”. Waterstore,London.

6. ESCRIG, F. “Tecnología en los EdificiosHistóricos”. STAR nº 2. ETSA, Sevilla.

7. ESCRIG, F. “Towers and Domes”. WIT Press,Southampton.

8. FIORE, F.P. & TAFURI, M. “”Francisco di GiorgioArchitetto”. Electa, Milano.

9. FURNARI, M. “Atlante del Renacimiento”. Electa,Milan.

10.GENTIL, J.M. “La traza Oval y la Sala Capitular dela Catedral de Sevilla”. ETSA Sevilla.

11.HEYDENREICH, L. & LOTZ, W. “Arquitectura enItalia 1400-1600”. Catedra, Madrid.

12.KRAUS, F. “Bramante's Design for the Dome ofSt. Peters Cathedral in Rome. A study usingexperimental stress analysis techniques”.STREMA. WIT Press, Southampton.

13.LOTZ, W. “Architecture in Italy” Yale Univ Press.14.MAISTONE, R. “Structure in Architecture: History,

Design and Innovation”. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.,U.K.

15.MILLON, H.A. & MAGNANO,V. ”The Renaissance:From Brunelleschi to Michelangelo. Therepresentation of Architecture”. Thames andHudson.

16.MURRAY, P. ”La arquitectura del RenacimientoItaliano”. Aguilar, Madrid.

17.PALACIOS, J. C. “Trazas y Cortes de Cantería enel Renacimiento Español”. Ministerio de Cultura.

18.PALACIOS, J.C. “La cantería en la construccióndel Renacimiento Andaluz”. Consejería de Culturade Andalucía.

19.PORTOGUESI, “Roma del Rinascimento”. Electa,Milan.

20.TAFURI, M. “Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi,città, architetti”. Einaudi,Torino.

21.TAFURI, M. “Rafaello Architetto”. Electa, Milano.22.TESSARI, C. “Baldasare Peruzzi”. Electa, Milano.


150


We have already explored how the Renaissance wasnot a phenomenon limited to the western world.Together with an economic and political flowering therewere similar manifestations in several regions of thecivilized world. From our perspective of being at thecentre of the universe, the mosques of Istanbul, theTaj Mahal, the Forbidden City in Peking or the LamaPalace in Tibet seem to us wonderful curiosities. Nowwe are going to see, very summarily, what happenedin Turkey, India and some other regions, but we donot deny the universality of the phenomenon.Ottoman Turkey was born in the XIVth century, whenconquerors descended from the mountains to put anend to the Eastern Empire. In 1453, Bayaceto II tookConstantinople after having controlled the surroundingsfor one hundred and fifty years. Their great merit, that

Chapter 7. THE OMNIPRESENT SINAN

Fig. 7.1a Mosque of Sefereli (Goodwin and Stierlin).

151

The Omnipresent Sinan

allowed a stability lasting until the First World War,was to found an infrastructure system that bound thewhole territory and gave power to the cities. In thatsystem were included all the public buildings such asmosques, madrasas, caravasars and palaces, thatmade of architecture a political and administrativeactivity. Obviously, the Seljukians knew well theByzantine and Persian constructive traditions and wereable to mix with their own models the brilliant featuresfrom Byzance and Isfahan.

The Serefelli Cami (Mosque of Serefelli), dating from1440, is the first model produced by the great newarchitecture. Its only dome, 24 m in diameter, is ofgigantic dimensions. It is still clumsy in its resolutionas well as dark and spatially squat (Fig. 7.1a), but itpartially reminds us of the Pantheon. The Fig 7.1bshows the finite element model with stresses due toits own weight.

The Complex of Fatih overcomes this problem byintroducing a drum with openings for illumination.Finished in 1488, the engraving by Lorish shows itsformer aspect, since the present building is the resultof a reconstruction (Fig. 7.2). It was 26 m in diameter.The architect Hayreddin appears as the masterforerunner of the new Islamic spaces.

The Complex of Bayaceto in Edirne, has a mosquewith an unitary space that is reminiscent of the bestFlorentine creations (Fig. 7.3).

It is in the Mosque of Bayaceto in Istanbul, by thesame architect, where the total recovering of a spacesimilar to that of the Church of Saint Sophia (Fig. 7.4a)takes place. Its plan is identical and has the samecounteracting system, though at a scale one half (Fig.7.4b). In the drawing by Lorish it rises majestically onone of the hills (Fig. 7.5).

Fig. 7.2. Complex of Fatih, in an engraving by Lorish (Goodwin).

Fig. 7.1b Finite Element Analysis of the Sefereli Mosque (Escrig).

152


Despite this acknowledgement of the superiority ofJustinian’s architecture, when the successor ofBayaceto, Selim I, must face the disasters of the 1509earthquake, his big mosque resorts again to the unitaryspace, which best guaranteed the counteracting ofthrusts (Figs. 7.6), since it has the same dimensionsas the Mosque of Fatih. This official architecture wasgoing to be reproduced all over the huge territory withthe same patterns, in the way that the Roman

architecture did with its own. We do not know why,Hayreddin decided not to keep on experimenting afterhis first successes. But he had opened a door that,during the period of Soliman the Magnificent, wouldgather the decorative and the utilitarian arts. We mustrefer to the fact that in Florence there was also a greatprince of the arts who was magnificent and thatLeonardo himself, wandering from court to court,thought of offering the caliph his services.

A military engineer who was going to revolutionizearchitecture, Mimar Sinan, educated in the army, washead of the military engineers and appointed Head ofArchitects when fifty years old and is the best knownof the eastern architects. He started off from the lowerranks of the army until being appointed Head ofEngineers in 1536. This allowed him to visit manyplaces, gathering much data and, more important,setting a centralised cabinet that had to export

Fig. 7.3. Complex of Bayaceto, in Edirne (Stierlin).

Fig. 7.4. Complex of Bayaceto in Istanbul (Escrig).

153


Fig. 7.5. Complex of Bayaceto in Istanbul, by Lorish (Goodwin).

Fig. 7.6. Mosque of Selim I (Goodwin). Fig. 7.7. Mosque of Sehzade in Istanbul (Goodwin).

Fig. 7.8.a. Interior of the Mosque of Sehzade (Stierlin).

solutions for the constructive problems of the wholeEmpire. His first great work was the Mosque ofSehzade in Istanbul (Fig. 7.7). He recovered with itthe ideal of a centralised plan in a Greek cross, buildinga high central dome equally balanced with caps in allfour sides and, at the same time, counteracting thesecaps by means of other smaller ones (Fig. 7.8a). Thedome would therefore have four perfectly supportedtransverse arches, that would allow putting holes allover the walls. Four short but massive towers, actingas a counterweight, would stabilise the diagonalthrusts, for their part (Fig. 7.8b). The inner space hasa level hierarchy that Brunelleschi had established,though in his own way, including the planking, thecornice, the transverse arches with the spherical

154


Fig. 7.8b. Sections in height of the Mosque of Sehzade (Vogt-Göknil and Güngör).

Fig. 7.8c. Discretisation of the dome of Sehzade by FiniteElements (Escrig).

Fig. 7.8d. Seismic behaviour of the dome of Sehzade by FiniteElements, according to Crocci (Escrig).

Fig. 7.8f. Reactions in the supports, due to their own weightand to the seismic actions (Karesmen).

Fig. 7.8e. Displacements and thrusts of the main arches byFinite Elements (Karesmen).

155


pendentives, the drum and the dome. There is so muchluminosity that none of these mosques was plannedto break with an oculo or a lantern, the perfection ofthe half-sphere. This work, though innovative in respectof the space unity, follows the constructive techniquesin vogue that proved so effective.

First, the drum, that on the outside looks like such,but inside forms part of the same shell, so that theopenings in it act as supports on which rests a flattenedhemispheric dome. The angle of the arch of completecircle rarely surpasses 120º and it means, inaccordance with the shell theory, that there could beobtained only small tractions for snow loads. For itsown weight they are fully in compression. Nevertheless,an edging ring is always skirting around them. Theirthickness is around 60 cm, which makes them verylight, and are formed by a single layer, thus avoidingthe orthotropism of the rib domes that had caused somany troubles in Florence and Rome. The scaffoldingmay rest on the cornice of the drum base and beoutstandingly light since it hardly has any weight toresist, and even less when the bricks are placed incompleting rings. This scaffolding will be that used forthe positioning of the ceramic decorative elements.The lightness results too in the occupation of theresistant elements in plan. Compare the relationbetween the useful surface and the constructed surfacewith the large western Renaissance structures to see

the point of economy reached. Sinan alwaysconsidered this construction his masterpiece. Its19 m dome is not spectacular for the dimensions butfor the harmony of its shape (Fig. 78c).

Karaesmen, who has intensely studied the behaviourof these structures, deduces that the maximumcompression is 3 Kp/cm2 in the key and that thetensions in the meridians are very uniform, around 1.3Kp/cm2. The flexions are insignificant because of havinga behaviour very similar to that of a membrane (Fig.7.8e). On the other hand, the 24 supports of the domeon the drum have an important role in the seismicbehaviour, since they absorb much of its energy. Thisway, it happens that those resting on the transversearches do more work than those resting on thependentives, due to the flexibility of these. Themaximum cutting effort in these supports is 3 Kp/cm2,very high and close to its limit. Therefore, one of themost complex aspects of these domes is theirdimensioning. The analysis of these domes by finiteelements has obtained movements as those shownin Fig. 7.8d. This shows the displacements and thrustsobtained for their own weight, and Fig.7.8f the reactionsfrom their own weight and to earthquakes. To balancethe thrusts better, the secondary arches are providedwith iron struts that absorb 28% of the seismic effort.As for the small counteracting domes, they play amain role in the seismic behaviour, since they absorb

Fig. 7.9a. Mosque of Suleiman.

Fig. 7.9b. Mosque of Suleiman. Horizontal sections (Goodwin, Vogt-Göknil and Güngör).

17%. Perhaps all this explains the great stability ofthese works in such an unstable situation in case ofearthquakes. In order to finish with this analysis, itmust be said that the four large inner supports areapparently over dimensioned, working to 38 Kp/cm2,a measure that we must accept with reservations forbeing excessive, although this includes the flexionefforts.

The work was finished in 1548. Meanwhile, Sinan hadalready begun the construction of the second of hisgreat works, the Mosque of Suleiman, much closer inits solution to the Church of Saint Sophia (Fig. 7.9).Its dome rises to 54 m of height, being 24.5 m indiameter and having a cap 8.6 m high. Its thicknessgoes from 0.4 m in the key to 0.8 m in the base. Figs.7.10 and 7.11 testify to the similarity between the two

156


churches, comparing them from the same point of view.The only difference is that, in this case, the transversearches are pointed.

It is worth the trouble to detail the constructive systemsand the characteristics of the materials, to analysethe behaviour of this structure. Although stone is usedabundantly in the walls and supports, thedomes are made of bricks stuck together with a mortarmade up of brick dust mixed with lime oxide that hasa good setting capacity. Its density is 1.8 Ton/cm3andits average resistance to compression is 40 Kp/cm2

and to traction is practically non existent.

It seems that Suleiman’s decision of linking itsarchitecture to the Byzantine one had to do with hiswill to recover the Eastern Empire at its time of greatestsplendour. For that reason, he did not follow the pathopened by Sinan with its amazing Sehzade Cami,which he would surpass in later works. Theconstruction took place between 1550 and 1557. Thisperiod matches with that in which Michelangelo wasdeveloping the definitive version of his Great Dome inthe former capital of the other Empire.

The counteracting system of Saint Sophia, which herepeated in the Mosque of Suleiman, was completely

called into question in a later work of extremesimplicity. The Mosque of Mihrimah in Edirne, finishedin 1560, rises plumb vertical on vertical plans thatseem to defy the laws of thrusts (Fig. 7.12). Its domedplan is a perfect square with walls pierced by the lightin all their extension (Fig. 7.13). Its dimensions,relatively reduced, are balanced by a greatness thatgives it the coherence of design. In this case the domeis 20 m in diameter, rising up to 37 m of height (Fig.7.14). Although the total plan is rectangular, in Fig.7.15 it can be seen how for more than two thirds of itsheight it rises on a square formed by fragile walls.

The weight of 890 tonnes of this dome, triggers somereactions that are expressed in Fig. 7.16, where theearthquakes have been considered as 15% of the ver-tical loads. The supports, due to the combined actions,work under 42 Kp/cm2 according to Karaesmen andwithout considering the rigidity of the closings thatare otherwise small.

Surely the most impressive structure, because of itsunity and its structural firmness, is the mosque ofSelimiye, finished in 1574. It surpasses in dimensionsSaint Sophia since it is more than 31.5 m in diameterand 44 m high (Fig. 7.17). The regularity of its shape,the perfection of its structural system, the resources

Fig. 7.10. Inner view of the Mosque of Suleiman in two perpendicular ways (Stierlin).

Fig. 7.11. Inner view of the Mosque of Saint Sophia in the same ways (Stierlin).

157


158


optimisation and the beauty of its decoration are butsome of the many arguments to name it the mostoutstanding work of Ottoman art (Fig. 7.18). In Fig.7.19 can be seen the setting of the dome on eighttransverse arches and its alternate rate of a flat stretchand a curved stretch. Fig. 7.20 shows the decreasingsystem of the masses expressed by means of asuccessive reduction in height. We can see that theeight powerful buttresses finish and become hardlyvisible from the outside, and instead are continued byeight massive towers that give the whole acharacteristic aspect. Fig. 7.21 explains its structuraland seismic behaviour.

As we have seen in a few examples of Sinan’s greaterworks, his patterns always consider a rectangular plan,square in some rare cases, paradoxically endingsometimes with domes on an octagonal or hexagonalbase. Fig. 7.22 shows the main projects, as well astheir dimensions and their supporting system.

Since we have pointed out the coincidences withwestern architecture of the time, it is worth noting theexistence of the mausoleums of circular or polygonalplan, imitating the shrines and recovering thepaleochristian baptisteries and tombs. In Fig. 7.23 wecan see that of Suleiman and in Fig. 7.24 that of Selim.In both of them a narthex or access is included andthey have only domed space. They would dignify by

Fig. 7.12. Mosque of Mihrimah in Edirne (Kuran and Stierlin).

Fig. 7.13. Plan and vertical section of the Mosque of Mihrimah inEdirne (Vogt-Göknil).

Fig. 7.14. Axonometric sectionning of Mihrimah (Freelhy andBurelli).

159


Most probably, the almost five hundred documentedworks by Sinan were not possible under his exclusivedesign and direction. The Sultan’s head architect musthave been in charge of a centralised cabinet that wouldsupply the whole empire, and its directives must havehad a graphical format, as happens in any culture. Asubject for discussion would consist of finding outwhether any sort of verbal or literary instructionsexisted, that could become an object and the degreeof freedom of master builders and masons. It ispossible that the scale model replaced advantageouslythe plans, since the lack of knowledge about the flatprojection systems and the use of perspective musthave been compensated with three-dimensionalfigures. It is inconceivable that in a system of culturaltransmission as permeable as this one that allowedfor the West being aware of the Islamic works, therewould not develop the inverse phenomenon. WhenBayaceto asked Gentille Bellini to paint his portrait inthe Palace of Topkapi, this last met with PatriarchGennadios Scholarios to explain to him some conceptsof the Italian art. In fact, Maquiavelo defended Bayacetoas a true Renaissance prince. For his part, Bayacetoasked Leonardo and Michelangelo to project thebuilding of a bridge on the Gold Horn (Fig. 7.27). Tizianohimself painted two pictures of Suleiman, which isparadoxical for the official painter of the biggestOttoman Empire enemy, the Emperor Carlos V. Thereis a copious bibliography on our architect that offersnumerous biographical data, describing thecharacteristics and the number of his works but failingin depth on the graphical, cultural and constructiveconcepts. We know that Saint Sophia wasconstructed in five years, the Mosque of Suleiman inseven and that of Selimiye in six. In contrast, the

themselves the Eastern architecture, had the giganticconstructions that we have described not existed.

In so brief an account, we cannot expand more on thepanorama of the classic recovery, of which we have aserious lack of documentary information. Fig. 7.26shows one of the few architectonic representationsthat have been conserved. It is the Mosque of Suleimanscale model, ordered by Murat III as late as 1582. Inany case, it is surprising that the representation ofhuman figures was a characteristic feature of the wholeempire, considering the strict Koranic prohibition.

Fig. 7.15. Horizontal sections of the Mosque of Mihrimah, in Edirne (Güngör).

Fig. 7.16. Reactions in the base of the arches, due to thegravitatory loads and the seismic action in Mihrimah (Karesmen).

160


Fig. 7.17. Plan and vertical section of the Mosque of Selimiye (Vogt-Göknil).

Fig. 7.18. Outer aspect of the Mosque of Selimiye (Stierlin). Fig. 7.19. Inner aspect of the Mosque of Selimiye (Stierlin).

161


building of Saint Peter took 160 years, from Twine toBernini, and Saint Paul in London, forty. This aloneproves the huge capacity of organisation of the workprocesses in the eastern art.

After Sinan, great constructions were built on whichwe will not expand because they no longer broughtinnovations and because they get out of our temporaryframe. The Ottoman art of the XVIIth century lost allits vitality and was not able to be revitalised, contraryto what happened with western art. Basically, thereligious tensions between the Sunnis and Shiites werean unbearable burden in which the intransigence anddogmatism ended up winning.

The unity and the communication provided by theIslamic religion facilitated the fact that in very distant

Fig. 7.20. Horizontal sections of the Mosque of Selimiyem inEdirne (Güngör).

Fig. 7.21a. Mosque of Selimiye in Edirne, through discretisationby Finite Elements (Sánchez, not published).

Fig. 7.21c. Deformations (in black) over the initial geometry (ingrey) of the Mosque of Selimiye (Sánchez, not published).

Fig. 7.21b. Thrusts (Kp/cm2) obtained for the Mosque of Selimiye(Sánchez, not published).

162


Fig. 7.22. Plans of some works by Sinan (Güngör)

Fig. 7.23. Mausoleum of Suleiman (Tanieli). Fig. 7.24. Mausoleum of Selim (Tanieli).

Fig. 7.21c Mode 9 of vibration obtained for the Mosque of Selimiye (Escrig).

163


Fig. 7.26. Drawing of the Mosque of Suleiman scale model, ordered by Murat in 1582 (Kuran).

Fig. 7.25. Plans of some mausoleums. The first two are are of Suleiman and Selim I (Tanieli).

parts of the world architectonic developments of largedimensions simultaneously took place. The pilgrimageto Mecca and the fact that the Jesuits began anevangelisation campaign all over Asia explain certainmanifestations that, otherwise, would be difficult tounderstand.

In India, under the Mogul empire, works as beautifuland coherent as those of the best Italian Renaissancewere constructed. It is in the mausoleums where thedomed spaces acquire a personal meaning, since

these huge elements are not used for worship. In thissense, we are going to point out only three importantworks.

The tomb of Humayun (Fig. 7.28), dating from 1560,could have been a beautiful palace had it not been aburial monument. In this work, as in other later ones,the architecture is complemented by gardens,fountains and by the water. It is not a structure of greatdimensions but is very subtle indeed. The Taj Mahal(Fig. 7.29), with its bulbous domes and its white marble

164


stonework, has a peculiar section, otherwise habitualin these domes. The inner flat dome takes control ofits thrusts by means of the weight of thick ashlars inthe outer dome (Fig. 7.30). In this case, it is moreamazing for the geometric richness than the structuraldimension.

The centralised plan is reminiscent of the bubblesproposal by Leonardo. In this case, the system doesnot change. A square is divided into nine square parts.The interior practically keeps its dimension to becovered with the great dome that to the outsideemerges taller than the towers. The four corners absorbthe thickness of the walls, each one supporting a smalldome. The other four lateral squares become triumphalarches, named ivans, which frame the accesses.

The passage from a square plan to the circular one ofthe domes is solved by means of a fractal fragmentationof the ascending parallels and complex geometricalornaments instead of the Renaissance pendentives,the Romanic trumpet shells or the Islamic faiencestalactites (Fig. 7.31). This avoids the existence ofthe transverse arches that gave their supremacy toItalian architecture. These systems, in which themass rises over the void, guarantee their own survivalin times of neglect or looting.

The third Hindu work of interest to us is the tomb ofGoal Gumbaz in Bijapur, a small stylistically subtlework but structurally, maybe the most ambitious workof all (Fig. 7.32).

Bijapur is in the south of India and represents the lastperiod of the mogul conquest against sultanMuhammad, who ordered the construction the buildingto be eclectic and different from the prevailingarchitecture.

Fig. 7.27. Drawing of a bridge for the Gold Horn in Istanbul, byLeonardo.

Fig. 7.28. Tomb of Humayun (Stierlin).

Fig. 7.29. Taj Mahal (Stierlin).

It must have been a task more impressive than theconstruction of the three great Italian domes. It is notplaced within a basilica, does not have superfluouselements that make it smaller and does not add anyspecial constructive ability. It is simply a cube onwhich has been put a hat (Fig. 7.33).

The dome is a perfect semicircle, with a constantthickness of three metres. The only bracings are thetowers in the corners, since the rest of it is a long wallof 50 m of length and 4 m of thickness, as flat as afloor tile, on which rests a dome with transverse thrustsof one thousand tonnes.

165


Fig. 7.32. Tomb of Gol Gumbaz, in Bijapur (Stierlin).

Fig. 7.33. Axonometric sectionning of the Tomb of Gol Gumbaz(Stierlin).

Fig. 7.30. Section of the Taj Mahal (Stierlin).

Fig. 7.31. Passage from a square to a circular plan (Stierlin).

Nonetheless, the bare interior gives the feeling ofbelonging to another world. It is an immense space of1700 m2, wider than that of any Italian dome. In thiscase it has two levels, one with a vaulting fan in astyle close to the Gothic, and the superior inhemisphere completely smooth and bare, that seemsto belong to another building due to a corridor threemetres wide interposed between both levels (Fig. 7.34).

How was it constructed? How has it lasted so longwithout deformations? As we do not have furtherinformation, we will not deliberate on this matter. Thefact is that this work, dating from between 1626 and1656, is something too singular and simple within theEastern culture. Until the arrival of concrete, aconstruction of this magnitude was not undertaken.

We contribute, therefore, to this text our own analysisby finite elements of a possible behaviour of the tiedashlar stonework of this complex device (Fig. 7.35).

166


Fig. 7.34. Gallery in the dome spring of Gol Gumbaz (Stierlin).

Fig. 7.35. Discretisation by Finite Elements of Gol Gumbaz(Compán, not published).

Fig. 7.36. Discretisation by Finite Elements of Gol Gumbaz(Compán, not published).

167


1. BANISTER FLETCHER “A History of Architecture”.Butterworths, London.

2. GOODWIN “A History of Ottoman Architecture”.Thames and Hudson, London.

3. GÜLER, A. “Sinan: architecte de Soliman”.Arthaut, París.

4. KAMESMEN, E. “A study of the Sinan's DomedStructures”. Computational Mechanics


Publications, Southampton.5. KURAN, A. “Sinan: el maestro de la arquitectura

otomana”. Ed. Universidad de Granada.6. STIERLIN, H. “Turquía. De los Selyucidas a los

Otomanos”. Taschen, Colonia.7. TANYELI, G. “Structural use of Iron in Ottoman

Architecture (From the 15th to the early 19th)”.Computational Mechanics Pub, Southampton.

168


The Ming culture, developed in China between the XVthand the XVIIth centuries, although being a continuationof a thousand-year-old tradition and a compendium ofgigantic buildings that, as in India, cannot be separatedfrom the landscape, has an amazing constructivequality in marble and wood. But we must rememberthat this style does not have any link with the Romantradition nor the Islamic one. None of these culturesarrived in China before the XVIth century.

Peking by itself is a compendium of very diverse styles,although to western eyes they may look very similar.As Bussal says, the Ming style is different to theprevious ones, the Tang (581-907) and the Sung (960-1279). The first one is very sober, and the second one

Chapter 8. EVEN FURTHER

extremely baroque. The correlation between them issimilar to that between the Romanesque and theGothic, increasing in the Yünng dynasty (1279-1368).For that reason, what happened during the Mingdynasty (1368-1644) can be clearly expressed as acontemporary Renaissance, complementary to thosementioned in the preceding chapters and with a valuestill not acknowledged to the present.

They share the same characteristics:

- Rigid axial symmetry.- Strong plinths supporting a simple wall structure

with special features for each work.- A subtle cover raised with its cresting and certain

Fig. 8.1. Relief representing a palace from the Han Dinasty (Metropolitan Museum of New York).

169

Even Further

monotony, mainly in public buildings of importance.- There is also an only religion, Buddhism, that gives

an ideological content to whatever is done.- The buildings are settled in urban environments

almost as important as them and designed as thearchitecture itself: the net of axes and streets, theelements of artificial landscapes, lakes and hillsare proof of an elaborated theory reached withconsensus.

The basic style of the construction consists of a strongplinth of stone or bricks, smooth or forming terraces,where a great part of the descriptive ornamentation isplaced–dragoons, lions, plumes, wheels–includingwords with initiation information to understand thebuilding.

The façade level is usually columned, with simple ormultiple corbels that allow making a good use of theexisting wooden squares and covering wide spans bymeans of that particular lintelled system.

Finally, a cover of a great spread is superimposed,having one or many levels with its characteristic curvededges that unequivocally show the magnitude of thebuilding.

Perhaps the repetition of this system, of which oldplans have been conserved, supports the westernthesis that the Chinese architecture is no more than a

slow evolution. A relief conserved in the MetropolitanMuseum of New York (Fig. 8.1), dating from the Hasdynasty, contemporary of the Roman Republic andEmpire, describes this system perfectly. An engravingfrom the Tang dynasty, abounds in this description(Fig. 8.2). A drawing of a fortification, from the samedynasty, even uses colours (Fig. 8.3). At last, a planfrom the Sunj dynasty, signed by the official Li Chiehin the XIIth century, as well as innumerable otherdrawings, give abundant information about the slightestchanges in style (Fig. 8.4). So that, any of the plansof the Ming period made by Stielin can seem familiar(Fig. 8.5). My own sketches from life, drawn in theForbidden City, reveal this evident complexity (Figs.8.6, 8.7 and 8.8).

The best thing that we can say about the structure ofthe system is that the great spans of the cover aresolved with impossible squares, since they workalmost exclusively under their own weight. In Fig. 8.9the beam corbelling system can be seen with moredetail. We must not think only about the construction.In civil engineering this architectonic system alsoopened possibilities as in the Bridge of Liling in Hunan(Fig. 8.10), where the span of the sections wereshortened by means of a successive advance of thebeams. The short squares also would be used for bigarched spans, like the solution represented in Fig.8.11 for the bridge of Kainfeng, curiously the samescheme was used by Leonardo three hundred years

Fig. 8.2. Relief from the Tang Dinasty (Bussagli).

170


Fig. 8.3. Drawing of a fortification in the Big Wall from the TangDinasty (Jeannel and Koryrepf).

Fig. 8.4. Plan drawn by Li Chie during the Sunj Dinasty(Bussagli).

Fig. 8.5. Present constructive elevation plan (Stierlin).

Fig. 8.6. Shrine in the Forbidden City (Escrig).

171

Even Further

Fig. 8.7. Detail of the previous shrine (Escrig). Fig. 8.8. Detail of the eave of the previous shrine (Escrig).

Fig. 8.9. Corbelling system of the cover beams (Pirazzoli).

Fig. 8.10. Bridge of Liling in Hunan (Pirazzoli).

172


Fig. 8.11. Bridge of Kainfeng in a picture from the Song period (Pirazzoli).

Fig. 8.12. Drawing by Leonardo for a bridge built with shortsquares.

Fig. 8.13. Prayers Room in the Temple of the Sky in Peking(Escrig).

173

Even Further

later in numerous drawings, as he must haveconsidered it an extremely important discovery (Fig.8.12).

The Prayers Room in the Temple of the Sky in Peking(Fig. 8.13) or the Forbidden City complex (Figs. 8.14and 8.15), illustrate this sufficiently.

A greater explanation is required for the towers that,like in the European Renaissance, undergo their fadingor a loss of quality during the Ming dynasty. It isparadoxical that the high elements even lose theirsymbolic value in the classic periods. For that reason,the most famous Chinese pagodas were built beforethe Ming period.

Fig. 8.14. General plan of the Forbidden City (Jeannel and Kozyrepf).

Fig. 8.15. General view of the Forbidden City, from the Coal Hills (Escrig).

174


We are not going to speak here about the excessivelyornate and imaginative sculptural architecture ofSoutheast Asia, including Hindu India, no matter howmuch plastic value it has. Its landmarks were ancientand extinguished from year 1000. Therefore, weunderstand that those decorated accumulations wereseen as archaeology from the XVth to the XVIIthcenturies.

Japan is the only country that, always with a minimumgeographic space, delimited along history: thatexisting today, devoid of the continental part, gatheredsome particular features of interest. However, thisinterest is based fundamentally on the fact that theyhave penetrated contemporary architecture to themarrow. Wright or Neutra made a religion out of itssimplicity, that is kept alive in some great contemporaryarchitects like Tange, Ando, Isozaki or Ito.

The Japanese developed their practice from theircontinental architecture. The network of temples ofthe Heian period (794-1185) gave rise to a massivetransference of Chinese technology and design thatwould be evident in very similar buildings with a certainbaroque style. Nonetheless, the attempts of theemperor to get rid of the interferences of the Buddhistclergy that arrived with the architecture, led to apersonalisation of the style.

The Yahushi-ji Pagoda in Naran (around 700) is anexample of the special structural complexity of usinglittle wooden squares. The central mast, without astructural function, must have belonged to the sturdiesttree of the forest (Fig. 8.16). We find here a greatecological respect that is reflected in the fact that Japanhas kept its vegetation, whereas in China the bigreconstructions of the XIXth century were made withwood imported from the United States. However, weare speaking of a remote time. In the XVIth century,the introduction of firearms, the arrival of westerncivilization and the strong military boost by thedominant class, developed a kind of picturesque castleof which Himeji is like a new city of Urbino (Fig. 8.17).Constructed in 1580, it is an example that did not gofurther. In fact, the islands do not need castles butcoastal artillery batteries and a defence fleet. For thatreason, rules were immediately promulgated to lowerthe profile of the cities to a maximum of 31 m andmodules of construction based on the tatami (918 x1837 cm2) were established. In accordance with thisand to make good use of the residential surface, therewas a tendency toward an organic plan in which thestructure did not condition the construction. For thatreason, the ceiling frameworks had to manage to adaptto irregular plans in search of the only place to reston, the contour. In addition, this must have been donewith small wooden sections. This is the great merit ofJapanese architecture: not the Chinese or the westerngreatness but the extreme subtlety, a subtletyrepresented by the paper walls, the complete lack offurniture and gardens empty like deserts. Fig. 8.18Fig. 8.16. Pagoda Yahushi-ji in Naran (Heinle-Leonhardt).

175

Even Further

shows the Castle of Nijo, from 1602, whose imagedoes not match with that of a castle.

In the remotest place in the world, in an unknowncontinent that without doubt had been permeable toAsia through the Pacific, cultures of the highest levelthrived. We cannot link this phenomenon to the globalphenomenon of the Renaissance because of the lackof communication between that world and the westernand eastern civilized worlds.

For that reason, the Inca or the Mayan culture, despitetheir representing stellar moments for architecture evenfrom the point of view of their structural richness, arenot to be considered in this section.

Nevertheless, when Hernán Cortés enteredTenochtitlan, a recent people like the Aztec weredeveloping a new architectonic refinement thatfascinated the conquerors, amazed by wide spacesof the layout of the American Venice (Figs. 8.24 and8.25).

Though it might seem that these are piling systemssimilar to those in Mesopotamia, the reality is morecomplex, with a superposition of levels that includedlarge closed spaces (Fig. 8.26).

Fig. 8.17. Castle of Himeji, in Japan (Jeannel and Kozyrepf).

Fig. 8.18. Castle of Nijo (Stierlin).

176


Fig. 8.19. Structural plan and mathematical model for the calculation of a pagoda (Hanazato).

Fig. 8.20. Unlinear diagram of the restituted rotational coefficient and semi-rigid model of knot with a beam going through(Hanazato).

(after Inayama 1995)

177

Even Further

Fig. 8.21. Model combining a dowel and a support for the studwork complex (Hanazato).

Fig. 8.23. Seismic and wind behaviour of the tower in its different storeys (Hanazato).

Qy: Ultimate Strength of Dowel

K: Stiffness by Embedding ofDowel into Block and ShearDeformation of Dowel

Fig. 8.22. Model of the behaviour of the arms knot system (Hanazato).

s: Translational Displacement due toEmbedment of Dowel into Block andDeformation of Block

è: Rotational Angle due to ColumnRocking Resistance Rotational Spring

Translational Spring

178


Fig. 8.24. Reconstruction of the lacustrine city of Tenochtitlan (Gendrop-Heiden).

Fig. 8.25. Religious zone of the city of Tenochtitlan (Gendrop-Heiden).

Fig. 8.26. Building piercing of the great pyramid of Tenochtitlan (Lavallée-Michelet).

179

Even Further

1. BUSAGLI, M. “Arquitectura Oriental”. 2 Tomos. Ed.Aguilar, Madrid.

2. FLON-GRANVAND, CHR. “América Precolombinay Colonial”. Salvat Ed.

3. GENDROP, P. & HEYDEN, D. “Arquitectura Precolombina”. Ed. Aguilar.

4. HAWKES, N. “El genio del hombre”. Debate, Circulo de Lectores.

5. HEINL,H. & LEONHART, F. “Tours du MondEntiere“. Livre Total, Lausane.


6. HEINL, H. & SCHLAICH, J. “Kuppeln aller Zeiten-aller Kulturen". Deutsche Verlags- Anstalt, Stuttgart.

7. PIRAZOLI, M. “Chine”. Office du Livre, Fribourg.8. STIERLIN, H. “Enciclopedia of World Architecture”.

Taschen.9. STIERLIN, H. “Islamic India”. Taschen.10.TILLOTSON, G. “Mughal India”. Penguin.

180


The Council of Trento (1563) ended its sessionsestablishing a block of dogmas, rules andrecommendations, intended to channel not only thethought of Church but also its way to pronounce itself,to act and to appear before the people and the powers.The Council was of no use to heal the wounds receivedduring the religious schism, but it was of use to delimita solid territorial barrier within which the official beliefsand impositions remained unconquerable. Thegovernments and the monarchies would collaborateactively in the repression of the heresies and the newreligious companies of militant type would be sent onferocious campaigns of evangelisation all over the worldand inside their own territory.

With respect to the architecture, the consequenceswere traumatic. The modern ideals defended by Albertiand Bramante were considered as of pagan tendencyand alien to the religious devotion, and the rationalismthat came with them, inappropriate to a dogmaticreligion that had just reinforced its theological andimmutable criteria. It was necessary to appeal to faithinstead of reason and therefore, it was necessary toreach the heart instead of the mind.

Vignola, whose Regola delle cinque ordini waspublished in 1562, had overnight become the mostprestigious architect. He was ordered in 1564 tocontinue, in association with Piero Ligorio, the worksof Saint Peter, and straight away, the most importantwork and new plan of the moment: the church for theRoman seat of the Company of Jesus. Il Gesu, begunin 1568, was designed in a purely Renaissance stylesince at that time there was no alternative solutionand the Council just advised against using referencesto pagan temples. The Church had not been able tocreate an architectonic style so suddenly and had touse the tools within reach. The Company did not likeVignola, but the Pope Julio III protected him knowinghis capacity and flexibility. However, for the first time,a humanist had to submit to religious and theologicalimpositions when defining his design. The JesuitGiovani Tristano controlled all the decisions and thecardinal Alexander Farnesio dared to change thedesigns including that of the façade. As Vignola’s

Chapter 9. THE PERFECT SYMBIOSES FORM-FUNCTION IN THE HIGH BAROQUE ARCHITECTURE

façade, serene and classic, was changed for Giacomodella Porta's, whose project was less imaginative andmore superficial.

What was left of the freedom that Michelangelo hadtaken until the limit? Suddenly, the ideas the pioneershad fought for were subordinated to a flat andtotalitarian ideology. The vaulted interior itself was inquestion. The Company preferred a church with awooden carcass and a flat ceiling where the acousticconditions were improved and reminded of thepaleochristian basilicas (Fig. 9.1).

From the structural point of view, we cannot considerthis work a display and from the stylistic point of view,even less. It is solely merited by establishing a modelin plan and section that was followed by the churchesof the baroque.

If Vignola submitted, were the rest going to act in adifferent way? Quickly, and still within Renaissance

Fig. 9.1. Proposal by Vignola for the Church of Il Gesu, in Rome(Wittkover).

181

The Perfect Symbioses Form-Function in the High Baroque Architecture

patterns, new types had to be invented to adapt to thenew criteria. If the change of the Il Gesu front, heir tothe triumphal arches, showed preference for a framedscenography, the circular plans became forbidden. Theintelligence of Vignola saved them by resorting toaxiality. The invention of the oval plan within a rectangle,so that from the outside it could not be seen as round,was a success. The watchers of the new orthodoxyrushed upon the solution to declare it a discovery ofthe Council. In the previous chapter, we have seen thesmall chapel of Saint Andrea in Via Flaminia (Fig. 6.72)and the Church of Saint Anne of the Grooms (Fig.6.73). They were followed by Saint Giacomo degliIncurabili by Volterra of Capriani, of majesticdimensions (25.5 x 18.7 m) (Fig. 6.74) and the giganticSaint Mary of Vicoforte of Mondovi by Ascanio Vitozzi,of 36 x 24 m (Fig. 6.75). We have seen too the speedwith which the countries that defended the new dogmasadopted these elliptical solutions. Spain had been thecountry that had fought more for the celebration ofCouncil and that had contributed more material .

Considering this situation, although the texts kept onincluding, within the Renaissance, works that exceedthe year 1600, in these cases we must speak of

Renaissance only in the epidermis, but not in thecontent. Let us observe the difference between thePalladio of Saint Giorgio that follows a typicallongitudinal scheme (Fig. 6.63) and The Redeemer,following rather Vignola’s model, although trying tosafeguard Alberti’s ideal (Fig. 6.64). In any case, Venicenever renounced its cosmopolitan vein. The fact thatPalladio, in 1570, still wrote that the perfect shapewas the round one, because “since all its points areat the same distance with respect to the centre, it isthe most suitable to give testimony of the unity, theeternity, the uniformity and the justice of God”, did notprevent him from solving the Barbarian Shrine, of aperfect circular form, by means of surrounding it witha Latin cross that contradicted his intentions (Fig. 9.2).

The Baroque, which term is subject to excessivelyfrivolous speculations, starts when the ideas developedin the council were shaped in a map that related itsintentions, forms and sensorial impacts.

Not until Bernini merged architecture and sculpturewas that achieved. With the addition of painting, theideal fusion was obtained. Other sensations such assound, light, smell, sight, theatre, choral representationand clothes were added later. For a long time I thoughtof the Baroque as a declining, confused and grotesquestyle created to deceive the masses and to feed theirirrational mystic. It was not until the meticulous studyof its underlying matter convinced me of the unity of acomplex that had clear keys, nowadays completelydeciphered.

Michelangelo was a key figure in this process:mystical, tormented, ascetic, visionary, prophetic andcreative. When he reluctantly painted the SistineChapel ceiling, he opened a crack that neither hiscontemporaries nor his successors understood, untilBorromini, somebody mentally close to him, did. Theceiling is not a painting, but a complete architecture.Using an innovating artifice, he preferred to use afictitious structural reinforcement painted on acontinuous surface (Fig. 9.3). Not only did he use thosereinforcement arches, but he also crossed them withsome straight cornices that delimit the extension ofthe room and turn out to be the only apparent hoopsof all his architecture. He thus created a spatial netthat turned a monotonous room into a rich set of netsmade of interwoven ribs. Nothing to do with the vaultsof Brunelleschi or Alberti. It was a radical inventionthat fills the space with the strength and the gravitythat the Herculean figures try to overcome.

Alien to the real architecture of the room, he imposedwith the pilasters a rate of alternate separation,hierarchising the whole structure. The alternatingcornice made the ceiling seem higher. The dispositionof the figures contributes it. They are figures of a muchaccentuated volume, modelled to face people. Thesibyls and the prophets pretend to be vertical as ifthey were not in the vault. Ending the cornice, theFig. 9.2. Barbarian Shrine, by Palladio (Wundram and Pape).

182


twenty ignudes play the same role as a row of statuescrowning a building. The vault is thus reduced to lessthan a third of its surface and therefore seems verydistant, so far that up there, between the openings ofthe structure, the first scenes of the Creation can beseen. It is so far in distance and time.

The Sistine Chapel ceiling combines for the first timearchitecture, sculpture and painting in an indissolublewhole, whether it be in a virtual way. Perhaps thetheologians of Trent were more bothered by the nudesof the set and were not able to see that Michelangelohad just written his architectonic programme.

No matter how many concessions we are willing tomake, it is a fact that until the appearance of Borrominithe baroque did not fully exist in architecture. EvenBernini, so splendid in sculpture, made too manystylistic concessions in architecture. Bernini was agreat architect of the later Renaissance that hardly letthe fury of his disciple Borromini contaminate him.So, until 1630 nothing specially new happened inarchitecture.

What has all this to do with the structural conceptionof the buildings? Did the Council also give instructionson the matter? Evidently not, but the evolution of theforms had to be made in accordance with their staticcharacteristics. What happened was that in spiteof the grandiloquent and propagandistic interest,the dimension of the spaces is virtual. They may givea sensation of amplitude and all the possibletechniques are used to obtain it, but the physicaldimensions are reduced. It means that structurallymuch more effective resources can be applied like that,than on a large scale: flat or waving ceilings, dividedvaults, irregular macles, enormous holes, complexplans, etc.

It is in the subtlety of the solutions where we find afield to work on. In this chapter, we will not mentionspecially the ornamental or sensorial aspects that the

new architecture had established, but the geometricaleffects, which will be materialised in all sorts ofevocations.

From this viewpoint the Baroque, which has so manydifferent ways to express itself depending on thedifferent regions, wins a firmer unity. The Baroque isthe style of the Counter Reformation. The catholiccountries let it develop its pomposity. It is in Italy, Spain,Portugal, the Iberian colonies, the South of Germanyand many countries of Eastern Europe where it thrives.It only appears in France when this country solves itsreligious problem. The rest of the countries are moreself-controlled. England for example develops a veryclassic, but not non-imaginative, Baroque. Franceshows a rather particular case that opens a new front.The fact that the French did not accept Bernini’sproposals speaks of how little they agreed with thepersonalist and non-systematisable styles. Fig. 9.4show Bernini’s sketches for the Louvre that wereignored by Le Vaux’s projects.

We consider Borromini the inventor of the Baroque.Not because he was the official architect, whosepatterns were an example for his generation, but as asource of ideas that, duly codified, were adopted bythe commercial architects who received thecommissions: Bernini, Cortona, Juvara... In thepersonal field, he was marginalized socially. His difficultcharacter and his excessive expressionism did notmake of him an easy companion. However, he wasable to solve any problem, however impossible it mightseem.

The first exclusive work was that of Saint Carlino alleQuatro Fontane, in 1634. It was a minimal and difficultproject. Fig. 9.5 shows its plan, in which what firstdraws one’s attention is the placing of the church inthe most difficult point, the corner. Beside this curiosity,the small structure, that could have been solved asVignola did in Saint Andrea (Fig. 6.72), waves in verycomplex faces.

Fig. 9.3. Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, by Michelangelo (before restoration).

183


Borromini had already worked on Saint Peter in theservice of Maderno, and in the Baldaquino and thePalace Barberini on that of Bernini. He was anexperienced constructor. The plan was difficult toidentify for those entering that space and Borrominidecided to make a solid cornice to separate the firstlevel from the rest and to allow the vision of the outline(Fig. 9.6), that is to say, he created a unitary space inwhich at second level some pendentives give way toan elliptical vault. In addition, the dome is perforatedin five different points to permit illumination.

The small dimension (15 x 10 m) of the dome and thethickness of the faces help to avoid possible damage.Fig. 9.7 compares the size of the central pillars ofSaint Peter with the plan of this church, which in factrests on eight supports as seen in Fig. 9.8.

In order to maintain the imaginative vein that began inSaint Carlo, it is worth studying Saint Ivo dellaSapienza, started in 1640 with its long courtyardcorresponding to the Alexandrian Library and designedby Giacomo della Porta (Fig. 9.9a). In this space, itwould have been easier to place the projected circularplan. This is what any other architect would have done.However, he chose a starred plan that miraculouslyfitted within (Fig. 9.9b). The star was generated bymeans of two triangles measuring 25 m a side, whichresulted in an inner circle of 16.6 m.

In this case, the dome leaves any known pattern. Thevertices of the inner hexagon generate semicirculararches that are the basic wall elements, being any

horizontal section of this dome homothetic with theplan (Fig. 9.10). As in the previous case, the cornicethat crowns the first level defines the form of the plan,since at ground level it is difficult to discover it. Thereare some more elements of reinforcement as acontinuation of the face pilasters, but they aresecondary (Fig. 9.11). The loads descend mainly alongsix ribs to arrive at the six corner pilasters (Fig. 9.12).So that, what we really have is a ribbed hexagonaldome, whose faces wave capriciously. Nothing to doyet with Brunelleschi’s domes nor even withMichelangelo’s. Although the dimensions are not ofimportance, the almost 17 m gap between twoopposite load pilasters is too much for a constructionmade of such poor materials (bad bricks and worsemortar) to resist. For that reason, the pathology beganfrom the moment of the construction. As the architectof the library, Borromini blamed the materials for thehard cracking that appeared in the set.

Fig. 9.13 shows the cracking scheme of the set andFig. 9.14, the Finite Elements analysis made by Croci.

In case the form of the dome was considered a littlecapricious, the ending that crowns it have an oneiricform (Fig. 9.15).

Borromini was one of those architects who was givenseemingly impossible missions. In the restoration ofSaint John of Letran, the paleochristian basilica thatcould not be demolished, he designed a transformationthat did not reach the vault that had to replace thestudwork, but it was not constructed. Fig. 9.16a shows

Fig. 9.4. Sketch by Bernini for the Louvre Palace (Blunt).

184


Fig. 9.5. Final proposal by Borromini for Saint Carlino alle QuatroFontane (Bosel and Frommel).

Fig. 9.6. Building section of Saint Carlino alle Quatro Fontanechurch (Castex).

Fig. 9.7. Sketch comparing the size of the central pillars of Saint Peter’s dome and Saint Carlino alle Quatro Fontane as a whole(Bosel and Frommel).

185


Borromini's design for the section ending in a sphericalcap, whereas Fig. 9.16b is the interpretation of thisproposal made in Piranesi’s workshop.

The Church of Saint Agnese in Navona Square, doesnot have a structural interest, although stylistically itis worth studying. It is characterised by the high drumand the pointed dome, which was new in itself (Fig.9.17). The introduction of the towers as fundamentalelements in the composition of the façade was aprelude to a substantial change in respect of the heightin the construction of these elements. Although it istrue that the big projects of the Renaissance alwaysprojected some tower, see Saint Peter in chapter 6,the fact that they were never constructed gives an ideaof the interest in incorporating them. In fact, SaintAgnese developed the idea that Bernini had conceivedin 1636 to finish Saint Peter (Fig. 9.18).

Beside these projects of churches, there was anotherfacet in which he stood out: the construction of palacesand buildings for religious congregations. Fig. 9.19shows the structure of the main hall of the CarpegnaPalace, where in addition to the distributive solutionwhich was able to increase the apparent size of thelot, with the artifice of an oval patio tangent to thefaçades, the hall with two narthex and the huge stairsprove his clear-sight. The central ribbed structure waspioneering for Baroque structures.

Fig. 9.8. Structural sketch of Saint Carlino alle Quatro Fontane(Escrig).

Fig. 9.9b. Solution by Borromini for the church of Saint Ivo dellaSapienza (Bosel and Frommel).

Fig. 9.9a. Proposal by Giacomo della Porta for Saint Ivo and theAlexandrian Library.

186


The Saint Philippe Neri Oratory is anothercontemporary example that gives us an advantage:having been constructed, we can observe there thecomplex hierarchy of faces and spans (Fig. 9.20), asin Saint Mary of the Seven Pains (Fig. 9.21).

Where this model reaches the maximum refinementis in the School of Propaganda Fide (Fig. 9.22). TheChapel of Three Kings solved the contradictionsunderlying all his previous solutions in which thestructures were formed by trimmered ribs. Now all theribs are continuous, going from support to support and,what is more interesting, all are equal and transmitthe same load. Solving within a rectangular groundplan required great ability, mainly because the cornerslook very strange. Nevertheless, Borromini places theentrances in the corners and in their upper part, asmall arch that matches two ribs in the same way asin the centre of the faces. The result is that the coverrests on twelve points in such a way that among themthere are both big and small arches as in that alternatesequence so characteristic of the Baroque (Fig. 9.23).

The other great architects of those days, in spite oftheir doubtless contributions, do not reach so exquisitelevels. We are speaking of Pietro of Cortona, Carlo

Fig. 9.10. Drawing by Borromini for the dome of Saint Ivo (Boseland Frommel).

Fig. 9.11. Building section in perspective from Saint Ivo (Catex).

Fig. 9.12. Structural sketch of Saint Ivo (Escrig).

187


Rainaldi and Bernini himself, who turned Saint Andrewof the Quirinal (1658-70) into his most controversialwork by using an oval ground plan with its main axisin the short direction, with the dimensions 25 x 17.5 m(Fig. 9.24). It would not be anything special but forbeing divided in ten sections that give it an atypicalmodulation, since the Renaissance uses multiples offour exclusively. The new stayle influences thedecoration.

At this point, one hundred years after the Council, wecan already put forward some of the basiccharacteristics of the Baroque, some alreadydescribed, and others to be seen below:

1. Predominance of the solutions with a single axisof symmetry.

2. Extremely complex ground plans, where thespaces are very interrelated.

3. Multiplication of the levels in height.4. Waving forms in ground plan and section.6. Violation and free use of the classic orders.7. An almost exclusive use of bricks as a structural

material and a poor furring with very workedsurfacing.

8. Complicated structures that use elements fromevery culture and, in many occasions, innovativeelements.

9. Introduction of elements in height, whether theybe towers or domes very deformed in elevation.

10.Scenographical and perspectival character of everyelement with a special use of several simultaneousvanishing points.

11.Synthesis of all the plastic arts and extensive useof colour.

Fig. 9.13. Pathology of the Alexandrian building of Saint Ivo (Croci).

Fig. 9.14. Analysis of the structural behaviour by Finite Elements(Croci).

Crack pattern of the vaultCrack pattern on the plan of thebuilding

188


Fig. 9.15. Drawing of the Saint Ivo domeand lantern (Bosel and Frommel).

Fig. 9.16a. Proposal by Borromini for Saint John of Letran (Bosel and Frommel).

Fig. 9.16b. Saint John of Letran reconstruction by Piranesi ofBorromini’s not constructed project (Bosel and Frommel).

Fig. 9.17. Structural sketch of Saint Agnese, in Navona Square(Escrig).

189


In addition, we must mention certain special featuresthat only occur in the Baroque:

12.Lateral perforation of the domes to place oculosand windows.

13.Domes with several layers that look like a cascade.14.Painted architectures that enlarge the space.15.Better use of light reflections.

The first Roman Baroque can already be consideredcomplete with these four great figures. But Rome, which

Fig. 9.18. Bernini’s project for Saint Peter’s finishing (Toman).

Fig. 9.19. Structural sketch of the main hall of the CarpegnaPalace (Escrig).

Fig. 9.20. Building sketch of the Saint Philippe Neri Oratory(Castex).

Fig. 9.21. Building sketch of Saint Mary of the Seven Pains(Castex).

190


Venetian case is very singular and the plan itself, ofrotunda with ambulatory and narthex, is typical of thepurest Roman classicism. Also, the articulation ofspaces is typical of the Baroque, since the ambulatorywith its chapels and groined vaults is ratherBrunelleschian than postcouncilian. Nonetheless, ifwe compared it with The Redentor (Fig. 6.64), veryclose to it, we would note the difference and the newcontributions.

The former Milanese Baroque was in certain waysahead of the Roman, since Lombardy was a swornenemy of classicism. We find an immediate explanationin the fact that Charles Borromeo, the greater councilactivist, was born there and published some detailedinstructions with a practical purpose. They includeideas such as the following: “The churches have to becruciform as seen in the big Roman Basilicas”; aswell as others of formal content. Pellegrino Tibaldi,the architect of Charles Borromeo, was a faithfulguardian of this orthodoxy just like his successorMartino Bassi. The most important work that theyundertook was the restoration of Saint Lorenzoe ofMilan (Fig. 5.2), whose pointed vault, that replacingthe Roman vault, had collapsed in 1573. Since theexisting plan had to be respected, it adopted a schemevery similar to that of Saint Peter by Sangallo (Fig.9.27), which materialised in a project like that of Fig.9.28, on an octagon of 15 m radius and a pointed dome25 m high, that is to say, practically circumscribablein an equilateral triangle (Fig. 9.29). If it had been arevolution form, the analyses as shell would haveresulted in a traction in the base between 0.2 and 0.3

had finished the jubilee year in 1600, had an expandingcapacity that logically radiated to the surroundings.

Balthasar Longena built in Venice the Church of SaintMaria della Salute in 1631, dressing it with robes ofPalladian look. Its outer aspect is imposing (Fig. 9.25);the interior, very sober, has a verticality in accordancewith the characteristics previously enumerated (Fig.9.26). In this case the structure consists of a verylight hemispheric cover and the camber is obtainedby means of a wooden dust cover in the style ofByzantine architecture. Although the Baroque featuresare masked inward, we must not forget that the

Fig. 9.22. Building sketch of the School of Propaganda Fide(Castex).

Fig. 9.23. Structural sketch of the School of Propaganda Fidechapel (Castex).

Fig. 9.24. Building sketch of Bernini’s Church of Saint Andrea ofthe Quirinal (Escrig).

191


Fig. 9.25. General view of Longena’s Church of Saint Maria dellaSalute (Escrig).

Fig. 9.26. Plan and section of Longena’s Church of Saint Mariadella Salute (Wittkover).

Fig. 9.27. Tibaldi’s project for Saint Lorenzo, in Milan (Lotz).

Fig. 9.28. Developed project for Saint Lorenzo, in Milan (Cardinali).

192


N/mm2, depending on whether we consider or not theweight of the cupola, and the final result, notconsidering the traction of the material, is an outwardthrust of 1 tonne. Not being a revolution form, we canconsider the thrust of each one of the eight ribs of 12tonnes, which is a small amount in comparison withspanned space.

However, the problem is not so simple. For a start,because the set into the base is very flexible and theexistence of the windows debilitates the stretches.Thanks to the documents that exists on thisconstruction, we can study the state of the analyticaltechnique at this time. Martino Bassi had to justify indetail his static approach to its opponents Magentaand Rinaldi. Of course, this justification was reducedto the hypotheses of proportionality between theresistance of the material and its weight, and therelation between the supports and descendent loadsections, and the experience from other buildings, andthe texts of treatise writers. On the other hand, fromthe beginning steel hoops were placed as seen in Fig.9.28.

In 1771, the mathematician Bernardino Ferrari usedthe knowledge of the time to make the analysis shownin Fig. 9.30, which peculiarly correctly used theconditions of symmetry to reach the conclusion thatthe thrusts reached 8 tonnes in the base of each rib,slightly less than what we have previously predicted.Its conclusion was that the stability of the whole couldnot be assured without the contribution of the cornertowers.

In 1995, Cardinale and others set out a calculation byFinite Elements very similar to that proposed by Ferraritwo hundred years before (Fig. 9.31) which concludedwhat can be seen in Fig. 9.32, where the greatertensions take place in the base and also with a valueof 0.15 N/mm2. Note that the compressions in thesegraphs are of positive sign.

We find a close correspondence among all theanalyses that we have done, and the value of thesemodern tools is that they provide much detail in eachof the points.

In Piedmont, the church of Saint Mary of Vicoforte,begun in 1596 and finished in 1733, is a magnificentexample of a Baroque construction. Its outer aspect,large dimensions and motley inner decoration makeof it a clear example of the former Baroque that evolvedin all its phases, due to the length of its construction.The elliptical interior of the dome has a span of 37 x24 m, which makes it the greatest elliptical dome everconstructed, including present concrete shells (Fig.9.33). The dome construction did not begin until 1731,being finished in six months. It has an averagethickness of 1.7 m. and was constructed with bricksand ribbing towards the outside. The inner spectacle(Fig. 9.34) and the outer aspect (Fig. 9.35) is moving.

The construction problems did not consist only of thebig efforts it had to undergo, including strong flexionmomenta (Fig. 9.36), but also that it was based onuneven ground under which flowed a stream. Thatmeant that the foundations were crossed by accessibleunderground channels of drainage that kept the grounddry. Nevertheless, the neglect of many years and theirobstruction triggered differential settlings that led tothe alarming pathology shown in Fig. 9.37.

The most amazing thing is that such a complex workwas constructed in a province by order of an individual,no matter that he was the Duke of Savoy, and by anarchitect with hardly a known work except for somemilitary fortifications.

Fig. 9.29. Analytical sketch by Bassi for the behaviour of thedome of Saint Lorenzo, in Milan (Escrig).

Fig. 9.30. Analysis by Ferrari for the same dome (Cardinali).

193


The thickness of the shell, little in relation to the span,the decisions to solve the discontinuity of the oculosand the small buttresses characterise a work that thehistorians have marginalised for being eclectic but thatthe contemporary architects would have to studyprofusely.

The XVIIth century was especially hard for the Europeanpopulation and economy. Most of the countries weredevastated by epidemics and crisis. Although Italy wassafer, its economy also suffered. NeverthelessPiedmont, under the good government of the House ofSavoy, saw the flourishing of a golden age forarchitecture. We have already seen Vitozzi’s role, whowas succeeded by Guarini a generation later, as courtarchitect.

Guarino Guarini, monk, mathematician and architect,tried simultaneously to conciliate these threeapproaches, vital, scientific and technical, in therationalist philosophy of Descartes, whose work heknew in Paris. More likely, there he fell in love withthe French Gothic style to such extent that in his

specially gifted mind a process of general conciliationmust have been elaborated. If Guarini had not left Italywe probably would not have had the architect that weknow. It is important for that reason to know hismovements.

In 1639 he entered the order of the Theatines inModena, from there he went to Rome where he knewthe first work by Borromini. In 1647 he returned toModena to be ordained a priest. In 1657 he went toSpain and Portugal, where he left his mark and learnedfrom the Islamic architecture. In 1662 he travelled toParis, from where he was called to Turin by CarloEmanuel II, living there for his remaining seventeenyears of life. We have given this account to locate thefollowing projects.

Fig. 9.38 shows the basilical scheme of the 1656 DivineProvidence Church in Lisbon. The way he solved theplan was original. The vaults are built with diagonalribbings and the transept of elliptical endings iscombined to form a unitary space . The waving façadeof Saint Charles of Borromini spreads over the whole

Fig. 9.31. Discretisation for the Finite Elements calculation ofSaint Lorenzo dome (Cardinali).

Fig. 9.32. Results obtained from the calculation (Cardinali).

194


building in ground plan and elevation. The irregularpatterns of the adjacent spaces, the rate of alternatingreburied columns and a general form of swell or softsurface, inaugurates a style that Borromini only daredto use on the outside. The straight line has disappearedand not even the arches are flat. This early churchgathers all the typical elements of XVIIIth centuryCentral European Baroque architecture.

The Church of the Somasco in Mesina uses a starredpattern that would later be repeated in numerousworks. It is interesting that on the outside there areno domes, only staggered blocks as in a ziggurat.The drum totally hides the main dome and the sixsupports of the dome are formed by the grouping ofthree columns (Fig. 9.39).

In the Royal Saint Anne in Paris, dating from 1662,the series of Gothic ribbing arches define the maindome that, in addition, is developed in three levels.The drum, with its pairing rate, is treated as a face atground level. The dome has a double starred pattern,in this case of octagonal type. And the third level domeis the only one that presents some conventionalsupport for the high lantern. The great development inheight is not done by elevating the drums and pointingthe domes, as Pietro of Cortona had done, but bysuperimposing many levels. This way, the whole hasa very Eastern appearance untypical of Italianarchitecture. To complicate the work a bit more, the

Fig. 9.33. Building sketch of Mondovi’s Saint Mary of Vicoforte(Pizzetti).

Fig. 9.34. Upward vanishing plan of Saint Mary of Vicoforte(Escrig).

Fig. 9.35. Outer aspect of Saint Mary of Vicoforte (Escrig).

Fig. 9.36. Flexion momenta obtained by Finite Elements, for therestoration project of Saint Mary of Vicoforte (Pizzetti and Fea).

195


Greek cross plan arms are covered with ribbed ellipticaldomes in a geometrical interaction to be studied inplan (Fig. 9.40).

Dating from 1667, we find another surprising smallwork, the Chapel of the Turin Shroud Sindone (Fig.9.41). In this case, despite its small dimensions, the15 m in diameter plan is enlarged in height to the pointof looking endless by means of the artifices that weare going to describe. When Guarini took charge ofthis chapel, it already had been built up to the firstcornice with an octagonal modulation. With his

outstanding ability, he succeeded in implanting anenneagonal modulation so as to erect a dome on threetransverse arches, with hardly any modifications inthe constructed faces. The drum becomes complexwith six paired columns ending in arches. From thatpoint, the dome is closing by means of superimposingarches that always rest in the keystone of the inferiorlevel, doing this for six levels until arriving at a circularcornice on which rests a small dome of vegetal aspect,made of a mesh that lets the light of a small lanternpass through (Fig. 9.42a). The interior has a magicalaspect derived from its structural bareness in which

Fig. 9.37. Project for the Divine Providence Church in Lisbon, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

196


the forces spread along multiple arms as an unfoldedfold-out (Fig. 9.42b). The exterior, with its waving drumand its eastern looking ending, like that of a pagodawith abutted hollows, is at least oneiric and surrealist(Fig. 9.43).

We are not talking, of course, of dimensions that putthe structure under risk, but at least this is complexand reminds us of the aspects seen in Chapter 8 abouttrimmered Chinese architecture.

The Church of Saint Lorenzo, close in style to theChapel of the Turin S. Sindone, is even morespectacular for being less sculptoral and having morearchitectonical definition (Fig. 9.44). It reflects too theinfluence of Borromini in Saint Ivo. In that case, theinitial polygon is a hexagon and in this it is an octagon;in that case, the sides were alternatively concave andconvex, and in this they are all concave. Once again,it made extensive use of the multiplicity of levels sothat each one of them is a new surprise. It seems thatat the ground level all the loads are transmitted by

sixteen slender columns; in fact, it is practically likethat, which demands a very light shell. Eight greatconcave arches on these columns transmit the loads.We know the disadvantages of these wedging archesand for that reason they should be discharged. Cleverly,the cornice on them is straight, and from here startthe four trapezoidal trumpet shells that conform to thefour transverse arches supporting the small drum onwhich the dome rests.

As is usual with Guarini, the dome is ribbed and,although very cambered in this case, inspired by theMosque of Cordova. There are sixteen starred bendingribs that, by means of the trumpet shells, rest on thevertical of the columns. Between the ribbings thereare openings in all the spaces so that the domebecomes a network that catches the sifted light. As inprevious cases, the thrusts of the ribs are derivedtowards the vertical by means of a drum load that hidesthe curvature from the outside, allowing additionally agigantic lantern, also solved with ribbings, and endingin a cupola that is also perforated (Fig. 9.45).

Fig. 9.38. Church of the Somasco, in Mesina, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

197


Fig. 9.39. Project for the Royal Saint Anne, in Paris, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

Fig. 9.40. Chapel of the S. Sindone in Turin (Meek).

198


We are studying in this text mainly the structuralaspects, so that we are not going to insist on thespatiality, the form and the light. But we must saythat this church is the ideal Baroque synthesis that inaddition has an associated spaces complexity of themaximum interest. Guarini was an expert constructerwho tried new constructive processes to allow him to

build his fantasies with the same resources. Theconstruction of Saint Lorenzo is well documented, sothat we know that hollow ribs and chambered vaultswere used (Fig. 9.46). Bernardo Vittone published in1737 a compendium of his teacher’s projects thatproves his capacity for experimentation and hisknowledge of geometry: there we find basilical planslike that of Saint Philippe Neri in Turin, which means abrief incursion in the longitudinal plan of unitary spaces(Fig. 9.47); or experimental projections of the sametype (Fig. 9.48); or centralised plans whose spaceshe governs with absolute mastery, as the Sanctuaryof Oropa (Fig. 9.48); and even centralised regular plansnever before experienced, like the pentagonal one ofSaint Gaetano of Nice (Fig. 9.49) or the eliptical oneof Saint Mary of Nice (Fig. 9.50).

The polynuclear plans are an unusual new way: SaintPhillipe Neri in Casale of Monferrato (Fig. 9.52) or SaintGaetano of Vicenza (Fig. 9.53). Nothing likeLeonardo’s bubbles plans, which submitted in hierarchyto a central one.

Also, in civil architecture he made great contributionsmost likely influencing Central European palaces inJuvara or even the French ones, although it might bethat he was influenced by them.

Fig. 9.41. Structural sketch of the S. Sindone in Turin (Escrig).

Fig. 9.42. Design proposal for the S. Sindone in Turin, from unfoldedpaper (Escrig).

Fig. 9.43. Structural system of the Turin S. Sindone in Turin, seenfrom outside (Escrig).

199


The 1682 Racconigi Palace in Carignano, with its greatcentral hall illuminated from the ceiling, is an exampleof this potential. The Carignano Palace in Turin, showsa tangent hall that will be an example for many others(Fig. 9 .54). The indirect illumination falling from abovethrough a hanging ceiling rose stands out among otherdetails. Guarini shows that besides being a master ofgeometry, construction, ornamentation and design, hewas also one in light treatment.

We must also highlight his talent as a theoretician,since in his period of treatise writer he wrote about hisperspective discoveries and his representationtechniques, as well as his constructive discoveries.Maybe he was not as good a draftsman as Borrominior Bernini, but his capacity for planimetrical expressionwas at least equal to that of the perspective andscenography draftsmen of the time. His treatiseArchitettura Civile, published in 1737, fifty years afterhis death, with drawings ascribed to the youngarchitect Bernardo Vittone, summarises many of hisdesigns in a way only obtained before by Palladio.

This work completes the Disssegni d´architettura civileet eclesiastica from 1686, that had no text. In 1671he had already published Euclides adautus &methodicus mathematicae, a text of seven hundredpages and a summary of philosophical andmathematical ideas. In 1674 he published the mainlypractical text Il modo de misurare le fabriche, in fact,a book of measurements and valuations. Still in 1677,he published the Trattato di fortificatione che ora siusa in Fiandra, Francia et Italia, in addition to theatreplays and works of literature. It is curious, amongother things, that he calls himself Matematicodell´Altezza Reale di Savoia.

What happened meanwhile in other countries? In Spain,the XVIth century had been flourishing and Charles Vfirst and Philippe II later imposed an austere style thatmade substantial contributions to the Renaissance.The XVIIth century, as in the rest of Europe, waschaotic. To the epidemics, famines, economic crisesand failings of the colonial exploitation, we must addthe incessant wars to defend the territories that were

Fig. 9.44a. Church of Saint Lorenzo, in Turin, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

200


to be lost. The Herrerian style was kept in the centreof the country, whereas a decorativist classicism wasdeveloped in the periphery. It is not worth the troubleto underline anything from the space and structuralpoint of view. In any case, Italian architecture is wellillustrated with the books of Serlio, Scamozzi, Palladioand Vignola.

In France the matter was different. Though thereexisted the same demographic and social problems,it was a country in a period of consolidation that fromHenry IV to Louis XIV made a great effort to become amodern nation. The French Baroque has its particularcharacteristics. We have already seen the rejectionof Bernini and Palladio, two extreme cases. On theother hand, the new state decided to keep out of thereligious conflicts, not using therefore this type ofarchitecture to materialise its great projects. The urbanrenovation and the civil buildings concentrated itsactivities. Mansart and Lemercier took some ofCortona’s style, and were imaginative but neverbaroque in the big castles (Fig. 9.55). They still have

Fig. 9.44a and 9.44b. Church of Saint Lorenzo, in Turin, by Guarino Guarini (Meek) (Escrig).

Fig. 9.45. Building detail drawn by Vittone for Saint Lorenzo, inTurin (Meek).

201


Fig. 9.46. Saint Philippe Neri, in Turin, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

202


Fig. 9.47. Sanctuary of Oropa, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

Fig. 9.48. Saint Gaetano of Nice, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

203


Fig. 9.49. Saint Mary of Nice, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

Fig. 9.50. Saint Philippe Neri, in Casale deMonferrato, by Guarino Guarini (Meek). Fig. 9.51. Saint Gaetano of Vicenza, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

204


Fig. 9.52. Bubbles plans, by Guarini Guarini (Meek).

Fig. 9.53. Raccognini Palace, in Carignano, by Guarino Guarini (Meek).

205


a medieval concept of architecture by the lack of unityof the parts. Fig. 9.56 shows the project of a staircasedome by Mansart for Blois, dating from 1635, andprevious to some Italian similar proposals. Fig. 9.57shows the plan of the Palace of Vaux-le-Viconte, from1657, out of which Guarini might have taken the ideaof some of the palaces that came later. The schemeof Mansart for the burial Chapel of Saint Denís datesfrom 1665 (Fig. 9.55). This model would be followed inthe Church of Les Invalides, initiating thus the threeshells dome with indirect illumination scheme (Fig.5.58). This dome is 28 m in diameter and has a profilein catenary that anticipates that projected by CristopherWren ten years later with a very similar scheme.

In England, the undisputed figure in this is Wren, hisSaint Paul's Cathedral being the most outstandingwork of those years in Europe. In this case, the domewas first projected in 1673, measuring 32 m in diameterand having the centralised cellular plan seen in Fig.9.59 in the denominated Great Model, whose scalemodel we can see in Fig. 9.60. Later on, this modelwas substituted by a basilical one with a very particulardome (Fig. 9.62) that avoided the buttresses to arrivefinally at the present design, which conserved that plan(Fig. 9.63) but came much closer to Saint Peter´sprofile. In this design the dome is triple, as in TheDisabled (Fig. 9.64), anticipating the final construction.The 32 m was not changed, and the knowledge of thepathology that was then appearing in Saint Peter worksand the subsequent mathematical discussions seenin Chapter 6 gave much weight in the final profiledecision.

The inner of the three shells is hemispherical with abig oculo, the following one is conical with a roundedvertex and the outer is a skin on a studwork (Figs.9.65 and 9.66). Wren was the scientific chairman ofthe Royal Society, of which Robert Hooke was thenthe secretary and Isaac Newton a member who latersucceeded him. Therefore the importance that Wrenattached to the tracing of the resistant curve that Hookesuggested to him to be that of the hanging threadhaving a width equal to the diameter and the height ofthe whole building. This was a very cambered catenary,with a relation of 2:1, which tracing had to be withinthe central nucleus of the sections. This is not exactlyso, but is the best that could be done with simplegeometries.

The general aspect is very classical and the Baroqueconcessions, being very clear in the Great Model, arehardly found in the final work. England never fully joinedthe Baroque craziness except for the features of somespaces. Ornamentally, the architects were severe andsome Gothic elements never disappeared. SaintPeter's basilical plan itself was reminiscent of theGothic cathedral which it replaced. We have alreadysaid that the religion of each territory defined much ofthe architectonic characteristics and England was notin the catholic sphere.

Fig. 9.54. Carignano Palace, in Turin, by Guarino Guarini (Escrig).

Fig. 9.55. Sketches by Mansart for the burial chapel of SaintDenis (Toman).

Fig. 9.56. Dome of a staircase in Blois, by Mansart (Blunt).

206


Fig. 9.58. Church of Les Invalides, in Paris, by Mansart(Blunt).

Fig. 9.59. Former project by Wren for Saint Paul’s, in London(Summerson).

Fig. 9.60. Wooden Great Model of the former project by Wren forSaint Paul’s (Summerson).

Fig. 9.57. Palace of Vaux-le-Viconte (Blunt).

207


This work was finished shortly after 1700, a year thatmarks the separation between the High Baroque andthe Full Baroque, which we will see in the followingchapter.

Fig. 9.61. Project with a cimborrio dome by Wren for SaintPaul’s (Summerson).

Fig. 9.62. Approach to Wren’s final project for Saint Paul’s(Summerson).

Fig. 9.63. Sketch by Wren for a three shells dome (Summerson).

208


Fig. 9.64. Approaching to the catenary shape of the resistantprofile of Saint Paul’s dome (Summerson).

Fig. 9.65. Sketch of the final project, wherein the catenary curvegoing from the crowning to the base is stood out with a thickestline (Escrig).


1. ESCRIG, F. “Tecnología en los edificios históricos”.STAR, Structural Architecture nº 2, Universidad deSevilla.

2. HEINLE, E.& SCHLAICH, J. “Kuppeln”. DeutscheVerlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart.

3. WITTKOVER, R. “Arte y Arquitectura en Italia 1600-1750”. Manuales de Arte Catedra. Ed. Cátedra,Madrid.

4. PIZZETTI & FEA “Restoration and Strengtheningof the Elliptical Dome of Vicoforte Sanctuary”.Domes from Antiquity to the Present, IASSSymposium, Istanbul, 1988.

5. BLUNT, A. “Arte y Arquitectura en Francia 1500-1700”. Manuales de Arte Cátedra, Ed. Cátedra,Madrid.

6. SUMMERSON, J. “Architecture in Britain 1530-1830”. Penguin Books Ltd, London.

7. ESCRIG, F. “Towers and Domes in Architecture”.WIT Press, Southampton.

8. CASTEX, J. “Renacimiento, Barroco y Clasicismo.Historia de la arquitectura 1420-1720”. Akal Ed,Madrid.

9. BOSEL, R. & FROMMEL, Ch. “Borromini el´universo Barroco”. Electa, Milano.

10.WHINNEY, M. “Wren”. Thames and Hudson,London.

11.MEEK, H.A. “Guarino Guarini”. Electa, Milano.12.CARDINALI, G. et al “The Dome of Basilica of

San Lorenzo in Milano: A comparison betweenmodern and ancient mathematical models”. SpatialStructures, Heritage, Present and Future. IASSSymposium 1995. Milan.

13.CROCI, G. et al “The Dome of St Ivo della Sapienzain Rome”. Spatial Structures, Heritage, Present andFuture. IASS Symposium 1995, Milan.

14.MARK, R. “Architectural Technology up to theScientific Revolution”. MIT Press, Cambridge,Mass.

15.TOMAN, R. “El Barroco”. Köeman, Colonia.

209

Scenographical Architecture of the 18th Century

In 1667, Borromini, undergoing a worsening in his men-tal disease, voluntarily put an end to his life when hewas sixty-eight years old. Bernini survived thirteenyears and Guarini eleven; Pietro of Cortona was almostcontemporary. In a short space, the Roman architecturewas orphaned since neither Rainaldi nor Carlo Fontanahad enough imagination, not even to be continuers ofthe previous line. The continuation, whenever it tookplace, was no longer going to develop in Rome, whosevitality had flagged. On the other hand many politicalfacts of great importance had taken place. After thedeath in 1700 of the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, aseries of European wars broke out, affecting all themain powers. As a result, the Bourbons settled in Spainchanging all its architectonic habits. Louis XIV of Francesaw in his later years the fading of the greatness hehad worked so much for, and architecture becamemundane and over elaborated in what has beencontemptuously named, the Rococo. Germanysnatched from France all the Central Europeanterritories and began to be, by means of Charles VI, afrustrated aspirant to the Spanish crown, a great powerhaving its centre in Austria and dominating from theNetherlands to Milan and Naples, including Bohemiaand Hungary. It was England that got the most out ofthe confrontations among all of them. Apart fromconsolidating its colonial empire, which had not existeduntil then, it kept the classic tradition, out of whichhad come some of its distinguishing marks and bestresults. In fact, it turned its eyes to Italy to look for themost refined classicist samples, finding them inPalladio.

In this panorama, it is easy to set up a geography ofthe styles that characterises the Baroques differentproposals. The thread sets off from Italy but quicklysubmerges in the local particularities.

England evolved from Wren toward a bare classicism.France proposed a complex and grandiose style, alsoon the basis of a very classicist order. Spain, still toosubmitted to professional guilds, found it difficult toget rid of Herrera’s style, and the Bourbon impetusimported some derivations half Italian, half French. TheSpanish Baroque, which was so rooted in the country,

Chapter 10. SCENOGRAPHICAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE 18th CENTURY

found its origins in colonial architecture, as happenedwith Portuguese architecture that could never get ridof the Manuelino Gothic. It was the Centre of Europe,including the north of Italy, with a catholic tradition,that was the place where the Baroque expressed itselfwith the most oneiric, over elaborate and fantasticforms. In any case, there was a perfect delimitationbetween the centralist and lay states and the catholicones. In Italy, the Dukedom of Savoy, cleverlyadministered by a government that obtained for Turinthe rank of a great city, stands out at this moment, aswell as Naples and Sicily, which under the alternategovernments of the Habsburgs and the Bourbons,becomes an academy of future cultivated and modernkings.

Therefore, 1700 is a decisive date for the changing ofthe Roman primacy.

In 1707 Filippo Juvara, a Sicilian priest and draftsmanborn in 1768, presented a project to be admitted asan architect in the Academy of Saint Lucas in Rome,that was made under the direction of Carlo Fontanaand based on Saint Agnes of Piazza Navona, the workby Borromini finished by Rainaldi (Fig. 10.1). Theamazing thing is that in this academic project can befound the keys of the future style of a prolific andinfluential architect. A proof of his capacity for publicrelations, well known since 1701 when he organisedthe decoration of Mesina for the reception of PhilippeV, the future Spanish monarch (Fig. 10.2), was thefact that in 1715 he was appointed First Civil Architectof Vittorio Amadeo II, Duke of Savoy, after havingworked in a grandiose Royal Palace in Mesina todevelop the Church of Superga (Fig. 10.3) that evidentlyresembles his degree project.

His ability as a draftsman, at a time when thecollectors leapt on illustrations and engravings with ahoarding obsession, made him very popular. Asuperficial look at Superga reveals a deep classicism:orders of a rigorous Renaissance tendency,correspondence between the outside shapes and theinner spaces, centralised plan of octagonal modulationand Michelangelo buttresses. Although his origins must

210


the transverse arches until their keystones. The drumis extremely high and very bright and the dome isdouble shelled, slightly cambered like those built byDe la Porta, and with a springing perforated with oculos.The inner decoration is like that of Bernini, carried outby means of hexagons (Fig. 10.5). The towerscomplete this baroque look.

Anyway, Superga is not important for being a great

be looked for in Borromini, as we have already seen,his waving façades do not follow him. The accessthrough a columned portico, like a hall, and itsconnection to a back courtyard as that of Saint Ivo,stresses and contradicts his belonging to the RomanHigh Baroque (Fig. 10.4). Nevertheless, as for itselevation, it is fully Baroque.

For a start, inwards there is a giant order that surpasses

Fig. 10.1. Juvara’s project for his Academy of Saint Lucasexamination, from 1687 (Bonet Correa).

Fig. 10.2. Decoration prepared for the reception of Philippe V inMesina, in 1701 (Bonet Correa).

Fig. 10.3a. Juvara’s drawing for the Church of Superga (BonetCorrea).

Fig. 10.3b. Juvara’s project for the Church of Superga (BonetCorrea).

211


structure, since the dome diameter hardly reachesten metres, but for its grandiose look achieved withvery few resources. Fig. 10.6 shows the constructivescheme that, obviously, goes without cradling.

If we enlarge the scale and focus the first project onthe Turin Cathedral (1726), we will see that this onealso stays with the Saint Peter model (Fig. 10.7) inspite of the vertical unity that gives to the centralcylinder (Fig. 10.8). Juvara lived in permanentcontradiction between his classic vocation and hislonging for newness. His vast architectonical culturemakes him borrow from all the styles and hisexpressive skilfulness bring him beyond his

constructive possibilities. The Palace of Stupinigi isan example of this (Fig. 10.9). Its centre is an ellipticalhall resting on four buttresses with a gap between themof 15 m and a skin that wraps them without producingniches (Fig. 10.10). The central dome is a conventionalsquinched one with such a painted architectonicdecoration as to look much richer than it really is (Fig.10.11). In fact, the general decoration is painted, sothat the magnificence of the space is fictitious.However, there is a determination to stand the cornicesout more typical of Borromini than of Guarini who,because of his geographical proximity, should haveinfluenced more. Stupinigi is a Full Baroque typicalmodel.

Fig. 10.4. Plan of the whole building of Superga (BonetCorrea).

Fig. 10.6. Building perspective of the Superga dome (Gritella).

Fig. 10.5. Section of the Superga dome (Bonet Correa). Fig. 10.7. Preliminary drawings by Juvara for the project of theCathedral of Turin (Gritella).

If we compare Guarini´s Saint Philippe Neri (Fig. 5.47)with that by Juvara (Fig. 10.12a and b), we clearly seethe difference. Guarini´s is more rigid in plan andimaginative in elevation. Juvara’s is just the opposite,though the project finally built was very conventional.It is in the plans where Juvara looks more transgressor.In Saint Anthony in Chieri, for example, the absenceof transverse arches gives the plan a unity that will notbecome general until the Central European Baroque(Fig. 10.13). Through this artifice, it seems thatarchitecture accepts the inner space (Fig. 10.14).

In the treatment of light, he also introduces innovationsin respect of Guarini, by means of the light boxessystem, which pours light vertically through the annexspaces. In the Carmine, having a very unitary plan(Fig. 4.15), the openings to illuminate the barrel vaultare not solved with lunettes, but with domes with oculosin the side chapels (Fig. 10.16). His invention will befrequently used in the later Italian and Iberianarchitecture.

Juvara was a scenographer before being an architectand this can be guessed from his architecture (Fig.10.17) since he always uses decorative skins andarchitectonical images by contemporary draftsmen onthe construction. From Fernando Bibiena he took theliking to the 45º perspective, applying it even to someconstructive elements such as cornered pilasters andchapels (Fig. 10.18).

Turin’s architecture is important due to the influencethat it had all over Europe. When Philippe V ascendedthe Spanish throne, Juvara was called to his courtwhere, in just two years, he revolutionised thearchitectonical panorama together with an illustriousgroup of Italian architects formed under his influence.

Fig. 10.8. Section through the transept of the Cathedral of Turin(Gritella).

Fig. 10.10. Sketch for the main hall of Stupinigi. Drawing by Juvara(Gritella).

Fig. 10.9. General proposal for the Stupinigi Palace. Drawing byJuvara (Bonet Correa).

Fig. 10.11. Aspect of the main hall of Stupinigi, in a contemporarypainting (Bonet Correa).

212


Proof of how freely plans could be carried through isSaint John and Saint Remigio of Carignano, a work byJuvara’s disciple Alfieri. It is an extremely curiousminimal church of toroidal shape and a 10 m span(Fig. 10.19).

To complete the Piedmont cycle we are going to speak

of Bernardo Vittone (1702-1770), a much laterarchitect. He studied too at the Saint Lucas Academy,where he got his degree in 1732, going back to Turinin Juvara’s last years. His career, however promising,was outshone by other court architects’, cleverer thanhim in public relations, so that he never had enoughacknowledgements.

Fig. 10.12. Saint Philippe Neri project by Juvara (Pomer).

213


214


Fig. 10.13. Saint Anthony in Chieri (Pomer).

Fig. 10.14. Inner view of Saint Anthony in Chieri (Escrig).

215


Fig. 10.15. Preliminary outline by Juvara for the Carmine (Gritella).

Fig. 10.16. Architectonic section of the Carmine (Escrig).

Fig. 10.17. Juvara’s scenery (Viale Ferrero).

Fig. 10.18. Ideal project by Juvara (Gritella).

Fig. 10.19. Inner view of Alfieri’s Saint John and Saint Remigio, inCarignano (Escrig).

216


He made lots of projects of little churches and chapelsfor religious congregations and used his skill to exploitthe centralised plan possibilities to the full. It is a clichéto say that he represented a balance between Juvaraand Guarini since, in fact, he represented a new waythat had very few continuers because, among otherreasons, being at the gates of the neoclassicalarchitecture and in parallel to the rococo one, no onecared about his lucid dissection of the spatialpossibilities of an architecture so rigorous andcomplex.

In 1735 he was ordered to complete Guarini´s treatise“Civil architecture” drawing illustrations of his projects,coming therefore into contact with Guarini´s approachand using at the same time a large amount of not

easily accessible information.

There is no foundation to accept, as insinuated, thathe was a little formed and provincial architect, and hisscarce graphical skill was balanced by his constructiveknowledge.

Why do we spend so much time on an architect whohardly built anything of importance and whosedeveloping period cannot have influenced the greatEuropean contemporaries? There were other moreimaginative architects who wore themselves out withonly one work.

His first important work was the Chapel of the Visitationin Vallinoto, from 1738 (Fig. 10.20). It is an extremely

Fig. 10.20. Vittone’s project for the Chapel of the Visitation, inVallinoto (Wittcower).

Fig. 10.21a. Inner view of the Chapel of the Visitation, in Vallinoto(Escrig).

217


small piece, made of poor materials and extremelypoorly finished. However, all these limitations are notenough to diminish the impression produced by itsinner look.

This building displays two evident influences: Guarini’splan and part of the dome system of Saint Ivo andJuvara’s light treatment. He also completely eliminatesthe cornices continuity and even in the side nichesleans them to give a depth and perspective sensation,whereby gets away from both of them. The twoinfluences are obvious since he had known everythingabout Guarini when engraving his projects andwitnessed Juvara’s finishing of the Carmine and itslight boxes. Therefore, we must not be amazed at thematter.

What is amazing in this project is the three shellsdome system. The first one is a floating starred meshwith bricked ribs, which behaves as a net to fish light(Fig. 10.21a). The second one is a cap with an oculoover which falls a light torrent of which we do not knowthe source since it is the third one, slightly cambered,that has six openings to illuminate that empty chamberinvisible to the observer. Between the first and thesecond one there are some invisible illuminationhollows equivalent to the windows of a non-existentdrum. The three side chapels are illuminated in vertical,in three cases on balustered galleries, in the otherthree directly to the floor (Fig. 10.21b). The starredsystem, the hexagonal plan with attached circularniches and the ziggurat shape give a rigidity to thewhole typical of a structures master.

Fig. 10.21b. Structural section of the Chapel of the Visitation, inVallinoto (Escrig).

Fig. 10.22. Sanctuary of Kappel, near Waldassen, by Dienzenhofer(Norberg Schulz).

218


It seems that Guarini was a very modest architect,free of envies or ambitions and satisfied with doinghis works well, even when they were low budgetprojects or placed in rural areas. Except for thosedrawings made by us, the rest of them belong to thetreatises that he wrote at the end of his life: “Instruzionielementali”, published in 1760 and “Instruzioni diverse”,in 1766, a time in which there were dozens of treatisewriters and, therefore, he could be of little influence.

When comparing this project to that of Dienzerhoferin the Sanctuary of Kappel near Waldsassen, datingfrom 1684, we can observe the different way of usingGuarini’s lessons (Fig. 10.22). In this case, all thecontribution is just the four pieces of sphere macle

Fig. 10.23. Sanctuary of Saint John Nepomuceno, in Saar(Bohemia), by Aichel (Escrig).

Fig. 10.24. Saint Louis Gonzaga in Corteranzo, by Vittone(Norberg Schulz).

219


with three cupolas and the three towers that do notgive directionality to the building, as well as someentrances through a covered exterior gallery of whichit cannot be guessed the main one. The cornice totallybreaks the lower level of the spheres springing andthe spatiality is poor despite the complexity of theresources used.

Dating from 1719, in the Sanctuary of Saint JohnNepomuceno in Saar (Bohemia) a minor architect,Aichel, develops a starred pentagonal plan. It too is aheir of Guarini’s but has a larger spatiality and is verycorrupted with a Gothic decoration (Fig. 10.23). It alsohas no directionality since each entrance, having aground plan with an odd number of sides, is in front ofa buttress. It too is an economic work, but this poornessof resources matches the formal ones. The cornice,which in the High Baroque is basic, has here beensubstituted by a thick wooden handrail that plays thesame role.

Fig. 10.25. Saint Bernardino in Chieri, by Vittone (Escrig).

Fig. 10.27. Chapel of the Church of the Assumption, in Priego deCórdoba, by Pedrajas (Escrig).

Fig. 10.26. Saint Genevieve of Paris, by Souflot (Escrig).

220


Obviously, both designs are previous to Vittone’s andin this case of similar dimension. But neither in thelatter has got the right inner spatiality.

Another of Vittone’s former works, but even moremodest, is Saint Louis Gonzaga in Corteranzo (1740).Vittone practices Guarini’s concepts (Fig. 10.24). Asin Vallinoto, he builds three bodies superimposed as

in a pagoda and ending in a cupola. From the outsideit can look like a new variation. But now, the chosenmodel is the Chapel of the Turin Shroud. The groundplan is triangular and the three transverse arches,instead of curving outward curve inward, stressing thetriangular shape in which the resultant three nichescorrespond to the chapels and the walls hollowing isused as an access, placed in front of the altar and its

Fig. 10.28. Former project for Saint Clare, in Turin, by Vittone(Norberg Schulz).

Fig. 10.29. Developed project for Saint Clare, in Turin (NorbergSchulz).

221


two side chapels. Again we find a clear axiality in groundplan and in elevation. The three bodies correspondfirstly to the level of the pilasters and the columnsending in a powerful but repeatedly interrupted cornice,secondly to that of the transverse arches behind whichare the light boxes and the pendentives, having only awindow that crowns the entrance stressing thedirectionality, and finally to that of the dome, only one

in this case but not a simple one. He repeats thescheme of Fathers Somascos Church in Mesina,which he knows well (Fig. 5.39), but giving it morepower and perforating it with six oculos instead of sixlarge windows since it is less cambered. The hugecupola adds an additional amount of illumination.

It cannot be said that the starred ribbings are thestructural foundations of the dome since the cap worksin a rather continuous way and is hemispherical. Butthe fact that the star points rest on the columnsindicates a clarity in the transmission of forces thatplaces this case far from the baroque temptation ofcontradicting the physical laws.

Fig. 10.30. Saint Clare, in Vercelli, by Vittone (Norberg Schulz).

Fig. 10.31. Saint Clare, in Bra, by Vittone (Wittcower).

222


The light treatment is relatively conventional, thoughagain we find the light boxes over the three chapels.In this case the decoration is simple but, nonetheless,we easily perceive that it is a late-baroque church.

Even when continuing unfinished works, Vittoneshowed a special skill. In Saint Bernardino in Chieri,of cruciform plan, he was able to place his typicallight boxes to perforate the adjacent spaces. Apartfrom that, he has no special interest, though he initiallyhad worked (in 1740) on a more expensive churchplaced in an urban area and tried, breaking thependentives that we will see below (Fig. 10.25).

The series of works that he created between 1740and 1743 for the Order of Saint Clare, shows an endlessformal investigation on a recurrent objective that ismaking the plan curves ascend in a curving way,intertwining these species of branches with the lightfiltered through hidden or concealed openings. Thisimplies a unitary conception not evident from theoutside since each body is hooped with a strongcornice.

This capacity did not have continuers apart from someworks closer to the Neoclassicism, as Souflot’s SaintGenevieve in Paris, dating from 1757 (Fig. 10.26), awork undoubtedly influenced by Vittone, though wecannot know how since his treatise was publishedthree years later and the clearest precedent is SaintPaul's in London. Nevertheless, we have to considerthat it was not finished until 1780, a year in which thetext was already published. Because of its totalconception of space, we look at the side chapel of theChurch of the Assumption in Priego de Córdoba, from1784, by Pedrajas (Fig. 10.27).

More than the structure, it is the over-elaborate anddense decoration which plays the role of foliage ofthis vegetal dome, although the cornices are notradically dispensed with since they exist and curveforming a fake image of the plan. It is worth thinkingthat Vittone may have influenced it in some way, sincethe indirect illumination from several points of thebuilding makes it share the same architectonicconcept, a fact seldom appearing in Spanisharchitecture. The dome is similar to that of Sergio andBaco in Istanbul, ornamented with sixteen lobesalternatively cylindrical and convex, on them thewindows are placed. Even in elevation the two levelledseries of arches are reproduced with a Byzantinecontinuous gallery, following the scheme in Saint JohnNepomuceno (Fig. 10.23).

Saint Clare, in Turin, reproduced the hexagonal planscheme and the same light treatment as that inVallinoto, although in this case the dome has a singlethough staggered shell (Fig. 10.28). The final projecthas nothing to do with the rejected one (Fig. 10.29).

Saint Clare in Vercelli tries again the hexagonalscheme (Fig. 10.30) with a curious development inwhich the side chapels are placed in an ambulatory,separated only by columns, and the dome does notrest in its vertical but in its exterior covering, bendingthe ribbings in their resting point forming purely

Fig. 10.32. Present plans of Saint Clare, in Bra (informationsupplied by the city of Bra).

223


Fig. 10.33. Inner view of Saint Clare, in Bra (Escrig).

224


decorative scrolls. This temple with concave hexagonalplan and ambulatory is a curiosity that cannot be foundin any contemporary work.

The most complex of the three is Saint Clare, in Bra.Its original project is extremely complicated as canbe seen in his own drawings (Fig. 10.31), althoughthe project later carried out includes some variationsthat do not distort the exterior look but lend it a morepotbellied aspect (Fig. 10.32). Saint Clare, in Bra, is

credited with being the best of his works, synthesisingall his findings: the double shell connected as a lightfilter, the vertical ascension of the elements, free of acontinuous planking, the conversion of the drum in aplan repetition and the total unity of the inner space(Fig. 10.33).

Another group of churches in which he performs moreexperiments is that leading to the breaking of thependentives that makes the transition from the plan to

Fig. 10.34. Saint Mary of Plaza, by Vittone (Norberg Schulz).

225


are reached without pathologies appearing (Fig. 10.35).

In Saint Croce in Villanueva de Mondovi, he againplanned with more success the same violation ofarchitectonical laws, reaching the ideal of the vegetalmesh mentioned above (Fig. 10.36). It is an intelligenttransition from the Greek cross plan to the octagonaldrum (Fig. 10.37). In Saint Albert of Charity he repeated

the dome. This allows octagonal domes without theinconvenience of a springing cornice for support.

Saint Mary of Plaza, from about 1750, is one of theexamples of that breaking (Fig. 10.34). We see thaton the four transverse arches, the superficial structureis interrupted by hollows. This is possible due to theribbed domes and that is why spans of almost 20 m

Fig. 10.35. Inner view of Saint Mary of Plaza (Escrig). Fig. 10.37. Inner view of Saint Croce (Escrig).

Fig. 10.36. Saint Croce, in Villanueva de Mondovi, by Vittone (Norberg Schulz).

226


this, without adding anything to Saint Mary’s.

In all these works he has renounced his previousfindings: the double shell and the illumination effectsand, although he had become formally more baroque,he had focused on the solid skeleton at the expenseof intuition and veiling. In a way it is a step back for anarchitect to repeat the contemporary schemesforsaking his brilliant beginning.

His later works are elegant but do not add anything.Vittone, who had been one of the great supports ofthe Guarinian movement, declared in those years that“the domes of the master are dark and difficult and noteasy to cover”. What a surprise!

In 1683 the Turks finally failed at the gates of Vienna

and a project of regeneration on the basis of theCounter reform began, logically affecting architecture.Catholicism consolidated Europe thanks to theHabsburgs with its heart in Vienna, the old Europeancapital that now needed to dress up. An architectformed in Italy under the direction of Fontana, JohanBernhard Fischer von Erlach, contemporary of Juvara,assumed the direction of the new Austrian school, aprolific and particular school. In 1700, Fischer made adeclaration of principles in the Salzburg University. Wewill not spend much time on that project too Italian(Fig. 10.38): outward convex very luminous façade,two towers in Borromini’s way, longitudinal plan and ahigh dome perforated in its sides. Fischer knows theRoman architecture of the High Baroque perfectly, hehad learned a lot during his stay between 1660 and1685, and takes basically Borromini’s and Bernini’s

Fig. 10.38. Church of the Salzburg University, by Fischer von Erlach (Sedlmayr).

227


Fig. 10.39. Church of Saint Lawrence, in Gabel (right) comparedwith Saint Lawrence in Turin (left) (Escrig).

Fig. 10.40. Pauline Abbey, in Oboriste, by Georg Dientzenhofer(Escrig).

Fig. 10.41. Church of the Castle of Smirize, by GeorgDientzenhofer (Escrig).

Fig. 10.42. Gothic church of Karlov, in Prague (Kruban).

228


Fig. 10.43. Inner view of Saint Nicolas of Malá Strana, in Prague (Escrig).

229


elliptical space as the element that gives form to thewhole, though not in this particular project.

In spite of his name, Lucas von Hildebrant wasGenovese by birth. Fontana’s disciple too, he knewperfectly Guarini’s works because he had worked asan expert in fortifications in Piedmont until 1696. Hewas the other architect in charge of dressing up Vienna.His Belvedere Palace equals in magnificence theSchönbrunn Palace, both have a Versailles touch. Hisfirst work in Prague, the Church of Saint Lawrence inGabel, from 1699, is a replica of Saint Lawrence’s inTurin (Fig. 10.39).

The youngest of the Dientzenhofer brothers, Christoph,visited Turin in 1690, bringing some ideas that allowedhim, along with Georg, to revolutionise the Czecharchitecture. The same year, 1700, indicates the startof two key pieces: the Pauline Abbey in Oboriste (Fig.10.40) and the church of the castle of Smirize (Fig.10.41), both belonging to the castle. They share onething, a long plan that recalls a mixing between SaintCarlino (Fig. 5.6) and the Church of Propaganda of theFaith (Fig. 5.23), both by Borromini. The way of solvingthe vaults have changed, but not so much as it mayseem. In the first case we can refer to the ImmaculateConception in Turin, by Guarini, not described in thistext. The second case is a gothic inheritance that hadmuch power in Bohemia. For instance, the octagonal

church of Karlov in Prague has a 1575 hemisphericribbed cover that tries to be a replica of an older one(Fig. 10.42).

Of all the buildings by the Dientzenhofer, the mostsuccessful, dating from as early as 1703, is SaintNicolas of Malá Strana in Prague (Fig. 10.43), in whichwalls and waving vaults completely dissolve the formand soften the space. There are no longer groins but acurvilinear flow in which gravity does not appear toexist, seeming inside a cloud. Construction andpainting are indissoluble, since the borderlines havebeen erased due to the perspective of the frescopaintings (Fig. 10.44). These brothers represent forPrague what Fischer and Hildebrandt did for Vienna,and helped to consolidate the capital of a new fiercelycatholic European state.

One of the main characteristics of Dientzenhofer's workis the extensive use of an elliptical vault plan to coverlongitudinal spaces by superimposing modules. We

Fig. 10.45a. Church of Saint Clare, in Eger. Fig. 10.45b. Church ofSaint Margaret, in Prague (Escrig).

Fig. 10.46. Generation of Dientzenhofer’s vaults from a sphere(Escrig).

Fig. 10.44 Dientzenhofer’s project for Saint Nicolas of Malá Strana,in Prague (Norberg Schulz).

230


have already seen it in Saint Nicolas and are going tosee it in Saint Clare in Eger (Fig. 10.45a) and SaintMargaret in Prague (Fig. 10.45b). It is curious thatthe apparent complex tracing is no such thing sinceall the vaults are portions of a sphere and can beconstructed with a thread. Apart from this, it has a

Fig. 10.47. Composition of the Dientzenhofers' spherical vaults(Escrig).

Fig. 10.48. Adaptation of the system to Saint Nicolas (a), SaintClare (b) and Saint Margaret (c) (Escrig).

Fig. 10.49. Church of the Monastery of Wallastatt, by KillianDientzenhofer (Escrig).

Fig. 10.50. Church of Karlovy Vary, in Karlsbad, by KillianDientzenhofer (Escrig).

231


very favourable structural behaviour since the bordersare always reinforced by thick ribs not visible from theinterior.

In Fig. 10.46 we can see the generation of Bohemianvaults that have the advantage of adapting to anyproportion of length and width and, therefore being verynarrow or very wide (Fig. 10.47). Fig. 10.48 shows theadaptation of this system to three works byDientzenhofer: Saint Nicolas (a), Saint Clare (b) andSaint Margaret (c). Both brothers use the sameprocedure in opposition to Kilian, the son, who choseunitary spaces.

Kilian Dientzenhofer and Baltazar Neuman were themost prolific and skilful of the XVIIIth century secondgeneration of architects. Both of them used theBohemian precedents and occasionally repeated themodels of the brothers George and Cristophe.

The church of the Monastery of Wallastatt (Fig. 10.49),from 1723, or that of Karlovy Vary in Karlsbad (Fig.10.50), from 1733, use elliptical domes. But Kilian doesnot feel comfortable with them. Many are the projectsin which, as his ancestors did, he uses the sphericalcap, basically supported by eight vertexes, regular oralternately spaced out (Fig. 10.51). With this solutionhe solves the covering of some of the best knownchurches: Saint John Nepomuceno in Prague, theSanctuary of Nikov, Saint Adalbert of Pocaply, SaintJohn of the Rock and many more. In other cases heuses cylindrical forms, with even easier tracing.

Another second generation architect, DominiqueZimmerman, uses the unitary elliptical form in a projectthat recalls strongly Juvara in Stupinigi (Fig. 10.10).The pilgrimage church in Steinhausen, from 1728,though previous is a more baroque version of KarlovyVary (Fig. 10.52a). For a start, the number of divisionsis ten not eight, the chapels have turned intoambulatories and the vault is a vegetal tangle on anellipse with ten legs. The relatively sober aspect ofthe lower level contrasts with the motley look from thepilasters planking. Maybe it does not represent astructural challenge since its 25 x 12 m well buttressedexpanse even goes with an almost flat cambering, butit implies a formal freedom that the author himselfwould exploit in other works (Fig. 10.52b).

We have mentioned among the first generation figures,Theodore Fischer, whose work in Vienna was influentialall over Europe. He was productive in all thearchitectonic fields, including the archaeological one.He was a disciple of Bernini and Fontana and a friendof Juvara and Hildebrandt and knew Borromini’s workwell. Back in Vienna and after some consolidationyears, he clearly decides to go for the elliptical formsin his civil and religious works.

His best known work is the church of Saint CharlesBorromeo in Vienna (Fig. 10.53), from 1715, that in its

Fig. 10.51. Vaulting usual system of Killian Dientzenhofer (Escrig).

Fig. 10.52a. Pilgrimage church of Steinhausen, by Zimmerman(Escrig).

Fig. 10.52b. Volumes of the pilgrimage church of Steinhausen,by Zimmerman (Escrig).

232


Fig. 10.53. Church of Saint Charles Borromeo, in Vienna, by Teodor Fischer von Erlach (Sedlmayr).

formal emphasis cannot get rid of the continuouscornices that isolate the different spaces. In fact, itdoes not add any structural innovation to the Vicofortede Mondovi dome (Fig. 2.75) and is a very classicproject, linked more to Bernini’s than to Borromini’sand agreeing with the French architecture. Even itssize is not spectacular, though its high drum is inproportion the highest of elliptical form, which is notmuch when steel banding are perfectly calculated toabsorb the horizontal thrusts.

The highest point is reached by Baltazar Neuman,who managed to use with an absolute freedom thecombination of elliptical forms that his predecessorshad only been able to treat in isolated cases. In contrastto them, his knowledge of Italian architecture comesvery late, since he does not do the classical trip of allthe European architects until 1717. Pehaps that iswhy he was most influenced by his peers and decidedto surpass them with his proposals. From 1727 he

advanced with greater strides.

In the Palace of Würzburg he tried his new systemsin the splendid reception and dancing halls and in thechapel (1731-32) (Fig. 10.54), which in plan is to bethe intersection of four ellipses and a vault, thetangency of three (Fig. 10.55). The spans are small(hardly 9 m.). In comparison with other palace chapelssuch as Versailles by Mansart, from 1689-1710, having12 m (Fig. 10.56), or that of Mafra in Portugal byLudovice (1717-33), even more classic and leaningtoward the excess (Fig. 10.57), this work of Würzburgstands out because of its constructive modesty, itsimagination and formal richness, and opens a newway of conceiving the spaces definition. From nowon, these are trapped by some gigantic hands whosefingers are the pilasters that drive into the groundwithout any interruption. To make this possible therat-trap bond vault was used, which is auto supportingwith a minimum thickness and usually has a wooden

233


Fig. 10.54. General plan of the Palace of Würzburg.

Fig. 10.55. Neuman’s project for the Palace of Würzburg chapel (Freeden).

234


Fig. 10.57. Church of the Palace of Mafra, in Portugal, by Ludovice(Escrig).

Fig. 10.58. Outline of the Baltasar Neuman’s vaults (Escrig).

Fig. 10.56. Chapel of the Palace of Versailles, by Mansart (Escrig).

Fig. 10.59b. Constructive axonometry of Vierzhenheiling(Norberg-Schulz).

Fig. 10.59a. Project for the Sanctuary of Vierzhenheiling, byBaltasar Neuman (Freeden).

235


Fig. 10.60b. Principal stresses of self-weight of Vierzhenheiling (Escrig and Compan).

Fig. 10.60a. Main volumes of Vierzhenheiling (Escrig and Compan).

dustcover that isolates it from the inclement weatherand overload, at the same time producing the fireprotecting symbiosis of the delicate wooden roof(Fig. 10.58).

The Sanctuary of Vierzhenheiling is a clear example,since the vaults become autonomous from the wallsand anchor themselves to the floor (Fig. 10.59a). Againwe find a little decorated lower part and the vaultsconcentrating the filigrees. All the levels are simple:plinths, columns or pilasters with only planking orcornices on them and, from that point, the fingers thatgather in the palm, a very painted vault (Fig. 10.59b).

236


Fig. 10.60c. Original drawing of the project of Vierzhenheiling (Hansmann).

237


Fig. 10.61a. Benedictine Church of Neresheim, by Baltasar Neuman(Freeden).

Fig. 10.61c. Volumes of the benedictine Church of Neresheim,by Baltasar Neuman (Escrig and Compan).

Fig. 10.61d. Main stresses due to self-weight of the benedictineChurch of Neresheim, by Baltasar Neuman (Escrig and Compan).

Fig. 10.61b. Longitudinal section of Benedictine Church ofNeresheim, by Baltasar Neuman (Escrig and Compan).

238


It is modest and poor but extremely effectivearchitecture. When walking along the wooden skeletonthat makes the roof slope, you can see the bare brickof the extrados of those elastic shells made of mortarand ceramics (Fig. 10.60a). When observed frombelow, an immense formal, ornamental and colourrichness is suspected that otherwise has a loadcapacity (Fig 10.60b). Figure 10.60c shows theprecision in the previous design of military engineersand architects.

The Benedictine church of Neresheim is his bestknown work (1749). The rosary of tangent ellipses withits huge central dome on eight autonomous columnsturn it into a spatial and constructive prodigy (Fig.10.61). In this case, the pristine white interior,contrasting with the fresco paintings in the vaults,offers an unexpected baroque contrast.

Neuman’s civil work is impressive too. In the Palaceof Würzburg he created some singular spaces of largestructural value. The stairs vault, a rectangle of 30 x20 m. decorated with fresco paintings by Tiepolo, isthe biggest of its kind (Fig. 10.62). Hildebrandt wasso envious of him because of this skiffed vault that hesaid it would collapse if someone hung from it.Nevertheless, during the Second World War the wholepalace was bombed, and this vault was the only onethat kept intact.

The other rooms were smaller but no less bold (Fig.10.63). The superior vaults are made of plasterworkhanging from a wooden skeleton, and the inferior onesare auto supporting.

To end with Central European architecture, we wantto mention the Church of Our Lady of Dresden, builtduring the years 1726 to 1743 by the architect GeorgeBähr, it has more than its structural value because ofthe literature. Having been totally destroyed in the lastworld war and being in a process reconstruction, itprovides us with a lot of information. Fig. 10.64 showsthe complex vertical section, whereas Fig. 10.65, thehorizontal sections at different levels.

What we want to stand out is the bell shape tracing ofthe dome set (Fig. 10.66), justified by the need tointroduce buttresses to balance the strong thrusts inthe base (Fig. 10.67). Fig. 10.68 shows the relativescale in respect of Saint Peter’s in the Vatican, andhis characteristic way of working, whereas Fig. 10.69illustrates the stresses obtained by means of acalculation by finite elements. Despite the existenceof steel hoops (Fig. 10.70), it underwent an importantpathology before the bombing (Fig. 10.71).

We have not mentioned in this chapter the English,French or Iberian baroque. The first two have tooclassic an aspect and herald later events of the XVIIIthcentury. As for the latter, however interesting it maybe, it gets exhausted in the decoration. Even the bestSpanish architect of the time, Leonardo de Figueroa,is far away from the typological research. His churchof Saint Louis of French has much subtlety, but itsscale is that of a reliquary (Fig. 10.72).

Fig. 10.62. Vault of the main staircase in the Palace of Würzburg,by Baltasar Neuman (Freeden).

Fig. 10.63. Main rooms in the Palace of Würzburg, by BaltasarNeuman (Freeden).

239


Fig. 10.64. Section of the Church of Our Lady, in Dresden, byGeorge Bähr (Jager and Brebbia).

Fig. 10.65. Horizontal sections in different levels of the Churchof Our Lady, in Dresden (Jager and Brebbia).

Fig. 10.66. Contemporary engraving of the Church of Our Lady,in Dresden (Jager and Brebbia).

Fig. 10.67. Bell-shaped tracing of the vault support, to balancethe horizontal thrusts (Jager and Brebbia).

240


Fig. 10.68. A comparison between the shapes and the descendingloads of Saint Peter’s and Our Lady of Dresden (Jager andBrebbia).

Fig. 10.69. Analysis by Finite Elements and stresses obtained from the rebuilding project of Our Lady of Dresden after the bombings(Jager and Brebbia).

Fig. 10.70. Old steel hoops in the vault of Our Lady of Dresden(Jager and Brebbia).

241


Fig. 10.71. Pathology of Our Lady of Dresden prior to its destruction(Jager and Brebbia).

Fig. 10.72. Church of Saint Louis, in Seville, by Leonardo deFigueroa (Bonet Correa).

242


1. BONET CORREA, A. "Andalucía Barroca". Ed.Polígrafa, S.A.

2. BONET CORREA, A. "Filipo Juvara". Electa, Milan.3. CASTEX, J. "Renacimiento, Barroco y Clasicismo.

Historia de la Arquitectura 1420-1720". Akal,Madrid.

4. CHARPENAT, P. "Baroque. Italie et EuropaCentrale". Office du livre.

5. COMPAN, V. , ESCRIG, F. & SANCHEZ, J. "TheShell structures of the Baroque". STREMA 2003,WIT Press, Southampton, pp. 65-74.

6. ESCRIG, F. “Towers and Domes in Architecture”.WIT Press, Southampton.

7. FRANZ, E. " Räume, die im Sehen enstehen".Ed. Tertium, Stuttgart.

8. FREEDEN, M.H. von. “Baltasar Neuman”. DeutcherKunstverlag, Munchen.

9. HANSMANN, W. "Balthasar Neuman". Dumont.10.HRUBAN, I. “Historic Domes from Czechoslovakia”.


Domes from Antiquity to the Present, IASSSymposium 1988, Istanbul.

11. MEEK, H.A. “Guarino Guarini”. Electa, Milan.12.MULLER, W. “Von Guarini bis Balthasar

Neumann”. Michael Imhof Verlag, Petersberg.13.NORBERG-SCHULZ, Chr. “Arquitectura Barroca

tardía y Rococó”.Aguilar, Madrid.14.NORBERT-SCHULZ, Chr. “Kilian Ignaz

Dientzenhofer e il Barroco Boemo”. Officina Edizioni,Rome.

15.POMER, R. “Eighteenth-Century Architecture inPiedmont”. University of London Press Ltd, London.

16.SEDLMAYR,H. “Johan Bernard Fischer von Erlacharquitecto”. Electa, Milán.

17.STIERLIN, H. “Iberian-American Baroque”.Taschen, Lausane.

18.TOMAN R. Ed. “El Barroco". Könemann, Colonia.19.WITTKOVER, R. “Arte y Arquitectura en Italia

1600-1750”. Catedra, Madrid.

243

The Virtual Architecture of the Renaissance and the Baroque

In the main altar of Saint Mary near Saint Satire inMilan (1478), Donato Bramante did a brilliant exerciseof nave lengthening by means of a perspective artifice(Fig. 11.1). It consisted on prolonging the coffered barrelvault with a vanishing point placed at a very studiedheight that was not that of the cornice. From the front,you feel a sensation of depth hardly denied by thephysical reality (Fig. 11.2).

When drawing or painting, all the great masters usedtheir researches in perspective, whereby they couldrecreate large buildings and gigantic structuresindependently of their physical construction. Piero dellaFrancesca (Fig. 11.3), Albert Durero (Fig. 11.4),Leonardo da Vinci (Fig. 11.5), Rafael (Fig. 11.6) andother anonymous artists turned the quattrocento intoa universal laboratory.

We have already seen in chapter 9 how Michelangelovirtually rebuilt the architecture of the Sistine Chapelceiling (Fig. 9.3) with a more than decorative objective,since in his painting there was a whole architectonicprogramme, apart from philosophical and otherconcepts. The Sistine Chapel inaugurates too anotherkind of perspective, the corrected cylindrical, insteadof the conical resulting from the applying of thetheoretical principles. This allows the observer to movewithout leaving the focal references. Rafael though,had a vocation for architecture that went beyond hisprofession of painter (Fig. 11.7). Palladio had a clearawareness of the spectators deception in his theatresceneries. His Vicenza theatre exploited in depth thesetechniques (Fig. 11.8) that Sergio later interpreted evenas states of mind (Fig. 11.9).

The XVIth century was less fruitful since there was nolonger the worry about the architectonic backgroundin the painting. It was after the Council of Trento, whenthe pedagogical and moralising function was again puton the representation, that the virtual architecturebecame important again. For this allowed grandioseimages with a very low budget.

Pietro de Cortona , in the first half of the XVIIth century,best represents these tendencies. Architect andpainter, he managed to combine both arts in his

Chapter 11. THE VIRTUAL ARCHITECTURE OF THERENAISSANCE AND THE BAROQUE

Fig. 11.1. Main altar of Saint Mary near Saint Satire in Milan, byBramante.

244


Fig. 11.2. Illusory view of the above altar.

Fig. 11.4. Treatise of perspective by Durero. Print.

Fig. 11.3. Perspective by Piero della Francesca.

Fig. 11.5. Sketch for the Adoration of the Magi, by Leonardo.

Fig. 11.6. The Virgin Mary Nuptials, by Raphael.

245


Fig. 11.8. Section of the Theatre of Vicenza, by Palladio.

Fig. 11.7. The School of Athens, by Raphael.

Fig. 11.9. Theatre set by Serlio.

Fig. 11.10. Glorification of the Pope Urban VIII, by Pietro di Cortona.

Fig. 11.11. Apotheosis of Saint Domingo, by Domingo Canuti.

designs. In the glorification of Urban VIII's papacy, hedeveloped a unitary tracing that made the walls higherand the ceiling farther (Fig. 11.10). Domingo Canutiis, with his Apotheosis of Saint Domingo, a complexexample in the second half of the century (Fig. 11.11).

246


The list of examples is endless. Colona (Fig. 11.12)and Ferrari (Fig. 11.13) in addition introduce fantasy .

Andrea del Pozo, a good architect and clear-sightedenough to interpret the role that painting could play inthe space definition perhaps best systematises thecomplex perspective systems that even nowadaysamaze us at the multiple vanishing points and potentialvision from any position. The ceiling of the Church ofSaint Ignacio in Rome not only has a focus but containsa perfect definition of the orders and of the wall complex,which gets longer (Fig. 11.14).

It is in the Church of Il Gesu, by Vignola, where severalarchitects compete by experimenting with the virtualone. The proposal by Carlo Rainaldi basically is closeto that proposed by Bramante two hundred yearsbefore. The successive spans of squinched or sphericalvaults, we cannot identify them with precision, contrastexcessively with the severity of the main nave (Fig.11.15). This explains why it was rejected since, asseen in the assembly, it was unbelievable (Fig. 11.16).Although several of the projects by Andrea del Pozowere better studied, they were not built. The most si-milar to the executed work is that shown in Fig. 11.17

Fig. 11.12. Perspective by Colona. Fig. 11.13. Perspective by Ferrari.

Fig. 11.14. Ceiling of the Church of Saint Ignacio, in Rome, by Andrea del Pozo.

247


Fig. 11.15. Proposal by Rainaldi for the apse of the Church of IlGesu, in Rome.

Fig. 11.16. Assembly of the mentioned proposal by Rainaldi.

Fig. 11.17. Project by Andrea del Pozo for the apse of the Churchof Il Gesu, in Rome (Defeo and Martinelli).

Fig. 11.18. Section of the mentioned project scenery (Defeo andMartinelli).

248


which, in fact, is the less virtual (Fig. 11.18). Fig. 11.19shows a picture of the present state. Other designsfor the same purpose, as that seen in Fig. 11.20, looktoo insipid. Fig. 11.21 shows its decomposition. Incontrast, that of Fig. 11.22 is too complex, as can beseen in the Fig. 11.23 photomontage.

The great architect of the XVIIth century was AntonioBibiena, whose constructed work has a relative interestin contrast with his paintings that are magnificent. Fig.11.24 shows the perforated dome of the Church of theTrinity in Pozsony, whereas Fig. 11.25 shows a designto make the wall of a room deeper. His perspectives

Fig. 11.19. Present aspect, with the decoration already finished,of the Church of Il Gesu apse, in Rome (Defeo and Martinelli).

Fig. 11.20. Alternative project proposed by Andrea del Pozo(Defeo and Martinelli).

Fig. 11.21. Breaking down into its elements of the alternativeproject by Andrea del Pozo (Defeo and Martinelli).

Fig. 11.22. Another alternative project by Andrea del Pozo for theChurch of Il Gesu (Defeo and Martinelli).

249


at 45º form part, with those by his brother Fernando,of a valuable collection that became widely known (Fig.11.26). His family maintained the tradition in thefollowing century (Figs. 11.27 to 11.29). The proposalsby Fernando Bibiena and Bufagnotti for the vaults inthe XVIIth century, inspired numerous roofs (Fig. 11.30),as well as those by Colonna (Fig. 11.32).

Fig. 11.23. Photomontage for the second alternative project (Defeoand Martinelli).

Fig. 11.24. Dome of the Church of the Trinity, in Pozsony, byAntonio Bibiena.

Fig. 11.25. Perspective of a room by Bibiena.

Fig. 11.26. Perspective at a 45º rotation, by Fernando Bibiena.

250


Fig. 11.27. Gran imperial logia by Fernando Bibiena.

Fig. 11.30. Composition in perspective by Fernando Bibiena andBufagnotti.

Really interesting are those pieces that introduce nonexistent domes in squinched domes. Fig. 11.33 showsa proposal by Minozzi. In Fig. 11.34 can be seendrawings by Schenk from 1728 and in Fig. 11.35,Carboni’s. No doubt that Batista Piranessi is the bestknown of all the architecture draftsmen, but his work

Fig. 11.29. Interior with staircases by Francesco Bibiena.

Fig. 11.28. Gran atrium by Francesco Bibiena.

251


was never used to widen the spaces with fake images.As an architect he was mediocre and we have alreadycited the recreation of his project for Saint John ofLetran, based on Borromini’s project (Fig. 9.16b).

As for its physical application to XVIIIth centuryarchitecture, the results are fruitful. Let us rememberamong the works mentioned in previous chapters,Stupinigi’s decoration by Juvara (Fig. 10.11), See alsoSteinhausen’s by Zimmerman (Fig. 11.36),Steigerwald’s by Neuman (Fig. 11.37) and Saint Louis’by Leonardo de Figueroa (Fig. 11.38).

This chapter cannot really be considered as structuralin a wide sense, though without a minimum knowledgeof construction none of these draftsmen or painterscould have produced what they did. Paper architectureis a term whose meaning we know well in this century.Undoubtedly, the Baroque adds a new dimension toarchitecture not to be seen again until the arrival ofcinemas.

Fig. 11.31. Vanishing perspective for a ceiling, by Bibiena.

Fig. 11.32. Proposal for a ceiling by Colonna.

Fig. 11.33. Proposal for a ceiling by Minozzi.

Fig. 11.34. Proposals for a ceiling by Schenk.

252


Fig. 11.35 Proposal for a ceiling by Carboni.

Fig. 11.36. Decorated ceiling in Steinhausen, by Zimmermann.

Fig. 11.37. Illusory ceiling in Steigerwald, by Neuman.

253


Fig. 11.38. Illusory decoration in Saint Louis of the French, by Leonardo de Figueroa (Bonet Correa).

254


1. ADAM, R. "Drawings and Imagination". A.A. Tait.Q72 Adam 6. Cambridge Studies in the History ofArchitecture.

2. BEAUMONT, M.A. "Eighteenth-Century Scenicand Architectural Design. Drawings by the GalliBibiena Family". Art Services International,Alexandria, Virginia.


3. CONTARDI, B. & CURCIO, G. "In Urbe Architectus:Modelli, disegni, misuri. La profesionedell´Architetto". Rome, 1680-1750.

4. DEFEO, V. & MARTINELLI,V. "Andrea Pozzo".Electa, Milan.

5. DEFEO, V. "Andrea Pozzo: Architettura eillusione". Roma Oficina Edición.

6. GALLI BIBIENA, G. "Architectural and PerspectiveDesigns". Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Digital ArchitectureEdited by: A. ALI, University of Seoul, Korea andC. A. BREBBIA, Wessex Institute of Technology,UK

Digital Architecture is a particularly dynamic field that isdeveloping through the work of architecture schools,architects, software developers, researchers, technology,users, and society alike. Featuring papers from the FirstInternational Conference on Digital Architecture, this bookwill be of interest to professional and academic architectsinvolved in the creation of new architectural forms, as wellas those colleagues working in the development of newcomputer codes of engineers, including those working instructural, environmental, aerodynamic fields and othersactively supporting advances in digital architecture. Expertcontributions encompass topic areas such as: DatabaseManagement Systems for Design and Construction; DesignMethods, Processes and Creativity; Digital Design,Representation and Visualization; Form and Fabric; ComputerIntegrated Construction and Manufacturing; Human-MachineInteraction; Connecting the Physical and the Virtual Worlds;Knowledge Based Design and Generative Systems; LinkingTraining, Research and Practice; Web Design Analysis; theDigital Studio; Urban Simulation; Virtual Architecture andVirtual Reality; Collaborative Design; Social Aspects.

ISBN: 1-84564-047-0 2006 apx 400ppapx £145.00/US$265.00/€217.50

Structural Studies, Repairs andMaintenance of HeritageArchitecture IXEdited by: C. A. BREBBIA, Wessex Institute ofTechnology, UK and A. TORPIANO, University ofMalta, Malta

This book contains most of the papers presented at the NinthInternational Conference on Structural Studies, Repairs andMaintenance of Heritage Architecture. The Conference washeld in Malta, a state smaller than many of the cities thatthis Conference has visited, and yet that is packed, in thefull meaning of the word, with a history of heritagearchitecture that spans nearly six millennia - as far as wecurrently know!The islands of Malta have limited material resources, in fact,only one - limestone, and a rather soft one at that. However,out of this resource, our ancestor builders have fashioned thehabitat for their lives, as these unfolded and changed overthe centuries. The problems and efforts that are being madeto repair, restore, conserve and protect such limestonearchitectural heritage are considerable and mirror similarproblems faced by other architects, engineers, curators, arthistorians, surveyors and archaeologists in other countriesthroughout the world.The papers featured are from specialists throughout the worldand divided into the following topics: Heritage architectureand historical aspects; Structural issues; Seismic behaviourand vibrations; Seismic vulnerability analysis of historic centresin Italy; Material characterisation; Protection andpreservation; Maintenance; Surveying and monitoring;Simulation modelling; and Case studies.Series: Advances in Architecture Vol 20

ISBN: 1-84564-021-7 2005 672pp£235.00/US$376.00/€352.50

WITWITWITWITWITPressAshurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton,SO40 7AA, UK.Tel: 44 (0)23 8029 3223Fax: 44 (0)23 8029 2853E-Mail: [email protected]

Maritime Heritage and ModernPortsEdited by: R. MARCET I BARBE, MaritimeMuseum, Spain, C. A. BREBBIA, Wessex Institute ofTechnology, UK and J. OLIVELLA, UniversitatPolitecnica de Catalunya, Spain

This book contains papers presented at two meetings withmany shared interests - the Second International Conferenceon Maritime Heritage and the Fourth International Conferenceon Maritime EngineeringThe Second International Maritime Heritage Conferencebrought together scholars and professionals from a variety ofareas. In addition to scientific advances, the contributionsincluded in this volume discuss the future of historical harbours,dockyards and other similar maritime structures in today’sworld, as well as the function of historical vessels and theirheritage value. The role of development schemes and therelationship between tourism and the preservation of maritimeheritage is also covered.The papers from the Fourth International Conference onMaritime Engineering, Ports and Waterways deal with topicssuch as port management, the integration of transport aspects,navigation, ship operation and multimode transport, informationsystems for ports and shipping, marine engineering works,hydrodynamic aspects, the construction and design of portsand marinas, and the development of ports and coastal areas.Emphasis is placed on the importance of the transport maritimemode in development and the requirements of making portoperation more efficient, safe and productive.Series: Advances in Architecture Vol 19

ISBN: 1-84564-010-1 2005 512pp£179.00/US$286.00/€268.50

Earth Construction HandbookThe Building Material Earth in ModernArchitectureG. MINKE, Director of the Building ResearchInstitute, Kassel University, Germany

“…a good introduction to earth as a viable buildingmaterial….well written and ordered in a way that makes itscontent accessible to those with limited scientific andtechnical knowledge. The reader’s understanding of thesubject is supported by the many useful diagrams, tablesand photographs.”

JOURNAL OFARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION

“...interesting and well constructed.”E-STREAMS

Refined, updated and expanded for English speaking readersfrom the author’s bestselling Lehmbau-Handbuch (1994),this book is unique in providing a survey of applications andconstruction techniques for a material which is naturallyavailable and easy to use with even basic craft skills, andproduces hardly any environmental waste. The informationgiven can be practically applied by engineers, architects,builders, planners, craftsmen and laymen who wish toconstruct cost-effective buildings which provide a healthy,balanced indoor climate.Partial Contents: Properties of Earth as a Building Material;Rammed Earth Work; Earthblock Work; Large Blocks andPrefabricated Panels; Loam Plasters; Weather Protectionof Loam Surfaces; Repair of Loam Components; Designsof Particular Building Elements.

Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 10

ISBN: 1-85312-805-8 2000 216ppb/w diagrams & photographs£48.00/US$76.00/€72.00

We are now able to supply you with details of new WIT Press

titles via

E-Mail. To subscribe to this free service, or for information

on any of our titles, please contact the Marketing Depart-

ment, WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton,

SO40 7AA, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 238 029 3223

Fax: +44 (0) 238 029 2853

E-mail: [email protected]

Structural Design of RetractableRoof StructuresEditor: K. ISHII, International Association forShell and Spatial Structures

Presenting state-of-the-art data, design guidelines andrecommendations for retractable roof structures, this bookis based on the findings of a working group established bythe International Association of Shell and Spatial Structures(IASS). International in perspective, it contains discussionof two kinds of system:1) Non-collapsible rigid frame type structures with rigid orflexible material stretched between frames and, 2) foldingmembrane types such as tents and pneumatics.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 5

ISBN: 1-85312-619-5 2000 208pp £95.00/US$148.00/€142.50

Maritime HeritageEditors: C.A. BREBBIA, Wessex Institute ofTechnology, UK and T. GAMBIN, University ofMalta, Malta

Papers from the First International Conference on MaritimeHeritage. Topics covered include: Cultural Heritage Issues;Underwater Heritage; Historic Ports; Maritime History; andShip Preservation and Ship Wrecks.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 15

ISBN: 1-85312-964-X 2003 212pp £85.00/US$136.00/€127.50

Towers and DomesF. ESCRIG, University of Sevilla, Spain

Describing the evolution of towers and domes from astructural viewpoint, this highly illustrated book is writtenas two essays running parallel, one textual, the other graphic.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 4

ISBN: 1-85312-437-0 1998 120pp £59.00/US$95.00/€88.50

The Conservation and StructuralRestoration of ArchitecturalHeritageTheory and PracticeG. CROCI, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Italy

“The book should be seen and known about by all engineersand architects who are developing their work in the field.”

THE STRUCTURALENGINEER

“...instructive and fascinating.... The excitement andchallenges of preserving and stabilizing historic buildings iscaptured by this very readable book.”

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURALCONSERVATION

Designed for use by all professionals involved or interested inthe preservation of monuments, the purpose of this book isto contribute to the development of new approaches in thearea.Many of the examples examined, including the Colosseum,the Tower of Pisa and the Pyramid of Chephren, are theresult of work carried out during Giorgio Croci’s distinguishedcareer. Featuring numerous black and white photographs andillustrations by the author, the text is divided into two mainsections entitled The Scientific Approach to the Study ofArchitectural Heritage and Structural Analysis of MasonryBuildings.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 1

ISBN: 1-85312-482-6 1998 272pp £148.00/

US$237.00/€222.00

Structural Studies, Repairs andMaintenance of HeritageArchitecture VIIIEditor: C.A. BREBBIA, Wessex Institute ofTechnology, UK

This volume features papers from the eighth internationalconference in this respected series.Over 80 papers are included and these cover topics such as:Historical and Architectural Aspects; Deterioration, Protectionand Evaluation of Materials; Simulation and Modelling;Structural Issues; Prevention of Structural Damage; SeismicBehaviour; Case Studies; Maintenance and Repairs; MaterialProblems; and Timber Constructions. Contributions to twospecial sessions on The Structural Conservation of theArchaeological Heritage of Italy and Long Term Behaviour ofMasonry Structures: Learning from Failures, are also featured.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 16

ISBN: 1-85312-968-2 2003 864pp £259.00/US$409.00/€388.50

The Revival of DresdenEditors: W. JÄGER, Technical University ofDresden, Germany and C.A. BREBBIA, WessexInstitute of Technology, UK

In 1945 the ancient City of Dresden was destroyed by massivebombardments and much of its rich architectural heritageappeared to have been obliterated forever. Over the lasthalf-century, however, Dresden has been lovinglyreconstructed with the active collaboration of its citizens.This process, now culminating in the rebuilding of theFrauenkirche (the Church of Our Lady) is documented in thisunique book.Partial Contents: THE REVIVAL OF THE CITY: TheContribution of Preservationists to the Reconstruction of theSemper Opera House; Restoration of the Castle in Dresden;The Reconstruction of Taschenberg Palace; The Conservationof the Neustadt District as Part of the Cultural Cityscape.THE FRAUENKIRCHE: The Citizens’ Initiative to Promote theRebuilding; A Construction of Stone and Iron - StructuralConcept for Reconstruction of the Dresden Frauenkirche;Structural Proof-Checking Using a Complete 3D FE-Model.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 7

ISBN: 1-85312-787-6 2000 272pp £97.00/US$159.00/€145.50

Structural Studies, Repairs andMaintenance of HistoricalBuildings VIIEditor: C.A. BREBBIA, Wessex Institute ofTechnology, UK

“...the book is well suited for the bookshelf of the structuralengineer….very scientific and well compiled and has someauthoritative and worthwhile conclusions on many of thetopics that have been under investigation. This book is alsoseen as a valuable aid and source of reference to thoseengaged in laboratory and research work on the conservationand care of historic buildings.”

BUILDING ENGINEER

The proceedings of the Seventh International Conferenceon Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of HistoricalBuildings.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 13

ISBN: 1-85312-869-4 2001 736pp £229.00/US$355.00/€343.50

Historical Buildings of IranTheir Architecture and StructureM.M. HEJAZI, Queen Mary and WestfieldCollege, University of London, UK

The first authoritative work to investigate the historicalbuildings of Iran from the perspective of structuralengineering.Series: Advances in Architecture, Vol 2

ISBN: 1-85312-484-2 1997 168pp £67.00/US$99.00/€100.50

WIT eLibraryHome of the Transactions of the Wessex Institute,the WIT electronic-library provides the internationalscientific community with immediate and permanentaccess to individual papers presented at WITconferences. Visitors to the WIT eLibrary can freelybrowse and search abstracts of all papers in thecollection before progressing to download their fulltext.

Visit the WIT eLibrary athttp://library.witpress.com

the great structures in architecture - from antiquity to baroque

Documents

international series

architecture series

considerable advances

new interestin

new fields

virtual architecture

wit electroniclibrary

wit elibrary